Ending discrimatory practices in the Military i.e. Don't Ask Don't Tell

[mrlost]

http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/rec ... &section=2

Finally.

[Dragonkin]

Finally what? Do they plan on introducing legislation to prevent things from backsliding to what they were before 1993? You know, when the military could openly ask about sexual orientation and then say "No, you can't serve your country because you're gay." I'm all for equality, but to think that repealing DADT without something more fair to replace it will end discrimination in the military is naive at best.

[BlanchPrez]

Maybe I'm just not understanding Don't Ask, Don't Tell, because this article confuses me.

How, exactly, does DADT cause people to get fired? How does it discriminate? I thought its purpose was to PREVENT discrimination.

I'm completely lost here.

Chris

[Skyman]

I think the push here is to serve openly without repurcussions. So there is probably some stipulations against acts of descrimination based on orientation

[mrlost]

[quote="BlanchPrez"]Maybe I'm just not understanding Don't Ask, Don't Tell, because this article confuses me.



How, exactly, does DADT cause people to get fired? How does it discriminate? I thought its purpose was to PREVENT discrimination.



I'm completely lost here.



Chris[/quote]

Don't ask don't tell, was one of Clinton's cop outs. Basically it acts to prevent homosexuals in military from talking, acting, disclosing, or behaving homosexually and punishes them for it with discharge (sometimes dishonorably) from the military.



It also prevents recruiters and superiors from asking what your sexual orientation is. It was a weak compromise, and a failure IMHO.



DADT cause's gay service members to get fired should it be discovered that they are gay. In practice, it means that they will usually serve out their tour of duty if possible, and then be discharged afterward so as to prevent a manpower shortage in the short term.



The theory is that homosexuality will hurt morale because most gays are supposed to be (according to DOD research) immoral, pedophiles, and security risks.



In short if one is openly gay, then they are fired.

[Drew]

They should do it like old civil war troops... make units of entirely homsexuals! :)

[Count Zero]

Don't Ask Don't Tell basically stated that a soldier could be gay as long as he doesn't say he is. It is a blatantly discrimintory practice. The second they find out he is gay, they kick him out as soon as possible. The soldier could have been a model soldier with no disciplinary issues, but they are discharged because of who they are attracted too.



The Far Right is correct though, homosexuals are a security risk at this point in time, not because they are homosexual, but because of DADT. As long as they are forced to hide who they are, they can be manipulated.


[quote="Drew"]They should do it like old civil war troops... make units of entirely homsexuals! :)[/quote]


Considering most of our allies permit homosexuals to serve openly and there are no issues, why have special units? It isn't reasonable. We ended segregation for a reason. If you are too much of a whimp to handle the idea that someone in your platoon is gay, then maybe you aren't the quality of person that we need the military.



This policy isn't a policy based on reason. It is based on the same attitude that had blacks segregated in the military before. The surveys show that soldiers don't care. The only reason this continues is because we have a section of our population who think that homosexuals aren't really people. We have a section of our population who's love for another person is being compared to child molestation, incest, and beastiality. The gay rights movement is the civil rights movement of our generation, and so the question is which side will each of us be on: the one that was on the side of equal rights, or the on that will be ashamed of their position 50 years from now? I plan to be in the former.



Also here is this: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKSAJdLLwzc[/url]



[url=http://www.sldn.org/ltb.html]Lift the Ban.org[/url]

[mordraine]

I don't think DADT created the policy where as soon as a soldier was found to be gay they were fired. That's been in place for a long time. Gays were drummed out of the service long before DADT came into existence. The difference was, the military could ask the soldier outright if he/she was gay, and often times were asked during sign-up.

No doubt it is a discriminatory policy. But I think it's getting mischaracterized by the left as being EVILLLLL, when all it is is a half-ass compromise, which was the best that could've been done at the time. It's funny how it's being characterized now, because I remember at the time that DADT was considered to be a good thing, even by (gasp) gays. Certainly not perfect, and certainly not where it should be, but it was better than the blantant, openly discriminatory practices that were in place before that.

[Drew]

[quote="Count Zero"]




Considering most of our allies permit homosexuals to serve openly and there are no issues, why have special units? It isn't reasonable. We ended segregation for a reason. If you are too much of a whimp to handle the idea that someone in your platoon is gay, then maybe you are the quality of person that we need the military.


