DADT repealed

[Fubar]

The Senate voted 65-31 to repeal the 17 year old, and controversial, "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy today. Since the House already passed it, the last step is for the President to sign it.

As ex-military, I am personally glad to see this happen though I can understand if others are less than pleased. Thoughts (within the rules of course )?

[Mike]

I'm a retired military officer, and I think it was the right thing to do. It always struck me as an extraneous factor that had nothing to do with one's ability to perform.

[GrayNFast]

Others may disagree, but, still right thing to do. Anybody willing to fight and die for the country should be allowed to do so.

 

Retired military here also.

[Bud]

Should have been done long ago.

 

 

[Roadwolf]

It is about time if I say so myself. I think that we will look back on this much the same way that we look at the integration of the U.S. military back in 1947 and wonder why we did not do it earlier. The right thing to do then and now.

 

Not a veteran, but a Navy brat whose dad served 23 years. I am sure he would agree with this as well if he were still alive.

[upflying]

My son is active duty. He and his squadron have concerns and reservations about it. He thinks it may cause problems in deployed areas with open latrines and bathing. He feels this is a personnel policy issue that should be decided by the military for the military.

My rhetorical question of the day.

How will transgender soldiers be accommodated?

[David]

I think it's great and overdue.

[marcopolo]

The Canadian military, like most if not all NATO nations, adopted this policy some time ago. It was pretty much a non-issue then, and remains so today. It's worth noting that the U.S. military operates side by side with allies with this policy. For example, Canadian troops based in Kandahar, Afghanistan have fought alongside American soldiers for a number of years, and that includes Special Forces on joint operations, and American combat units have, and still do, operate under Canadian command in some cases. I haven't heard of any issues. That said, one has to acknowledge that the U.S. is noticeably more socially conservative, at least in some areas, than many of its NATO allies. I spent 10 years in the army way back when (before gays were openly accepted in the military). It would not have bothered me one bit to have served with people who were openly gay. I then spent another three decades in the Defence department as a civilian. I never once heard of this being an issue with the many military I worked with over the years. I suspect it will be much the same story in the U.S. military.

[Bob Palin]

My son is active duty. He and his squadron have concerns and reservations about it. He thinks it may cause problems in deployed areas with open latrines and bathing.

That's ridiculous - are the gay people not gay just because they haven't told anybody?

 

He feels this is a personnel policy issue that should be decided by the military for the military.

The military is part of the government and has no business discriminating against its citizens.

[Whip]

My son is active duty. He and his squadron have concerns and reservations about it. He thinks it may cause problems in deployed areas with open latrines and bathing.

That's ridiculous - are the gay people not gay just because they haven't told anybody?

 

He feels this is a personnel policy issue that should be decided by the military for the military.

The military is part of the government and has no business discriminating against its citizens.

 

Bob, Why you wanna start a food fight?

 

This thread was heading down the, be nice track and you go throwin rotten apples.

 

 

Relax....

 

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

Overdue. Much else the G should be tending to.

[upflying]

My son is active duty. He and his squadron have concerns and reservations about it. He thinks it may cause problems in deployed areas with open latrines and bathing.

That's ridiculous - are the gay people not gay just because they haven't told anybody?

 

He feels this is a personnel policy issue that should be decided by the military for the military.

The military is part of the government and has no business discriminating against its citizens.

So exactly what does a gay person look like if they haven't told anyone?

[Bob Palin]

So exactly what does a gay person look like if they haven't told anyone?

I don't understand the question? What does it matter what they look like?

[Jacqueline]

My son is active duty. He and his squadron have concerns and reservations about it. He thinks it may cause problems in deployed areas with open latrines and bathing.

That's ridiculous - are the gay people not gay just because they haven't told anybody?

 

He feels this is a personnel policy issue that should be decided by the military for the military.

The military is part of the government and has no business discriminating against its citizens.

So exactly what does a gay person look like if they haven't told anyone?

 

If they haven't told anyone...they look like you and me. If they HAVE told anyone...they look like you and me.

