Should don't ask, don't tell be repealed?

[Robor]

Yes it should be repealed and I LOL at anyone who thinks being gay is a behavior or choice. Did you decide you were attracted to the opposite sex? Could you change if you wanted to? If you answered yes to either of those questions I don't know what to tell you.

Great post, MarkXIX!

 

[lothar]

You don't need to be straight to shoot straight.

 

[her209]

Do we require women in the military to expose their bodies to people who find them sexually attractive? Is there some supposed "right" for a women to not have her body exposed? I think I always assumed that women had a right to not be viewed naked by men if they do not want to be. Should men have the same right, that is to not be viewed by men?

I don't know if I can explain this correctly, because I don't know what the current standard is. But, do we as a society, and in the military have an expectation that a woman should not be forced to expose her body to other men because of the way that makes her feel, if she thinks they are looking at her in a sexual manner? If we do in fact have this belief, is there any reason that a man should not enjoy these same protections, both from being viewed by men or women?

Well, we already "require" gays in the military to expose their bodies to each other.

 

[Abe Froman]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the dominant person in this thread has the username "Prince of Wands"?

That just cracked me up.

 

[keird]

MarkXIX - You've made some insightful comments.

Here's my two cents as a Soldier with 22 years of service.

I joined in 1988 at 17 and when DA/DT was implemented in 1993 I was against it. My views have changed after years of experience and I would now support openly gay service members, but there is the matter of discipline and the good order of the military that must be maintained.

One of the few rules that I state to my subordinates when I'm speaking to them for the first time is this, "Don't fuck anyone in our unit." This will not change. Whatever their sex or sexual orientation, inevitably someone thinks that the U.S. Army is their dating service and it eventually negatively effects unit cohesion.

I have worked with superb Soldiers who I suspected may have been gay and pathetic fucktards who that I'm certain were gay (witnessed them having oral sex). It's not the sexual orientation that will effect the unit, it's their deportment, professionalism and actions during the performance of their duties (and off duty, too.)

20 years ago, I'm not confident that we could successfully implement a policy to have gays to serve openly, I'm confident that we now can.

 

[Deeko]

lol @ the people supporting DA/DT because they can't imagine showering with gay guys....there are a few things about that statement that are just rife with idiocy.

-First off - errr...with DA/DT, they're still in the military you know. Just because they can't be open doesn't make them any less gay. Are they sprouting woodies and sexually assaulting all their straight fellow soliders in the shower now? Do you think if they're allowed to say they're gay, suddenly that means they'll start doing those things?

-As for your own personal experience...never been to a gym then, eh? There's lots of people not just showering, but just wandering around locker rooms naked. Guess what? A lot of them are gay. A lot of the people in those locker rooms with the naked people are gay (whether they themselves are naked or not). Hasn't been a mass issue yet. Do we need to institute DA/DT for the gym too?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the dominant person in this thread has the username "Prince of Wands"?

That just cracked me up.

It's actually a tarot card. Been my moniker since high school when I had the reading. I'm more or less straight. But yes, I get the humor.

 

[MJinZ]

Very true.
I can honestly say that I have never worried if the copy guy or the secretary has my back should the bullets start flying.

I think THAT is the important distinction.

You don't have to worry because you know he doesn't. When the bullets start flying in an office, it's a massacre or someone steps up.

 

[MJinZ]

sexuality is a spectrum, it isnt black and white like you are painting it..
you make a good point, but lets think about this for a minute

these people are required to MURDER other people..they damn well better be able to handle seeing other people naked..if someone makes unwanted sexual advances then punish them and or kick them out...

These days, soldiers believe they are entitled to cheese with their whine.

