Thoughts On Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1) Under DADT, gays had to choose between coming out, or serving in the military. They could not do both. By repealing dadt, gays can come out and serve, so it stands to reason (to me) that more will enlist. Furthermore, today, if a soldier comes out, they are discharged. After dadt is repealed, coming out won't be grounds for discharge. Given those realities, how can we NOT expect more gays in the military..

Again, there wasn't a problem w/ them being there before so who cares if more enlist...as long as they are capable of doing the job, welcome aboard.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(2) as far as changing the current reality. Under dadt, gays in the military cannot come out. Therefore, no one knows they are gay, and they cannot act gay, so all of the hypothetical problems I proposed are eliminated. Without dadt, gays can "be gay", and therefore all of my hypotheticals become more relevent.

How does one "Act Gay"...more Show Tunes in the Barracks?....pinup posters of Judy Garland? Navy changes there song from Anchors Aweigh to In The Navy by the Village People?

I really don't think anything will change....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Again, there wasn't a problem w/ them being there before so who cares if more enlist...as long as they are capable of doing the job, welcome aboard.



How does one "Act Gay"...more Show Tunes in the Barracks?....pinup posters of Judy Garland? Navy changes there song from Anchors Aweigh to In The Navy by the Village People?

I really don't think anything will change....

Dad, you're all over the place, and coming across as someone who won't admit he might be wrong.

First, you said no more would enlist. Now, you're saying who cares if more enlist, because they're already there.

You don't know what "act gay" means? Really? Under dadt, gays have to conceal the fact they are gay, and therefore, NO ONE KNOWS THEY ARE GAY. If you repeal dadt, then 2 generals could dance cheek to cheek at a military ball doing the tango, and tongue kiss, announcing their love to all the world.

If you repeal DADT, gays can come out, announce they are gay, and then, everyone knows they are gay.

If you don't see those 2 things as different (having to hide your gayness and being openly gay) we have nothing more to discuss. You keep dodging my points, and I keep re-stating them, and you keep dodging. It gets tiresome.

[Fly Rod]

Marine Corp has ordered all Marines to be issued aluminum pie plates as standard combat gear to be used to protect backside when in close proximity to another Marine. And mandatory compliance to start using soap on a rope.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Dad, you're all over the place, and coming across as someone who won't admit he might be wrong..

This is why I love the Political forum soooooo much. I love the fact that this thread was started by asking what people's "thoughts" were on a subject....and escalated to me not being able to admit I'm wrong and being "All Over the Place" .

Trust Me...I've been married 20 years....I've mastered the art of admitting that I'm wrong....

I see "thoughts" as being opinions, and as far as I knew sombody's opinion is never wrong....facts are wrong...but not opinions. I gave my opinion...and I stand by it, I have no issue w/ gays serving in the military...period. My Opinion...don't care if you don't like it....I'm not changing it.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

First, you said no more would enlist. Now, you're saying who cares if more enlist, because they're already there..

I thought I was pretty consistent on my stand, where did I contradict myself in this thread...I'm not seeing it. I never said no more would enlist, I did say I don't have a problem if more want to serve their country...not denying that. And again it is pretty consistent w/ my stand on the issue.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If you don't see those 2 things as different (having to hide your gayness and being openly gay) we have nothing more to discuss. .

I guess we don't....and I'm OK w/ that

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You keep dodging my points, and I keep re-stating them, and you keep dodging. It gets tiresome.

I don't think I dodged anything...I answered what I thought was correct to me.....I don't know what more you want me to say...Repealing DADT doesn't bother me...

A Lot of things in this forum get "Tiresome".....but its like a train wreck I guess because I keep coming back to poke around...shame on me

[RIJIMMY]

Im getting lost here, are we talking golden showers?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Or I could be wrong and its already happening...

[scottw]

well, Barry signed it...good riddance to another horrible George W. Bush policy...heh...heh

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by scottw

well, Barry signed it...good riddance to another horrible George W. Bush policy...heh...heh

How was it a George W Bush policy ?
He wasn't president in 1993, Clinton was.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

How was it a George W Bush policy ?
He wasn't president in 1993, Clinton was.

I was being sarcastic...

