[Kerrigan]

Legislation has just been introduced to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

I've looked at the official DADT policy before, and it is extremely vague and open to abuse. It is popularly understood to mean that as long as service members keep hush-hush about their homosexuality, they will be allowed to serve. This notion, to me, actually sounds reasonable, but the official policy itself is far more vague.

The policy vaguely states that sexual orientation is private, and that service members ought never be questioned about it, or make any statements about it. This sounds fair enough depending on whom you ask, but the policy then states that any information regarding any homosexual "conduct" that has ever occurred will be grounds for discharge.

Homosexual conduct can be anything: a hug, holding hands, kissing, etc.

Contrary to what people think, the ban does not simply cover behavior whilst on base, in uniform, or under contract. You will be found in violation of the policy if there is reason to believe you have ever, or will ever, commit homosexual acts. If you are found to have ever done something homosexual, you will be discharged for fraudulent enlistment, the word "homosexual" will be included in your discharge, and you will probably not be able to re-enlist in any service.

The policy is so so vague that it is essentially a flat-out ban on homosexuals in the military. I think it is in the interest of Congress and the DoD to either revise this policy and make it clearer so that gays and lesbians have clear legal boundaries and rights when they enlist, or they ought to repeal it entirely and pass new legislation permitting homosexuals to serve.

What are your thoughts on Don't Ask, Don't Tell - revise, repeal, or let it stand?

(No I did not cut and paste this from an article )

[subego]

Repeal.

I'm sure people will bring up their own list, but that's on my top five when it comes to sucky Clinton policy.



Edit: I guess you could call it "revise" because I think homosexuals should be let into the military. Full stop.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Contrary to what people think, the ban does not simply cover behavior whilst on base, in uniform, or under contract. You will be found in violation of the policy if there is reason to believe you have ever, or will ever, commit homosexual acts.

I remember someone (a sailor I believe) getting bounced for saying he was gay... on AOL.

[olePigeon]

It makes about as much sense as not letting women drive tanks.

[subego]

I don't get that either.

I can sort of understand not letting women be infantry, but that's because I can see it throwing off mens' mojo, not because women can't carry their end of the log.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't get that either.

I can sort of understand not letting women be infantry, but that's because I can see it throwing off mens' mojo, not because women can't carry their end of the log.

Believe it or not, that's the same reason for not allowing homosexuals. It's a distraction to other men. Same reason women aren't allowed on a submarine.

[Shaddim]

As long as the-powers-that-be set an objective standard whereby ALL combatants are measured, I have no problem with women having any assignment.

Also, gays have always been in the military, it's about time the military took a neutral stand on their admission and service.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Believe it or not, that's the same reason for not allowing homosexuals. It's a distraction to other men.

Men know what men like.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It's a distraction to other men.

While your sequins are well coordinated with your flak armor, I find them very distracting.

[stupendousman]

It's an invasion of privacy. As long as the military requires close quarters and "foxhole" living arrangements (as part of it's team building and "morale" training), it's hardly fair for someone to be expected to share open showers and bathroom facilities with either the same sex or those who might be sexually attracted to them. It's no different than a group of cheerleaders having to tolerate men joining and being allowed to invade their privacy by viewing them naked in the way that sharing dressing and bathing facilities usually necessitates.

If it ain't broke.....

...and it's not broke.

Before "don't ask, don't tell", there were a lot more soliders dismissed I'm guessing.

[stumblinmike]

What does Rush think? Whatever he says, I support 100%!!!

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

it's hardly fair for someone to be expected to share open showers and bathroom facilities with either the same sex or those who might be sexually attracted to them

The military? Not fair?

Imagine that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't get that either.

I can sort of understand not letting women be infantry, but that's because I can see it throwing off mens' mojo, not because women can't carry their end of the log.

That almost sounds like an argument for not letting men be infantry, if it's so easy for mens' mojo to be thrown off.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That almost sounds like an argument for not letting men be infantry, if it's so easy for mens' mojo to be thrown off.

Well, by mojo, I meant "cultural indoctrination to believe women are in need of protection".

