Don't ask, don't tell

Well, I've got no problem with the jays, jay... is it jay? (High five for whoever gets that reference) serving in the military openly.

Within my community though, as new to it as I am, the concern is more about safety. In that there's doubt now that the man next to you will have your back as much as you have his, and that the man next to you will defend the man next to him as fervently as he'll defend you.

The concern is that homophobes/gay bashers/etc will be less inclined to defend someone who is identified explicitly as homosexual. Thinking that they're less than human or abnormal or whatever it is that they think and thus not worth having the hater risk his life for them.

Of equal concern is that once homosexuals are able to openly identify themselves, then the gay bashers will openly identify themselves in their distrust/hatred of their gay squad and platoon mates.
Following from this, homosexuals won't be as inclined to instinctively and instantaneously have the back of the man who condemns them for being gay.

And if the homophobes and gays hate/don't trust/ignore each other, then there's a break in the unit cohesion.
If you can't fully depend on every single person as you exit the wire, then people are going to die.

Like I said, I don't care what all tickles your pickle. I'm relatively sure that a gay guy can squeeze the trigger and "shoot some assh*le in the head" just as well as I can, if not better. It's really not that hard to do.

But the concern, in my community at least, regarding DADT is about trust and safety of all parties involved. And not about the individual personal identity of the service members.

Regarding personal expression and identity and all that:
Members of the military don't have an individual identity. They don't have the right to freedom of speech and expression. They can't do a whole crap load of stuff that civilians can do to let their little flowers blossom and express themselves to the whole wide world. They forfeited those rights in order to ensure that civilians can have them. Being gay doesn't mean anything, and it shouldn't mean anything.

But it's going to.

Repealing DADT is fantastic for leave and weekends, when you're not wearing the uniform. But it's going to cause trouble, I think, as homosexuality and the military try to find an equilibrium during the work day.

I haven't yet voted. DADT sucked. But repealing it opened a lot of doors through which a ton of positive and negative consequences will come out.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

I think the US gay marriage debate also needs to be brought to the Federal level.

Marriage is not in the domain of the federal government. Never has been, never should be. That being said, gay marriage shouldn't be illegal. Of course neither should polygamy, group marriage, and any other form of marriage between consenting adults of any number, gender, or sexual orientation. Marriage is a state law based on contract law that has nothing to do with love, but just binds people to a set of rights and responsibilities predetermined to be a part of the contract of marriage. The federal government really only has say-so in forcing states to recognize marriages performed in other states.

Now, if you want to argue that the 14th Amendment means the states must allow gay marriage due to equal protection claims, you may be onto something. It is probably the correct argument, but that will have to be decided by the courts or the individual states. And once that argument wins, watch for the polygamist argument to follow the same tack. In the end, who can tell someone they can only love one person. Personally, I am all for whatever. A consenting adult should be able to do whatever they want with any number of other freely consenting adults (short of murdering a willing one of them I should add, even I have limits).

Quote:

Originally posted by Bangledesh

Of equal concern is that once homosexuals are able to openly identify themselves, then the gay bashers will openly identify themselves in their distrust/hatred of their gay squad and platoon mates.
Following from this, homosexuals won't be as inclined to instinctively and instantaneously have the back of the man who condemns them for being gay.

Not trying to sway you either way, but the same argument could have been used (and was by some) to keep blacks and whites separate in the military back in the day. Short-term, it will be a problem. Long-term, not so much.

Bangledesh- Those are some really good points. It's kinda messed up but it actually might benefit a gay person in the military to stay in the closet. Although, I'm sure the first groups of black soldiers had to face their share of prejudice and deal with other soldiers (including officers) who felt they weren't equal. They couldn't hide the fact that they weren't white. Hopefully the greater good of military teamwork and brotherhood can outweigh prejudice. Only time will tell.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

...

Not trying to sway you either way, but the same argument could have been used (and was by some) to keep blacks and whites separate in the military back in the day. Short-term, it will be a problem. Long-term, not so much.

Damn, you must've posted this while I was typing my response.

I'm prior military. 4 years active (Desert Storm) and 5.5 reserves.

I think it's a good thing, I'm glad it passed, and the soldiers will be just fine adapting to it. I'm sure there will be an incident or two just like when blacks were first allowed in, but those people will go to jail and we'll get on with life.

Those that can't cope with the military's new standards should feel free to seek an adaptability discharge.

America is becoming more like "the rest of the world", Hooray!



Oh wait ....... I live here

I agree that it isn't going to be easy at first, but to echo others; it wasn't easy when blacks or women entered the service. I don't think anyone can truly know what's going to happen until we actually see it. Yeah there will be growing pains, there will probably incidents, and hopefully we'll all come away with a better understanding of everyone involved.

@rocknthefreeworld - I don't wanna debate the gay marriage issue here, but I do think it's going to take a federal initiative on some sort of level to get gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Because getting the what remaining 45 states to all pass it is going to be impossible. I don't pretend to know US constitution and US law but if looking at the 14th amendment is what it's going to take, then so be it.

In Canada it was passed on a federal level and then allowed each province some provisions, for example in my province a priest, minister, justice of the peace cannot be made to marry gay couples, meaning if you always wanted to be married in a specific church or by a specific person, but they don't want to do it, then you're out of luck.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

America is becoming more like "the rest of the world", Hooray!



Oh wait ....... I live here

Agreed. Why should we parade up with the rest of the freaking sheep. And are the "Open Homosexuals" going to be held to the same physical standards as their heterosexual counterparts or will they be treated like females in the military and have more lacks physical requirements. Personally, I feel anyone that joins the military should be held to the same standards regardless of sex or sexuality. Also if they were so gun-ho to serve their country why didn't they just join and keep quiet about their sexuality. Its not like heterosexuals in the military have nothing to fear from a sexual stand point, seeing as in the US military all sexual acts outside of the missionary position are punishable by either Non Judicial Punishment or Court Martial.

Again...this repeal has NOTHING to do with the standards of the military changing or what a soldier can or can not do while in uniform. It simply protects gays from being discharged based on their sexuality. If gays have to keep their sexuality a secret in order to serve, then so should straights.

Quote:

Originally posted by BigJon

Also keep in mind that there are a lot of very conservative and pretend conservative people in the US and some of those people have a lot of money and influence. The fact that DADT was repealed is a huge deal. It means that a lot of people had to either open their minds, or get something in return. Tax cuts for the rich, anyone?

Ummm, nobody received a tax cut. The current tax rates will stay the same for everyone for the next two years. At that time, the democrats will try and raise taxes, just as they always do.

And ... How did Obama triple the amount of campaign money that McCain had if only conservatives are rich and influential?

Quote:

Originally posted by BigJon

There was a time when conservatives didn't want to fight side by side with African Americans or women (some still don't).

Wow, you really know a lot about conservatism I see. I'm trying to figure out how lower taxes and personal responsibility ties in with race. I guess I'll just trust that you have looked into everything and concluded that every racist or sexist is a conservative.

I could have sworn Abraham Lincoln was a republican ... I must be wrong. And I thought Woodrow Wilson resegregated the military. He must have been a conservative.

Back to topic ...As far as DADT ... I am a conservative (and no BigJon, I am not a racist, sexist, bigot, rich person, religious nut or anything else you assume conservatives are), and I don't give a flying F*** about it. What ... are they going to have a box to check on the military enlistment application now ... ___ Gay, ___ Straight, ____ Bi? More than likely, any gay guy that enlists will not care about "being open" anyway, nor will they want to stir any possible trouble with their fellow soldiers.

With all of the economic issues facing our country today, it boggles my mind that people even consider these social issues. If anyone during the next election places their vote because of a candidates stance on marriage, abortion, or (my favorite) terrorists at Gitmo ... well, you need to have your head examined.

I could not agree MORE with J-Swiss' first post.

And when Great Britain and Canada are prepared to keep the world safe, maybe, and it's a very remote maybe, virtually impossible in fact, I will change my mind.

I have served in the military and when i was in Gays, lesbians, bi's wasn't accepted. The U.S. has had a drop in it's ball sack over the last 50 years. We used to be a feared super power no one messed with, now we have compromised the very moral fabric that made this country what it was, now we are just obese, lazy, complacent fucks that once someone explains how they feel about something we can automatically associate with it and accept it.
Americans have traded their values to be politically correct and to "fit in" with it's neighbors.
The way it's going with the US and every other country a global government overseeing everyone isn't hard to imagine or far off.
I agree with hornithologist the real issues today are Economic and prosperity not all this diversionary crap that doesn't really meet the jobless rate and or economic recovery, Take the dream act that thankfully didn't pass, now once we get those 10+ million illegal immigrants out of this country, it will free up jobs for taxpaying Americans and that's good for the U.S. and the world because if we don't have jobs who;s gonna buy all your imported crap.