 

[MJinZ]

Oh Moonshine give me a break. Here is your problem, there moonpie. You want to equate homosexuality, a persons behavior, with a black persons skin color. Huge difference. Fighting for rights for the way a person behaves has not got a damn thing to with a persons skin color or ethinicty. I am not beholding to support some damn homosexual agenda because my skin is black, you moron. I am not supporting their nasty perverted behavior dude. And no they should not be allowed to openly serve in our military. Who in the hell in their right mind wants to see some guy like Adam Lambert representing the Marine core. The military is to train our young men and women to be better young men and women. What is so sick is people like you who want act like its so loving and sweet. Freaking joke.

Speaking of morons, you should take a look in the mirror sometime.

What are you, in 1989 when people still thought homosexuality is a "behavior".

Statements like yours are highly effective in showing the world either your own ignorance, bigotry, or stupidity. Take your pick. Hint, the three options are NOT the same.

 

[Cogman]

DA should definitely be law its nobodies business which way you bat, the DT part, I'm a little iffy on.

Being gay, or openly gay shouldn't be an excuse to get thrown out of the military, however, telling everyone in your unit that you are gay just seems to create more issues then it solves. I'm sure some are tolerant in the military, but I wouldn't count on everyone being tolerant.

Perhaps a gay unit or two? Either way, It is kind of hard to be openly gay in an institution that is supposed to be all about order and discipline. Sorry, you can't wear gay clothing or act gay just because you are. So what does announcing "I'm gay" accomplish? I guess it could at least be an option.

 

[werepossum]

MarkXIX - You've made some insightful comments.

Here's my two cents as a Soldier with 22 years of service.

I joined in 1988 at 17 and when DA/DT was implemented in 1993 I was against it. My views have changed after years of experience and I would now support openly gay service members, but there is the matter of discipline and the good order of the military that must be maintained.

One of the few rules that I state to my subordinates when I'm speaking to them for the first time is this, "Don't fuck anyone in our unit." This will not change. Whatever their sex or sexual orientation, inevitably someone thinks that the U.S. Army is their dating service and it eventually negatively effects unit cohesion.

I have worked with superb Soldiers who I suspected may have been gay and pathetic fucktards who that I'm certain were gay (witnessed them having oral sex). It's not the sexual orientation that will effect the unit, it's their deportment, professionalism and actions during the performance of their duties (and off duty, too.)

20 years ago, I'm not confident that we could successfully implement a policy to have gays to serve openly, I'm confident that we now can.

This is really the crux of the matter; when a large enough majority of soldiers feel like you, the military will stop banning open gays. Until its leadership believe that level has been reached, it will not (and should not, in my opinion.) I do think it will be fairly soon, though, as homosexuality really isn't seen as that big a deal any more.

 

[Rebel44]

yes

 

[keird]

This is really the crux of the matter; when a large enough majority of soldiers feel like you, the military will stop banning open gays. Until its leadership believe that level has been reached, it will not (and should not, in my opinion.) I do think it will be fairly soon, though, as homosexuality really isn't seen as that big a deal any more.

I think that many do, but there's a significant population within the military who undoubtedly won't support this policy and will have valid and thoughtful reasons to support their views.

If the policy implemented, it's going to come down to individual service members on how it's received by the public. I mean, the very first instance of something amiss and it will be picked up and staunchly defended or derided by political camps in the media. This will detract from a unit's effectiveness when there are ongoing witch hunts. The leaders of that unit will be slammed for not supporting EO and their careers could effectively end. This could all potentially be the result of Joe Gay Snuffy not getting picked up for an award or promotion having a hissy-fit and bitching about it to the media. From my perspective there are so many variables that come into play that sexual orientation may become the issue when it needn't have. Am I worried about gays in the military? No. Am I worried about the crap the military will have to wade through for the next decade or so? Yes.

 

[keird]

yes

At least it's not SETI

 

[Craig234]

I think that many do, but there's a significant population within the military who undoubtedly won't support this policy and will have valid and thoughtful reasons to support their views.

Can you get them to log on here, since we hacen't seen one such person yet?

