I’ve always seen itas a somewhat absurd Kabuki dance but the world largest military has to abide by it’s structures. As laws go is this a relatively good law or a bad/stupid law?
It’s a bad, bigoted law. It requires people to lie about their relationships, because telling the truth would be telling; it’s resulted in more people being thrown out than before it was imposed; and like all such anti-homosexual laws it’s evil in itself. No better than the old segregationist laws.
IMHO, it was a “stepping-stone” law. At some point, gays and gay marriage will be absolutely, completely equal to straights and straight marriage. We’re not quite there yet, but we’re on the road.
This will be a brick on that road, and each and every one is important to get to the end of that road.
And in what way was it a “stepping stone”, or progress of any kind ? It’s self destructive, it’s bigoted, it’s expensive, and it appears to be sexist as well. Which isn’t surprising; the law by it’s nature advocates bigotry.
It’s not progress; it’s not a stepping stone. It’s simply an example of how bigoted, stupid and vile America is. And to be honest a reason why gays shouldn’t even try to serve in the military; America hates them. Why should they fight for their enemy ?
How so?
But they are not required to tell.
Because people talk to other people about their relationships. Because people ask questions about other people’s relationships.
It was probably a needed step to get the U.S. military used to the possible presence of gays. Even homophobic me thinks that its time has passed & open gays should be allowed to serve.
In my view, it was the exact opposite. A successful attempt to extend and widen the persecution of gays with a false “compromise” that was nothing more than a program designed to root them out.
Okay sailor, they’re not required to tell, but they’re basically required to act like straight people when they’re not, or else they’re out of the army. That’s lying about who you are as a person.
Yeah, it has been around far too long to be a compromise. By all means, get rid of this mean-spirited rule.
How about “Don’t ask, Don’t care”? The Army is pretty diverse and accepting of new folks, in my experience. It might take a while to get the redneck element on board, but there really is no excuse for the way things are now.
The Army Times used to have articles a couple times a year about high-speed, well-respected soldiers who got out of the Army because they didn’t like having to hide who they were. There was even a recently retired General who came out after his retirement.
We may lose a few potential homophobic recruits, but will probably make up for them by attracting soldiers who otherwise wouldn’t want to be a part of a this bigoted institution.
I think it was intended as a stepping stone, but it should have been gone years ago. It’s way past time to get rid of it.
Other world militaries have gone straight (ahem) to openly-serving homosexuals without this intermediate step. It’s a smokescreen to call it a stepping-stone.
i love when people who have never been in the military think they have it all figured out. of course, have an opinion…no harm no foul…but understand your limits
that was not aimed at you Astro.
don’t ask don’t tell is actually a policy, not a law…but anywho
that policy is not some bigoted, blah, blah sort of thing. it was set up to protect troops. what some of you fail to realize is that the military does not follow, and has never been bound by the bill of rights. so you’re putting your ideals and such in the wrong place…ask any service member what free speech is…and i promise he will respond, "what’s that?’
i was in the Marines, and i’ll tell you, it’s not a game or something you question, because these policies are in place to save lives.
don’t ask don’t tell was put in place to provide equality, not segregation. it gave gay people the chance to serve their country without the fear of unwanted exposure.
the military is not a democracy so you guys need to stop thinking of like that. people voluntarily sign the contract knowing what they are getting themselves into.
so why the policy? 2 simple fundamental reasons: back in the day if you were exposed as being gay, it was trouble for you. now there is protection and consequences for those that act out on gay people…whether they admit it or are suspected. in the Marines i was military police and have seen the horror of what happens to gay people…so it’s not anything Marines, if they are gay, are trying to get out of the closet about.
2nd…war. your entire world and concept of life changes once you are in a situation where the panic and horror force the reality on you that this isn’t a game, and the rounds are real. so any sort of a romantic and emotional attachment towards someone can break down “unit cohesion” and cost lives. you see, it all makes sense, wrapped up in some pretty little package…until you really realize your life is at stake. so at that point, you need things to be as simple as possible, because your happy, philosophical brain is out to lunch…and things aren’t making sense the way you’re used to. and when all that is slammed in your face…all you want to do is come home alive.
so all you keyboard warriors, typing your “freedom for all” spiel, really need to check your realities…because i promise you this…any serviceman put in a real situation where military standards and practices could be the difference between coming home in one piece or not…will for sure give up some of these arguments you think, by condemning and spouting off about, you’re doing a service to country.
Some of us “freedom for all” types were in the military. If the guy in the bunker next to me is doing his job properly, I could give a shit if he spends his off hours screwing women, sucking dick, or beating off to pictures of apple pie.
So nope, not ready to give up those arguments, and nope, it’s not a reasonable policy.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The military would have a lot of difficulty filling its numbers without the red-neck and homophobic elements you so casually dismiss. First prove most tolerant people gravitate easily to military/totalitarian rule, then prove large numbers of them are willing to die for the rights of people they don’t agree with.
i don’t care what the guy next to me does either, gay or not.
what i’m saying is that it’s not a “gay is bad thing.” it follows the same principle with females not being allowed in combat. romantic, emotional attachments are not safe in combat.
so i never said anything about the moral issue of “don’t ask don’t tell” and gays in the military.
i’m just talking about the purpose it serves
I’m former Army and gay and I’ve got it all figured out. Whether a soldier is gay or not doesn’t mean diddly squat in garrison, or on the battlefield. It only means something to ignorant bigots, who usually don’t serve more than one term anyway. Careerists are professional enough to deal with it.
The only way DADT could possibly be seen as a reasonable policy is if it applied equally to heterosexuals, as well. But because it singles out homosexuals (and bisexuals), I have to agree with Der Trihs; it’s discriminatory.
They’re required to explicitly suppress anything that might indicate their sexual preference. The same thing doesn’t apply to a straight guy saying, “Check out the fine ass on that chick.”
i don’t think anyone wants to die once they realize it’s not a game anymore. in the marines, when iraq happened in 2003, i found myself quickly absent of any macho, kill 'em all motivation. Canada was looking pretty good to me. 
i love the marines and would never change my experience, but there is that side of me that never liked how they reeled you in, young and naive, and filled you with false ideals and dillusions of grandeur. because once that reality kicks in that you may have to catch a bullet…things aren’t so red, white, and blue anymore.