I need to ask an honest question here. Who does it really help to repeal DADT? I think it actually helps the Republicans in the end. Mainly because it removes a wedge issue the Democrats had used for years to hammer the Republicans. With gay marriage falling in courts now, gays become any other voter. And other voters who supported gay rights and voted Democrat due to mainly that may fall into the middle and vote both sides off and on like many Americans. The brutal honesty is that inaction pays the best dividends in politics. The longer you can keep a group thinking the other side has kept them down the longer you have their votes. Once you remove that block, then you get into the "what have you done for me lately" gig and that is a losing battle.


EDIT: And before anybody tries to say something, I voted Bush in 2000 and 2004 and McCain in 2008. I defended Bush in here and still do and think Obama is one of the worst Presidents we have had in my lifetime, down there with Carter and right below Nixon. But I really couldn't care less what somebody does with their private parts as long as it doesn't involve me.

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

...

Ummm, nobody received a tax cut. The current tax rates will stay the same for everyone for the next two years. At that time, the democrats will try and raise taxes, just as they always do.

And ... How did Obama triple the amount of campaign money that McCain had if only conservatives are rich and influential?

...

Wow, you really know a lot about conservatism I see. I'm trying to figure out how lower taxes and personal responsibility ties in with race. I guess I'll just trust that you have looked into everything and concluded that every racist or sexist is a conservative.

I could have sworn Abraham Lincoln was a republican ... I must be wrong. And I thought Woodrow Wilson resegregated the military. He must have been a conservative.

Back to topic ...As far as DADT ... I am a conservative (and no BigJon, I am not a racist, sexist, bigot, rich person, religious nut or anything else you assume conservatives are), and I don't give a flying F*** about it. What ... are they going to have a box to check on the military enlistment application now ... ___ Gay, ___ Straight, ____ Bi? More than likely, any gay guy that enlists will not care about "being open" anyway, nor will they want to stir any possible trouble with their fellow soldiers.

With all of the economic issues facing our country today, it boggles my mind that people even consider these social issues. If anyone during the next election places their vote because of a candidates stance on marriage, abortion, or (my favorite) terrorists at Gitmo ... well, you need to have your head examined.

You did a great job of responding to a lot of things that have little to do with this thread and taking them way off topic. If you would like to discuss those, please just send me a pm.

One thing I will agree with you about is, "More than likely, any gay guy that enlists will not care about "being open" anyway, nor will they want to stir any possible trouble with their fellow soldiers." It goes hand in hand with my main point which was, in a nutshell, "When you've trained and fought next to another person, your respect for that person will be based on their individual actions."

I'm kind of shocked that people are equating homosexuality and the acceptance of homosexuality as a relaxation and abandonment of the "moral fabric" that made America great.

Just because some people are gay doesn't mean that they're deviants and miscreants.

By holding that standard, heterosexuals who have received or given oral sex, or engaged in non-missionary sex are just as socially detrimental as homosexuals. And if you believe that, then like 95% of this website is anathema to your moral dogma.

Gay people won't ruin the military muscle of America. If anything, it's going to be the stagnant and bigoted thinking of some service members that will retard the military's strength and influence around the world as they refuse to work with the queer folk.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bangledesh

Gay people won't ruin the military muscle of America.

OK

Quote:

Originally posted by Bangledesh

If anything, it's going to be the stagnant and bigoted thinking of some service members that will retard the military's strength and influence around the world as they refuse to work with the queer folk.

Wait what, You just said it wouldn't reduce the military muscle, now you're conceding the new policy may retard the military strength because of internal conflict between gays and other servicemen who don't embrace homosexuality? You can't have it both ways, or are you suggesting that we need accept gays, and adopt a new policy of discharging those with more traditional views on homosexuality? That sounds like a plan

I find it funny that everybody blames conservatives(i.e. republicans) for the whole DADT policy but it was democrats that enacted the policy in the first place. As to Bangle's 'bigoted thinking", it has never retarded our military strength in the past when "bigoted thinking" took place when women or minorities were allowed to join the military. Women and minorities have all been serving in the military prior to WW2, a time when our military strength was the most tested and endured.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

...

OK

...

Wait what, You just said it wouldn't reduce the military muscle, now you're conceding the new policy may retard the military strength because of internal conflict between gays and other servicemen who don't embrace homosexuality? You can't have it both ways, or are you suggesting that we need accept gays, and adopt a new policy of discharging those with more traditional views on homosexuality? That sounds like a plan

I said that gay people won't ruin the military, as some suggest.
They're not going to dance around during patrols and worry about chipping their nails instead of watching the wire.
Pay attention, sucka.

I'm not suggesting anything.