[/quote]

I was being humourous (or failing to be apparently)...:thwack:

[mrlost]

[quote="mordraine"]


No doubt it is a discriminatory policy. But I think it's getting mischaracterized by the left as being EVILLLLL, when all it is is a half-ass compromise, which was the best that could've been done at the time. It's funny how it's being characterized now, because I remember at the time that DADT was considered to be a good thing, even by (gasp) gays. Certainly not perfect, and certainly not where it should be, but it was better than the blantant, openly discriminatory practices that were in place before that.[/quote]

I remember everyone was pissed with Clinton for not living up to his promise. My parents were a little annoyed, and my gay friends found it deeply disappointing as I recall. But yeah it was better than the previous total ban, but not by much.

[mordraine]

Being disappointed with Clinton for not going far enough is one thing... Now that you mention it, I remember being disappointed too. But under the circumstances, I think Clinton did as much as he could.



But like I said, DADT didn't start the discrimination of gays. This was the previous policy of the military, a regulation added to the books in 1981:


[quote]Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to insure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.[/quote]

[Count Zero]

[quote="mordraine"]No doubt it is a discriminatory policy. But I think it's getting mischaracterized by the left as being EVILLLLL, when all it is is a half-ass compromise, which was the best that could've been done at the time.[/quote]


I don't know about you, but if the tables were reverse and I were fired from my job because you were straight, I think you would consider that practice EVILLLLL, rather than half assed, regardless of how much better it was than before.



Discrimination is discrimination. Homosexuals should have to follow the same rules as heterosexuals.



In this country, homosexuals are the only group that it is fully legal to discriminate against. In most states, you can be fired from your job for being gay. Homosexuals do not fall under the protections the rest of us do.

[Count Zero]

[quote="Drew"]I was being humourous (or failing to be apparently)...:thwack:[/quote]


I figured you were... but I have seen this suggestion before as a "compromise".

[mordraine]

[quote="Count Zero"]I don't know about you, but if the tables were reverse and I were fired from my job because you were straight, I think you would consider that practice EVILLLLL, rather than half assed, regardless of how much better it was than before.



Discrimination is discrimination. Homosexuals should have to follow the same rules as heterosexuals.



In this country, homosexuals are the only group that it is fully legal to discriminate against. In most states, you can be fired from your job for being gay. Homosexuals do not fall under the protections the rest of us do.[/quote]

If before the change, I could've had my privacy invaded, and then subsequently fired because I was straight, but after the change, had my privacy protected so that my straightness was only an issue if I talked about it, I would've taken that compromise over the status quo.



Dude, no one is arguing that the military policy is discriminatory. I agree with everything you're saying. I just happen to think that your [i]hat of DADT[/i] is misplaced. Instead you should be taking on the military institution as a whole. DADT was a compromise put into place at a time when that's the best that they could do.



The practice of firing or banning gays in the military has been in place for a fuck of a long time. That's what I'm saying. The ban on gays didn't start with DADT.



So lemme ask, if they repeal DADT, would it go back to what it was before? Because that seems to suck way more.

[Dragonkin]

[quote="mordraine"]So lemme ask, if they repeal DADT, would it go back to what it was before? Because that seems to suck way more.[/quote]

Like I said . . . . And the funny thing here is that it's illegal to [i]harass[/i] someone due to age, gender, race, religion, national origin, veteran status or [i]sexual orientation[/i]. That's a federal law. I find it odd that this protection doesn't fully extend into military service. I also still find it odd that this representative is pushing to repeal DADT without something in place to prevent fallout or backlash.

[mordraine]

[quote="Dragonkin"]Like I said . . . . And the funny thing here is that it's illegal to [i]harass[/i] someone due to age, gender, race, religion, national origin, veteran status or [i]sexual orientation[/i]. That's a federal law. I find it odd that this protection doesn't fully extend into military service. I also still find it odd that this representative is pushing to repeal DADT without something in place to prevent fallout or backlash.[/quote]

Yeah, I'd like more info on that.