Were we to encounter an enemy who fielded all female combat units against us, with our current attitude, I absolutely would question their suitability.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's an invasion of privacy. As long as the military requires close quarters and "foxhole" living arrangements (as part of it's team building and "morale" training), it's hardly fair for someone to be expected to share open showers and bathroom facilities with either the same sex or those who might be sexually attracted to them. It's no different than a group of cheerleaders having to tolerate men joining and being allowed to invade their privacy by viewing them naked in the way that sharing dressing and bathing facilities usually necessitates.

If it ain't broke.....

...and it's not broke.

Before "don't ask, don't tell", there were a lot more soliders dismissed I'm guessing.

That's all in your head. If you don't know if your room mate is gay, how does it affect you? All your answer does is show what you'd project under the same circumstances, which is hardly what happens in real life. Gays have been a part of the military forever, just as in society, and they function perfectly well, without running around with raging hardons or trembling tongues when they interact with their fellow soldiers.

Edit:

http://www.365gay.com/news/philippin...s-in-military/

Other countries realize that being gay has nothing to do with how you perform as military personnel. Hopefully the U. S. will join those ranks, and focus on what really matters, which is job performance.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

Were we to encounter an enemy who fielded all female combat units against us, with our current attitude, I absolutely would question their suitability.

Somewhere, somebody looking for a weakness in the American military armor just took a note.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's all in your head.

I'll tell that to the cheerleaders who are required to shower with me. It's just all in their head! Seriously, sometimes you guys crack me up!

If you don't know if your room mate is gay, how does it affect you? All your answer does is show what you'd project under the same circumstances, which is hardly what happens in real life. Gays have been a part of the military forever, just as in society, and they function perfectly well, without running around with raging hardons or trembling tongues when they interact with their fellow soldiers.

Gays are a tiny percentage of the population. Just as small in the military. It's not much different than how one deals with illness. If you don't know someone has a contagious disease, you probably aren't going to worry about it (despite the fact that you probably deal with a small percentage of people with colds and other communicable diseases on a daily basis). If you know someone who you would regularly come into close contact with definitely has something they could pass on, you deal with them differently in order to try and avoid potential infection. If you don't know, you don't have a reason to act. If you do know, the responsible thing to do is to make sure they aren't causing you to be sick as well.

That's the same rationale behind "don't ask, don't tell". Unfortunately, those cheerleaders don't have to "ask" if I find them attractive and would like to look at them naked. I'm pretty sure that can be safely assumed. Just as it can be assumed that men who are physically attracted to other men would enjoy seeing them naked. They don't have to react with "raging hardons" in order to be violating someone's right to privacy by the government forcing them to allow them access to other soliders naked bodies.

Edit:

http://www.365gay.com/news/philippin...s-in-military/

Other countries realize that being gay has nothing to do with how you perform as military personnel. Hopefully the U. S. will join those ranks, and focus on what really matters, which is job performance.

Other countries have been getting their asses handed to them in military battles by Americans for hundreds of years, and people are lined up miles wide to become American citizens. We here this same tired come-back about what the other guys are doing for any number of issues and it rings hollow every time. What battles have the Philippines won lately?

[Big Mac]

So you guys who want to end Don't Ask, what would the new official policy be?

[subego]

Don't ask, don't care.

[Big Mac]

Then I think such proponents don't have an adequate understanding of the average heterosexual male's view of overt male homosexuality, and I don't think the military should be contorted to be as politically correct as the rest of our society is. FWIW.

[besson3c]

How about "ask or don't ask, I don't give a rat's ass"?

I like the sounds of that, it has a snappy ring to it... As does my face.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Then I think such proponents don't have an adequate understanding of the average heterosexual male's view of overt male homosexuality, and I don't think the military should be contorted to be as politically correct as the rest of our society is. FWIW.

If the average male's view of homosexuality is based on emotionally immature and backwards thinking rationale, why should we be supporting such craziness?

It's such a weak argument that the homos in the military walk around with boners looking for somebody to bone. If I was a gay guy in the military, I'd mostly be scared shitless to be outed, or completely uncomfortable being the odd man out that sexual arousal would be difficult, and where possible, harmless anyway because there is no great means to do anything about it in an environment like that.