[Piscator]

OK, I've been on the side lined reading this thread so I asked a good friend of mine who is in the Marine Corps about this. His response: "I was in a fox hole one time overnight and it was really cold. We huddled together to stay warm and used each others body heat basically by spooning to stay warm. The last thing I would want on my mind in that situation is if the guy in back of me was going to pop a woody". That is a true story and the answer he gave me. I'm not saying they shouldn't serve and to be honest, since I was never in the military, I don't even think I should have an opinion on it since the military knows better than civilians what impact this has. They are the ones who should decide. I feel that if it compromises moral or effectiveness the answer should be no. It's lives on the line that needs to be thought about, not inclusioon and making everyone happy. Let the military decide, give each soldier a vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

A few other countries have handled this in their military and have openly gay people serving. It can be done. However, I am not so sure those other countries have the Politically Correct Police who could give a rat's buttocks about military effectiveness pulling the puppet strings.

I want the military of my country to be made up of warriors, scholars, and warrior scholars.

I do not want it to be made of nor directed by progressive thought police allocating based on race/religion/socio-economic background, and now sexual persuasion.

[The Dad Fisherman]

I'd like to think the military isn't driven by the PC Pissants.......I'd like to think a quick "Put that friggin thing away before I slug you" would suffice.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I'd like to think the military isn't driven by the PC Pissants.......I'd like to think a quick "Put that friggin thing away before I slug you" would suffice.

I'd like to think that too, unfortunately it doesn't seem like that from some of what I have read attributed to Gates, Mullen, Roughhead, etc...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I'd like to think the military isn't driven by the PC Pissants.......I'd like to think a quick "Put that friggin thing away before I slug you" would suffice.

If it wasn't for liberal politically correct bullsh*t, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have no huge problem with homosexuality. My guess is it's not a choice, but something you're born with (not many people would voluntarily choose a path thatr's so challenging and difficult). When I look at my wife, an involuntary biochemical reaction takes place. I can't help it, and I didn't choose it. It just is.

Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society.

I've also been in combat. And as an officer, I've had to order my guys to do some very dangerous things. When an officer is deciding who goes first through a door to clear a house, his men better not have reason to believe that the officer's decisions about who does what, are influenced by feelings of affection. If that happens, even if the men think it's happening, the unit cannot operrate in combat. It just can't. If my wife was under my command (let's say we were secretly married), there is simply no way I could be expected to order her into harm's way.

In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest.

All things considered the number of gay service men and women is still pretty small. I'd think the leadership capabilities of a professional military should be able to handle this pretty easily. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other countries, the vast majority of which allow gays to serve openly.

I was never a fan of DADT, I thought that was too tolerant. In my opinion, military combat units are not good places for politically correct social engineering.

Social engineering has nothing to do with it. Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are. To be honest, the idea I had to trust someone who I thought might hiding something big might do a lot to erode unity of the team as well.

Social engineering is a talking point used by the religious right to push the idea of a gay lifestyle by choice.

You can't do anything that disrupts the chain of command, you just can't. If an officer orders a private to take a hill, that private has the right to know that his selection was not even remotely based upon sexual affection, regardless of whether the affection is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

Granted, I don't have your real world experience, but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time. People know who the favorites are...

The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare, and this coming to a head in a combat situation must be even more rare. A professional has the responsibility to remove themselves from the situation, and you don't set such a discriminatory policy based on something that's so unlikely to happen.

I certainly can see people uncomfortable with the shower situation...but they'll get over it. Remember, they're already showering with them now. It's quite insulting to say someone else needs to change because they offend you.

Repealing DADT was the right thing to do, and I applaud those like Scott Brown who didn't let the party politics influence their decision.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society.


In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest.

All things considered the number of gay service men and women is still pretty small. I'd think the leadership capabilities of a professional military should be able to handle this pretty easily. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other countries, the vast majority of which allow gays to serve openly.


Social engineering has nothing to do with it. Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are. To be honest, the idea I had to trust someone who I thought might hiding something big might do a lot to erode unity of the team as well.

Social engineering is a talking point used by the religious right to push the idea of a gay lifestyle by choice.


Granted, I don't have your real world experience, but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time. People know who the favorites are...

