• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

how can people still support don't ask don't tell?

in a time of war where we need every warm body we can get, to the point where the army is allowing criminals and lowering its standards on age/intelligence, it seems ludicrous to support a policy responsible for discharging troops simple for what consensual adults do in the privacy of their home.

this op-ed from the nytimes this weekend kinda struck it home for me. it was written by one of the arabic translators kicked out of the service for being gay.

Don?t Ask, Don?t Translate

By STEPHEN BENJAMIN
Published: June 8, 2007


IMAGINE for a moment an American soldier deep in the Iraqi desert. His unit is about to head out when he receives a cable detailing an insurgent ambush right in his convoy?s path. With this information, he and his soldiers are now prepared for the danger that lies ahead.

Reports like these are regularly sent from military translators? desks, providing critical, often life-saving intelligence to troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the military has a desperate shortage of linguists trained to translate such invaluable information and convey it to the war zone.

The lack of qualified translators has been a pressing issue for some time ? the Army had filled only half its authorized positions for Arabic translators in 2001. Cables went untranslated on Sept. 10 that might have prevented the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. Today, the American Embassy in Baghdad has nearly 1,000 personnel, but only a handful of fluent Arabic speakers.

I was an Arabic translator. After joining the Navy in 2003, I attended the Defense Language Institute, graduated in the top 10 percent of my class and then spent two years giving our troops the critical translation services they desperately needed. I was ready to serve in Iraq.

But I never got to. In March, I was ousted from the Navy under the ?don?t ask, don?t tell? policy, which mandates dismissal if a service member is found to be gay.

My story begins almost a year ago when my roommate, who is also gay, was deployed to Falluja. We communicated the only way we could: using the military?s instant-messaging system on monitored government computers. These electronic conversations are lifelines, keeping soldiers sane while mortars land meters away.

Then, last October the annual inspection of my base, Fort Gordon, Ga., included a perusal of the government computer chat system; inspectors identified 70 service members whose use violated policy. The range of violations was broad: people were flagged for everything from profanity to outright discussions of explicit sexual activity. Among those charged were my former roommate and me. Our messages had included references to our social lives ? comments that were otherwise unremarkable, except that they indicated we were both gay.

I could have written a statement denying that I was homosexual, but lying did not seem like the right thing to do. My roommate made the same decision, though he was allowed to remain in Iraq until the scheduled end of his tour.

The result was the termination of our careers, and the loss to the military of two more Arabic translators. The 68 other ? heterosexual ? service members remained on active duty, despite many having committed violations far more egregious than ours; the Pentagon apparently doesn?t consider hate speech, derogatory comments about women or sexual misconduct grounds for dismissal.

My supervisors did not want to lose me. Most of my peers knew I was gay, and that didn?t bother them. I was always accepted as a member of the team. And my experience was not anomalous: polls of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan show an overwhelming majority are comfortable with gays. Many were aware of at least one gay person in their unit and had no problem with it.

?Don?t ask, don?t tell? does nothing but deprive the military of talent it needs and invade the privacy of gay service members just trying to do their jobs and live their lives
. Political and military leaders who support the current law may believe that homosexual soldiers threaten unit cohesion and military readiness, but the real damage is caused by denying enlistment to patriotic Americans and wrenching qualified individuals out of effective military units. This does not serve the military or the nation well.

Consider: more than 58 Arabic linguists have been kicked out since ?don?t ask, don?t tell? was instituted. How much valuable intelligence could those men and women be providing today to troops in harm?s way?

In addition to those translators, 11,000 other service members have been ousted since the ?don?t ask, don?t tell? policy was passed by Congress in 1993. Many held critical jobs in intelligence, medicine and counterterrorism. An untold number of closeted gay military members don?t re-enlist because of the pressure the law puts on them. This is the real cost of the ban ? and, with our military so overcommitted and undermanned, it?s too high to pay.