If the policy implemented, it's going to come down to individual service members on how it's received by the public. I mean, the very first instance of something amiss and it will be picked up and staunchly defended or derided by political camps in the media. This will detract from a unit's effectiveness when there are ongoing witch hunts. The leaders of that unit will be slammed for not supporting EO and their careers could effectively end. This could all potentially be the result of Joe Gay Snuffy not getting picked up for an award or promotion having a hissy-fit and bitching about it to the media. From my perspective there are so many variables that come into play that sexual orientation may become the issue when it needn't have. Am I worried about gays in the military? No. Am I worried about the crap the military will have to wade through for the next decade or so? Yes.

The one concern I have reading your post is that while it talks about the 'can it be done issue' and your own 'evolution of opinion', it has nothing about any concern for the rights of gays.

Sorry, I think that matters, not only 'unit cohesion'. I'm not in favor of catering to bigots - "are you comfortable with gays yet, precious? No? We'll wait then. Tell us when you won't mind"

Just as with black integration, the bigots can deal with it or leave.

 

[werepossum]

I think that many do, but there's a significant population within the military who undoubtedly won't support this policy and will have valid and thoughtful reasons to support their views.

If the policy implemented, it's going to come down to individual service members on how it's received by the public. I mean, the very first instance of something amiss and it will be picked up and staunchly defended or derided by political camps in the media. This will detract from a unit's effectiveness when there are ongoing witch hunts. The leaders of that unit will be slammed for not supporting EO and their careers could effectively end. This could all potentially be the result of Joe Gay Snuffy not getting picked up for an award or promotion having a hissy-fit and bitching about it to the media. From my perspective there are so many variables that come into play that sexual orientation may become the issue when it needn't have. Am I worried about gays in the military? No. Am I worried about the crap the military will have to wade through for the next decade or so? Yes.

Quoted for truth. And thank you for your service. I don't say that often enough.

One group for whom I do feel sorry are those noncoms and officers who will be frozen out, through no fault of their own, in the drive to get a "representative number" of openly gay noncoms and officers. I've a buddy who left as a captain because he had zero chance of advancement due to the need to promote minorities and women, and now it will likely get worse. Every effort to forcibly address past inequities inevitably tramples on someone else's hopes and dreams - you can't discriminate FOR someone without discriminating AGAINST someone.

 

[keird]

The one concern I have reading your post is that while it talks about the 'can it be done issue' and your own 'evolution of opinion', it has nothing about any concern for the rights of gays.

That's okay. You're probably right. I really don't concern myself with the Rights of Gays, I have to just be consistently fair and just with my troops. I won't pretend to be hyper cognizant of one group of people when I really don't care about the issue. I just don't want good people thrown out of the military unjustly. I'm happy to throw out the fucktards that detract from my Army, though.

 

[keird]

Quoted for truth. And thank you for your service. I don't say that often enough.

One group for whom I do feel sorry are those noncoms and officers who will be frozen out, through no fault of their own, in the drive to get a "representative number" of openly gay noncoms and officers. I've a buddy who left as a captain because he had zero chance of advancement due to the need to promote minorities and women, and now it will likely get worse. Every effort to forcibly address past inequities inevitably tramples on someone else's hopes and dreams - you can't discriminate FOR someone without discriminating AGAINST someone.

Thanks Werepossum.

I'm not too concerned regarding representative numbers, yet. Until your sexual orientation is officially tracked, you're pretty much just a rank, skill, and gender on various rosters. It won't become an issue until an outside force injects itself into the fray. ACLU or whatever.

 

[woolfe9999]

I think that many do, but there's a significant population within the military who undoubtedly won't support this policy and will have valid and thoughtful reasons to support their views.

