Don't ask, don't tell.

[Papahyooie]

I'd like to see different viewpoints on the subject of the now-ruled unconstitutional "Don't ask- don't tell" policy in the US military. As of right now, the policy has been ruled unconstitutional, but is still in place until the military appeals to court are concluded.

I'd like order and civility in here, people.

I'll start with my own views. Feel free to try to change them, as I'm quite open about the entire thing.

First of all, let me start by saying I have no problem with homosexuals (heretofore called gays because I don't want to type homosexual/alternative sexuality/ any other politically correct term 100 times) in general. Everyone knows I'm all about freedom, and that extends to gays being free to do as they damn well please, and fuck what I or anyone else thinks about it.

Here's the caveat: logistics. How is it going to work? There are 900 problems logistically, having gays in the same barracks together, not to mention gays and straights together. We seperate men and women because it would be extremely uncomfortable for a woman to dress, shower, etc with men around, EVEN if there were no sexual attraction between the two (so that precludes any argument of "gays don't want to sleep with every man they see"), or vice versa.

Here's an article which discusses such things from the viewpoint of an actual service member, and concludes with a (quite humorous) hypothetical situation that highlights such logistical problems.

http://usmilitary.about.com/u/ua/gay...ns/dontask.htm

Another problem: distraction. In the military, the mission is always first. Sexual orientation, whether gay or straight, has no place in the military. Keep your sexual life, whether gay or straight, out of the military. This is why I think the "dont ask dont tell" policy is a good one. It does not discriminate against gays, but rather makes sexual orientation a non-issue. In the spirit of the law (as opposed to what it has been made out to be, a discrimination against gays) sexual orientation is completely moot. If you run around flaunting that you are straight, you are likely to get in trouble. Sexual harassment of any kind is strictly forbidden, as is sexual conduct between any two members. You are not required to say you are straight to join the military, so there is no discrimination, no lie involved. I think people often misjuge the policy believing it says "gays cannot join the military" when in fact it is saying "sexual preference is a non-issue."

Thirdly, contrary to popular belief, there is no "right" for anyone to join the military. The military can deny anyone enlistment for any reason. I was nearly denied myself for a VERY minor health issue.

So what are the options? The only way to make everything "fair" is to discontinue any sort of seperation based on sexuality, aka, make everything coed. All members whether male, female, gay or straight, will be housed together and serve in the same jobs. Absolute indiscrimination.

However, I don't think that would work too well, do you?

Lets' hear everyone's thoughts.

[jmcslob]

I think don't ask don't tell is ridiculous as well as pretty much all the laws that limit ones freedom based on a genetic defect...

We allow people Born Blind to be in public with animals Why should we limits a gays right to join in a civil union.

I don't care what they do in their bedroom...The thought sickens me But that shit doesn't involve me so I don't give a shit

I agree a marriage is a Union between males and females if it wasn't plumbing would be all fucked up...So lets keep it as it's meant to be Call what they do a civil union..But give em the fucking right!

As for the military I say They don't get an opinion THEY TAKE ORDERS GIVEN TO THEM BY THE CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT!!!!

[Papahyooie]

I didnt say anything about marriage...

EDIT: okay I suppose I get it now. Didn't make the connection between the first and second paragraphs.

And btw, the military doesn't answer to a civillian government. They answer to the President, who is technically a civillian, but the head of the armed forces. They don't answer to any other part of the government. (any more than anyone else does anyway)

Also:

Originally Posted by jmcslob

I think don't ask don't tell is ridiculous as well as pretty much all the laws that limit ones freedom based on a genetic defect...

That's what I'm talking about. Don't ask, don't tell policy was enacted by Clinton in order to ALLOW gays to serve in the military, not keep them from doing so. DADT policy means that they can serve. Before it was enacted, the law said that gays could NOT serve, or had to lie and say they were straight in order to serve. With DADT policy, gays can serve all they want to. It makes sexual orientation a non-issue.

[Jizzler]

"In the military, the mission is always first"

That's what I've always believed. Don't know why gay was a problem in the first place and DADT was needed, but then again I lived in the Keys for 18 years and now Orlando for 12.


Your option worked in Starship Troopers

[Papahyooie]

Originally Posted by Jizzler

Don't know why gay was a problem in the first place and DADT was needed

That's what most people don't understand. Gays were banned from joining the military in the first place, or had to lie and say they were straight. Remnants of a more intolerant and religiously biased time. DADT was instated to allow gays to join the military. Not keep them from doing so. As DADT stands, sexual preference is a non-issue.

[DrPepper]

I have no idea why people think because they're gay and in a barracks full of men, makes them think about fucking them and distracts them. They're the exact same mentally as anyone else except they are attracted to the same sex. Just like a women in a room full of men doesn't plan out mentally how to fuck them all.

DADT works in theory but I'd never ask if someone was gay or whatever because in the military it's pretty irrelevant what you are.