[Bob Palin]

If they haven't told anyone...they look like you and me. If they HAVE told anyone...they look like you and me.

Unless they start re-enacting Priscilla, Queen of the Desert around the open latrines...

 

(Cuz, you know, that's what they do.)

[Agent_Orange]

[upflying]

If they haven't told anyone...they look like you and me. If they HAVE told anyone...they look like you and me.

Unless they start re-enacting Priscilla, Queen of the Desert around the open latrines...

 

(Cuz, you know, that's what they do.)

My point, they look like everyone else. Until they tell and then they might be looked at differently.

[Bob Palin]

My point, they look like everyone else. Until they tell and then they might be looked at differently.

Exactly - "looked at" - and that's the problem isn't it, if they are doing their jobs properly why should they be discriminated against?

[upflying]

A combat zone is primarily dominated by young, high school educated, testosterone filled, Alpha males who are filled with flight or fight adrenaline. Some may be from socially conservative areas of the United States. To relieve the stress of combat, such males often engage in gallows humor, essentially making humor over horrific situations and circumstances. Many exert their masculine prowess towards others by belittling others who could be considered less dominant in the group.

While several dozen of these young men are in a common shower, an openly gay male is present. Do you not see a potential for hazing in this situation?

I do not condone discrimination but how would you deal with this situation?

Or put the shoe on another foot. Would a straight man feel comfortable sharing an open shower with a dozen gay men?

Or should that straight man be accommodated by providing him a private bath?

 

[Smoky]

Substitute a black man in the above scenario, and see how it sounds.

[Bob Palin]

I refuse to accept as fact that the existance of some over stimulated bigots is grounds for discrimination.

 

I don't doubt that some hazing will occur just as it has in every case where discrimination has occurred, do you think it was easy for Rosa Parks? The problem needs to be tackled just the same or progress will not be made.

[upflying]

Substitute a black man in the above scenario, and see how it sounds.

Last time I checked, "don't ask, don't tell" is rather difficult with most ethnicities.

[Matts_12GS]

He feels this is a personnel policy issue that should be decided by the military for the military.

The military is part of the government and has no business discriminating against its citizens. Unless they make "too much" money, then they can be discriminated against.

 

Fixed it for you Bob...

 

Personally, I never liked the ruling when it was put into effect. I thought it was poorly handled.

 

There were at times problems with homosexuals on ships during my time in the Navy. Things happened to those individuals that should not have happened. Period. I think the entire pronouncement was little more than political ass kissing by the winner of the 92 election, making hay of the situation with another "equal but special" treatment group.

 

There should have been a simple policy set forth akin to sexual harassment law for hostile work environments/inappropriate behavior. No more. No less. No big deal.

[Bob Palin]

There should have been a simple policy set forth akin to sexual harassment law for hostile work environments/inappropriate behavior. No more. No less. No big deal.

It would be so easy to be inflammatory about your change of subject, but Whip says I should chill, so I'll just say that I totally agree with you, yes agree with you , on the quoted line above.

[Matts_12GS]

Merry Christmas Bob!

[Dave McReynolds]

There should have been a simple policy set forth akin to sexual harassment law for hostile work environments/inappropriate behavior. No more. No less. No big deal.

 

I'm sure that will have to be the answer.

 

I remember, in the Marines in Vietnam, most of the conversation between us would be fantasizing about sex. It helped pass the time, reduced stress, and since as far as we knew we were all young heterosexual males, and whether we were black, white, or brown, we all shared common goals in that area of interest, and nobody got offended. With women moving into combat roles, and now with more open homosexuality, that would no longer be appropriate.

 

What do you suppose soldiers, some of whom are heterosexual, some of whom are women, and some of whom are homosexual, will talk about to pass the time in the foxholes? Remember, these people have limited imaginations. Or do you think they will just keep their thoughts to themselves?

 

It seems to me that most of the things we had in Vietnam to relieve stress are no longer available to soldiers in Afganistan (cigarettes, booze, marijuana, and sex talk). Not that any of these things were particularly healthy or desirable, but combat is stressful. Do you think there are any new things that have come along other than the things I mentioned to relieve stress, or is there just more stress?