The quote I posted before was put into place as a military regulation to help strengthen cases that went before the courts when a gay person would sue the military for discriminatory practices. Their argument would be, and always has been, that having gays in the military is incompatible with military service. Not a case of discrimination per se (according to them), but rather a case of wanting to limit disruption. It's a spurious argument, but it's worked for them in the past (pre-DADT days even).

[Skyman]

They obviously need to watch the 300

[Count Zero]

[quote="mordraine"]If before the change, I could've had my privacy invaded, and then subsequently fired because I was straight, but after the change, had my privacy protected so that my straightness was only an issue if I talked about it, I would've taken that compromise over the status quo.



Dude, no one is arguing that the military policy is discriminatory. I agree with everything you're saying. I just happen to think that your [i]hat of DADT[/i] is misplaced. Instead you should be taking on the military institution as a whole. DADT was a compromise put into place at a time when that's the best that they could do.



The practice of firing or banning gays in the military has been in place for a fuck of a long time. That's what I'm saying. The ban on gays didn't start with DADT.[/quote]


I know that is not what you are suggesting, but it is evil. It discriminates aganist a group of people. It's discrimination for god's sake. Don't be afraid to call it what it is.



My issue with what you said was you were dismissing the disgust with DADT because it was better than what existed. I hope that is more clear.


[quote]So lemme ask, if they repeal DADT, would it go back to what it was before? Because that seems to suck way more.[/quote]


I agree completely. I doubt we would repeal DADT without having a policy of open service to replace it.

[mordraine]

[quote="Count Zero"]I know that is not what you are suggesting, but it is evil. It discriminates aganist a group of people. It's discrimination for god's sake. Don't be afraid to call it what it is.[/quote]

The policy of banning or firing someone based on sexual preference is wrong. It's bad. It's evil. BUT IT DIDN'T START WITH DADT. Get it? Are you claiming that it did? Because it didn't. That's what you should be aiming for, getting rid of the full scale banning or firing of gays. If they're going to repeal DADT but not have anything else to end the discrimination, then they're just going back to a worse system.



All DADT did was attempt to alleviate the problem. It was a stop-gap measure. A band-aid. It didn't end the discrimination, and I'm fully aware of that. I can't call it evil, when at it's heart, it was trying to make a horrible situation less horrible. Energy decrying DADT is misplaced. The energy should be applied where the REAL problem is.



Here's how I see DADT went down:



GAYS: Hey, we don't like being banned from the military! It's discrimination and it's unfair!



MILITARY: But we can't have gays! They'll... they'll... they'll disrupt everything!



GAYS: No we won't!



MILITARY: Yes you will!



GAYS: Won't!



MILITARY: Will!



CLINTON: Look, how 'bout this - Military, you can still fire gays, but you can't invade anyone's privacy anymore to find out if they're gay. Gays, you can join the military as long as you keep your gayness secret.



GAYS & MILITARY TOGETHER: That sucks, but I guess it's workable for now.

[Gotetsu]

I think there is one point that hasn't been pointed out. The reason Gays weren't wanted in the military was that, prior to just a few years ago, they weren't a very well-liked section of society. I was in the Army when DADT came about. Trust me, it was for the protection of gays as much as it was for any other reason. The military has been rampant with the "I don't wanna share my foxhole with some fuckin' faggot!" mentality.

You can believe me when I tell you that had someone come out of the wall-locker, they would have been hazed at least, if not downright beaten. And there would have been very few "witnesses." It would have caused a huge breakdown in unit cohesion, which is vital to the military mission.

Now, I know to all of you "forward-thinking" people, that sounds pretty neanderthalic. And you're right. But it was the way things were, and that's that. Now, I've been out for over 10 years, but I would be willing to bet that things haven't changed THAT much.

Social Evolution is a slow and painful process. If you try to rush it, it WILL backfire and regress.

[/soapbox]

[Count Zero]

You said:
[quote]

No doubt it is a discriminatory policy. But I think it's getting mischaracterized by the left as being EVILLLLL, when all it is is a half-ass compromise, which was the best that could've been done at the time. It's funny how it's being characterized now, because I remember at the time that DADT was considered to be a good thing, even by (gasp) gays.
[/quote]


I will admit, in being annoyed by something later in the paragraph I forgot to word the response properly with reguards to you saying, "No doubt it is a discriminatory policy." So, for that I am sorry.