[FordGT90Concept]

Preliminary data (official report is due in December) into the Pentagon's survey showed that the majority of service members are in favor of repeal. As such, I am also in favor of repeal because those are the people that will be affected by it.

If it does prove problematical (sexual harrassment including rape), a similar policy will have to go into effect and this time, with proof it is necessary.

[Papahyooie]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

I have no idea why people think because they're gay and in a barracks full of men, makes them think about fucking them and distracts them. They're the exact same mentally as anyone else except they are attracted to the same sex. Just like a women in a room full of men doesn't plan out mentally how to fuck them all.

That's what I addressed above. It doesn't matter if they don't think about fucking everything that moves. You wouldn't condone men and women in barracks together right? Because it's uncomfortable for everyone, and, whether they are thinking about fucking everything in sight or not, its still infinitely raises the chances that one person (male female, whatever) will be thinking about fucking somone else. And that's not conducive to the military's mission, much less comfortable for anyone.

Originally Posted by DrPepper

DADT works in theory but I'd never ask if someone was gay or whatever because in the military it's pretty irrelevant what you are.

That's the whole point.

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by Papahyooie

That's what I addressed above. It doesn't matter if they don't think about fucking everything that moves. You wouldn't condone men and women in barracks together right? Because it's uncomfortable for everyone, and, whether they are thinking about fucking everything in sight or not, its still infinitely raises the chances that one person (male female, whatever) will be thinking about fucking somone else. And that's not conducive to the military's mission, much less comfortable for anyone.

That's the whole point.

Right but that might be a distraction but it's minor at best. Most servicemen and women have bigger issues on their mind like their family and especially is my partner cheating on me. Most people are too busy with personal issues to care if one person is mind fucking them especially if there is combat.

[Papahyooie]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

Right but that might be a distraction but it's minor at best. Most servicemen and women have bigger issues on their mind like their family and especially is my partner cheating on me. Most people are too busy with personal issues to care if one person is mind fucking them especially if there is combat.

From a guy's point of view sure... but imagine a woman showering in the mens' barracks. I can't think of a single woman that would be able to handle that, unless she is, indeed the kind of person that wants to fuck everything that moves.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

DADT works in theory but I'd never ask if someone was gay or whatever because in the military it's pretty irrelevant what you are.

DADT prevented service members from being "openly gay." You know, guys flirting with other guys, girls flirting with other girls, and the like. It wasn't allowed, with no exceptions, so gays knew not to do it. With DADT repealed, they can without without fear of instant repercussions. As Papa pointed out, women and men are kept separate to keep the flirting to a minimum. With DADT repealed, gays may require their own barracks (gay males in their own and lesibian females in their own) again, to keep flirting to a minimum. Allowing women to serve on the front lines created logistical issues by requiring two sets of barracks. Repealing DADT is likely to further make logistics more complex by requiring more, separated barracks.

[ProgressiveTokyo]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

DADT prevented service members from being "openly gay." You know, guys flirting with other guys, girls flirting with other girls, and the like. It wasn't allowed, with no exceptions, so gays knew not to do it. With DADT repealed, they can without without fear of instant repercussions. As Papa pointed out, women and men are kept separate to keep the flirting to a minimum. With DADT repealed, gays may require their own barracks (gay males in their own and lesibian females in their own) again, to keep flirting to a minimum. Allowing women to serve on the front lines created logistical issues by requiring two sets of barracks. Repealing DADT is likely to further make logistics more complex by requiring more, separated barracks.

These countries seem to have figured it out (including those badasses in Israel):

[jmcslob]

@ Papa
When an enlisted man goes home and meets his wife in the driveway while in uniform and gives her a hug and a kiss that's fine But under DADT If a gay man does the same and it gets reported he's out...

It also does not allow that soldier to name his significant other as Family....Bo flag No Rights.....

Might not seem like much to you but I'm sure it would if your significant other was killed.

[Papahyooie]

Originally Posted by ProgressiveTokyo

These countries seem to have figured it out (including those badasses in Israel):

Other than russia, australia, and UK, none of those militaries matter

I joke I joke. For real though, I'd like to know how it all works out. Do you happen to know of an article or anything that details how they accomplish it?

Originally Posted by jmcslob

@ Papa
When an enlisted man goes home and meets his wife in the driveway while in uniform and gives her a hug and a kiss that's fine But under DADT If a gay man does the same and it gets reported he's out...

It also does not allow that soldier to name his significant other as Family....Bo flag No Rights.....

Might not seem like much to you but I'm sure it would if your significant other was killed.

Very true. And that's something that should be changed, yes (but how, and still maintain order?). And when gay marriages are legal nationwide, of course they will most likely have the same rights in the military. I'm not saying DADT is how it should be... I'm asking, what should we do to change it, rather than simply jump into repealing it without some sort of plan to handle it correctly.

