Military scaling back 'don't ask, don't tell'

Bryan · 02-02-2010, 08:49 AM

Quote:

But Gates and Mullen are also expected to tell senators that it could take years to integrate gay men and lesbians fully into the military, defense officials said. Two appointees will be named to oversee a group that will draw up plans for integrating the armed forces, according to sources familiar with the Pentagon's deliberations on the subject. The planning effort is expected to take up to a year.

What's the difficulty in integrating? There's nothing to integrate. Gays aren't segregated, they are closeted. It's really quite simple, repeal the law, end of story.

**nbfan** · 02-02-2010, 09:04 AM

Yeah, I don't see the problem.

**slap_j** · 02-02-2010, 09:05 AM

Aside from it being a political compromise with an outright ban on homosexuals from the military, what is the point of DADT? The official story is that open homosexuals "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." Is that nonsense or are most of the troops really that squeamish?

tlj009 · 02-02-2010, 09:17 AM

Sex is an issue for the military. Adding publicly declare homosexuals will just add another aspect to it.

**thesteve** · 02-02-2010, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slap_j

Aside from it being a political compromise with an outright ban on homosexuals from the military, what is the point of DADT? The official story is that open homosexuals "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." Is that nonsense or are most of the troops really that squeamish?

I believe the original intent was that gays could be in the military as long as nobody knew.

Everything I've been hearing from the pro-DADT side has basically said that there is fear of a disconnect between soldiers and that having both gay and straight soldiers in the same platoon would create additional battlefield variables. You have to remember that the average enlisted man isn't educated or necessarily tolerant. I don't intend to paint the military as homophobic, but I definitely get the vibe that there is significant concern that many enlisted men would have trouble trusting the guy next to them in their foxhole when they're worried about that guy having a crush on them.

Andrew · 02-02-2010, 01:22 PM

I will take it a bit further and venture that the average enlisted person is going to be very intolerant of gay men. I don't have a HUGE amount of experience with military life, but the little I have had has told me that much. I would think that the large part of the commissioned military would put their personal feelings aside and tolerate homosexuality, but there are a LOT of homophobes in this country, and the majority of the military demographic comes from predominantly homophobic areas.

(from the south, so I know about open homophobia.)

Neither here nor there, but I really think it is ridiculous that this is a question. It should NOT be obvious what a person's sexual orientation is from their external behavior in general social settings. To me that is flaunting and attempting to get attention and actually DOES detract from military conduct. Just my opinion.

jthomas1600 · 02-02-2010, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

washingtonpost.com

What's the difficulty in integrating? There's nothing to integrate. Gays aren't segregated, they are closeted. It's really quite simple, repeal the law, end of story.

End of story? Not quite. I think the rest of the story (as Paul Harvey would've said) is how openly gay men or women are accepted by their peers. Will homophobia and openly gay soldiers have an impact on the effectiveness of the military? Is the military the right place to fight these battles? I think there are some questions like those that are worth considering. I think don't ask don't tell was a stop gap measure.

**slap_j** · 02-02-2010, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesteve

I believe the original intent was that gays could be in the military as long as nobody knew.

Of course. But what I want to know if their reasoning is based in reality. If what Andrew says is accurate then it makes some sort of sense. Although I find it backwards that we can ask these young people to kill but asking them to integrate with homosexuals is a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I think there are some questions like those that are worth considering.

Let's say the answer is yes--that out homosexuals will do all of those negative things that they claim. Then what? How long can we justify treating people who're risking their lives like second class citizens?

tlj009 · 02-03-2010, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Of course. But what I want to know if their reasoning is based in reality. If what Andrew says is accurate then it makes some sort of sense. Although I find it backwards that we can ask these young people to kill but asking them to integrate with homosexuals is a problem.

People tend to find it easier to do evil than to do good. IOW Killing is easier than being tolerate.

But that is only one issue. Sex is a problem for the military. It is a problem with women in the military and I suspect it will be a problem with open homosexuals in the military.

Bryan · 02-03-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlj009

But that is only one issue. Sex is a problem for the military. It is a problem with women in the military and I suspect it will be a problem with open homosexuals in the military.

that's not a justifiable reason for DADT

tlj009 · 02-03-2010, 09:50 AM

Quote:

that's not a justifiable reason for DADT

Well if you say so.......