I think what bothered me more was your attempt to dismiss the outrage about it because outrage from the "left", like the left being angry about a policy that we all agree is discrimintory, is a bad thing. It was written with that attitude of, "those silly liberals always raising a fuss." So, what difference does it make that the left is outraged about it and wants to change something that, if were applied to any other group of people in this society, would result in legal action at the very least? Isn't the "the left" correct to be outraged that we are still using a fucked up policy that was a half-ass compromise from the start? My question is why aren't all of us outraged that arabic speakers are being kicked out of the military for being gay when we are fighting people from the middle east? We all know our biggest concern is the guy translating that arabic is gay. I think the more appropriate question is why aren't we more angry?



It was such an odd choice of words, and hinted at the habit in our culture of dismissing liberals because they are whining rather than paying attention to them because they are calling for equal rights for group of people. I have to admit, I am really tired of that, so I may have projected onto you a bit, and I am sorry if I did.

[mordraine]

Ah, well you probably misinterpreted my meaning then. I'm pretty left-leaning, in case you forgot! :)

The left-wing propagandists use and misuse ideas and concepts just as readily as the right-wing propagandists. So my use of the phrase "the left mischaracterizing" was my belief that the propagandists are trying to get us excited about the DADT issue and I think it's misplaced energy.

You're exactly right. The discrimination of gays is outrageous. It's a joke that Arabic translators are fired because they're gay, and that does indeed piss me off. I've been pissed about that for a long time.

DADT didn't CAUSE the discharges of these men though. The military policy of banning gays did, which has been around long before DADT. Something needs to be put in place that stops gays from being banned or discharged from the military entirely. Just repealing DADT wouldn't do that. All I keep hearing is "repeal DADT." Which is all well and good as long as there's something in place to end the banning policy.

[Skyman]

At any level I hope they are proposing to put in something to account for the descrimination if they get rid of the DADT

[mordraine]

[quote="Skyman"]At any level I hope they are proposing to put in something to account for the descrimination if they get rid of the DADT[/quote]

Yes exactly!

[Skyman]

[quote="mordraine"]Yes exactly![/quote]
Which brings me back to my original post about this


[quote="Skyman"]I think the push here is to serve openly without repurcussions. So there is probably some stipulations against acts of descrimination based on orientation[/quote]

[branmakmuffin]

[quote="mordraine"]I remember at the time that DADT was considered to be a good thing, even by (gasp) gays.[/quote]
How old are you? I recall it being regarded by gays (both the gasping and the non-gasping kind, although I'm not a gayologist, nor do I play one on TV) as a bad thing. What I heard from prominent gays in the media was that gays wanted to be able to serve openly.

[Neuro]

So, here's the scoop. If you're a straight guy, I want you to think about this:

Spend the next week acting like a gay guy. Don't let anyone know you don't love the cock. Make sure to look suitably impressed at a nice penis.

Now, do that for about a decade. Try to keep a girlfriend on the side. See how she likes you acting gay all the time and not telling people about her.

So, see how that feels for a while if you don't get that it's creepy.

Now, the sad fucking thing is when this creepy crap seems like a relief. It's like black people riding on the back of the bus, if you didn't have a fuckin' bus before, the back of it's a real step up, even if you have to share the bus with people who think you're subhuman, somehow less than they are. So, if some gays were happy about this, it was because they finally at least got to the back of the bus. That doesn't make the fuckheads creating and enforcing the policy or the society that upholds it any less douchy.

[mordraine]

[quote="branmakmuffin"]How old are you? I recall it being regarded by gays (both the gasping and the non-gasping kind, although I'm not a gayologist, nor do I play one on TV) as a bad thing. What I heard from prominent gays in the media was that gays wanted to be able to serve openly.[/quote]

Most likely older than you. I already admitted that, after considering, I remember the disappointment (the second thing to go is memory!). Did you read my later response with my dialog between MILITARY, GAYS and CLINTON? That's how I remember it going down. The fact that Clinton got the Military to bend at all is something short of miraculous.