In response to difficult recruiting prospects, the Army has already taken a number of steps, lengthening soldiers? deployments to 15 months from 12, enlisting felons and extending the age limit to 42. Why then won?t Congress pass a bill like the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal ?don?t ask, don?t tell?? The bipartisan bill, by some analysts? estimates, could add more than 41,000 soldiers ? all gay, of course.

As the friends I once served with head off to 15-month deployments, I regret I?m not there to lessen their burden and to serve my country. I?m trained to fight, I speak Arabic and I?m willing to serve. No recruiter needs to make a persuasive argument to sign me up. I?m ready, and I?m waiting.

Stephen Benjamin is a former petty officer second class in the Navy.
 
As a soldier, I don't have a problem with the current policy.

What's so hard about not telling people you're gay, acting gay, or marrying gay while you serve?
 
changing the UCMJ isn't simple.

you can be punished for adultery under it.

the military isn't a buffet. you obey their rules when you join, you don't pick and choose.

if your gay, don't go out and tell them, they won't ask. you also will not get hauled before a board to self incriminate either.
 
It's not about obeying the rules as they are set forth now, they were saying we should change the rules. Changing the UCMJ is easy... well, at least as easy as passing any other law in Congress is.

The problem with the law as it currently exists is that it is blatantly discriminatory against members based on little more then latent homophobia. Most importantly though, our military is losing qualified members over a policy that provides no noticable benefit to the military, but a clearly attributable harm (otherwise well qualified people kicked out). The most common argument for anti-gay discrimination is that it would hurt morale for people to know that they were fighting/living with gay people. The thing is, that most people in the military are already are doing this, and they know it. Just because someone isn't "officially" out as being gay doesn't mean that they don't tell their friends and that word doesn't get around. And you know what? In my experience nobody cared.

Whatever people might want to say against the military, it is a shockingly egalitarian organization. I guess the problems of racism/homophobia/etc don't seem as important to the people actually in it when you're being shot at.
 
There really is no legitimate reason why the policy is still in effect. A number of western nations (most NATO members even) allow gays to openly serve in their armed forces and they still seem to function quite well.

Eventually this will be looked back on as a rather foolish policy along the lines of how having a race segregated military is today.
 
Originally posted by: jrenz
As a soldier, I don't have a problem with the current policy.

What's so hard about not telling people you're straight, acting straight, or marrying straight while you serve?

fixed to generate understanding
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's not about obeying the rules as they are set forth now, they were saying we should change the rules. Changing the UCMJ is easy... well, at least as easy as passing any other law in Congress is.

The problem with the law as it currently exists is that it is blatantly discriminatory against members based on little more then latent homophobia. Most importantly though, our military is losing qualified members over a policy that provides no noticable benefit to the military, but a clearly attributable harm (otherwise well qualified people kicked out). The most common argument for anti-gay discrimination is that it would hurt morale for people to know that they were fighting/living with gay people. The thing is, that most people in the military are already are doing this, and they know it. Just because someone isn't "officially" out as being gay doesn't mean that they don't tell their friends and that word doesn't get around. And you know what? In my experience nobody cared.

Whatever people might want to say against the military, it is a shockingly egalitarian organization. I guess the problems of racism/homophobia/etc don't seem as important to the people actually in it when you're being shot at.
well said!
 
Originally posted by: eskimospynobody cared.

Whatever people might want to say against the military, it is a shockingly egalitarian organization. I guess the problems of racism/homophobia/etc don't seem as important to the people actually in it when you're being shot at.

but people pushing agenda think otherwise.

this editorial isn't about helping the military at all.

 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: jrenz
As a soldier, I don't have a problem with the current policy.

What's so hard about not telling people you're straight, acting straight, or marrying straight while you serve?

fixed to generate understanding

I don't bring up my sexuality, and nobody asks me. What's your point?
 
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: jrenz
As a soldier, I don't have a problem with the current policy.

What's so hard about not telling people you're straight, acting straight, or marrying straight while you serve?

fixed to generate understanding

I don't bring up my sexuality, and nobody asks me. What's your point?