If the policy implemented, it's going to come down to individual service members on how it's received by the public. I mean, the very first instance of something amiss and it will be picked up and staunchly defended or derided by political camps in the media. This will detract from a unit's effectiveness when there are ongoing witch hunts. The leaders of that unit will be slammed for not supporting EO and their careers could effectively end. This could all potentially be the result of Joe Gay Snuffy not getting picked up for an award or promotion having a hissy-fit and bitching about it to the media. From my perspective there are so many variables that come into play that sexual orientation may become the issue when it needn't have. Am I worried about gays in the military? No. Am I worried about the crap the military will have to wade through for the next decade or so? Yes.

There's been 10,000 cases of people being thrown out of the military over the past 20 years for being gay, and who knows how many cases where someone was accused but not thrown out, each of which created a process that undoubtedly caused a stir.
Are you saying that the witch-hunts which are occurring right now, and have been occurring hundreds of times every year, to root out homosexuals and throw them out of the military, each of which causes negative attention to the military, soliders informing on other soldiers behind their back, and undoubtedly scandal and gossip within the ranks, are not also a concern? While your concerns have some validity, I am afraid you are seeing only one side of the issue here.

- wolf

 

[keird]

There's been 10,000 cases of people being thrown out of the military over the past 20 years for being gay, and who knows how many cases where someone was accused but not thrown out, each of which created a process that undoubtedly caused a stir.
Are you saying that the witch-hunts which are occurring right now, and have been occurring hundreds of times every year, to root out homosexuals and throw them out of the military, each of which causes negative attention to the military, soliders informing on other soldiers behind their back, and undoubtedly scandal and gossip within the ranks, are not also a concern? While your concerns have some validity, I am afraid you are seeing only one side of the issue here.

- wolf

Ally your fears. I haven't known anyone booted out of the military for being gay. I don't ever remember any of the unit's leadership looking for gay either. As for only seeing one side, Mea Culpa. I have only seen what I've seen. For 22 years. And 4 hostile fire zones.

There's a couple of straight white guys that I'm escorting right the fuck out. But I'm being biased' caused I'm involved. That makes me a Saint, right?()

 

[nageov3t]

DA should definitely be law its nobodies business which way you bat, the DT part, I'm a little iffy on.

Being gay, or openly gay shouldn't be an excuse to get thrown out of the military, however, telling everyone in your unit that you are gay just seems to create more issues then it solves. I'm sure some are tolerant in the military, but I wouldn't count on everyone being tolerant.

Perhaps a gay unit or two? Either way, It is kind of hard to be openly gay in an institution that is supposed to be all about order and discipline. Sorry, you can't wear gay clothing or act gay just because you are. So what does announcing "I'm gay" accomplish? I guess it could at least be an option.

it's not about wearing a pink uniform and having a gay orgy on the lawn at West Point, it's about having to purposefully and deliberately hide a major portion of your life or risk losing your job (or expose yourself to getting blackmailed by, let's say, a jilted ex who has pictures of you two and your CO's email address).

could you imagine getting married or adopting a kid and being forbidden from ever discussing it with your coworkers? or not being able to do something as stupid as putting a picture of yourself and your significant other on a social networking site? or, hell, not even being able to be seen with them in public even when you're off duty.

 

[IronWing]

I for one don't want hermaphrodites running our military. What's next, Captain Ga Ga?

 

[woolfe9999]

Ally your fears. I haven't known anyone booted out of the military for being gay. I don't ever remember any of the unit's leadership looking for gay either. As for only seeing one side, Mea Culpa. I have only seen what I've seen. For 22 years. And 4 hostile fire zones.

There's a couple of straight white guys that I'm escorting right the fuck out. But I'm being biased' caused I'm involved. That makes me a Saint, right?()

Are you saying that 10,000 people have not been kicked out of the military for being gay since 1991?

- wolf

 

[keird]

Are you saying that 10,000 people have not been kicked out of the military for being gay since 1991?

- wolf

No. I would be interested to know how many of these separations occurred due to unprompted voluntary admission, as well as how many were after 1 Sep 2001; however.

If being openly gay were permitted, I think there are a number of troops that would like to return to service. I'd like them back, please.