# "A kiss sealed her fate", or "Don't ask, don't tell SUCKS!!!" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 8, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-kiss-sealed-her-fate-or-dont-ask-dont-tell-sucks/484962 "2009-02-08T21:23:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-kiss-sealed-her-fate-or-dont-ask-dont-tell-sucks/484962/101 "2009-02-10T23:41:34Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I don’t understand how DADT is a law. Isn’t the President the commander in chief? You think he would have the only say over military policy. If he wants cross-dressing homosexuals sucking each other off on the front lines while alternately singing Dixie, with a corps of midgets watching, in full view of the enemy, then isn’t that his decision? > > I mean, why does Congress have a say in it? AIUI, when Congress created the Uniform Code of Military Justice it took the decisions about what constituted proper behavior of military personnel away from the executive branch and put them into the hands of the legislative branch. (Or, it might more accurately be said that the legislative branch exercised it’s power of establishing law, for the executive branch to enact.) Now, what is and is not proper military behavior is codified by the UCMJ. I don’t know how DADT has become law, now, but originally it was simply an executive direction saying, “we’re not going to waste resources investigating these sorts of claims,” an executive end-run around the law. But the law making homosexual behavior verbotten was still on the books. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-kiss-sealed-her-fate-or-dont-ask-dont-tell-sucks/484962/102 "2009-02-11T00:03:39Z")
> [@flyboy](#): > > A) Straights would be skeeved out if they knew. This is important, for the same reason females don’t want me hanging around their berthing area with my toungue hanging out of my mouth. You do realize the woman in question must have been changing clothes in all-female locker rooms since middle school, right? I’m pretty sure she can manage to do it without her tongue hanging out. _I_ always have. It doesn’t take any special effort, either – a locker room is not a particularly sexy environment, and there’s nothing in there I ain’t seen before. If you found yourself in a women’s locker room it might be a novel and exciting experience for YOU, but it is not for a lesbian. > [@](#): > > \*I’m not a homophobe and I personally couldn’t give a flying fuck if some gay guy is checking me out. However, I believe a male has just as much of a right to privacy from someone sexually interested in them as is warranted with the male/female separation. \*I guess you mean _straight_ males have the right to privacy from people who might be sexually interested in them, because there’s no way for _gay_ males to have similar privacy without being totally alone. Well, I guess one gay man and one gay woman is a “safe” combination, but add a third person of any sex or orientation to the mix and suddenly there’s a faint possibility that one of the people involved might be attracted to another! Oh no! But aside from that, the plain fact is that outside the military homosexuals use school and gym locker rooms the same as heterosexuals. You (and any other man, or woman for that matter) have already unwittingly shared a locker room with homosexuals before, probably many times. You have never been free from the possibility that someone in the locker room might be checking you out. Somehow civilization carries on. And you know what else? Your “right to privacy” doesn’t include other people’s _thoughts_. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-kiss-sealed-her-fate-or-dont-ask-dont-tell-sucks/484962/103 "2009-02-12T14:51:29Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > What we want is a force similar to the Spartans. These rugged men formed the most powerful land forces in the Gre----what’s that honey? THEY WERE WHAT??? No, they weren’t. That was the Sacred band of Thebes. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-kiss-sealed-her-fate-or-dont-ask-dont-tell-sucks/484962/104 "2009-02-12T15:50:46Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I don’t understand how DADT is a law. Isn’t the President the commander in chief? You think he would have the only say over military policy. If he wants cross-dressing homosexuals sucking each other off on the front lines while alternately singing Dixie, with a corps of midgets watching, in full view of the enemy, then isn’t that his decision? > > I mean, why does Congress have a say in it? Because Congress is the body charged with making law. It’s an error to believe that “commander-in-chief” means that the president can do anything he damn well pleases with regard to the military. All it means is that it is the president who gives direct instructions to the military. Such instructions must conform with law as set down by Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-kiss-sealed-her-fate-or-dont-ask-dont-tell-sucks/484962/105 "2009-02-12T23:39:18Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > If there were any problems with gay soldiers seducing straight soldiers _it would already be happening._ And if it did happen, there are rules against sexual assault and sexual harassment. Enforce them. Perhaps some people are worried that, should a male soldier sexually assault another male soldier, it would be investigated as thoroughly as male-on-female assults. From [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/military.sexabuse/index.html) > [@](#): > > “We have an epidemic here,” she said. “Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.” > > As of July 24, 100 women had died in Iraq, according to the Pentagon. > > In 2007, Harman said, only 181 out of 2,212 reports of military sexual assaults, or 8 percent, were referred to courts martial. By comparison, she said, 40 percent of those arrested in the civilian world on such charges are prosecuted. > > Defense statistics show that military commanders took unspecified action, which can include anything from punishment to dismissal, in an additional 419 cases. DADT is an embarrassment and paints soldiers as unprofessional, infantile and savage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-kiss-sealed-her-fate-or-dont-ask-dont-tell-sucks/484962.md?page=5)