[quote="Neuro"]Now, the sad fucking thing is when this creepy crap seems like a relief. It's like black people riding on the back of the bus, if you didn't have a fuckin' bus before, the back of it's a real step up, even if you have to share the bus with people who think you're subhuman, somehow less than they are. So, if some gays were happy about this, it was because they finally at least got to the back of the bus. That doesn't make the fuckheads creating and enforcing the policy or the society that upholds it any less douchy.[/quote]

This is essentially what I've been trying to say the entire thread. Was the compromise what the gays wanted? Fuck no. Baby steps. Incremental improvements. So in that regard, they were good with it. I don't think anyone thought it would be the best thing forever and ever.

[Count Zero]

[quote="mordraine"]Ah, well you probably misinterpreted my meaning then. I'm pretty left-leaning, in case you forgot! :)[/quote]


Yeah... a little.. Sometimes it is easy to forget over the internet when it is something you care about. :cry::biggrin:




[quote]The left-wing propagandists use and misuse ideas and concepts just as readily as the right-wing propagandists. So my use of the phrase "the left mischaracterizing" was my belief that the propagandists are trying to get us excited about the DADT issue and I think it's misplaced energy.[/quote]


I don't know if I would agree with that, mainly because it is all part of a larger issue, which we should be charged up about.



Think about people debating aspects of segregation and trying to justify why we should keep "whites only" drinking fountains or similar unreasonable aspects of that era. Yeah, DADT doesn't seem as bad as that sort of thing, but we also aren't the people being directly effected. Imagine having to hid a fundamental aspect of who you are from the people you work closely with. Even outside the military, you can be fired for being gay in most states, even if few employeers would state that is the reason.


[quote]DADT didn't CAUSE the discharges of these men though. The military policy of banning gays did, which has been around long before DADT. Something needs to be put in place that stops gays from being banned or discharged from the military entirely. Just repealing DADT wouldn't do that. All I keep hearing is "repeal DADT." Which is all well and good as long as there's something in place to end the banning policy.[/quote]


I doubt a repeal of DADT will not involve some from of "open service" policy. The entire debate around DADT revolves around simply allowing open service. If you watch footage of the Republican and Democratic debates, it is about repealing DADT so homosexuals can serve openly.



Of course, all of the Republicans think DADT is a perfectly good policy, and the Democratic candidates don't. I know.. we are all suprised there.

[Count Zero]

[quote="Dragonkin"]Like I said . . . . And the funny thing here is that it's illegal to [i]harass[/i] someone due to age, gender, race, religion, national origin, veteran status or [i]sexual orientation[/i]. That's a federal law. I find it odd that this protection doesn't fully extend into military service. I also still find it odd that this representative is pushing to repeal DADT without something in place to prevent fallout or backlash.[/quote]


Hell, the federal hate crimes law was just updated to include homosexuals, how can we expect laws that protect against discrimination to be up to date?

[Count Zero]

[quote="Gotetsu"]Now, I know to all of you "forward-thinking" people, that sounds pretty neanderthalic. And you're right. But it was the way things were, and that's that. Now, I've been out for over 10 years, but I would be willing to bet that things haven't changed THAT much.



Social Evolution is a slow and painful process. If you try to rush it, it WILL backfire and regress.



[/soapbox][/quote]


Not really. Our society has changed a lot since then. Think about it. In early 90's when this policy came into effect, we were saying it was okay for gays to be in our society as long as they were in the closet. Even I had a very different view of gay people in the 90's, and that was mainly because I didn't know any.



Now, a little more than a decade later we have multiple states that permit some from of homosexual union, and we are openly debating whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. Also, a majority of soldiers say they don't care if someone in their unit is gay. That is a big step.



The Jerry Falwell's of the world are loosing this fight because the American people know who gay people are, and we have come to realize they aren't really any different. The only people who really care are a very loud minority in this country. People are hearing their message and ignoring it. Acceptance of homosexuals has gone no where but up in the past decade and this country is becoming more liberal every year.



