"Don''t ask, Don''t tell..."

[Regular Guy]

I think the policy that has been adopted by the US Military now for some time is many things, including nuanced, intending to be responsive to strong ideas from multiple sides, and possibly pretty good.

But I am not sure. Also, a quick google search suggests that there is movement to do away with it, but that that movement is delayed.

The policy seems to be both simply expressed, and in its spirit, intending to be respectful to both gay military who would wish to remain in the military without prejudice, and to non-gay military who have concerns about morale, and for whom the implications of the gender differences are at least not obvious...thus the expression itself...don''t ask, don''t tell.

If anyone reading here has some clearly thought (especially)...or for that matter, any reasonable responses to this issue of public policy, I would be interested to hear.

I hope this board (Hangout) on Pricescope is a reasonable place to post this thread, however, if acceptable at all, I invite the moderators to move it to a different place, if that is preferable.

Thank you,

 

[kenny]

I support equality.
DADT is about inequality.

It's as simple as that.

I'm always on the lookout for hatred that is disguised as morality.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 11/3/2009 5:24:17 PM
Author: kenny
I support equality.

DADT is about inequality.

It''s as simple as that.

I''m always on the lookout for hatred that is disguised as morality.

Ditto. And firing Arabic linguists in a time of war for being gay is one of the most ridiculous things I''ve ever heard.

 

[MagsyMay]

Date: 11/3/2009 5:44:54 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 11/3/2009 5:24:17 PM

Author: kenny

I support equality.


DADT is about inequality.


It''s as simple as that.


I''m always on the lookout for hatred that is disguised as morality.

Ditto. And firing Arabic linguists in a time of war for being gay is one of the most ridiculous things I''ve ever heard.

Ditto that Thing! My FI is active duty Army, and he also agrees. He does not think it will "destroy morale" or any of the other purported reasons for the policy either. He has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan with service members (male and female) who are known to be homosexual without incident or any problems. I hardly think our Armed Services can afford to be turning away qualified and willing members these days.

 

[HopeDream]

I just recently read this article about the Canadian experience in dealing with this same issue.

(We've had openly gay folks in the military for 17 years).

I'm proud of our troops, and of anyone willing to put their life on the line for their country.

 

[tyty333]

Date: 11/4/2009 3:12:11 AM
Author: HopeDream
I just recently read this article about the Canadian experience in dealing with this same issue.

(We''ve had openly gay folks in the military for 17 years).

I''m proud of our troops, and of anyone willing to put their life on the line for their country.

Bravo!

 

[MakingTheGrade]

Date: 11/3/2009 5:24:17 PM
Author: kenny
I support equality.

DADT is about inequality.


It''s as simple as that.


I''m always on the lookout for hatred that is disguised as morality.

Big ol ditto!

It''s one thing to be respectful enough not to question someone about their sexuality since it''s not your business. It is entirely different to say that you will be fired if it is "discovered" that you are homosexual or if you admit to being homosexual. Truly being respectful to gay military would be training and teaching members of the military NOT to be prejudiced, and threatening to fire them for harassment. That would be equality and respect, not "ok, just don''t admit to it, and we won''t fire you". Because that''s still saying that being gay is "fault" enough to be fired, and that''s just not ok with me.

 

[ImpatientOne]

My husband is Active Duty Army and my son is Active Duty Marine. They both have coworks (both male and female) that are gay. It is obvious they are gay, s pretty much everyone knows. Neither of them cares what someones sexual orientation is. JMHO, but it shouldn't matter as long as they are able to uphold the standards of public behavior that are set for them being military (that goes for everyone - straight or gay).

 

[E B]

Date: 11/3/2009 5:24:17 PM
Author: kenny
I support equality.

DADT is about inequality.

It's as simple as that.

I'm always on the lookout for hatred that is disguised as morality.

Quadritto.

