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

[OutHouse]

when i was in the air force i knew a couple of gay men and women. i even supervised one of them and he was the best troop i ever supervised. I knew they were gay because they confided in me and knew i would not take it up the chain. it as nice knowing that a troop trusted me enough to tell me something that would get then thrown out. One of them is still serving and is now a E-9.

the ask and dont tell policy is stupid. Gays have and always will serve our country with honor.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

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.

hahaha, what a loon you are ....

The race baiting democrats who have former kkk wizards as high ranking party members?

who would use the power of government to buy people into slavery through hand outs?

who support exclusion beyond anything republicans would dare?

who would openly use a VP canidates gay daughter indirectly to damage his chances?

who label and minority official with the audacity to not be a democrat a race-traitor, uncle tom, etc?

by telling people they need hand outs to compete you are effectively being a racist

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

either way, I really don't care in the end...

I don't care for it in the end either. Ba dum bum.

 

[Drift3r]

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?

Interesting so if a soldier walks into a well known gay/lesbian bar when they are given leave he/she can be thrown out?

Or if they are seen with their gay/lesbian lover taking a walk in the park holding hands together during his/her leave he/she can potentially be thrown out?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: brandonb
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.

What do you mean by flaunt? Is having a picture of you hugging your gay or lesbian lover up in your locker flaunting? Please define flaunt vs not flaunting for us.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Heh, This is what "experts? have to say on this topic 😛

I have 80 more pages of the stuff If anyone wants.



A. overturning DADT would harm recruitment capabilities

James Weinstein, columnist, Cornell Daily Sun, April 20, 2005. http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/jweinstein/050420

Even if ? and that's a really big if ? the U.S. military was being unduly discriminatory, would it warrant action to weaken it? During World War II, there was segregation between whites and blacks within the ranks ? certainly a clear case of discrimination. Yet, do you think it would have been prudent to try to weaken the military by hampering its recruitment efforts as a form of protest at a time our military was facing down Nazi Germany? Of course not. And what we have today doesn't even approach the type of discrimination that went on in the military during World War II. Whether you agree or disagree with DADT ? there is logic behind it.



Overturning DADT would destroy unit cohesion

Elaine Donnelly, president, Center for Military Readiness, April 27, 2005

The law affirming that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" deserves continued support. After 12 comprehensive hearings, Congress passed the law with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. There was, and still is, a need to protect good order, morale and discipline in the armed forces.
The military is not an MTV world. It is not like civilian life at all. In combat, bonds of personal trust and unit cohesion are essential for mission accomplishment. Such realities justify restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian life.






As for me, I don't care either way. I don't think its hard to keep your sexual preferences to yourself. At the same time, the military is wrong for putting such discriminatory policies in place

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Heh, This is what "experts? have to say on this topic 😛

I have 80 more pages of the stuff If anyone wants.



A. overturning DADT would harm recruitment capabilities

James Weinstein, columnist, Cornell Daily Sun, April 20, 2005. http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/jweinstein/050420

Even if ? and that's a really big if ? the U.S. military was being unduly discriminatory, would it warrant action to weaken it? During World War II, there was segregation between whites and blacks within the ranks ? certainly a clear case of discrimination. Yet, do you think it would have been prudent to try to weaken the military by hampering its recruitment efforts as a form of protest at a time our military was facing down Nazi Germany? Of course not. And what we have today doesn't even approach the type of discrimination that went on in the military during World War II. Whether you agree or disagree with DADT ? there is logic behind it.



Overturning DADT would destroy unit cohesion

Elaine Donnelly, president, Center for Military Readiness, April 27, 2005

The law affirming that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" deserves continued support. After 12 comprehensive hearings, Congress passed the law with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. There was, and still is, a need to protect good order, morale and discipline in the armed forces.
The military is not an MTV world. It is not like civilian life at all. In combat, bonds of personal trust and unit cohesion are essential for mission accomplishment. Such realities justify restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian life.


As for me, I don't care either way. I don't think its hard to keep your sexual preferences to yourself. At the same time, the military is wrong for putting such discriminatory policies in place

The logic behind DADT was speculative at best (i.e. little legitimate evidence) and has been pretty much debunked by other western nations accepting openly gay soldiers into their ranks without the dire consequences opponents had predicted.

It is logically and practically indefensible.

 

[Train]

just speaking from personal experience here, so I dont know how common it is overall, but to me it has been nearly 100% true that if:

1) Somone became commonly known to be gay ("commonly known" meaning all the way up to the CO or higher) would have zero harm done to his career, because no one firkkin cared.

2) Someone was kicked out with the "Official Reason" being that they violated DADT, but everyone within the unit knew the real reason was something else. DADT is jsut used a lot because its an easy to use reason that doesnt require a lot of evidence. It would be a lot harder to fake other reasons for discharge.

 

[piasabird]

I have been a soldier, but not for 20 years and never in a war zone.

To me the dont ask, dont tell policy is pure baloney.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice clearly states that Sodomy is a Crime punishable by Courts Marshall. To ignore this is a violation of the law.