So you could easily avoid talking about any aspect of your life that could reveal you (no matter how indirectly) to be straight? Moreover, if you didn't manage to do so what are the professional consequences to you?
 
Originally posted by: jrenz
As a soldier, I don't have a problem with the current policy.

What's so hard about not telling people you're gay, acting gay, or marrying gay while you serve?
It has nothing to do with "not telling." It has everything to do with what the military does once a troop's preference is known for whatever reason. It makes no sense to bar someone from contributing their useful skills based on their choice of personal sexual relationships. If anyone should be booted from the service over the issue, it's the bigoted pricks who would take hostile action against them.

The policy shouldn't be, "Don't ask don't tell." It should be, "It doesn't matter so grow up and don't give a damn."
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Then, last October the annual inspection of my base, Fort Gordon, Ga., included a perusal of the government computer chat system; inspectors identified 70 service members whose use violated policy. The range of violations was broad: people were flagged for everything from profanity to outright discussions of explicit sexual activity. Among those charged were my former roommate and me. Our messages had included references to our social lives ? comments that were otherwise unremarkable, except that they indicated we were both gay.
I would like to see what he was actually flagged for.
If it was just something simple and innocent like ?I?m gay? then I don?t think he should have been removed.
We are jumping to conclusions without actually knowing what was said.

Unless it becomes a serious problem the military should totally ignore someone?s sexual orientation.
Maybe we should move from ?Don?t ask, Don?t tell? to ?Don?t ask, Don?t tell, Don?t care.?
As long as it doesn?t effect your ability to do the job and the effectiveness of your unit then what you do in your private life should stay in your private life.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: jrenz
As a soldier, I don't have a problem with the current policy.

What's so hard about not telling people you're straight, acting straight, or marrying straight while you serve?

fixed to generate understanding

I don't bring up my sexuality, and nobody asks me. What's your point?

So you could easily avoid talking about any aspect of your life that could reveal you (no matter how indirectly) to be straight?

That's not how it works. In order for somebody to be separated under the current policy, they need to make a statement that directly indicates they are gay ("I'm gay"), they need to be witnessed performing a homosexual act (sex with another man, etc), or they need to attempt to marry another man.

Under this policy, you don't get thrown out if somebody hears something and it's interpreted to indirectly indicate your sexual preferences. Hell, I'm in an infantry unit, and jokes about yours/others' sexual preferences are damn near a second language. You need to make a pretty convincing case for being gay before action is taken.

A homosexual act, the second way to get discharged, needs to be witnessed. Obviously if it's "going on in the privacy of your house", it shouldn't be an issue, should it? Nobody is going to ask you about it... and you shouldn't be going out talking about it. If it's happening in a mobilized environment, with little to no privacy, it becomes a very real problem obviously.

If the Army sees fit to change the policy, so be it. I don't really care. I just don't disagree with the current policy.
Moreover, if you didn't manage to do so what are the professional consequences to you?

 
It's pretty easy to understand the rationale behind DADT.

I'm a straight male. I work in an office. When the attractive women here walk by, I get distracted. It's only for a second or two, but I MUST look, or glance. Now, when I do that, absolutely nothing of consequence is going to happen to me. My computer isn't going to kill me, I'm not going to step on a land mine, a co-worker isn't going to detonate his cubicle.

But on the front lines, you don't want someone who might get distracted, even for a second, by all those taut, muscular, macho men running around, bending over, streching, lugging around heavy equipment. You get the picture, you saw 300.

Now, while I understand that argument, I don't think it's got legs. Should we not have female construction workers? Policewomen? You see, once you go down that road you can justify sexism in almost any field with the slightest hint of danger. So I understand the thought, and not being an active or even passive member of the military, I feel it might be slightly presumptuous of me to dictate what the best policy is when it's not my life on the line.

That said, presumptiveness aside, I think DADT is on its last legs, cuz we need the bodies. And hey, men and women served together in Starship Troopers, so I'm all for it.
 
about the only problem I can foresee is perhaps in the infantry where we ribbed each other 24/7 - and calling someone a "i love you" was a very common insult. So there might be a problem if the PC police show up after an openly gay member gets "offended" - which would itself be "gay."

either way, I really don't care in the end...
 
