Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell

Does anyone here think that it's a bad idea? Anyone ever heard of a bad military experience that involved a person being openly gay? Trying to figure out why there is so much oposition.

The way I see it, as long as at the end of the day the military still takes the approach of "I am simply part of a unit, not an individual here," then it should have no change.

Adhering to the military mindset can be done by a homosexual; the question is, in an environment that isn't about civil rights, where are we hearing civil rights cases?

Well Obama is Commander in Chief and he doesn't like DADT. I can see how its a problem for soldiers living on base who woudl like to live with their gay partner. I have a hard time believing that being gay makes your unit less effective.

Edit: I do know some gay guys who are way too touchy and they get the ***beat out of them.

Maybe I don't fully understand what it means since I no ***about the Canadian military and even less about the US'. But what is defined as openly gay? Having sex with other men where everyone can see? And if so, wouldn't it be just as frowned upon to do that with a women?

Again, I don't fully understand it, and am willing to be enlightened as to why I'm way off the mark.

I just personally think that there shouldn't be any inter-personnel relationships while in any armed forced. At least while not in privacy. Maybe I'm just a jerk, but the way I see it is that there are far greater things to worry about while in uniform than if you can make out with someone, and that relationships between personnel can only be a hindrance in times of high stress.

lol

doesn't matter if you take it up the *** as long you kill the enemy with extreme prejudice. I bet a gay man can take out targets with a military-issued assault rifle just like an other straight man can.

Basically, what KFH said.

What I'm getting at is, there shouldn't even be need for debate. Just get your ***down and fire at the enemy.

I actually do want to know the reasons but I can't find the military's case briefing.

As far as I understand it, DADT means that any person serving in the armed forces who inquires about another soldier being a homosexual or expresses a homosexual orientation to another soldier, can be discharged.

These days, the military needs to be happy with whoever they can get. No way in hell I'm volunteering to possibly die for people who don't appreciate me.

Ah maybe I don't see the issue, but I'm gay and I don't go up to cute guys and ask if are gay or not. I didn't think it was proper social etiquette anywhere.

Pretty much this.

People exploiting the system? I've never heard of that.

Thanks, I'll edit my post. I recall hearing horror stories of people being dishonorably discharged for it in extreme circumstances. However, I'm not particularly well read on the topic in general. :)

I think that I need to say this first, because "my side" is often misunderstood, and many of them are idiots: I really don't care about someone's sexuality in almost every case. If you're not hurting anyone, and you are happy that's GREAT.

That being said, the military environment, to me, is different. I spent about eight years in, and I've only come across two homosexual people, one male and one female (if anyone cares,) both of whom were discharged. One didn't "do" anything to cause it except let it be known, the other, several times solicited... liaisons, I guess, from other service members and was often and increasingly disciplined for it. (Would have be harassment anyway.) Ok, enough about me and my background.

There are many many differences between civilian and military life. But the question of homosexuals serving in the military, to me, focuses most on combat and closely related operations. Trying to describe life under those conditions is difficult. You can get a good idea of actual events from movies and news, but it's impossible to relate the complex and varied range of very powerful emotions and stresses that come along with that. Because arriving at the "place" (emotional) happens only after a long series of increasingly powerful stresses, begin with initial training. You can think of it like a professional athlete. You or I could work out and exercise as often, but the fact that the pro athletes have been doing it their entire lives makes them very different.

So now, you are living, 24 hours a day with that kind of stress. What's more, personal conveniences, like ANY kind of privacy, are nothing more than memories for months at a time. When closely packed people, under high amounts of stress and hardship remain together for long periods of time, there is often a lot of internal conflict and fighting. Serious fighting. The goal, then, is to alleviate as many additional sources of stress as possible. Now, for the most part, these people are very similar - if not race or religion, then by the forces that brought them together. One thing that can separate someone out is their sexuality. (Also bear in mind that this isn't a dinner party, this is very rough work.)

Now, people will tell you that it's wrong to be uncomfortable in places like locker rooms and public restrooms with homosexual people. Maybe it is, but people still are. Personally, I think that the separation of genders like that has MUCH more to do with sexuality than it does biology. And while I would hope that people can make it through changing after working out, I can absolutely understand people becoming extremely uncomfortable in those conditions, non stop, for weeks or months on end.