Besides this, I think there is something inherently wrong with telling a soldier that as long as you live your life as a lie and hide in the closet we will accept you, but the first time you mess up and mention you are gay or get caught out on a gay date, we will kick you out, is a serious problem. There is a lot of room for psychological trama to live your life this way. The US Official policy sets people up for failure. Lets say you have 17 years of service and they find out you are gay. They just kick you out and you get no retirement. How is this a fair deal for anyone? It is cruel and mean and not a very good deal for the Gay person.

Honesty is always the best policy.

 

[Abe Froman]

Originally posted by: K1052

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.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is the new "Separate but equal"

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

What do you mean by flaunt? Is having a picture of you hugging your gay or lesbian lover up in your locker flaunting? Please define flaunt vs not flaunting for us.

Having a picture of you hugging your gay/lesbian lover in your locker is telling everybody you are gay. Violating the don't ask, don't tell policy. Unless it has a picture frame caption that says "I love my brother/sister"... Its no different than a hetro person putting a picture of their spouse in their locker. It advertises that the person is married to anybody who happens to see the picture. It is flaunting in a passive way. Just like gays putting rainbows on the back of their car is flaunting their gayness.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Train
just speaking from personal experience here, so I dont know how common it is overall, but to me it has been nearly 100% true that if:

1) Somone became commonly known to be gay ("commonly known" meaning all the way up to the CO or higher) would have zero harm done to his career, because no one firkkin cared.

2) Someone was kicked out with the "Official Reason" being that they violated DADT, but everyone within the unit knew the real reason was something else. DADT is jsut used a lot because its an easy to use reason that doesnt require a lot of evidence. It would be a lot harder to fake other reasons for discharge.

Even if completely accurate in general, this does put gay soldiers at a real disadvantage since his superiors don't really have to work to come up with a reason to discharge him if he wants to. (At least with someone else they might have to work to come up with a sufficient excuse.) It also appears to put soldiers in real trouble if key superiors in the military happen to be strongly homophobic.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Train
just speaking from personal experience here, so I dont know how common it is overall, but to me it has been nearly 100% true that if:

1) Somone became commonly known to be gay ("commonly known" meaning all the way up to the CO or higher) would have zero harm done to his career, because no one firkkin cared.

2) Someone was kicked out with the "Official Reason" being that they violated DADT, but everyone within the unit knew the real reason was something else. DADT is jsut used a lot because its an easy to use reason that doesnt require a lot of evidence. It would be a lot harder to fake other reasons for discharge.

Even if completely accurate in general, this does put gay soldiers at a real disadvantage since his superiors don't really have to work to come up with a reason to discharge him if he wants to. (At least with someone else they might have to work to come up with a sufficient excuse.) It also appears to put soldiers in real trouble if key superiors in the military happen to be strongly homophobic.

Did you just completely misunderstand my entire post? sheesh read it again.

 

[poohbear]

so why exactly is the US military so picky about accepting gays? When i was in the Canadian armed forces i recall a sergeant who had a sex change and the government paid for him as per our health insurance plan, nobody really cared. In Toronto gay ppl are very open about being gay, they could care less what you think and that's the way it should be. I recall talking to a new coworker about a gorcious girl i saw and the man openly tells me he doesnt like women, he likes men, and i just met the guy that hour.

Who's the government to step in and define what constitutes a proper "pursuit of happiness"? If being super liberal gay makes them happy then fabulous, and if being a right wing (law abiding) christian fundamentalist makes u happy then all the power to u too.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: poohbear
so why exactly is the US military so picky about accepting gays? When i was in the Canadian armed forces i recall a sergeant who had a sex change and the government paid for him as per our health insurance plan, nobody really cared. In Toronto gay ppl are very open about being gay, they could care less what you think and that's the way it should be. I recall talking to a new coworker about a gorcious girl i saw and the man openly tells me he doesnt like women, he likes men, and i just met the guy that hour.

Who's the government to step in and define what constitutes a proper "pursuit of happiness"? If being super liberal gay makes them happy then fabulous, and if being a right wing (law abiding) christian fundamentalist makes u happy then all the power to u too.

homophobia
prevalence of traditionally conservative values (often related to religion)

 

[Moonbeam]

Doubtless the day will come when being gay is of as much significance as having freckles.

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: poohbear
so why exactly is the US military so picky about accepting gays? When i was in the Canadian armed forces i recall a sergeant who had a sex change and the government paid for him as per our health insurance plan, nobody really cared. In Toronto gay ppl are very open about being gay, they could care less what you think and that's the way it should be. I recall talking to a new coworker about a gorcious girl i saw and the man openly tells me he doesnt like women, he likes men, and i just met the guy that hour.

Who's the government to step in and define what constitutes a proper "pursuit of happiness"? If being super liberal gay makes them happy then fabulous, and if being a right wing (law abiding) christian fundamentalist makes u happy then all the power to u too.

homophobia
prevalence of traditionally conservative values (often related to religion)

Truth.

The US military even pays married heteros a lot of extra money each month. What other job in this country pays you to be married?

I wonder how many lives have been directly/indirectly lost due to the lack of military translators.

I have a very close friend (female) that is an arabic translator and absolutely will not go to Iraq. Translators are sniper bait.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
In combat, bonds of personal trust and unit cohesion are essential for mission accomplishment.

Sounds pretty gay.

 

[sothsegger]

Some kid facing the draft sometime hence will rue our ever having allowed gays to serve. It used to be one of the ways you could get out serving--by making 'em think you're gay. Listen to Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant.