# Don't Ask, Don't Tell Strikes Again. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 21, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400 "2004-06-21T03:03:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/1 "2004-06-21T03:03:26Z")
From today’s [Chronicle.](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/06/20/national1933EDT0535.DTL) > [@](#): > > Even with concerns growing about military troop strength, 770 people were discharged for homosexuality last year under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, a new study shows. > > The figure, however, is significantly lower than the record 1,227 discharges in 2001 – just before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since “don’t ask, don’t tell” was adopted in 1994, nearly 10,000 military personnel have been discharged – including linguists, nuclear warfare experts and other key specialists. So. Even though we need people who are able to speak foreign languages, especially middle eastern languages, it’s far more important that we discharge them because of who they have sex with. I served with a lot of guys who ended up with strains of VD so virulent their dicks damn near fell off from unprotected sex with hookers in the Philippines. Where’s the outcry against _that_? And, right before we go to war, we dump troops? HUH?? I thought the whole idea was to make the military stronger. When I was enlisted, I was told “Well, gays in the military are in danger, they could be hurt, badly beaten if anyone finds out they’re gay.” Okay. And, instead of educating people, instead we’re furthering the opinion that being gay is wrong by not accepting these people in the military, where their talents are desperately needed. And, what does [Elaine Donnelly](http://cmrlink.org/), President of the Center for Military Readiness say? > [@](#): > > Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place. > > “We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” Donnelly said. “There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual.” Yes we do, you silly slitch!! We need people who love this country and are able and willing to defend it! Why does their sexuality even come into play? Look. Gays are a part of our society, just like any other group. They have just as much right to serve and fight for their freedoms as any sloped forehead, knuckle draggin sister raping trailer dwelling troll. Deal with it. GAH! Oh. Pit thread. I forgot. FUCK!! ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/2 "2004-06-21T03:19:36Z")
I noticed that the “record years” for discharge have been years when we have been at war. Now, the cynical among us might make that observation and draw the conclusion that, well, perhaps some of the “homosexuals” in the military saw that they might actually have to go somewhere to fight instead of just getting those promised education and health benefits, and hey, we’ve got a ready made out that won’t result in a dishonorable discharge, so let’s take advantage of that! Yo, I’m gay! I’m not saying that the policy is perfect, but I have the feeling that those numbers are that high because it’s such a perfect out. For instance, this quote: > [@](#): > > The study, which analyzed discharges between 1998 and 2003, found the majority of those let go under “don’t ask, don’t tell” were active duty enlisted personnel in the early stages of their careers. It implies that they’re the younger crowd, the ones that sign up for the benefits, ot the ones that have stayed for years because they love their jobs. On the other hand, you have obviously legitimate cases like the one in the story: > [@](#): > > Brian Muller, an Army bomb squad team leader who had advanced training on weapons of mass destruction and served on a security detail for President Bush, said he was dismissed from duty after deciding to tell his commander he’s gay. > > **"I didn’t do it to get out of a war – I already served in a war** ," Muller, 25, said in an interview. “After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn’t myself enjoy was almost unbearable.” Even so, note the implications of the bolded statement. He may be legit, but what he said implied that not all of these dismissals are legit. So, is the high number of dismissals really a result of homosexual people being found out, or people using that as an excuse to punk out of their commitments? Just something to think about. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/3 "2004-06-21T03:24:16Z")
Which should reinforce the idea that gays should have just as much right to serve as heterosexuals. Then there’d be no “punk out” excuse. As for Brian Muller, how many times should he be stationed in a war zone before you acknowledge that he served honorably and didn’t “punk out” ? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/4 "2004-06-21T03:26:23Z")
**Airman Doors** , I apologize for the second part of my post, I didn’t read your response thoroughly enough. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/5 "2004-06-21T03:27:03Z")
I never said that he “punked out”, I called his situation an “obviously legitimate case”. I believed every word he said. I’m criticizing the ones that use that as a way to get out of their commitments, the non-homosexuals that claim to be homosexual to get out of the military. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/6 "2004-06-21T03:43:57Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > I never said that he “punked out”, I called his situation an “obviously legitimate case”. I believed every word he said. I’m criticizing the ones that use that as a way to get out of their commitments, the non-homosexuals that claim to be homosexual to get out of the military. I agree with you here, some are using homosexuality (whether true or not) to get out of the military when danger rears its ugly head. The even more cynical among us might ask: why should being homosexual get you discharged in the first place? We already have soldiers who like men in the military; they’re called “women.” I honestly have no idea why one’s sexual preference should be cause for discharge. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/7 "2004-06-21T04:57:35Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Now, the cynical among us might make that observation and draw the conclusion that, well, perhaps some of the “homosexuals” in the military saw that they might actually have to go somewhere to fight instead of just getting those promised education and health benefits, and hey, we’ve got a ready made out that won’t result in a dishonorable discharge, so let’s take advantage of that! Yo, I’m gay! > > Just something to think about. Pregnancy works as a ticket out of Iraq too. The Brits [sent 83 home for that this past year](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/14/narmy14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/14/ixhome.html). We oversexed Americans do the same, but [don’t keep records](http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040615-115647-8125r.htm) on how many take advantage of the program. Just something else to think about. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/8 "2004-06-21T05:05:54Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Pregnancy works as a ticket out of Iraq too. > The Brits [sent 83 home for that this past year](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/14/narmy14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/14/ixhome.html). We oversexed Americans do the same, but [don’t keep records](http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040615-115647-8125r.htm) on how many take advantage of the program. > > Just something else to think about. Which is why women should a) Not be in a combat zone as combatants, guards, etc., b) should have to submit to some sort of implant/IUD/whatever for that limitation to be lifted, and c) should be court-martialed (along with the man who is responsible) should a pregnancy result. Why women, you ask? Because women contend that they can be just as effective as men in combat. I respectfully submit that you can’t fight effectively when you’re pregnant. The trend is that pregnancies are going up, destroying readiness, so guess what? It’s Norplant time. Either that or stay the hell home. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/9 "2004-06-21T05:14:18Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > so guess what? It’s Norplant time. Either that or stay the hell home. How do you plan to implement that without pissing the hell out of people with religious objections to birth control? ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/10 "2004-06-21T05:15:57Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > From today’s [Chronicle.](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/06/20/national1933EDT0535.DTL) > > So. Even though **we need people who are able to speak foreign languages,** especially middle eastern languages, it’s far more important that we discharge them because of who they have sex with. Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep them out of combat and employ them in the CIA or State Dept to translate and teach the language? Just a silly thought. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/11 "2004-06-21T05:17:48Z")
Yup. A war zone is no place for a pregnant woman. I wonder if we can move all the pregnant civilians out, too? Seriously, **Airman Doors** , while I agree in theory (and oddly enough, I do), that’s like telling those sailors I spoke of in my OP that they can’t have sex unless they use a condom. How do you enforce it? You should not be able to qualify for combat missions if you’re going to have to be sent home due to pregnancy. It wastes training, lowers the morale of your squad, and forces someone else to take your place. But I just don’t know how you’d go about it. Some women are allergic to Norplant. What about them? Are they automatically ineligible? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/12 "2004-06-21T05:20:24Z")
Sure, make allergies to implants/IUDS/some permanent form of birth control a disqualifier, in the same way that asthma and Ritalin use are permanent disqualifiers. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/13 "2004-06-21T05:22:25Z")
This is what I’ve always wondered–how gay do you have to be to get kicked out? Is it enough to be bi? What about a single passing thought about the way the Sarge’s uniform grabs onto his ass and just won’t let go? Or do you have to be a full-on man whore complete with lisp and degree in interior design? I’ve always found this rule to be ridiculous. Yeah, a lot of people are uncomfortable serving alongside homosexuals, but the military needs to make it clear that _those are the people with the problem_. I’m sure a lot of racist types feel uncomfortable in a multi-racial unit, but we don’t encourage this prejudice by segregating the troops–or, worse yet, just not letting the minorities serve. ---