Should we start asking school teachers about whether they are sexually aroused by boys and girls? We hear a lot stories about school teachers having sex with students? How about clergy? Maybe they need a litmus test? I'm sure there are all sorts of gay things that go on in these professions and elsewhere, but are not reported because they would be incredibly mundane in comparison to the man/woman on boy/girl stories. Sexual diversity is life, simple as that. There is no point in trying to make the military some sort of non-lifelike place while discriminating in the process. No policy is going to prevent sexual arousal in the military or anywhere else, just as it won't prevent me from being awesome. Such is life!

[Big Mac]

I agree with some of that besson, but I simply don't think the military should be made to be as PC as the rest of America. I think the policy should be to keep sexuality out of the military in general, and that should go for everyone.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'll tell that to the cheerleaders who are required to shower with me. It's just all in their head! Seriously, sometimes you guys crack me up!

Whoosh! Your "faultless logic" isn't working.

Gays are a tiny percentage of the population. Just as small in the military. It's not much different than how one deals with illness. If you don't know someone has a contagious disease, you probably aren't going to worry about it (despite the fact that you probably deal with a small percentage of people with colds and other communicable diseases on a daily basis). If you know someone who you would regularly come into close contact with definitely has something they could pass on, you deal with them differently in order to try and avoid potential infection. If you don't know, you don't have a reason to act. If you do know, the responsible thing to do is to make sure they aren't causing you to be sick as well.

Contracting an illness from someone who has a communicable disease isn't the same as seeing a fellow male or female naked, but your "logic" doesn't allow you to see that.

That's the same rationale behind "don't ask, don't tell". Unfortunately, those cheerleaders don't have to "ask" if I find them attractive and would like to look at them naked. I'm pretty sure that can be safely assumed. Just as it can be assumed that men who are physically attracted to other men would enjoy seeing them naked. They don't have to react with "raging hardons" in order to be violating someone's right to privacy by the government forcing them to allow them access to other soliders naked bodies.

Once again, your "logic" fails you. You're talking about showering together, while at the same time talking about someone's right to privacy in the shower. You crack me up sometimes. You're making the flawed assumption that, just because a gay man can see another man naked in the shower, they're going to act upon some impulse. That must mean that people who watch porn go around and rape the next person they see, because they have this overwhelming desire once they've seen a naked person. You crack me up sometimes; no, make that most of the time.

Other countries have been getting their asses handed to them in military battles by Americans for hundreds of years, and people are lined up miles wide to become American citizens. We here this same tired come-back about what the other guys are doing for any number of issues and it rings hollow every time. What battles have the Philippines won lately?

Their military prowess has nothing to do with whether or not they allow openly gays in the military, but your flawed attempt at "logic" isn't going to prevent you from attempting to stretch to make the connection.

The facts are that it isn't going to make any difference allowing openly gay service members. The U. S. military is losing skilled Arabic translators, just because they're gay, which is one of the more idiotic things I've heard in a while. Unfortunately, there are some idiotic policies in place which have no logical basis for being there, other than to address the issues of a few particular people who have their own hang ups with regard to their own sexual issues.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I agree with some of that besson, but I simply don't think the military should be made to be as PC as the rest of America. I think the policy should be to keep sexuality out of the military in general, and that should go for everyone.

Fair enough, but that doesn't sound practical to me anymore than abstinence as a solution to anything is. There is no way to keep sexuality out of anything, including the military.

[Big Mac]

So you mean people can't as a general guideline keep their sexual desires out of their profession and out of the work place? Why should we treat the military with more leniency than corporate America treats open sexual conduct?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So you mean people can't keep their sexual desires out of their profession and out of the work place? Why should we treat the military with more leniency than corporate America treats open sexual conduct?

You are conflating two different things. Of course any kind of sexuality should preferably be kept out of the work place, but like you said this applies across the board regardless of your sexual preferences. What this policy is about is treating gays differently. Why should they be treated any differently?

[Big Mac]

There should be one policy for all, I would think. Something along the lines of, "Sexual orientation should be left as a private matter, disconnected from military service. Anyone who makes his or her sexual orientation a matter of public concern may be relieved of duty." One simple, uniform policy for all.

[Dakar V]

"a matter of public concern" sounds ambiguous.

