Don't ask don't tell

[Dabs]

I agree with Hiei....what business is it of anybody's, if a person..soldier, is gay or not??
He/she is serving our country, protecting our ass......and I'm quite sure they didn't join the military to find people to fuck in the ass!
Leave'm alone....let them do the job they are there to do.

 

[Wade8813]

I understand how it could make soldiers uncomfortable. They often have to live in very close quarters - sometimes it's not uncommon to have to sleep next to other guys, and shower within a couple feet of them.

That said, the harm DADT causes is definitely a problem. This isn't just a matter of people not saying they're gay. If they do anything that gives someone probable cause to believe they're gay, then they can face repercussions. That includes cases where they're victims of harassment - if they report it, they risk being outed, and getting in trouble.

Admittedly, a lot of the problem isn't entirely with the rule, but with commanders who are idiots and railroad their soldiers.

 

[MAgnum9987]

I think its completely ridiculous that the military even asks sexual preference. It has absolutely no relevence in combat. If you survive basic with a gay guy, a soldier should be able to handle sharing quarters and foxholes with one.

 

[Raos]

I think its completely ridiculous that the military even asks sexual preference.

They don't. That is the "Don't Ask" part of the policy.

 

[CaptainObvious]

The thing is we're not talking about someone working in the next office or cubicle but a combat unit that has to act as one. It's the kind of cooperation and teamwork and trust most of us never experience. While on its face I disagree with it I think it should be left to the military.

 

[Unity]

Military leaders have presented their opinion that it should be repealed, and that wasn't good enough. They have conducted a study with soldiers, who said that they'd be good with it being repealed, and that wasn't good enough.

Legislators are being ridiculous. Just one example: On the campaign trail in 2008, Sen. John McCain had said that he would be fine with repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell if military authorities did say that they were in favor. Now, when they did, he said no and that he'd need to see a study. They conducted one and provided the results that I mentioned above (on solider opinions). Guess what? He said no again.

Don't Ask Don't Tell is simply discrimination, in the guise of other people's "comfort." The people uncomfortable with the lesbian and gay population serving in the military are usually going on religious opinions, which shouldn't affect how the military is run in the United States, a society that is supposed to be secular by nature, with a separation of Church and State.

 

[Smelnick]

Some people are uncomfortable with being with someone who is gay. It may not be right, and you may not agree that people should feel that way, but it's the kind of discomfort that can tear a unit apart and it still happens. If you were gay, would you want to risk having your unit know about it, and then at some point in time, you're life lies in the hands of the one guy who doesn't like gays? The success of the mission could depend on him helping you, and he may choose not to because of his prejudice. This prolly isn't something that happens often, but similiar situations of lesser, but still important consequences may happen, and I'm sure the military's motive behind DADT is something of this nature. As long as there is still prejudice against people of differing sexual orientation, the less people that know in a unit or squad, the better unity there can be.

 

[PretzelCorps]

I really don't think repealing it is actually going to make any difference at all. It's not like if they get rid of it, the gays are going to dance around the showers, whipping all the other guys in their ass with a wet towel; you're still expected to be a professional, and there are still laws against sexual harassment. Gays are still subject to the same level of discipline as everyone else.

I do agree that the final decision should rest with the military brass; at the moment, it doesn't.

 

[Raos]

Some people are uncomfortable with being with someone who is gay. It may not be right, and you may not agree that people should feel that way, but it's the kind of discomfort that can tear a unit apart and it still happens. If you were gay, would you want to risk having your unit know about it, and then at some point in time, you're life lies in the hands of the one guy who doesn't like gays? The success of the mission could depend on him helping you, and he may choose not to because of his prejudice. This prolly isn't something that happens often, but similiar situations of lesser, but still important consequences may happen, and I'm sure the military's motive behind DADT is something of this nature. As long as there is still prejudice against people of differing sexual orientation, the less people that know in a unit or squad, the better unity there can be.

You could replace the word gay with the word black or Jew or any number of other things and it would be the same. Would anyone stand for a policy like that about black people or Jews? It is discrimination plain and simple.

 

[Smelnick]

I'm not saying that it's not discrimination. I'm merely saying that if they decided to keep DADT, that it's not just them being discriminatory, I also think they have some form of logic behind it as well. I'm all for repealing that system, but I think society needs to grow up a little before repealing it can succeed smoothly.