The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare, and this coming to a head in a combat situation must be even more rare. A professional has the responsibility to remove themselves from the situation, and you don't set such a discriminatory policy based on something that's so unlikely to happen.

I certainly can see people uncomfortable with the shower situation...but they'll get over it. Remember, they're already showering with them now. It's quite insulting to say someone else needs to change because they offend you.

Repealing DADT was the right thing to do, and I applaud those like Scott Brown who didn't let the party politics influence their decision.

-spence

Spence -

"Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society."

Every single military argument against repealing dadat that I have ever heard, is based on the concern that morale would be harmed. For you to suggest otherwise shows you aren't really grounded in the facts. You just label everyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe. Your rants are unbelievably consistent, unoriginal, predictable, and boring.

"In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest."

Irrelevent. In the business world, gays go home at the end of the day to their partners. In the military, you live 24/7 for MONTHS AT A TIME with the guys you work with. Again, you ignore the facfs that matter because those don't serve your agenda, and insert irrelevent meaningless facts that support your argument. That tactic would get any freshman debate student a richly deserved "F".

"Social engineering has nothing to do with it."

No?? Then please tell me why we're having this debate. Enlighten me.

"Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are."

I'd love to know, LOVE TO KNOW, what you base that on. Again, you invent supporting arguments. It must be so convenient to support an agenda when you permit yourself to invent fictitious supporting arguments as you go along.

"but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time."

And possibly at the cost of who-knows-how-many lives. That may be a price you're willing to pay for political correctness. Not me.

"The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare,"

Ask the National Organization for Women if problems with women in the military have been "rare".

Just one time Spence, try getting the facts FIRST and then making your decision, not the other way around...

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

Can you do somehting for me? As pointed out by Scott W (brilliantly, I might add), can you explain an apparent flaw in liberal ideology?

(1) on the issue of birth control, the liberal ideology suggests that abstinence programs are a waste of time. Their theory is that you can't stop people from having sex, so learning safe sex is better than preaching abstinence. That argument only makes sense if you concede that people cannot withhold from having sex.

(2) on the issue of gays in the military, all of a sudden liberals change their tune, and suggest that gays won't be a problem, because they can put their sexual impulses on hold. In the military, you might be deployed for over a year, where the only folks you see are the guys you work with, 24 nhours a day.

So where does the ability to control one's sexual impulses come from? Do liberals feel that only homosexuals have the ability to control their sexual impulses? Or can it be that liberal ideology has no logic at its core?

I'm tired, I have a cold, and my one year old has been puking on me all day. Sorry, I'm tired and cranky.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1) on the issue of birth control, the liberal ideology suggests that abstinence programs are a waste of time. Their theory is that you can't stop people from having sex, so learning safe sex is better than preaching abstinence. That argument only makes sense if you concede that people cannot withhold from having sex.

Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard.

(2) on the issue of gays in the military, all of a sudden liberals change their tune, and suggest that gays won't be a problem, because they can put their sexual impulses on hold. In the military, you might be deployed for over a year, where the only folks you see are the guys you work with, 24 nhours a day.

So where does the ability to control one's sexual impulses come from? Do liberals feel that only homosexuals have the ability to control their sexual impulses? Or can it be that liberal ideology has no logic at its core?

In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard.



In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?

Likwid -

"Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard."

Like all liberals, you completely dodged my question, which was explaining the obvious contradiction in liberal ideology about whether or not people can refrain from sexual activity. You dodged like the intellectual coward you are, and asked me a different question. But that's OK, because I can handle that one.

When it comes to preventing STD's and unplanned pregnancies, abstinence is the only method that is guaranteed to be 100% effective. Many recent studies show that abstinence education probrams reduce casual sexual activity.

Let's look at the liberal approach to this problem, which is to tell folks it's OK to have casual sex, as long as you're careful. That argument surfaced in the 1960's during the sexual revolution. Liberals argued that if birth control was readily available to everyone, that would lead to a reduction in unplanned pregnancies, abortions, and STD's.

Well, the liberals got what they wanted. Birth control is readily available. And what happened was a huge INCREASE in unplanned pregnancies, kids born out of wedlock, abortions, STD's, adultery, and divorce.