[Big Mac]

So is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," unless there are related policy details I'm not aware of.

[Dakar V]

That's a dodge.

[Doofy]

I'm with Stupes on this.

In case anyone hadn't noticed, in warfare the side with the hardest, meanest bastards usually wins. And hard, mean bastards generally don't want to shower with flamboyant blokes. It's just that simple.

The UK forces suffered a severe recruiting problem just about the time they allowed flamboyancy into the ranks. Coincidence?

Now, women.
I've had a few arguments in which a chick reckons that women are as hard as blokes. I usually point out that due to blokes being generally courteous and living by the "don't hit women" code in civvy life, women generally don't know how hard blokes can punch them. A lack of experience in such matters and certain political influences telling them that "everyone is equal in every way" completely obliterates their perceptions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

in warfare the side with the hardest, meanest bastards usually wins.

You misspelled air superiority.

Edit: also good to know we won WW II by being meaner bastards than the Nazis. They were probably too flamboyant.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You misspelled air superiority.

I forgot about that. Air superiority is a very good military tactic... ...until you happen across short asian chicks in black pyjamas.

Originally Posted by subego 

Edit: also good to know we won WW II by being meaner bastards than the Nazis.

Yes. Brits are much, much meaner than Germans.
Thanks for coming over and supplying our girls with nylons.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Don't ask, don't care.

That does seem like the right course of action.

It's only sexuality, it's not like they're Welshmen.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I forgot about that. Air superiority is a very good military tactic... ...until you happen across short asian chicks in black pyjamas.

Which is when you cut loose with the lesbians.

[besson3c]

I don't understand how hard a guy can punch is relevant here? Firearms and planes and tanks and stuff are the weapon of choice in the military (and now robots), this isn't Double Dragon!

[subego]

What if that 'mo starts eying my robot's junk?

I saw the way he jammed that dipstick in.

I'm way too mean and badass of a mother****er to let that stand.




Medic! I need a hug!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's such a weak argument that the homos in the military walk around with boners looking for somebody to bone.

Could you find somewhere in this thread this argument has been posited, or was this just a general strawman?

Should we start asking school teachers about whether they are sexually aroused by boys and girls?

Do they let the male gym teachers shower with the female students? If not, why? Should we have to ask the girls why they should have a problem with such a situation? I mean, I'm sure male gym teachers aren't just walking around with boners looking for school girls to bone, right? There should be no rational claim to a violation of privacy if we force these girls to get naked in front of these men, right? Based on the logic I'm seeing here, it should be clear that rules like those currently in place forbidding men from female dressing areas should be totally eliminated since protests based on that type of thing is apparently just in "people's head".

Okay...whatever.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Whoosh! Your "faultless logic" isn't working.

Your opinion is noted.

Contracting an illness from someone who has a communicable disease isn't the same as seeing a fellow male or female naked, but your "logic" doesn't allow you to see that.

I never said it was "the same". It was an analogy. Every part of an analogy does not have to be "the same" for the overall comparison to be valid.

Once again, your "logic" fails you. You're talking about showering together, while at the same time talking about someone's right to privacy in the shower. You crack me up sometimes. You're making the flawed assumption that, just because a gay man can see another man naked in the shower, they're going to act upon some impulse.

...the impulse to look at them naked, and violate the other guy's right not to have their naked body used for sexual gratification without permission. Yes, I make that assumption because it's a basic part of human nature. As a healthy heterosexual male, put in an open shower with physically fit naked females, it would be a matter of human nature to have a desire to look at their naked bodies and enjoy the experience in a way that would be sexually gratifying whether it was "boner" inducing or not, and I'm pretty sure it's no different with homosexuals. It's simply the natural thing to want to do. To suggest otherwise is to deny human nature and it's human nature that we are going up against here. That's something more powerful than any military force.

That must mean that people who watch porn go around and rape the next person they see, because they have this overwhelming desire once they've seen a naked person. You crack me up sometimes; no, make that most of the time.

Strawman noted. I never said anything about rape or even sexual intercourse.

The facts are that it isn't going to make any difference allowing openly gay service members.

I disagree.

The U. S. military is losing skilled Arabic translators, just because they're gay, which is one of the more idiotic things I've heard in a while.