Really, our society has evolved pretty quickly when you get down to it. I think part of that is because of the rise of the internet and the ease by which we communicate. Ten years ago we wouldn't have been able to get together and even discuss this, much less get the opportunity to misunderstand one another and get pissed off. :razz:

[Gotetsu]

You completely skirted around my point, CZ. I was referring to the military as a society, not society in general. My point was, civilians can yell and scream all they want about how things are unfair. And they should, because that's how changes are made. But they aren't the ones in the foxhole with a guy they don't trust. They aren't the ones who have a very specific mindset, and anything that disrupts that mindset causes a lag in unit effectiveness.

And yes, this does fall into that "You don't know, because you didn't serve" category. You can call shennanigans all you want on that statement (as you and others have several times in the past), but the fact remains that unless you were/are a military member, you can't fully appreciate the situation from a military perspective.

As to the DADT policy, it was a band aid, just as Mord said. But it was also an important first step. It's actually very accurate to liken it to blacks in the back of the bus. Because, without putting them in the back first, they would never have gotten on the bus at all. Can you imagine how whites would have reacted had they just said "Black people can now ride anywhere they want on the bus" after decades of not letting them on at all? So, they let gays enter the military "in the back of the bus." And they let the rest get used to the idea that, yeah, maybe the guy next to you is gay. But he is proving trustworthy, so what does it matter now? And now we have probably reached a point where we can take the next step. Let them come in openly. And I hope that's what they do. Then we can all shut up about this.

The only thing I see as a problem is that too many people try to view joining the military as just like getting any other job. It's not. It's not a 9-5er with benefits and a retirement plan. It's much more. And when you "get fired" it isn't just a matter of "I'm sorry, we're going to have to let you go." It's a long process requiring a lot of steps and approvals. Getting kicked from the military for any reason is a huge deal. So, the military tries to hedge their bets in recruitment.

[Gotetsu]

Ok, this is kind of cool. And it pretty much explains my points. And yeah, it's written by someone who is in the Military (or was, at least)

Logistics

And this guy has some good points too. I'm not sure I agree with all of them, and I know that his situation was probably pretty extreme, but it does prove illustrate a valid concern.

Essay

[Wintermute]

Granted I've never served in the military, but it's my understanding there are already conduct rules in place regarding sexual harassment and fornicating in the barracks?

[Count Zero]

[quote="Gotetsu"]You completely skirted around my point, CZ. I was referring to the military as a society, not society in general. My point was, civilians can yell and scream all they want about how things are unfair. And they should, because that's how changes are made. But they aren't the ones in the foxhole with a guy they don't trust. They aren't the ones who have a very specific mindset, and anything that disrupts that mindset causes a lag in unit effectiveness.



And yes, this does fall into that "You don't know, because you didn't serve" category. You can call shennanigans all you want on that statement (as you and others have several times in the past), but the fact remains that unless you were/are a military member, you can't fully appreciate the situation from a military perspective.[/quote]


The military is a cross section of society. That doesn't come from some "crazy civilian" point of view, that is every military person I have ever talked to about military culture.



"According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Of the 20% who said they are uncomfortable around gays and lesbians, only 5% are "very" uncomfortable, while 15% are "somewhat" uncomfortable. Just two percent of troops said knowing that gays are not allowed to serve openly was an important reason in their decision to join the military." (source:[url=http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1222]Survey Indicates Shift in Military Attitudes[/url])



You've been out of the military for some time, and it really seems from what I have read, that soldiers don't care that much anymore. Just like our culture, the culture of the military has changed. The military you were part of is a little different now. Back in the 90's, I have no doubt that gay people in the military was a huge issue, but I don't think it is the isssue the older military people and veterans who haven't served for some time think it is for the younger troops.


[quote]Can you imagine how whites would have reacted had they just said "Black people can now ride anywhere they want on the bus" after decades of not letting them on at all? [/quote]



The same thing that was said when they fully integrated the military. The response was, "troops will learn to deal with it." The military was actually ahead of society on this one. The same reasons for not allowing gays to serve openly in the military is the exact same reason they said we couldn't integrate our military. It was for the sake of "unit cohesion". We see how much sense that made.



Women have been serving in our military for quite sometime, and I don't see discussions about how women are disruptive to the structure of the unit any longer. Just like blacks and women, the soldiers have gotten used to it. Our culture has changed and so has the culture of the military. Most soldiers really don't care, and those few that do... they will have to get used to it.