Well done, liberals...kudos to you all...

"In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?"

For the hundredth time...if a gay officer tells a private to take a hill, if that private has any inkling that his selection was influenced by his commander's sexuality (regardless of whether or not the private has a good reason to be concerned) than you can't function in combat.

Yes, you have a job to do. The majority of people who have some experience in combat, feel that openly homosexual people have a harder time doing that job effectively. Why do you suppose that 65% of servicemen who serve in combat units are opposed to repealing DADT? Are we all homophobic bigots, every single one of us?

I responded directly to your points. Maybe you can try to show me the same courtesy, and answer the question that I was asking.

P.S. Dont worry, we all know why you didn't answer, because you can't. There is no explanation for why liberals claim abstinence doesn't work (based upon the belief that you can't stop people from having sex), yet those same liberals claim that homosexuals can put their sexuality aside while serving in combat. There is simply no earthly way to reconcile those two positions. So you dodged and asked me what you thought was a "gotcha" question.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Every single military argument against repealing dadat that I have ever heard, is based on the concern that morale would be harmed. For you to suggest otherwise shows you aren't really grounded in the facts. You just label everyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe. Your rants are unbelievably consistent, unoriginal, predictable, and boring.

The facts indicate that 70% of Americans support the repeal.

The facts are that the military's own assessment of repealing DADT is that it's low risk.

The facts are that the Pentagon's own study of the issue found that it wouldn't harm troop moral.

Irrelevent. In the business world, gays go home at the end of the day to their partners. In the military, you live 24/7 for MONTHS AT A TIME with the guys you work with. Again, you ignore the facfs that matter because those don't serve your agenda, and insert irrelevent meaningless facts that support your argument. That tactic would get any freshman debate student a richly deserved "F".

It's called drawing a parallel.

No?? Then please tell me why we're having this debate. Enlighten me.

Because it's a politically charged wedge issue.

I'd love to know, LOVE TO KNOW, what you base that on. Again, you invent supporting arguments. It must be so convenient to support an agenda when you permit yourself to invent fictitious supporting arguments as you go along.

I believe I said "I'd wager" as in I'd be willing to take that bet. This is my opinion based on my conversations with past/present service members and what I've gathered in interviews with service personnel.

And possibly at the cost of who-knows-how-many lives. That may be a price you're willing to pay for political correctness. Not me.

I'll defer to someone with military experience on this...

Admiral Mullen: “My personal opinion is now my professional view, that this is a policy change that we can make in a relatively low-risk fashion ... given time and strong leadership.”

Ask the National Organization for Women if problems with women in the military have been "rare".

This is making the assumption that homosexual harassment has the same rates as heterosexual harassment. And even that being said, are you proposing we should ban women from serving? If not then what's the point?

Just one time Spence, try getting the facts FIRST and then making your decision, not the other way around...

The facts here seem to overwhelming support lifting the ban, which is a natural progression of shifting attitudes in the public at large. If you read my old posts on the subject you'll see that I've consistently called for a repeal of DADT, with the assumption that the military leadership is given the opportunity to mitigate any disruption they believe to be a potential risk to ongoing activities. It looks as though this is exactly what is being advocated by the Pentagon, the Sec Def and what's going to happen.

Your issue Chris is that you can't seem to have a conversation with people as they really are, rather, you need to project your liberal stereotypes upon them to make your talking points fit.

-spence

[scottw]

we all know about Spence's "facts"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The facts indicate that 70% of Americans support the repeal.

The facts are that the military's own assessment of repealing DADT is that it's low risk.

The facts are that the Pentagon's own study of the issue found that it wouldn't harm troop moral.



It's called drawing a parallel.



Because it's a politically charged wedge issue.


I believe I said "I'd wager" as in I'd be willing to take that bet. This is my opinion based on my conversations with past/present service members and what I've gathered in interviews with service personnel.


I'll defer to someone with military experience on this...

Admiral Mullen: “My personal opinion is now my professional view, that this is a policy change that we can make in a relatively low-risk fashion ... given time and strong leadership.”