 

[VRBeauty]

I have a friend who lived a lie for thirty years rather than risking losing a job that he loved. He recently got out of both the military and the closet, but my heart still breaks for the friendships and emotional intimacy he avoided during his time in the military.

 

[vc10um]

Date: 11/4/2009 3:15:04 PM
Author: ImpatientOne
My husband is Active Duty Army and my son is Active Duty Marine. They both have coworks (both male and female) that are gay. It is obvious they are gay, s pretty much everyone knows. Neither of them cares what someones sexual orientation is. JMHO, but it shouldn''t matter as long as they are able to uphold the standards of public behavior that are set for them being military (that goes for everyone - straight or gay).

Ditto to that!

And a big thank you to your hubby and son!

 

[Novel]

Date: 11/4/2009 3:21:41 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 11/3/2009 5:24:17 PM

Author: kenny

I support equality.


DADT is about inequality.


It''s as simple as that.


I''m always on the lookout for hatred that is disguised as morality.

Quadritto.

Quintitto.

This article by the Advocate is the best discussion of this that I''ve seen. While DADT was meant to protect troop morale, its actually functioning as discrimination in the face of what seems to be, as ImpatientOne said, an issue that isn''t about sexuality but is about functioning like every other member of our military. I work with students from the service academies and most of my cadets who admit that they''re so right wing as to almost be fascist believe that DADT is just losing our military qualified men and women. Most of the cadets I''ve spoken with about this issue are deeply religious and don''t think that homosexuality is correct (or think this for other reasons), but they don''t think that that should keep a person who wants to serve their country from being able to do so. (I fully disagree with them about homosexuality and they know it, but I don''t think that influences what they tell me). They value ability and character above all else, is my sense.

Personally, I think DADT is horrifying and think that it upholds stereotypes of homosexuals. The article in the Advocate was eye opening for me, as even though I work with cadets, I guess I thought many members of the military, especially admittedly homophobic ones, wouldn''t want openly gay men and women in their units. Its definitely worth a read if you''re interested in the issue. I think one of the soldiers in the article said it best (or at least in terms I think my military students would relate to): "If that’s what you want to do on your own time, in your own life, and you can shoot as good as I can, I. Do. Not. Give. A. [expletive].” "

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 11/4/2009 3:38:21 PM
Author: vc10um

Date: 11/4/2009 3:15:04 PM
Author: ImpatientOne
My husband is Active Duty Army and my son is Active Duty Marine. They both have coworks (both male and female) that are gay. It is obvious they are gay, s pretty much everyone knows. Neither of them cares what someones sexual orientation is. JMHO, but it shouldn''t matter as long as they are able to uphold the standards of public behavior that are set for them being military (that goes for everyone - straight or gay).

Ditto to that!

And a big thank you to your hubby and son!

ditto!

 

[swimmer]

I served in my birth country''s military the year after they changed from not allowing openly homosexual soldiers to ensuring a harassment-free environment. It was really just like when several years ago, the state where I now live decided to allow gay marriage. Lots of press, but after the dust cleared, nothing really earth-shattering transpired. Cats and dogs are still not friends. Life goes on.

My battalion had several gay men and women, their expressed sexual orientation really wasn''t an issue in any way. Neither was the orientation of the straight soldiers. Some men and women really had to change their views of gender roles during our time in service together; but come to think of it, sexual orientation seemed secondary to just general gender relation issues. Anytime we were out in the desert I chose to bunk next to a lesbian, she was the toughest man or woman around and in a worst case scenario she was who I wanted to be next to. When my life was on the line, I trusted her as a soldier, that she finds women attractive didn''t mean a thing. I didn''t encounter any issues between gay and straight men in my time serving other than my non-scientifically researched observations that gay men being around keeps straight guys wearing more clothes (good for morale in a mixed battalion) and they tended to smell less rank after several days in the field.

Of course I fully support a fully integrated (all genders and all orientations) military. It takes people of all kinds to build a country and only through our combined strengths can we succeed. To discriminate against a person based on their gender and who they love just seems so counter the the basic ideals of the United States.

