Gay Crew members

[T'Girl]

Most people suggest that one out of ten men is gay. This of course is not verified, but is a general belief.

Last survey I saw, which was admitedly 20 years ago, put the figure at 1 in 16, but not 1 in 16 people as gay but 1 in 16 either identified as gay/bisexual or had had a sexual experience with a member of the same sex.

Many of my friends in the transgender community are heterosexuals. It sounds somewhat strange to people who haven't thought it through, but you can be hetero and gay. Also "dabbling" or experimenting with bisexuality doesn't make you gay.

As was mentioned up thread, being gay isn't (solely) about your sexual practices.

 

[Guardian452]

As for the don't ask don't tell policy is concerned, I am a member of the military, and I can tell you that the DADT policy is alive and well in todays military. Congress is concidering repealing it, but not until the military has conducted surveys into the military personnel and can put together a complete report to congress describing any and all disruptions repealing don't ask don't tell would have to the miltary.


Oh, and as for Picard not putting up with don't ask don't tell, that is a mute point. He is just a captain, and if DADT existed in StarFleet, just like in our military, a mere captain has absolutely no say in it. It's the policy, and he would have to enforce it, or be discharged himself.

 

[DonIago]

Not that I can see Star Trek ever actually getting this political, but a TNG film a la Insurrection where Picard's problem was actually with this sort of policy shift (the introduction of DADT) within Starfleet (perhaps the Bak'u planet was inhabited by people who the new policy would exclude in some manner) might have been a lot more effective than what we got...especially when they defanged it to some degree by having the planet not be the Bak'u homeworld.

 

[T'Girl]

[FONT=Arial]
[/FONT]

Doubtful Picard would put up with don't ask/don't tell.

Oh, and as for Picard not putting up with don't ask don't tell, that is a mute point. He is just a captain, and if DADT existed in StarFleet, just like in our military, a mere captain has absolutely no say in it. It's the policy, and he would have to enforce it, or be discharged himself.

Like when he was given a direct order by a Admiral Necheyev to evacuate these Federation citizens on that (soon to be) Cardassian planet, but he didn't. Or that time Admiral Hayes directly ordered him to patrol the RNZ, but he didn't. Or the time Admiral Dougherty directly ordered him to go to the Goren system, but he didn't.

Captain Picard is fully capable of disobeying a lawful, but ethically wrong order. If it came down to enforcing DADT or be discharged, Captain Picard would be discharged. In fact, he'd most likely be the one to insist on a court martial.

I stand by my statement.

 

[Guardian452]

I don't think that the comparison works. Our government knows all about don't ask don't tell, the federation was blind to many facts of Bak'u.
And there have been many captains and other ranked people in the military that have spoken against DADT since it was put in by Clinton. None got anywhere shaking their fists at congress about it.
In the real military doing things like Picard did can have very serious consequences. Regardless of the out come, disobeying orders, and interfering with official government opperations can cause major damage to a military career.

 

[Guardian452]

[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]

Doubtful Picard would put up with don't ask/don't tell.

Oh, and as for Picard not putting up with don't ask don't tell, that is a mute point. He is just a captain, and if DADT existed in StarFleet, just like in our military, a mere captain has absolutely no say in it. It's the policy, and he would have to enforce it, or be discharged himself.

Like when he was given a direct order by a Admiral Necheyev to evacuate these Federation citizens on that (soon to be) Cardassian planet, but he didn't. Or that time Admiral Hayes directly ordered him to patrol the RNZ, but he didn't. Or the time Admiral Dougherty directly ordered him to go to the Goren system, but he didn't.

Captain Picard is fully capable of disobeying a lawful, but ethically wrong order. If it came down to enforcing DADT or be discharged, Captain Picard would be discharged. In fact, he'd most likely be the one to insist on a court martial.

I stand by my statement.

Ok, fine, then he would be discharged. The military wouldn't think twice of dishonorably discharging an officer that can't follow a long standing military law. That is how the military works, regardless of my feeling on don't ask don't tell, I am in the military, and I do believe that if you can't follow orders, you don't belong in the military. Regardless of any convictions one might have, or their sexual orientation.

 

[T'Girl]

Regardless of any convictions one might have

You seem to have forgotten that Picard is a idealist, his convictions aren't a disposable accessory.