[Count Zero]

[quote="Gotetsu"]Ok, this is kind of cool. And it pretty much explains my points. And yeah, it's written by someone who is in the Military (or was, at least)



[url=http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa011000a.htm?once=true&]Logistics[/url]



And this guy has some good points too. I'm not sure I agree with all of them, and I know that his situation was probably pretty extreme, but it does prove illustrate a valid concern.



[url=http://www.compleatheretic.com/pubs/essays/gayban2.html]Essay[/url][/quote]


Using this guy's logic we should ban gays from college to, because you might end up with a gay roommate. Yeah, I am sure it is a bit different, but really. All guys think they are so hot that every gay guy wants them... just like they think every woman wants them. :biggrin:



And the logic from the essay is faulty too. The problem isn't that two men were having sex, it was that two people in the same unit were sexually involved. Interestingly enough, if that were a male and female, they would be repremanded and probably moved to different units. But, since it is two guys, they are kicked out. It's simple, sexual activity between people in the same unit is disruptive, it doesn't matter what their sexuality is. The policy needs to revolve around that concept rather than the sex of the people involved.

[branmakmuffin]

[quote="mordraine"]Most likely older than you.[/quote]
Most likely not, but we'll let it slide.
[quote]I already admitted that, after considering, I remember the disappointment (the second thing to go is memory!). Did you read my later response with my dialog between MILITARY, GAYS and CLINTON? That's how I remember it going down. The fact that Clinton got the Military to bend at all is something short of miraculous.[/quote]
OK, maybe. How does that affect your assertion that gays were happy (and gay) about it? Did your later post clarify that as well?
[quote]Baby steps. Incremental improvements. So in that regard, they were good with it. I don't think anyone thought it would be the best thing forever and ever.[/quote]
I really don't think they were "good with it."


[quote="Count Zero"]The military is a cross section of society.[/quote]
But probably not a terribly representative one.

[mordraine]

[quote="branmakmuffin"]Most likely not, but we'll let it slide.[/quote]

I'm 45. *shrug*


[quote]OK, maybe. How does that affect your assertion that gays were happy (and gay) about it? Did your later post clarify that as well?



I really don't think they were "good with it."[/quote]

*shrug* Semantics. Not really worth nitpicking IMO. In my recollection, anyway, it was a compromise that, while certainly not perfect, was looked upon as something they could live with at the time. You have a different recollection. That's fine.



EDIT: I'll concede too that "happy" was the wrong word to use. Yeah, they weren't happy.

[Scolopendra]

Sodomy is still an actionable offense under the UCMJ (so is horse rustling, but whatever). The [i]good thing[/i] about DADT is that it ordered--in the form of a presidential directive--that military personnel could not ask other military personnel if they were gay, which would then put those answering "yes" truthfully close enough to violating that section of the UCMJ that discharge would be inevitable. The [i]downside[/i] is that it practically [i]obligated[/i] superior officers to act should it come to light; things couldn't simply be shuffled about and quietened down because of new policy and procedure.



Repealing DADT in today's military society (yes, before it gets asked, I speak from experience) would probably be a step forward. The policy that requires follow-through would be annulled and officers, now more likely to shuffle and 'forget' things, would have the sort-of freedom to do so. However, and more importantly, Article 125 of Section 925 of the UCMJ itself needs to be amended ([url=http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm]text courtesy of your United States Air Force[/url]):


[quote="&quot"]
Section 925, Article 125: SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.[/quote]

That's the bigger issue. And I noticed hate crime legislation was mentioned in passing earlier... don't even get me started. I'm very [i]South Park[/i] in my leanings there.

[branmakmuffin]

[quote="mordraine"]I'm 45.[/quote]
[b]You lose![/b]



(Oops, maybe not.)

[mordraine]

[quote="branmakmuffin"][b]You lose![/b]



(Oops, maybe not.)[/quote]

So spill it Gramps! :)

[branmakmuffin]

[quote="mordraine"]So spill it Gramps! :)[/quote]
46.

[mordraine]

[quote="branmakmuffin"]46.[/quote]

Man, [i]ancient!![/i] (I turn 46 later this year)



There's one other board member named Opwunder who's older than you and I. He hasn't posted in a while though.