Don't Ask, Don't Tell Deemed Unconstitutional

Epignosis wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: Epignosis wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: Epignosis wrote: Ah, there's five of you and one of me.  And it's one in the morning here.  I know I can't keep up with this.  I probably spent more time than I should have listening to folks with zero US military experience criticizing US military policies.  If you sign up, you agree to things.  If you don't like those things, don't sign up.  That's all I'm saying. Otherwise have a parade or something.  I'm off to bed.  Disagreement in a democratic society? Oh, right; it's the military. They can dictate their own terms, regardless of what civilian officials in the judicial branch decree. You missed my very first post, apparently. Apparently the military can do what it wants, eh? Let's ask our friends in other countries how this can turn out. I assume paying attention is a post-1989 skill, hmm? Off to bed now.

I assume its high time you start posting adequate responses, you post-89 deviant.

Would Miles approve of military insularity? Would he exclude individuals based on their traits? Tune in tomorrow!

Unfortunately, the sophomoric sentiment of "would I want to shower with a gay dude" really is the heart of the matter. There is a culture of masculinity in this country, to the point that "fag" continues to be the popular schoolyard/street insult. Sugarcoat it however you like, absent of the homophobia factor, there is no issue. Courts and politicians require all sorts of things from the military - including sometimes sending them into life-threatening situations for questionable motives - and the question of judicial power is never raised until a gay guy knocks on the clubhouse door.

But the armed forces isn't some club-house run by little boys. The battlefield isn't a playground. There is no room for playground b.s., we are a country at war. I find it insulting to the professionalism of our armed forces to insinuate that they cannot function up to par because they know someone is gay in their midst. These soldiers are trained to keep their cool under enemy fire, go days without sleep or food, and survive in the wilderness. I sincerely do not think they would go to pieces because someone who is deployed on the same mission writes home to their boyfriend rather than a wife or girlfriend.

If that doesn't convince any naysayers, consider this: If you were showering with a roomful of dudes, wouldn't you find it more unsettling knowing that there were gay guys all around you, but nobody was allowed to reveal who?

Gays?...In the military?...Next thing you know you'll have blacks and whites serving together.  Dogs and cats sleeping together.  Anarchy.  Anarchy.

There's only one thing worse than having gays openly serve in the military and that's homophobes.


Edited by Slartibartfast - September 11 2010 at 04:27

Epignosis wrote: Chris S wrote: In the modern world and  hopefully more tolerant world, sexual preference should have no bearing on whether military or federal parties agree or disagree. Either soldier I would be proud to stand next to in a line of battle. They deserve medals just for showing up for their country regardless whether they are gay or hetero or where they are going and why? Democarts may not agree on Iraq etc but every soldier has the governments full backing. The army should not decide on sexual preference either, that is wrong, they just need to spend their budget dollars more wisely in managing ' digs"   ps: Non citizen/permanet resident POV You would stand next to a gay solider, fine. Would you shower with one?

Why not? I would rather shower with female soldiers though - like in the Starship Troopers movie, where they - among other things which I do not agree with - show a fictional human society that has overcome problems regarding nudity.

EDIT: Regardless, I'm probably showering with gay people all the time - whenever I'm at the gym or taking a sauna etc. some of the others in the room may be gay. Where's the problem?


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 11 2010 at 04:32

HA!

Not sure why (logically) this is an issue.
I know why it is one....but it makes no sense.

The US Military is there to defend our country
If you are able to do so, what does it matter?

If someone wants to join the Military to either defend our country or benefit from it, as long as they meet the physical standards what right is there to deny them? Shouldn't the army be above all else? An entity that molds you into what it needs, regardless of anything?

Besides, more troops = good. I think...I'd imagine?

The military is by nature a conservative institution so we all understand the hostility but...get with the times.
And not wanting to serve with gay people? Probably. But in the 50's I bet a ton didn't want to serve with blacks. But, well isn't that the point of the whole thing? Not about you...

Im rambling but yeah, that's all I got.
Good news

This is all new to me and I'm not sure I understand DADT and whether repealing it as unconstitutional is a good thing or a bad thing, couching it in ambiguous mummy-speak words doesn't help me understand it any better.

Perhaps some perspective on the policy:

Democrat Harry Truman established procedures for discharging homosexuals in the US military (The Uniform Code of Military Justice signed in 1950).

Bill Clinton passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," meaning that the Armed Forces could no longer inquire about a recruit's sexual orientation.  Clinton supported this measure due to the harassment and hazing of gay personnel.

(Incidentally, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee at the time, the Democrat Sam Nunn, favored the full ban on gays, while his predecessor, Republican Barry Goldwater, favored lifting the ban altogether.  And then you have Nunn's successor, Strom Thurmond...)

In other words, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a compromise that allowed homosexuals entry into the US military.  Just as there are a plethora of questions job interviewers cannot legally ask you, the military could not inquire about a person's sexual preference.  The main difference here is the "don't tell" aspect.

Like it or not, political change happens incredibly slowly most of the time.  Almost nothing happens overnight.  Just a few months ago, Obama and Congress were considering a new compromise to repealing DADT.   The question is, do you "laud the measure for its conciliation or vilify it for its shortcomings?"

For the record, I don't have a problem with DADT going away- I have a huge problem with how it happened.

The T wrote: I insist: put the requisite in the army invitations and rules and we'll all be ok. If everybody is required to be hetero, then no gay can enlist or he'll have to lie by his own choice.