Damage to his career wouldn't be a deterrent.

 

[Deckerd]

I always thought the officers who got command were the ones who could be a maverick if the situation required it. Certainly that's how all the captains we have seen are like.

 

[Sector 7]

In reality, there are many gay men and women serving (and dying for) their country. The problem is that if they are outed (by someone else) or are open about it, they are discharged. Their military career is over, they can never retire with a pension or be honored for their service... no matter how much they contributed. This is the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

I am gay. I am a veteran. When I served DADT was a matter of survival, The Military didn't ask, and I didn't tell (I was still in denial anyway).

As for numbers of population who are gay: For many decades now, the accepted number has been One in Ten. One in ten people have either had relations with the same sex or both sexes. The number is lower of people who publicly claim to be gay. Most gay people are not 'out', the louder group (activists, flamers, etc.) is the smaller of the two groups.

 

[Guardian452]

I don't agree with the policy of DADT, but it is the policy of the military. The military doens't promote people that don't follow orders, that goes for officers as well. Captains have to put aside their personal convictions and enforce the rules for their crew.
Also, you said something about Picard wouldn't care if it damaged his career to oppose a standing law. We're not talking about damaging his career, we're talking about ending it. Plan and simple. He would not have a career, and no way to get it back.

 

[kkozoriz1]

The first military gay marriage was on an Air Force base near where I live in Canada. The base commander was present. It was held in a chapel on the base. There was a write up in the paper just because it was the first one. No big deal. This was in 2005. And yet America is still arguing if gays can serve openly. Sheesh!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/14/militarygaywedding0614.html

 

[Guardian452]

Comparing one country to the next rarely works. The same people don't live in two different countries, cultures and beliefs can be very different.
The U.S. doesn't have to do something just because canada does. For the same token, just because the U.S. doesn't allow gays, doesn't mean canada would change it's law to be similar.
Besides, Canada and the United States Military have rarely had a good relationship.

 

[kkozoriz1]

It just shows you that the world continues to turn, the sky hasn't fallen.

Perhaps the US shouldn't have allowed blacks and whites to serve together either.

 

[DonIago]

Or women, of course. They belong in the kitchens, not the war zones!

 

[Hermiod]

Or women, of course. They belong in the kitchens, not the war zones!

This remains something that is not too far away from the actual policy of the United States Army. As long as that situation exists, complaining about skirt lengths and the rantings of a crazy woman seems to be a little bit of a waste of time.

 

[Pauln6]

Just watched Inception - cracking film - Tom Hardy's character managed to get the message across (or at least imply it) by being ever so slightly camp (well, 'slightly' camp compared to other Englishman at least) and calling one of the other male characters 'darling'.

 

[Deckerd]

The English thespian community call each other darling all the time. Also, it's a tradition in British spy movies, for them to use such language to impart how clever and louche they are. If this character was intended to be from that community, I can assure you it gives no weight to his dialogue. However, if he was American, for instance, then hello sailor.

 

[Pauln6]

The English thespian community call each other darling all the time. Also, it's a tradition in British spy movies, for them to use such language to impart how clever and louche they are. If this character was intended to be from that community, I can assure you it gives no weight to his dialogue. However, if he was American, for instance, then hello sailor.

Absolutely, so those in denial (of whatever) can deny. The character's sexuality had nothing to do with the plot in any event. Those who see what they want to see can see it. It's an easy fix. They did the same in season one of Heroes with Claire's friend so they had (barely) plausible deniability. A feeble first step but better than nothing.

 

[Deckerd]

Some things can't be denied, even by those in denial. If you want an example of how to do a movie rampant with homo-eroticism then you need look no further than Top Gun.

 

[Guardian452]

It just shows you that the world continues to turn, the sky hasn't fallen.

Perhaps the US shouldn't have allowed blacks and whites to serve together either.

Or women, of course. They belong in the kitchens, not the war zones!

I said nothing to do with black rights or womens rights. I was simply saying that just because one country does something, it doesn't mean that another must copy them. That is why comparing the U.S. to canada is not a good idea.
The U.S. decision for equal opportunity laws for blacks and women were made by the U.S. because we wanted to, not because we wanted to copy another country. So the decision for equal opportunity for gays in the military will come because we deside to, not because we wanted to copy another country.