Don't Ask Don't Tell

[Autodidact]

This thread is to discuss possible repeal of the U.S. military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that permits gay and lesbian people to serve in the military, but prohibits them from being open about it.

Your position?

 

[Gunfingers]

In favor of repeal. I get that there will be issues with integration, but that happened with racial and gender integrations too and the military came out better for it. Also something about equal protection under the law. I guess that deserves a footnote mention.

 

[MSizer]

You gays and lesbians expect so friggin much! If you'd just keep quiet everything would be fine and dandy and I'd be happy, but oh no, you want special attention of course. "Oh, I'm gay, but I expect to be treated just like normal people". God, you people just make everything so difficult for nothing. Why can't you just leave things the way they are - just fine.

sorry, I know it's a serious topic - that was my silly way of ridiculing anyone who feels that different standards should be set for different individuals based on sexual preference.

 

[Nepenthe]

Repeal the damned thing. Of course Obama is showing once again his commitment to "change" by waffling on the issue 'til 2010 probably. We'll see.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This thread is to discuss possible repeal of the U.S. military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that permits gay and lesbian people to serve in the military, but prohibits them from being open about it.

Your position?

Would repeal of the policy mean that gay and lesbian people would not be allowed to serve at all?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's amazing how long this "policy" has been in place. It's backward, discriminatory, and if all homosexuals were suddenly kicked out the military, our armed forces would be hamstrung.

 

[MSizer]

Has the UN ever commented on the policy? I can't imagine they think it's a nice one.

 

[Autodidact]

Would repeal of the policy mean that gay and lesbian people would not be allowed to serve at all?

No, opposite. It would mean we could serve openly.

 

[MountainHumanist]

I think that most people of military age are more socially conditioned (thankfully) to accept gay people. There will still be some instances of conflict but they should be treated as a problem with the instigator not the gay victim (assuming that would be the case). As far as "fraternizing" I would think the same policy for gays would hold for heteros so no real problem. Don't fraternize with your fellow soldiers. period. straight or gay.

 

[gnomon]

I think Obama should write an executive order declaring that no citizen shall be barred from military service based on sexual orientation.

Let's see what happens from there.

 

[Dunemeister]

If I understand rightly, divorce is still considered a crime under military law. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going based on my half-baked memory of some documentary I saw a few years ago; the facts may have changed since then, and I may not be remembering the facts aright). If that's so, it says a lot about American military culture -- although all western armies probably share a similar culture. It is extremely conservative. It has to be. It's trying to make people do the most irrational thing imaginable -- destroy other people's lives and property simply because someone with insignia on his lapel says so. And because the culture is so conservative and reactionary, it's hard to imagine it becoming receptive to the presence of openly gay people. Part of Obama's problem must be the rather cool reception his proposal to modify the policy is getting from the military itself.

Imagine that you are a gay person serving in the military. You're out of the closet, and that's just fine. The military might officially allow you to serve without discrimination. But that legal fillip doesn't change the basic nature of the military. I suggest that not a few gay men and women will wind up dead or in the infirmary from "friendly fire" and hazing.

That's not to say that DADT should remain policy. It's just to state facts. There will be plenty of brutalization for declared gays in the military. It will take myriad forms from the silly to the deadly. I have my doubts that the military will ever really accommodate gays no matter what legal protections are afforded; the culture just won't have it.

That said, I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think sexual orientation is a valid reason to refuse someone permission to serve in the military.

 

[Autodidact]

If I understand rightly, divorce is still considered a crime under military law. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going based on my half-baked memory of some documentary I saw a few years ago; the facts may have changed since then, and I may not be remembering the facts aright).

You're wrong.

The overall divorce rate for military personnel during fiscal year 2008 was 3.4 percent, compared to 3.3 percent in 2007 and 2006.

from here.

If that's so, it says a lot about American military culture -- although all western armies probably share a similar culture. It is extremely conservative. It has to be. It's trying to make people do the most irrational thing imaginable -- destroy other people's lives and property simply because someone with insignia on his lapel says so. And because the culture is so conservative and reactionary, it's hard to imagine it becoming receptive to the presence of openly gay people.

How do you think they would have responded to the prospect of integrating the military before Truman did it?

Part of Obama's problem must be the rather cool reception his proposal to modify the policy is getting from the military itself.

'Well, he is the commander-in-chief.

Imagine that you are a gay person serving in the military. You're out of the closet, and that's just fine. The military might officially allow you to serve without discrimination. But that legal fillip doesn't change the basic nature of the military. I suggest that not a few gay men and women will wind up dead or in the infirmary from "friendly fire" and hazing.