On a side note, the author of this piece does not seem to be too straightforward in his recollection of events.

?I?d always been out since the day I started working there,? Benjamin said. ?We had conversations about being gay in the military and what it was like. There were no issues with unit cohesion. I never caused divisiveness or ever experienced slurs.?

?I was always discreet; I never considered it would be an issue,? said Benjamin, when asked why he joined the military knowing the policy existed. ?I thought if I don?t say anything, they?re not going to ask me. But it was more aggressive than I thought.?

So which was it? Was he open about it, or was he discreet?

http://www.navytimes.com/news/..._gaylinguists_070523n/
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: loki8481
Then, last October the annual inspection of my base, Fort Gordon, Ga., included a perusal of the government computer chat system; inspectors identified 70 service members whose use violated policy. The range of violations was broad: people were flagged for everything from profanity to outright discussions of explicit sexual activity. Among those charged were my former roommate and me. Our messages had included references to our social lives ? comments that were otherwise unremarkable, except that they indicated we were both gay.
I would like to see what he was actually flagged for.
If it was just something simple and innocent like ?I?m gay? then I don?t think he should have been removed.
We are jumping to conclusions without actually knowing what was said.

Unless it becomes a serious problem the military should totally ignore someone?s sexual orientation.
Maybe we should move from ?Don?t ask, Don?t tell? to ?Don?t ask, Don?t tell, Don?t care.?
As long as it doesn?t effect your ability to do the job and the effectiveness of your unit then what you do in your private life should stay in your private life.

A reasonable and well-thought out post totally devoid of partisanship or trolling!

I totally agree with your post, particularly the bolded 🙂
 
I support it.

It's in protection of the gays who serve. They used to get beat up if the openly admitted to being gay. Thats why it was put in to begin with. Is it wrong to beat a gay person? Yes... Should the person beating them be the ones punished rather than the gay person? Yes... But the problem can be avoided with the don't ask don't tell policy, and in many cases, they couldn't find the ones doing the beatings.

If a gay military personal wants to flaunt being gay, they can do it in the gay pride parade.
 
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: jrenz
As a soldier, I don't have a problem with the current policy.

What's so hard about not telling people you're straight, acting straight, or marrying straight while you serve?

fixed to generate understanding

I don't bring up my sexuality, and nobody asks me. What's your point?

So you could easily avoid talking about any aspect of your life that could reveal you (no matter how indirectly) to be straight?

That's not how it works. In order for somebody to be separated under the current policy, they need to make a statement that directly indicates they are gay ("I'm gay"), they need to be witnessed performing a homosexual act (sex with another man, etc), or they need to attempt to marry another man.

Under this policy, you don't get thrown out if somebody hears something and it's interpreted to indirectly indicate your sexual preferences. Hell, I'm in an infantry unit, and jokes about yours/others' sexual preferences are damn near a second language. You need to make a pretty convincing case for being gay before action is taken.

A homosexual act, the second way to get discharged, needs to be witnessed. Obviously if it's "going on in the privacy of your house", it shouldn't be an issue, should it? Nobody is going to ask you about it... and you shouldn't be going out talking about it. If it's happening in a mobilized environment, with little to no privacy, it becomes a very real problem obviously.

If the Army sees fit to change the policy, so be it. I don't really care. I just don't disagree with the current policy.
Moreover, if you didn't manage to do so what are the professional consequences to you?

Hiding it as well as possible is of course how most of the gays in the military are able to remain there. Sh!t inevitably happens to some portion of those and they have to face the consequences of, what is at its core, a very bad policy. It not only denies the services many potential recruits it also ends up drumming out people whom the government has spent substantial time and money training.