[Matts_12GS]

It seems to me that most of the things we had in Vietnam to relieve stress are no longer available to soldiers in Afganistan (cigarettes, booze, marijuana, and sex talk). Not that any of these things were particularly healthy or desirable, but combat is stressful. Do you think there are any new things that have come along other than the things I mentioned to relieve stress, or is there just more stress?

 

I think that when the poop starts flying it doesn't really matter that much... And if it does, the offended party might do really well to reconsider their priorities.

[drswift]

Much ado about nothing from a unit morale standpoint. Putting people out of the service because they were found out to be gay was the real travesty.

 

I do think this whole issue is just job security for trial lawyers who will be lining up to parade trans-gender and who knows what freaks into recruiting stations in the hopes they get "discriminated" against or that they will feel "offended" not being able to wear bras under their uniforms as a basis for new lawsuits.

[Bob Palin]

I would think that with the addition of women and gays to the combat zone the opportunity for ribaldry would be expanded considerably...

[Dave McReynolds]

I would think that with the addition of women and gays to the combat zone the opportunity for ribaldry would be expanded considerably...

 

One would hope so, but in the workplace I've found it to be an interestingly choreographed dance. Generally, most people like ribald remarks; however, some don't, get offended, and then they sometimes sue. In the workplace, the people who most often get offended tend to be women. So what I find is that most men in the workplace will wait for a woman present to make a ribald remark, then they will feel that they have permission to make ribald remarks too. However, this isn't a failsafe plan, as one person's ribald remarks may be perceived is being "over the line" compared with someone else's. Or if someone becomes offended by something else at a later date, they can bring up the earlier ribald remarks to add fuel to the fire, even though they appeared to appreciate them at the time.

 

Do you really believe the average infantry soldier could learn this dance step?

[marcopolo]

Ww also have to remember that, for the most part, we're a bunch of middle-aged folks discussing a subject which most of today's twenty-somethings take in their stride. We're probably over thinking this.

[Bob Palin]

Do you really believe the average infantry soldier could learn this dance step?

No, and nor do I believe they will need to, they're in a fox hole, you're in an office in California.

[pbharvey]

I think homosexuality is abnormal and our men and women in the armed forces would be better off without having to deal it. By deal with it I mean dealing with all the big and small things that present themselves on a daily basis from sexuality issues to the homosexual cliques and favoritism that is bound to happen. (yes I realize for every one instance of homosexual favoritism there are probably 100 instances of homosexual prejudice)

 

I view not allowing homosexuals to serve in the military along the same lines as not allowing someone who is mentally or physically unfit to serve. Basically, its too disruptive to the majority.

 

 

[Whip]

Ww also have to remember that, for the most part, we're a bunch of middle-aged folks discussing a subject which most of today's twenty-somethings take in their stride. We're probably over thinking this.

 

 

+1

[Quinn]

Wonder how many heterosexuals will leave the service because of this. Also, wonder how the female soldiers feel about serving with outed Lesbians. I'm betting a non-issue on both counts.

 

Back in my day, we always had people we suspected were gay, but I figured it was about as much my business and their religion--meaning none of.

 

----

 

 

[Ken H.]

I think homosexuality is abnormal and our men and women in the armed forces would be better off without having to deal it. By deal with it I mean dealing with all the big and small things that present themselves on a daily basis from sexuality issues to the homosexual cliques and favoritism that is bound to happen. (yes I realize for every one instance of homosexual favoritism there are probably 100 instances of homosexual prejudice)

 

I view not allowing homosexuals to serve in the military along the same lines as not allowing someone who is mentally or physically unfit to serve. Basically, its too disruptive to the majority.

While I, in the strongest words possible, disagree with every word (but of course everyone is allowed their own opinion), never-the-less I would like to know how DADT solved any of that?

[Roadwolf]

I view not allowing homosexuals to serve in the military along the same lines as not allowing someone who is mentally or physically unfit to serve. Basically, its too disruptive to the majority.

 

Obviously, you are entitled to that opinion, but I think the majority of U.S. citizens and the military would probably disagree with that statement. I listened to this a while back and it made all the more a convincing case for the repeal of DADT. I think Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenback would disagree with your assumption.

 

http://www.military.com/news/article/af-boots-decorated-pilot-for-being-gay.html

[Bud]

Ww also have to remember that, for the most part, we're a bunch of middle-aged folks discussing a subject which most of today's twenty-somethings take in their stride. We're probably over thinking this.

 

Bingo, we have a winner.

[Ken H.]

I think that when the poop starts flying it doesn't really matter that much... And if it does, the offended party might do really well to reconsider their priorities.

Yes indeed, when the poop hits the fan I’ll bet (s)he is darn more interested in who’s covering his/her ass than who’s admiring it.

[Matts_12GS]

I think homosexuality is abnormal and our men and women in the armed forces would be better off without having to deal it. By deal with it I mean dealing with all the big and small things that present themselves on a daily basis from sexuality issues to the homosexual cliques and favoritism that is bound to happen. (yes I realize for every one instance of homosexual favoritism there are probably 100 instances of homosexual prejudice)

 

I view not allowing homosexuals to serve in the military along the same lines as not allowing someone who is mentally or physically unfit to serve. Basically, its too disruptive to the majority.

 

 

Well said and hard to disagree with

[Dave McReynolds]

I think that when the poop starts flying it doesn't really matter that much... And if it does, the offended party might do really well to reconsider their priorities.

Yes indeed, when the poop hits the fan I’ll bet (s)he is darn more interested in who’s covering his/her ass than who’s admiring it.

 

The thing you have to realize is that the poop hits the fan about 1% or less of the time, and the other 99%+ of the time, soldiers will sit around admiring someone's ass if they happen to be attracted to him or her.

 

I'm not saying this as an argument for not having homosexuals in the military, as I think the time has come for that to happen. But when you're sleeping with someone, $hitting with them, showering with them, smelling their wonderful odors, and listening to their bull$hit 24 hours a day, it presents a different set of problems than it does in an office environment. There will be soldiers with deeply held beliefs that homosexuality is immoral, and other soldiers with deeply held beliefs that they have a right to display their homosexuality openly. Soldiers fight a lot anyway, and this just adds another idiotic cause to fight about. I would guess that there were fewer fights if everyone just pretended it wasn't there.

 

Well, soldiers are going to stop pretending that it isn't there now, which I think is the correct thing to do. But it is going to take a lot of work on the part of the command to make it happen peacefully. As Matt mentioned before, probably the best way to handle it is just to forbid all discussion of sexual matters, whether hetrosexual or homosexual. Nobody is going to stop discussing sex just because it is forbidden, of course, but stopping it on an official level will at least give them someone to blame when trouble happens.

[moshe_levy]

While we Americans bite our nails in much anxiety over nothing, the rest of the civilized world's militaries have long ago adopted this same policy and are doing just fine. We're still discovering the wheel and others are rolling already. Move on.

 

Reminds me of reporters asking Clinton and Palin more about their genders than their positions, while 30 years ago we had Thatcher and further back still we had Golda Meir leading. I'm sorry to be blunt, but there is still a large element of this country that is simply, for lack of a better term, "backwards."

 

-MKL

[Groanup]

Ww also have to remember that, for the most part, we're a bunch of middle-aged folks discussing a subject which most of today's twenty-somethings take in their stride. We're probably over thinking this.

 

+3

[ratfink]

Some of my friends think that riding a BMW motorcycle is abnormal; even masochistic.

 

Homosexuality was at one time a diagnosis of mental illness but the mental health community has disavowed such thinking long ago.

 

The gay folks have done an admirable job of fighting for their rights in this country in a peaceful and constructive manner.

 

Next I hope that they are allowed to marry, so they can suffer the same fate the rest of us have had to endure.

