Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
they do keep it behind closed doors. but once someone finds out, or sees them somewhere, and allegations are made then an investigation begins.
its not just about keeping it behind closed doors, its about keeping what happens behind closed doors unpunishable. it does not affect the performance of a soldier after all.
the military loses billions of dollars by implementing this policy.
sex in the military happens. gays serve at this moment. most of their peers do not have a problem with it one bit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
YOU may not flaunt anything, but that's because you currently can't. Have you not witnessed the homosexual openness that exists in our society now that didn't exist even 10 years ago? And for some reason you think that such openness won't blossom in the military if DADT is repealed? I disagree.
they do keep it behind closed doors. but once someone finds out, or sees them somewhere, and allegations are made then an investigation begins.
its not just about keeping it behind closed doors, its about keeping what happens behind closed doors unpunishable. it does not affect the performance of a soldier after all.
the military loses billions of dollars by implementing this policy.
sex in the military happens. gays serve at this moment. most of their peers do not have a problem with it one bit!
You are absolutely right, sex in the military does happen but it shouldn't happen on the base, it should happen on their weekends off. The problem here IMO is that it's an argument that pits reality vs idealism. Ideally, everyone on the base would be open and accepting to the homosexual lifestyle. Ideally, sex wouldn't be allowed on the base, it would be strictly about training, but that's not realistic is it. The truth of the matter is, you have pretty much everyone in America represented on a relatively small base. Everyone has different backgrounds and beliefs. In the macho world of being a soldier, most straight men, are just plain uncomfortable around gay men. Sure, they can go to chow with them and maybe hang out with them on leave, but if you've ever been on a military base you'd realize that there's no privacy. So the average straight man would be extremely uncomfortable showering with a gay man. That's the reality.
In my opinion, the don't ask don't tell policy protects them. What's the difference between a straight man and gay man showering together, than a man and a woman. Not every man is attracted to every woman, but we don't subject women to it, so why do it to the men (and women!!). This is a very slippery slope and I wonder if the people who are fighting for it, have thought about where it leads. If don't ask, don't tell is repealled then you have to take the feelings of the soldiers who are uncomfortable with sharing quarters with gay people into consideration. After all, we're talking about sexuality not race. It's a valid reason, so what then? Do you ignore the needs of the majority (straight)? No, the only solution would be to eventually segregate the gay soldiers. Kind of like they do in prison. Is this what they want? Men, Women and Gay?
I agree that gay people should be treated fairly since they bleed the same as everyone else. However, repealing the don't ask, don't tell isn't the solution. I don't know what it is, but I can't help but wonder if the people who are fighting so hard for this have ever even been on a military base.
I never Considered Obama a friend of GLBT community.
It's precisely why I didn't vote for him in '08.
I kept telling my girlfriend not to vote for him but she did.
So the average straight man would be extremely uncomfortable showering with a gay man. That's the reality.
I do understand the shower issue, but is that really a good reason to have unfair rules that allow certain soldiers to talk all about their personal lives and live normally while others are constantly under the threat of being fired if they dare to mention their personal lives?
A shower takes about 3 minutes out of your day. If the hetero guys are such weenies that they're afraid that a gay guy might be looking at them in the shower during those 3 minutes, then the military should build separate shower stalls for gays and straights.
With the millions spent on maintaining Don't Ask Don't Tell, you could build thousands of separate shower stalls and still have money left over.
In my opinion, the don't ask don't tell policy protects them.
How does it protect them? I've heard the argument before, but I'd love to hear your version.
How about this: I think we could protect blacks from discrimination by forcing them to pretend to be white. Oh - and if they slip up and act black, they deserve to be arrested or fired from their jobs.
I don't know what it is, but I can't help but wonder if the people who are fighting so hard for this have ever even been on a military base.
While the issue is a complex one, I can assure you that some people who are fighting for this issue have not only been on a base, but have died or were wounded in battle. .
In fact, one could arguably state that everybody who has ever served, fought and/or died in military service to this nation did so in order to promote the ideals and freedoms for all ("all" includes LGBT Americans unless there was a special clause exempting homosexuals that I missed)that this nation espouses to believe in.
I love how people can look at something and think that it means something else. Has anyone here actually read the DOJ opposition brief? This quote is particularly pertinent to the administration's reasoning:
"Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute. The court was properly 'careful not to substitute [its] judgment of what is desirable for that of Congress, or [its] own evaluation of evidence for a reasonable evaluation by the Legislative Branch.'"
Obama understands that military affairs have been and should remain almost entirely under the purview of the Executive and Legislative branches. He rightfully agrees that the courts should not be meddling in military policy.
He still, however, has every intention to push congress to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell and to allow gay men and women to serve openly in the armed forces. He says so regularly. He just wants to do it the proper way and not undermine his and the congress' authority over the military.
And if this case had been heard, and the appellate court ruling reversed, we'd be hearing chants of "Judicial Activism" from far and wide. Sometimes you just can't win for losing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
I'll simply say this. Don't Ask, Don't Tell hurts no one. Period. If you want to have homosexual sex behind closed doors, so be it. But there is no place in our military for flaunting that lifestyle. The policy is in place to protect, not to provide. Who amongst your peers needs to know that you lust after other men? What good does that do to teamwork and morale? If you don't like it, get out.
Hurts no one? It hurts all of us. It hurts our nation and the entire world, when something that's no one's damn business causes us to lose valuable members of our armed forces, not the least of whom are interpreters who could be helping uncover potential future terrorist plots.
Quote:
[The week of May 4th, 2009], our nation's armed forces suffered another casualty--the loss of 1st Lt. Dan Choi, an Iraq war veteran and a member of the New York National Guard. On March 19, on the Rachel Maddow Show, Choi announced he was gay. That triggered the Army to begin the process of separating Choi from the military under the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Choi is an Arabic linguist--exactly the kind of critically-skilled soldier and leader his infantry platoon needs if they deploy to a country in which Arabic is the common language. Bluntly stated, his dismissal from the military--and the dismissal of other gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) servicemembers--will put lives at risk.
Our national security is heavily dependent on translators, specialists, and interpreters within the intelligence community, the diplomatic corps, and the military. Prior to September 11, 2001 our intelligence community was at only 30 percent readiness in languages critical to national security. The government revealed after the 9/11 attacks that it had a 123,000-hour backlog of Arabic language recordings waiting to be analyzed. The last thing we should be doing is telling Arabic linguists in the military that they are not needed.
How does it protect them? I've heard the argument before, but I'd love to hear your version.
How about this: I think we could protect blacks from discrimination by forcing them to pretend to be white. Oh - and if they slip up and act black, they deserve to be arrested or fired from their jobs.
We're not talking about race here, we're talking about sexuality. I've pretty much stated my reason for saying this. What's your question?
BTW, love the way you had to throw the ole black and gay comparison in there. I tell ya, where would the gay community be without African Americans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