If you happen to be caught kissing a girl nothing happens. If you are caught kissing a guy you career could well be totally down the crapper.
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: loki8481
Then, last October the annual inspection of my base, Fort Gordon, Ga., included a perusal of the government computer chat system; inspectors identified 70 service members whose use violated policy. The range of violations was broad: people were flagged for everything from profanity to outright discussions of explicit sexual activity. Among those charged were my former roommate and me. Our messages had included references to our social lives ? comments that were otherwise unremarkable, except that they indicated we were both gay.
I would like to see what he was actually flagged for.
If it was just something simple and innocent like ?I?m gay? then I don?t think he should have been removed.
We are jumping to conclusions without actually knowing what was said.

Unless it becomes a serious problem the military should totally ignore someone?s sexual orientation.
Maybe we should move from ?Don?t ask, Don?t tell? to ?Don?t ask, Don?t tell, Don?t care.?
As long as it doesn?t effect your ability to do the job and the effectiveness of your unit then what you do in your private life should stay in your private life.
A reasonable and well-thought out post totally devoid of partisanship or trolling!

I totally agree with your post, particularly the bolded 🙂
I try not to troll, but you have to admit that there are some people on here who just beg for the stupid smart ass type comments to come out of your mouth.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: loki8481
Then, last October the annual inspection of my base, Fort Gordon, Ga., included a perusal of the government computer chat system; inspectors identified 70 service members whose use violated policy. The range of violations was broad: people were flagged for everything from profanity to outright discussions of explicit sexual activity. Among those charged were my former roommate and me. Our messages had included references to our social lives ? comments that were otherwise unremarkable, except that they indicated we were both gay.
I would like to see what he was actually flagged for.
If it was just something simple and innocent like ?I?m gay? then I don?t think he should have been removed.
We are jumping to conclusions without actually knowing what was said.

Unless it becomes a serious problem the military should totally ignore someone?s sexual orientation.
Maybe we should move from ?Don?t ask, Don?t tell? to ?Don?t ask, Don?t tell, Don?t care.?
As long as it doesn?t effect your ability to do the job and the effectiveness of your unit then what you do in your private life should stay in your private life.
A reasonable and well-thought out post totally devoid of partisanship or trolling!

I totally agree with your post, particularly the bolded 🙂
I try not to troll, but you have to admit that there are some people on here who just beg for the stupid smart ass type comments to come out of your mouth.

Heh, admittedly true 🙂 Still, props to a well-thought and worded post.
 
Originally posted by: jrenz
As a soldier, I don't have a problem with the current policy.

What's so hard about not telling people you're gay, acting gay, or marrying gay while you serve?

No.1 Being secretly "GAY" in the military leaves a service person open to blackmail, which jeopardizes security.

No.2,3,4,5 fill in yourself. Just reuse the first six words.
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: loki8481
Then, last October the annual inspection of my base, Fort Gordon, Ga., included a perusal of the government computer chat system; inspectors identified 70 service members whose use violated policy. The range of violations was broad: people were flagged for everything from profanity to outright discussions of explicit sexual activity. Among those charged were my former roommate and me. Our messages had included references to our social lives ? comments that were otherwise unremarkable, except that they indicated we were both gay.
I would like to see what he was actually flagged for.
If it was just something simple and innocent like ?I?m gay? then I don?t think he should have been removed.
We are jumping to conclusions without actually knowing what was said.

Unless it becomes a serious problem the military should totally ignore someone?s sexual orientation.
Maybe we should move from ?Don?t ask, Don?t tell? to ?Don?t ask, Don?t tell, Don?t care.?
As long as it doesn?t effect your ability to do the job and the effectiveness of your unit then what you do in your private life should stay in your private life.

A reasonable and well-thought out post totally devoid of partisanship or trolling!

I totally agree with your post, particularly the bolded 🙂

Sorry but it is a partisan issue.

Democrats addressed it as close to an open policy as they could by instituting DADT but Republicans hate gays, period as evidenced by the tossing of anyone suspected of being gay.

The answer is clear, if you don;t like hate and discrimination get rid of Republicans.
 
Back
Top