This is making the assumption that homosexual harassment has the same rates as heterosexual harassment. And even that being said, are you proposing we should ban women from serving? If not then what's the point?



The facts here seem to overwhelming support lifting the ban, which is a natural progression of shifting attitudes in the public at large. If you read my old posts on the subject you'll see that I've consistently called for a repeal of DADT, with the assumption that the military leadership is given the opportunity to mitigate any disruption they believe to be a potential risk to ongoing activities. It looks as though this is exactly what is being advocated by the Pentagon, the Sec Def and what's going to happen.

Your issue Chris is that you can't seem to have a conversation with people as they really are, rather, you need to project your liberal stereotypes upon them to make your talking points fit.

-spence

Spence, the Sec Defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs want to repeal DADT. And like you said, most Americans want it repealed.

You left out one tiny fact. Every poll taken of servicemen who are serving in combat shows that a vast majority don't want to overturn DADT.

So you say you'll let the military decide? It sounds like you only listen to the military folk who agree with you, and you're ignoring the guys who will be most impacted.

[Jim in CT]

Mhy take on DADT is this, by the way...if a huge majority of combat troops are OK with it, and only a few homophobes are opposed, then I say repeal DADT and letthe military deal with the few bigots.

But that's not the case. Every poll I've seen shows that if you ask guys who are serving in combat commands, 65% want to leave DADT in place. Those are the guys putting their necks on the line, so I would choose to defer to them.

[RIJIMMY]

god I cant even keep up with all this!
Seriously, all this is leading to undue stress, lets give it a holiday rest. lets be happy we have men, woman who will give their lives for our freedom. lets enjoy that freedom by celebrating with the people we love, drinking, laughing and celebrating. Next year will be sure to throw some major life changing situtuations at us. Lets give it a rest. You'll be happier for teh short term

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

god I cant even keep up with all this!
Seriously, all this is leading to undue stress, lets give it a holiday rest. lets be happy we have men, woman who will give their lives for our freedom. lets enjoy that freedom by celebrating with the people we love, drinking, laughing and celebrating. Next year will be sure to throw some major life changing situtuations at us. Lets give it a rest. You'll be happier for teh short term

Great idea! Although rest assured, I'm laughing plenty over here.

The troubling thing is, I believe deep-down we all want what's best for our country, we all want the best possible future for our kids. But when our opinions are so diametrically opposed on such vital issues, I don't know how to solve that?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Maybe the Issue is White Heterosexual Males......

Woman in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's want to bang'em....

Gays in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's are afraid they might get banged.

The Woman and The Gays together in combat..hmmmmm no issues...except for some coffee talk and fashion tips....there's the answer.




***This was just a joke....Don't read too much into it***

[mosholu]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Maybe the Issue is White Heterosexual Males......

Woman in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's want to bang'em....

Gays in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's are afraid they might get banged.

The Woman and The Gays together in combat..hmmmmm no issues...except for some coffee talk and fashion tips....there's the answer.






***This was just a joke....Don't read too much into it***

Reminds me of the joke about women in combat:
If we lost, so what you beat a bunch of girls; if we win our girls beat you. You can't lose either way. (Dad's disclaimer incorporated by reference.)

[Piscator]

I also don't think Isreal has a voluntary Military like ours but I could be wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

I agree they have no margin for error I guess what I was trying to say is would they really be that good of a Military if they didn't have US aid and that is why I didn't think it was a good comparison.
Since they do have a draft, it may be needed to include openly gay soldiers, if they didn't let them enter, it would be an easy way out for someone who didn't want get drafted.
Like I said earlier, I'm not sure what the right answer is, I think the Military (and not just those at the very top) should be the ones who decide. As I stated earlier a good Marine friend of mine strongly feels it would hurt moral and take focus away from soldiers. His is just one opinion. I hope it works out and does no harm. Check back with you guys after Christmas. Going to spend time away from the computer the next few days. Merry Christmas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

I agree they have no margin for error I guess what I was trying to say is would they really be that good of a Military if they didn't have US aid and that is why I didn't think it was a good comparison.

I still don't think this has anything to do with it. Sure the US provides monetary aid (and political cover in the UN) but this is no substitute for leadership, training and a very tough minded attitude.

-spence