 

[Selkie]

DADT always seemed like an inadequate and makeshift response to the issue, yet another attempt to dance around paying lip service to equality while not upsetting the status quo too much. It''s time for it to go, as well as the outdated attitudes that made it seem like the best solution at the time.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 11/4/2009 5:06:12 PM
Author: swimmer
I served in my birth country''s military the year after they changed from not allowing openly homosexual soldiers to ensuring a harassment-free environment. It was really just like when several years ago, the state where I now live decided to allow gay marriage. Lots of press, but after the dust cleared, nothing really earth-shattering transpired. Cats and dogs are still not friends. Life goes on.


My battalion had several gay men and women, their expressed sexual orientation really wasn''t an issue in any way. Neither was the orientation of the straight soldiers. Some men and women really had to change their views of gender roles during our time in service together; but come to think of it, sexual orientation seemed secondary to just general gender relation issues. Anytime we were out in the desert I chose to bunk next to a lesbian, she was the toughest man or woman around and in a worst case scenario she was who I wanted to be next to. When my life was on the line, I trusted her as a soldier, that she finds women attractive didn''t mean a thing. I didn''t encounter any issues between gay and straight men in my time serving other than my non-scientifically researched observations that gay men being around keeps straight guys wearing more clothes (good for morale in a mixed battalion) and they tended to smell less rank after several days in the field.


Of course I fully support a fully integrated (all genders and all orientations) military. It takes people of all kinds to build a country and only through our combined strengths can we succeed. To discriminate against a person based on their gender and who they love just seems so counter the the basic ideals of the United States.

Eloquent as always, Swimmer. A big ditto to the fully integrated military.

 

[TooPatient]

I think this is a very controvertial subject. Rather than sharing what my personal beliefs are, I will just say this:

Good arguements can be made in either direction. As different lifestyles become more or less accepted in societies people have to change or not change how things are done. I think this is one of those situations. A certain lifestyle is becoming more accepted in society and there will have to be changes of some variety made.


As an additional thought:
The men and women who volunteer to risk their lives for our country are wonderful and special people who deserve our support and thanks. It is because of them that all of us get to live free. We get to have different opinions and discuss them. We get to go to bed at night and know that we will wake up safely the next morning. We get to live and work and play where we want.
They and their families deserve more thanks than we can ever offer.

To all of you who are/were in the military or have family in the military -- Thank you.

 

[MakingTheGrade]

Date: 11/4/2009 5:59:21 PM
Author: TooPatient
As different lifestyles become more or less accepted in societies people have to change or not change how things are done.

I would like to believe that when my kids are old enough to vote, that society will be better about the separation of church and state, and gay-rights will have won most of its major battles. My generation has been dubbed the "fix it" generation I think, haha, hopefully we live up to the moniker.

 

[miraclesrule]

Thritto Kenny...well said.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 11/4/2009 6:50:15 PM
Author: MakingTheGrade

Date: 11/4/2009 5:59:21 PM

Author: TooPatient

As different lifestyles become more or less accepted in societies people have to change or not change how things are done.

I would like to believe that when my kids are old enough to vote, that society will be better about the separation of church and state, and gay-rights will have won most of its major battles. My generation has been dubbed the ''fix it'' generation I think, haha, hopefully we live up to the moniker.

Ditto. And the last time the military was upset about allowing certain soldiers in, it was because they were African-American. Many of the same arguments used today against gays and lesbians were trotted out at the time. "Unit cohesion," etc. Luckily most of us have moved on from discriminating against African-Americans...hopefully people will stop discriminating against gays and lesbians, too.

Honestly, DADT, DOMA, etc. are embarrassing for America and it makes me ashamed to be a citizen of this country.

 

[Regular Guy]

I'm back (after having started this thread).

I have found both articles helpful, have just read the second one, and I do find this discussion compelling.