[FordGT90Concept]

Realize that America's active duty military is larger than France, Brazil, Italy, Germany, and Israel combined (total 1,576,486 compared to 1,580,255). Not exactly comparable.

If you pool all of those aqua colored one's together, you get 2,497,025--about equal to (2,455,837) the size of America's total. America's military is on a whole 'nother scale. The only relatively fair comparison is to Russia which is in a very similar state as the USA (allowed, but climate supresses it). India and China, the only two other countries of comparable size, both disallow gays in the military.

[MT Alex]

Originally Posted by ProgressiveTokyo

These countries seem to have figured it out (including those badasses in Israel):

Canada wasn't a big surprise. I mean, bicycle troops in WWII? Gay

As far as England, Winston Chruchill said that the Empire that the sun never set on was founded by rum and sodomy, referring to the Royal Navy.

Originally Posted by Papahyooie

Other than russia, australia, and UK, none of those militaries matter

That's not a joke.

[ProgressiveTokyo]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Realize that America's active duty military is larger than France, Brazil, Italy, Germany, and Israel combined (total 1,576,486 compared to 1,580,255). Not exactly comparable.

What does size of sample have to do with discrimination? The question brought up by Papa was logistics. I pointed out countries which figured out the logistics of it (Israel is a great example). All you have to do is scale it up.

The US military has lost some VERY valuable soldiers due to DADT. Including highly trained translators and Spec Ops (which as you know are a huge financial investment to train). Ending DADT should be handled exactly like Segregation of the Military. End it by Executive order and let the military do its job and figure it out. There were many voices making the same arguments against desegregation of the Armed Services, all of which turned out to be false.

[FordGT90Concept]

Australia's and UK's military is a joke if you go by the numbers. Australia = 57500, United Kingdom = 175690. All of these countries have a larger military (by troops) than the UK (in order from most to least):
China, United States, India, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Vietnam, Myanmar, France, Brazil, Syria, Thailand, Indonesia, Italy, Taiwan, Columbia, Mexico, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Eritea, Morocco, Iraq, and Israel.

[Papahyooie]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Australia's and UK's military is a joke if you go by the numbers. Australia = 57500, United Kingdom = 175690. All of these countries have a larger military (by troops) than the UK (in order from most to least):
China, United States, India, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Vietnam, Myanmar, France, Brazil, Syria, Thailand, Indonesia, Italy, Taiwan, Columbia, Mexico, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Eritea, Morocco, Iraq, and Israel.

I happen to agree with Tokyo on this one. Australia and UK have some of the most capable military forces in the world (and Israel's forces aren't too shabby either). Snipers and special forces especially are top notch. They have to be doing something right, and I can't assume that all of those people are straight.

(edit: that last bit sounded terrible. I meant that I can't assume they are all straight, and therefore, they must be integrated well... I didn't in any way mean that gays are incapable of being top notch forces )

[MT Alex]

Thankfully, it's not numbers that matter. I'm not sure why you're stuck on this point. Austrailian (and Kiwi) SAS (The Regiment) rivals any force in the world.

You would really pick Morocco over the UK? Sheesh.

[FordGT90Concept]

The last time UK was tested was the Falklands and that can't be considered a decissive victory. The last time Australia was tested was in WWII. Simply put, if I were the UK or Australia, I would try to avoid a confrontation with those countries I listed. It would strain their military (and likely require a draft) if they were to engage them.

Originally Posted by ProgressiveTokyo

What does size of sample have to do with discrimination? The question brought up by Papa was logistics. I pointed out countries which figured out the logistics of it (Israel is a great example). All you have to do is scale it up.

Our logistics will ultimately be >4 times worse (land, cost, disputes, etc.) than France (the largest country to promote openly gays in the military) and that excludes weighing in cultural differences as well.

Originally Posted by MT Alex

Thankfully, it's not numbers that matter. I'm not sure why you're stuck on this point. Austrailian (and Kiwi) SAS (The Regiment) rivals any force in the world.

You would really pick Morocco over the UK? Sheesh.

It only takes one well placed RPG to kill anyone, SAS or not. Numbers always pose a serious hurdle especially if their morale is high.

My point is: the United Kingdom (and Australia) isn't as capable as it used to be.

[Papahyooie]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

The last time UK was tested was the Falklands and that can't be considered a decissive victory. The last time Australia was tested was in WWII.

Wha?? Both have been integral to US (as well as everyone else's) missions in Iraq and Afganistan.

[DannibusX]

I don't care whether don't ask, don't tell exists. It doesn't effect me at all since I'm not homosexual or in the military.

Let the men and women in the military decide.

[Papahyooie]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

Let the men and women in the military decide.

That's why I would like to hear opinions. It will affect me VERY very soon.


EDIT: and to the smartasses... no i'm not turning gay soon.

[DannibusX]

Originally Posted by Papahyooie

That's why I would like to hear opinions. It will affect me VERY very soon.

The only opinion that matters is yours. You decide.