I personally think that it is reason enough to keep women from fighting alongside men. Having sex with a fellow soldier can cause all types of problems from discipline to trust to choosing one person over the unit. The problem is that it is impossible to keep people in their early twenties from having sex. Keeping men and women apart is one part of a solution that is not currently being done. But keeping homosexual men from declaring their homosexuality and thereby identifying potential prospects is another part of a solution that is currently being done.

**The wirerat** · 02-03-2010, 10:30 AM

One of the things that has confused me is why its important for gays to be able to let everyone know they are gay? I don't go around telling everyone that I am heterosexual or flaunting so people know it. If I'm in the military, I'm not gonna care if my buddy is gay. Thats not important. What I want to know, is in a firefight, are they gonna have my back or not. Thats all I want to know. A person's sexual orientation is not important to me. I'm not gonna treat them any different, I'm not going to expect anything different from them, and they won't get special consideration because they are gay.
Why is it so important? Who cares?
DADT wasn't the smartest rule, but it was based on the fact that the military thought it would ruin moral amongst the troops. So now they've done some studies, looked at other forces who let gays openly serve, and decided "hey maybe we can do this."
I'm not a homophobe, I just don't care. Its not important for me to know.

**slap_j** · 02-03-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlj009

But keeping homosexual men from declaring their homosexuality and thereby identifying potential prospects is another part of a solution that is currently being done.

Estimates say there are 36,000 gay and lesbian military personnel. That's ~2.5% of that population. How many of those people are going to be angling for a hook-up or date or whatever in such a way that harms discipline just because they're allowed to be out? It strains credulity to think that this would be so significant to justify DADT. However it's neither here nor there because that's not the military's official story anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The wirerat

One of the things that has confused me is why its important for gays to be able to let everyone know they are gay?

The point is that they have to actively conceal it. If it gets out somehow, say if they slip and mention their boyfriend or girlfriend, then they risk being kicked out.

Quote:

I don't go around telling everyone that I am heterosexual or flaunting so people know it.

Of course there would be no need to in a heteronormative culture. That's not a judgement by the way. That's just how it is. That it's a given that relationships are male-female.

Bryan · 02-03-2010, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The wirerat

One of the things that has confused me is why its important for gays to be able to let everyone know they are gay? I don't go around telling everyone that I am heterosexual or flaunting so people know it.

and I don't go around telling people I'm gay, and I can't imagine the stress and burden it would place on me if I was in the military and had to hide who I was because it might make some people uncomfortable and risk losing my job. While at my job now, we have a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, I still don't go around flaunting it and telling every person I meet because I'm afraid of how it might impact my career.

Quote:

If I'm in the military, I'm not gonna care if my buddy is gay. Thats not important. What I want to know, is in a firefight, are they gonna have my back or not. Thats all I want to know. A person's sexual orientation is not important to me. I'm not gonna treat them any different, I'm not going to expect anything different from them, and they won't get special consideration because they are gay.
Why is it so important? Who cares?

it is important because of the principal behind it. Some people in the military will not be tolerant of gays and this could affect moral. The proper response should be to fight the intolerance and educating people about equality and respect. But instead, the leaders of congress and the military have buried their heads in the sand and decided that it is more important/easier to allow intolerance and as a result treat gays & lesbians as if they are inferior and not deserving of equal treatment.

**The wirerat** · 02-03-2010, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

and I don't go around telling people I'm gay, and I can't imagine the stress and burden it would place on me if I was in the military and had to hide who I was because it might make some people uncomfortable and risk losing my job. While at my job now, we have a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, I still don't go around flaunting it and telling every person I meet because I'm afraid of how it might impact my career.

Okay, so here is a question...if you knew for a fact it wouldn't impact your career, would you tell people? And if so, why? My point was that being gay does not make you special. You aren't entitled to special rights, you are no more important when you are gay, than when you're straight. The tolerance issue is a problem. I believe people who are in the military and are intolerant of gays should be the ones getting kicked out, with no pension or support. Those people are ignorant.

Quote:

it is important because of the principal behind it. Some people in the military will not be tolerant of gays and this could affect moral. The proper response should be to fight the intolerance and educating people about equality and respect. But instead, the leaders of congress and the military have buried their heads in the sand and decided that it is more important/easier to allow intolerance and as a result treat gays & lesbians as if they are inferior and not deserving of equal treatment.

I would argue that they don't think lesbians/gays are inferior, they simply want to prevent the loss of morale from happening. At the time, I guess it was the only idea that came up. Now, we see that we have alternatives. Don't give the guys in the Pentagon such a bad rap.