I'm pretty sure the military can get over losing 2 or 3 percent of their pool of translators. How many are we actually talking about?

Unfortunately, there are some idiotic policies in place which have no logical basis for being there, other than to address the issues of a few particular people who have their own hang ups with regard to their own sexual issues.

I really wish those cheerleaders would get rid of their hang ups and deal with their sexual issues as well. I really don't see the harm in them all being forced to allow me to watch them shower, the prudes!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't understand how hard a guy can punch is relevant here? Firearms and planes and tanks and stuff are the weapon of choice in the military (and now robots), this isn't Double Dragon!

You should probably write a letter to this dude explaining to him how much money you'd save by not purchasing bayonets or bothering with hand-to-hand combat training then.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...the impulse to look at them naked, and violate the other guy's right not to have their naked body used for sexual gratification without permission.

Once again, this says more about your assumptions (and hang ups) than reality. How does one know if their body is being used for sexual gratification, simply because another man is in the shower with them? They don't.

I really wish those cheerleaders would get rid of their hang ups and deal with their sexual issues as well. I really don't see the harm in them all being forced to allow me to watch them shower, the prudes!

Oh, the irony!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Once again, this says more about your assumptions (and hang ups) than reality. How does one know if their body is being used for sexual gratification, simply because another man is in the shower with them? They don't.

They don't know this if the military allows flamboyancy in the ranks.
They know for sure that they're not being looked at in a sexual way if flamboyancy is banned from the establishment.

That's kind of the point.

[OldManMac]

Here's the basis of the policy. IOW, as has already been pointed out, it's pointless. It addresses no issues other than to soothe a few peoples' guilt and denial, and make them feel as if they've accomplished something.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9736

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

They don't know this if the military allows flamboyancy in the ranks.
They know for sure that they're not being looked at in a sexual way if flamboyancy is banned from the establishment.

That's kind of the point.

Flamboyancy? You crack me up, Doofy. Sometimes I worry about your mental health.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Flamboyancy? You crack me up, Doofy. Sometimes I worry about your mental health.

That's a good strong argument you've got there Karl.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

the other guy's right not to have their naked body used for sexual gratification without permission

There is no such right.

Besides, even if there was by entering into a situation in which you're going to be naked in front of other people you are tacitly giving permission for others to see your naked body. Once people have seen it (or even just imagined it having not actually seen it), the image of it in their minds is theirs to do with as they please.

If you're adult enough to kill and die for your country you should be adult enough to be naked in front of other people regardless of their sex or sexuality. Looking, imagining, fantasizing, and dreaming are not harmful actions and people are free to engage in them as they please. For that matter neither is flirting, touching, or having sex so long as it is consensual. Any time you walk down the street you're opening yourself up to be seen by a gay man who might then later masturbate while imaging your naked body. Deal with it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If you're adult enough to kill and die for your country you should be adult enough to be naked in front of other people regardless of their sex or sexuality.

Doof looks forward to all the new "clothes optional" beaches opening all along both coasts this summer.

[OldManMac]

This whole issue is just a smokescreen, continually trotted out by the "family values" crowd, to deflect attention from their real problems, such as the decline of marriage, and any of a number of other social ills, which they won't take responsibility for, preferring instead to find an easy and convenient scapegoat. Have a societal ill; blame it on teh gheys! Interestingly enough, they never mention that the gay population is a very small percentage of the population, nor will they ever admit that they allow their emotions and acts and beliefs to be controlled by such a small group, as if they actually affected their lives. Yet they're also always the ones trumpeting from every hill the mantra of Personal Responsibility. What a joke!

[SpaceMonkey]

For that matter, whether or not someone in uniform is openly homosexual, the fact is that under the current policy the dude standing next to you in the shower, or spooning you in your foxhole, might be homosexual and just not telling you. Isn't the risk of uncertainty just as great as the risk of "knowing" your body is being objectified (after all, maybe your openly homosexual squad mate thinks you are ugly as sh*t anyway and can't stand the thought of you naked)? The only intellectually honest way to reconcile the views of supporters of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would be to have a policy of explicitly denying homosexuals the opportunity to serve.