Wow, you seem to hold our soldiers in really low regard.

That's not to say that DADT should remain policy. It's just to state facts.

Or rather, opinions, surmises and guesses.

There will be plenty of brutalization for declared gays in the military. It will take myriad forms from the silly to the deadly. I have my doubts that the military will ever really accommodate gays no matter what legal protections are afforded; the culture just won't have it.

Like the soldiers of Spain, Israel, the Netherlands, Canada, etc. etc. They'll never put up with it.

That said, I hope I'm wrong.

Don't worry, I'm confident you are.

 

[Kathryn]

I think the DADT policy is ridiculous. I think that anyone - ANYONE - who is fully qualified to serve in the armed forces should be allowed to, with no differentiation in treatment based on sexual orientation.

However, I do think that if people prefer to room with a person of the same sexual orientation, they should be allowed to. I do not think anyone should be forced to share a room or bathe or shower with someone who is possibly sexually attracted to them.

That would be no different, in my opinion, than forcing men and women to room together and share bath facilities.

Surely in most scenarios, it would be possible to accommodate these occasional bumps in the road. But one can see how there could be potential for conflict.

 

[Kathryn]

And by the way - it's not a crime to get a divorce in the military. In fact, JAG officers will help active duty military, or their spouses, obtain a legal divorce and secure what is lawfully theirs or their children's property, child support, etc.

I've spent the majority of my life around active duty military personnel. For the most part - the VAST majority - they are perfectly normal, average people. The average age is pretty young. Though in general, the military tends to be more conservative when it comes to politics - they're not generally closed minded or hostile to gays, any more than your average, say, factory worker or group of office buddies.

Older officers and NCO's may be more conservative than the younger ones, in general - but generally speaking, the older people get, the more conservative they slowly become. Hmmmm...but that's a topic for another thread...

The stereotype of far right wing conservative wackos who just love to shoot or beat up anyone who isn't just like them is just that - a stereotype - and simply inaccurate.

 

[Evee]

Not that I know a LOT of American military personnel, but a couple of guys I went to high school with joined and, well, there's no nice way to put it. They were homophobes. They used to tease the gay guy at our school, and he wasn't even particularly in-your-face about it. (We were a small school, OK. Only one gay guy out.)
On the other hand, I once met a guy through a friend who had just come home from active duty who told me there was a gay guy in his platoon. Everybody knew--nobody cared. There were no complaints so the superiors didn't report him.
I offer these examples to back up Kathryn's closing line. The military--like most organizations--is a mixed bag, much as they love uniformity.

And maybe I'm just a naive, repressed virgin, but like...what's the big deal? My sisters are both very involved in the PRIDE communities in their cities and tell me that their LGBT+ friends are all very big on "Sexual orientation is just that" and it doesn't come with all kinds of other things. (Men loving pink, women riding motorcycles, etc.) So I really don't get WHY it's a big deal in the army context. It's not like there's a pre-ticked "straight" box on the forms. They simply don't care about your sexual orientation--until you go making trouble about it. And if you're making trouble about it, then you ARE a distraction on the front line, just like platoons of mixed male/female straight soldiers.
All that said, I think a dishonourable discharge for being homosexual in the military is WAY out of line. I'm in favour of repeal and institution of a "Don't ask because we don't care" policy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's just to state facts. There will be plenty of brutalization for declared gays in the military. It will take myriad forms from the silly to the deadly. I have my doubts that the military will ever really accommodate gays no matter what legal protections are afforded; the culture just won't have it.

What about blacks serving in the military? Or even women? There seemed to be reasons to keep them out, people thought they were valid, but in the end they weren't. Some nations are getting to the point were transsexuals are allowed to serve, and we are still struggling at the level of letting open gays serve.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I'm sure it will eventually be repealed. Like gay marriage, as our culture becomes more used to openly homosexual folk, I imagine this won't even be an issue.

 

[RomCat]

Homosex is immoral, unnatural and abberant
human behavior. It is not something to be
condoned or promoted by society especially
the military.
Don't Ask Don't Tell is forward looking not
backward looking and it certainly is not discri-
mination.

 

[Autodidact]

Thank you, RomCat, I was hoping someone would come along to defend this immoral, dishonest, discriminatory policy. Let's start with your first statement, that homosexuality is immoral. On what basis do you claim it's immoral?

DADT requires people to lie. Now that's immoral in my book. But maybe you don't share that morality.