Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Discussion in 'Military' started by liberalogic, Jun 28, 2006.

  1. liberalogic
    Offline

    liberalogic Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    539
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    NJ
    Ratings:
    +49
    I was just curious as to how others feel on this policy. I was reading a newspaper article about a lesbian who served for 10 years (honorably) and was recently discharged after saying that she was gay. It also said that about 10,000 soliders have been discharged for this reason since the bill's conception.

    Does this really make any sense? Especially considering that participation in the armed services has decreased. Don't we need all the help that we can get? Besides, I don't foresee many "girly" gay guys joining and most of the lesbians are probably manly anyway.
     
  2. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    It's not that the army doesn't want gays, it's that the issue makes people in the military uncomfortable. That's something that will mess them up in combat. The reason for the bill is so gays can still be in the Army, and so long as they just keep it to themselves, it doesn't make anybody uncomfortable. It's kinda odd, but I can't really think of a better way.
     
  3. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    The don't ask don't tell policy works pretty well. It prevents the military from running someone out of the service simply because of suspicions of being gay and at the same time pretty much offers an easy out for those who are gay and get do not wish to complete their obligation.

    The bottom line is, if those 10,000 had not openly stated they were gay, they could have stayed.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    I agree with CSM, and will add that homosexuals in the ranks would significantly decrease morale, as you are fighting and working alongside these people for weeks and months on end while in combat. The last thing a soldier needs to think about is whether the guy next to you is fantasizing about you.
     
  5. liberalogic
    Offline

    liberalogic Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    539
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    NJ
    Ratings:
    +49
    I think that it's a bit outdated considering that we have women in combat. I can understand the policy when men were only allowed to serve-- sexual tensions would be a distraction. But what if the guy is fantasizing about the woman or vice verca? Isn't that a distraction from battle?

    If we keep Don't Ask Don't Tell then women shouldn't be allowed to serve.
     
  6. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Well, in theory, women are still not allowed to fill combat roles. That fact however has not kept them from being killed in combat. Of course, with the way things are now, it would be pretty hard to define a role that is not "combat".

    Just my personal opinion which means absolutely nothing, but I dont think it much matters if one is gay, female, etc. The sexual harrassment regs cover it. What does matter is making special rules and qualifications for women or gays. I f they are going to compete for promotions etc, then the criteria and qualifications need to be the same for both. If gays start asking for special criteria (perhaps to fill some kind of quota) then it would indeed be wrong.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I look at it this way, someone serving must make a choice of where their priorities lie; declaring openly their sexuality or serving. Seems to me a no brainer. I teach, if I were gay and made that explicit, I'd be out of a job. Same deal.

    I'm quite sure we have had a long time staff member, who's gay. I'm not sure, I'd never ask. She's never told.
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Do you think women don't fantasize? :laugh: Probably more than men, we don't need pics. Mind over visuals! :teeth: Although I doubt either would, under combat conditions! :duh3:
     
  9. liberalogic
    Offline

    liberalogic Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    539
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    NJ
    Ratings:
    +49
    I couldn't agree more. I just don't think that social criticisms should be embedded in military admission/refusal-- we need all the sufficient support that we can get. And promotion should be based ONLY on merit. If you are fit enough to do the job, then grab a gun and go kill some people.
     
  10. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Sheewwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!
    I had ta read that twice, I thought you were outing Bonnie!:rotflmao:
     

Share This Page