But, re-thinking, and inviting you to join me...

What do we think about the motivation (to join the service), is it relevant, or irrelevant, and what do we do about that whole thing?

For example, I will say that it clear to me that it is appropriate for the Boy Scouts to have the position of no gays in leadership.

Here is something simple from Wikipedia about this.

Does this need discussion? If so, I could suggest a new thread, and I won't be starting it; it is not my topic here. The reason for mentioning it is to help anyone reading and considering this aspect, get us on the same page.

I would not suggest there are not strategic and utilitarian reasons both to join the military, having nothing to do with ones sexuality. Nevertheless, it would not be reasonable to suggest that anyone conscious of their sexual identity wouldn't contemplate the implications of becoming a part of a ghetto experience, with respect to members of one's own sex. Should this be of no concern?

 

[iheartscience]

Are you actually saying in your annoyingly roundabout way that gay and lesbian soldiers join the military to be around a bunch of possible sexual partners?

 

[kenny]

Inferring that gays tend to be pedophiles is insulting and bigoted.

 

[Regular Guy]

Sorry, Thing, if you''ve read some of my posts here, you might see I''m actually trying to be as direct as I can be.

I would not suggest what you''ve said, no. But...as I reflect on both how to respond to you, and what I think about this...freshly...I do wonder if how the military does or doesn''t state its policy wouldn''t effect in what could be important ways the consideration of one''s motivation to join in the first place.

I am interested in the broad spectrum and question of motivation, yes...

Please think as wide as I like to think I am trying to think...

...understanding we have public policy in other countries, as evidenced in the presented articles, from other countries, showing success.

If we are willing to be not deductive in our reasoning...but inductive...I would encourage anyone interested to think this through with me.

Many thanks...

 

[Regular Guy]

Kenny, I''m sorry. This is I suppose contentious.

The question goes more simply to questioning an adult''s interest in being a leader in the boy scouts.

I could be way off here. I am sorry. I''m trying not to duck and cover, but ask questions that are not intended to be unreasonable.

 

[kenny]

People join the military for several reasons.
Patriotism
Job training
Travel
Sex? - I don't think so.

I guess a few straight women and gay men see it as an opportunity to be around lots of men.
But should we therefore prevent all straight women and gay men from joining?

 

[kenny]

Date: 11/5/2009 12:07:33 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Kenny, I'm sorry. This is I suppose contentious.


The question goes more simply to questioning an adult's interest in being a leader in the boy scouts.


I could be way off here. I am sorry. I'm trying not to duck and cover, but ask questions that are not intended to be unreasonable.

Motivation to be a Boy Scout leader, or priest or teacher is to lead children into being better people.
A small minority of heteros and homos molest children.
This is a terrible crime in both cases but shall we ban heteros from contact with our children?

Sorry, the "Homos are Pedos" thing is just ignorant bigotry.
Fear fear fear.

 

[iheartscience]

Why do you think gay men are pedophiles, Ira? That isn't contentious, it's bigoted.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 11/5/2009 12:10:37 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 11/5/2009 12:07:33 PM

Author: Regular Guy

Kenny, I'm sorry. This is I suppose contentious.

The question goes more simply to questioning an adult's interest in being a leader in the boy scouts.

I could be way off here. I am sorry. I'm trying not to duck and cover, but ask questions that are not intended to be unreasonable.

Motivation to be a Boy Scout leader, or priest or teacher is to lead children into being better people.

Heteros molest children too.

Shall we ban heteros from contact with children?

Sorry, the 'Homos are Pedos' thing is just ignorant bigotry.

Fear fear fear.

kenny said it better than I did. And an interesting page I found speaks to this very issue.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

 

[MustangGal]

My husband was a Boy Scout leader at the time the whole "gay leader" issue came up. He can be a bit conservative, so I was actually surprised that it didn''t bother him if leaders were gay. His thought was that as long as they are a good leader, their sexual orientation doesn''t matter.