[DavidEBSmith]

I think homosexuality is abnormal and our men and women in the armed forces would be better off without having to deal it. By deal with it I mean dealing with all the big and small things that present themselves on a daily basis from sexuality issues to the homosexual cliques and favoritism that is bound to happen. (yes I realize for every one instance of homosexual favoritism there are probably 100 instances of homosexual prejudice)

 

I view not allowing homosexuals to serve in the military along the same lines as not allowing someone who is mentally or physically unfit to serve. Basically, its too disruptive to the majority.

 

 

Well said and hard to disagree with

 

Respectfully, no and no.

 

I really don't understand the obsession that some people have about homosexuality. I work with a lot of gay people as well as a lot of straight people, and the topic of who and how we prefer to **** pretty much doesn't come up in everyday conversation. The small talk is how's the family, how are the kids doing in school, let's get down to business. It's not like I walk in to work on Monday morning and ask "hey, how was being gay this weekend? Did you have any gay sex with a member of the same sex? Did you put your **** in somebody's *****?" Nor do I similarly inquire of my straight colleagues. I don't really think it's any business of mine who somebody else wants to ****, be they straight or gay, unless they're trying to do it to me against my will. Presumably the military has rules against forcible and unwanted sexual conduct, which would be equally applicable to straights and gays.

 

There are a lot of straight people I know who in my opinion, ought not be ******* the people they're *******, and sometimes I may even think their choice is pretty disgusting, but it's not my place to approve or disapprove. Who you want to **** is your own business so long as the ******* agrees. Some people are disturbed by same-sex couples; some people are disturbed by inter-racial couples; some people are disturbed by inter-religious couples; I'm sure there are people who are disturbed if their Presbyterian son marries a Methodist girl. There are straight people who do things to their partners that other straight people find disgusting. I don't see that anybody's sexual preferences are anybody else's ******* business (pun intended).

 

The military has rules against sexual fraternization and harassment. The military should enforce those rules uniformly and equally. Discipline is part of being in the military, and if the military can't enforce discipline against sexual misconduct, of either persuasion, we have a serious problem that DADT was just wallpapering over.

[Boffin]

I think homosexuality is abnormal and our men and women in the armed forces would be better off without having to deal it. By deal with it I mean dealing with all the big and small things that present themselves on a daily basis from sexuality issues to the homosexual cliques and favoritism that is bound to happen. (yes I realize for every one instance of homosexual favoritism there are probably 100 instances of homosexual prejudice)

 

I view not allowing homosexuals to serve in the military along the same lines as not allowing someone who is mentally or physically unfit to serve. Basically, its too disruptive to the majority.

 

 

Well said and hard to disagree with

 

No, this is pretty damn easy to disagree with. Homosexuality has been observed in many species - it is part of nature.

 

When I was in the RAF, homosexuality was illegal and would lead to instant dismissal from service - which is why my squadron's ground-crew went to great lengths to cover-up the fact that one of our members was gay. The only disruption came from homophobic regulations.

 

Andy

[pbharvey]

I really don't understand the obsession that some people have about homosexuality.

 

Me either. I certainly don't have an obsession about homosexuality, I simply think that homosexual behavior is abnormal. (I do not mean for the term "abnormal" to be derogatory just simply out of the norm) I have homosexual business contacts, family members, neighbors, BMW motorcycle club members, and even some folks at my church. I know people who are abnormal in other respects as well and I make no judgment of them but still believe they may be unsuited for certain jobs.

 

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

I believe land based units have a different take on the whole thing than ship based units do. The necessitated lack of personal space and privacy as well as the inability to find space away from something that is troubling for whatever the reason will compound the situation.

 

Like many here, I have gay colleagues and a few gay friends. Their choices for their lives are theirs alone, and they alone will be be held accountable for their actions. I'm not anti-gay in so much that I think this whole situation is (ahem) overblown and will release one more round of unintended consequences upon an already overburdened military.

[Twisties]

I applaud the triumph of civility over fear and bigotry. It's a rare day when evil loses a battle, but this was one of those days to celebrate.

 

 

[Mike]

I think I have a fairly informed perspective on this: I was commissioned as a USAF officer in 1977 and spent a total of 27 years on active and reserve duty. I started as a cop (Security Police, later redesignated Security Forces) and later became a JAG. During that time I, of course, dealt primarily with Air Force personnel, but also had pretty extensive interactions with all the services.

 

Truthfully, I never could get the obsession over homosexuality. In the early days of my career, I remember investigators aggressively going after what were termed "homosexual rings," much as one might refer to a drug ring or a theft ring. The rationale was that homosexuality was socially verboten, people were likely to hide the fact that they were gay, and, as a result, they could be more subject to extortion that might compromise security. Much of what we dealt with was highly classified, stuff that had vast implications, so the focus on security was well-intentioned. However, it also occurred to me that this was a problem that could be largely solved by changing the policy to permit homosexuals to serve. Note that I say "largely," because homosexuality was much more socially prohibited at that time; as a result, even if legally sanctioned, one might still be subject to exploitation.

 

Nonetheless, it still seemed to me that it was an extraneous consideration, much as it might be if the military were to exclude citizens from serving on the basis of race or religion. It just didn't seem to matter when it came to how well people did their job. In fact, over time the thing that became apparent was that these concerted efforts to ferret out homosexuals largely resulted in really fine people, exceptional military members, being booted out and stigmatized. So, at least from my perspective, we were shooting ourselves in the foot, kicking out many who could be considered the cream of the crop, while also subjecting them to shame and the lasting repercussions of being involuntarily discharged, often with less than an honorable discharge.

 

But, beyond that, there were--and remain--some perverse results. If a troop was simply dissatisfied with the military and wanted to get out, it was pretty well known that declaring yourself gay was a ticket out of the military. I suppose it could be argued that we were better off without those who would do such a thing, but it was demoralizing for others who might have been less than happy about how the military had turned out for them, but nonetheless felt a moral obligation to serve out their term of service. On the other hand, if someone got caught engaging in homosexual sex, that person could declare that it was simply an "experiment," that he or she didn't have any homosexual impulses, and that it wouldn't happen again. Commanders, wanting to keep good troops and knowing full well that the individual's declaration was BS, went along with the charade, issuing findings that would thwart discharge. So, here we saw the policy encouraging a dishonest "wink and nod" among everyone in the chain of command.

 

The policy engendered a culture of dishonesty. First, on the part of those who were gay. However, perhaps even more troubling, on the part of other straight troops who found themselves in the position of having to lie to protect their gay friends. Again, while the military is made up of people of all ilks, there is a fundamental interest in trying to engender honesty and honor. When a policy is widely ignored because it's proven to be out of touch with the moral sense of most service members, it engenders a lack of regard for other rules, complicating the notion of military order based on the obedience to regulations and superiors. Troops lied and even a fair number of commanders looked the other way in order to confront enforcing a policy they felt was wrong. I can't condone those actions, but I can say with absolutely certainty that these things occurred time and again. Again, this may not have been quite as great a problem in the late seventies, but over time it was increasingly evident that the evolving policies relating to homosexuality were creating situations where people were lying to save their own careers or to protect their comrades.

 

Will the change in the law create problems? Certainly; there will be situations where that will happen. Any rule will lead to some violations, whether it's a rule against recreational drugs, sexual harassment, or harassing gays. The military is huge and draws people from the entire range of social, religious, and moral perspectives, so any suggestion that there won't be some resistance to this change is naive.

 

But, the military also has a long and successful history of dealing with issues like this. We have successfully achieved the mission with those who are white and black, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, as well as Christians, Jews, Muslims, and atheists. Members of the military are held to the standards of the military, generally with success, and violations of the laws and regulations that will grow up around this change in legislation will be dealt with in a way that will ensure that the mission will be accomplished.

 

Ultimately, sexual orientation has proven to be an extraneous factor, unrelated to one's ability to serve. The policy, perhaps useful in another era, became an anachronism, had devastating effects on good men and women, and ultimately compromised the sense of obedience to authority. It was time for it to go. At least this time, our elected representatives got it right.