In short, imagine having to live, all day, everyday, with members of the opposite sex, with absolutely no privacy. PS, you're thousands of miles from home, have very little comforts, and could die any time.

That's why I think it's bad.

Can gay people run, jump, swim? Same as anyone else.
Can they follow orders, give orders, and generate plans of action? Same as anyone else.
Can they fire weapons and operate military equipment? Same as anyone else.

But, do the have the potential to cause a disproportionate amount of stress (based on %age of homosexual people) that can lead to unnecessary death? I think so.

I hope his was clear... trying to voice thoughts on a complicated matter while simultaneously working si tough. Please understand that in no way did I mean to offend anyone.

So... that's my thoughts.

Saying TLDR and writing a whole other paragraph doesn't really work :/
not that I disagree with everything you say though :/
I think the main problem with don't ask don't tell is the fact that heterosexual males and females still have the ability to speak about their significant other without thoughts of being disciplined while homosexuals are.
I can see how it would be considered an issue on both sides of the fence and there isn't any really good answer past some sort of segregation which is wrong in and of itself.
I'd say as long as they are being a soldier it should be fine either way...unfortunately it hasn't been so.

@Terminus: I think you're reasoning is sound. From what I've read, the points you've made are some of the reasons for the implementation of DADT. Another argument I've heard revolves around safety (something you hinted at, but didn't really come out and say). There is a potential threat that, under stress, some soldiers will lash out against those who make them uncomfortable. Homosexuals, unfortunately, make easy targets for such people (as sexuality is a very touchy subject[no pun intended >.>]).

Not that homosexuals are all 'nancy-boys' who can't defend themselves, but any infighting among troops is bad for the overall strength of the military.


This is the primary issue for homosexuals. The rule specifically singles them out, which is simply not OK. American gay-rights groups are pushing for tolerance, the existence of DADT is contrary to their agenda.

So, is tolerance within a "free nation" more important than theoretically reinforcing the strength of its military might?

There are always gonna be people who dont appreciate you and what you do for them. And you dont have to volunteer, we'll just draft your *** :)

I still don't see the issue. Gay men in the military should be well aware of this rule so if they want to serve maybe they shouldn't be open about it? It really isn't relevant as you aren't going to get laid anyways.

Also maybe learn a little self control, I don't pop a hard on from seeing a naked guy, I don't see how they can. I'd have no issue hiding the fact I'm gay and serving in the military, if I really wanted to serve in the military.

Maybe I'm just a simple man.

Sorry. Edited, just for you. But yeah, segregation IS a pretty stupid answer. I wish I had an answer, and preferably one where anyone who is able, can, serve.

Republicans don't want gay men in the military because they believe that being gay is immoral and wrong. They believe that gay men will taint the very moral fabric of an army that represents the USA.

Okay, all hetero men may not look at pictures of naked women and they must not speak of their "girls" back home, see how well that goes.
Their families and relationships shouldn't be relevant since they aren't going to get laid in Afghanistan right? We might as well also just make them emotionless machines while we're at it right? You can't bond with your team without sharing ***like that man, so that isolates anyone homosexual off the bat, it's rather than the typical unwritten prejudiced a written form of prejudice.
You gonna ban every black male from eating and or speaking of fried chicken even if you've never seen them eat it before?
Essentially that's the same thing really :/
That being said, I love fried chicken.

"The basic idea behind DADT is that some military personnel are uncomfortable with the fact that gay people might be in their unit and viewing them as sexual objects (even making a pass at them). This discomfort could reduce their COMBAT effectiveness."

Ever heard of the book A Glimpse of Hell? Two gay men, one broken hearted decides to end it and take a lot people with him. And don't hand me that crap about how the Navy got it "wrong", those were my friends who died that day.

Yep. That's it, you hit it right on the head. But hey, you're totally free to discredit yourself as much as you'd like - I'm not here to judge.

I think they should be less worried about em being gay and more worried about people that make a pass at anyone, sexual orientation and gender should be irrelevant :/