**Author:** ![MidnightRadio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@MidnightRadio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MidnightRadio)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/14 "2004-06-21T11:59:36Z")
Why is Ritalin use a disqualifier? Does that go for people who used to take it but no longer do or just those currently on it? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/15 "2004-06-21T15:23:21Z")
**Doctor J** , you have to either be caught in a homosexual act or report yourself to your superior as gay. According to that Chronicle article I linked, there are 1 million active duty military personnel, and 1.5 million reservists. I cannot believe that anyone could be so naive as to think that in such a huge demographic, NONE of those people are gay. **Midnight Radio** , Ritalin is a mind altering substance and affects your decision making capability. Asthma is a medical condition brought on and exacerbated by stress. Neither should be compared with a reaction to Norplant or other birth control measures. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/16 "2004-06-21T15:35:01Z")
Doors, my respect for you goes up, and it goes down. With your participation in this thread, it’s at an alltime low. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/17 "2004-06-21T16:14:18Z")
The prohibition against homosexuality in the military is against sodomy. What you think is totally up to you. I have been in units where pregnancy was having a serious impact on readiness. I also saw a serious incident, on a Navy cruiser, where one gay sailor reacted to harassment by threatening to name every sailor he’d had an encounter with. The blackmail would have undermined several divisions, seriously harmed morale, and quite possibly put the blabbermouth’s life in jeopardy. The ship’s CO nipped the problem in the bud by transferring the sailor in question quickly. He left the navy a short time later. There’s no denying that this incident had the potential to be really ugly. It could’ve just as easily happened with a female sailor and married guys, and I won’t deny that. But lets not just blithely say that letting gays into the military won’t cause problems. I personally witnessed one. I’m sure there were others. What some people in this thread fail to realize is that a sex drive can’t be wished away. And, if it’s not managed well in a military situation, it will harm readiness. They also seem to feel there’s some magical “right” to serve in the military, when in fact there isn’t. The military is a job, and the interview process is selective and discriminatory. If you’re too old, you can’t join. Too fat, or out of shape, and you’re out of luck. If you joined the Communist Party for a month to impress a girl in college, you’ve probably screwed up your chances of ever wearing woodland green. Convicted felons, drug abusers, and people with DWI’s are disinvited as well. The military does not exist to give soldiers a paycheck and the GI bill after discharge. It exists to fight wars. Now, we can certainly debate whether letting gays and lesbians into the military will or won’t affect readiness, but let’s not do so on the basis of any fictitious “right” to be there. I could as easily claim discrimination against the flat-footed, or nearsighted. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/18 "2004-06-21T16:33:14Z")
As a matter of fact, I AM saying it’s impacting readiness. Discharging a total of 10,000 people based on their sexual orientation is self defeating. Is it even a question for service members in other countries? The Israeli army requires two years of service for men and one year of service for women upon reaching a certain age. I’m fairly sure there have been SOME gay Israelis at one point or another. Why is sexual orientation even questioned? I fail to see how being gay can even be put on par with being a communist. It isn’t an act of rebellion against the US government. It also isn’t a choice!! If a person is mentally and physically able to serve, that is ALL that should matter. Your comparisons to physical limitations are laughable. Being gay is not a physical handicap. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/19 "2004-06-21T17:36:30Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The prohibition against homosexuality in the military is against sodomy. What you think is totally up to you. Not true. You can get discharged just for saying you’re gay. You don’t have to actually have gay sex. Furthermore this “sodomy” thing is not enforced against heterosexual sodomy. Soldiers are not getting discharged for getting blow jobs from their wives. > [@](#): > > I also saw a serious incident, on a Navy cruiser, where one gay sailor reacted to harassment by threatening to name every sailor he’d had an encounter with. Good for him. It’s a commendable tactic and it shows how stupid the anti-gay policy is in the first place. > [@](#): > > The blackmail would have undermined several divisions, seriously harmed morale, and quite possibly put the blabbermouth’s life in jeopardy. His life would be in danger from whom? Homophobic criminal psychopaths? Shouldn’t the miltray be more concerned about keeping homophobic psychopaths out then gay people? The blackmail is only effective when you have an asinine, bigoted policy to begin with. Remove the restriction and _voila_, no more blackmail. > [@](#): > > The ship’s CO nipped the problem in the bud by transferring the sailor in question quickly. He left the navy a short time later. There’s no denying that this incident had the potential to be really ugly. And the blame can be placed entirely on the policy. > [@](#): > > It could’ve just as easily happened with a female sailor and married guys, and I won’t deny that. But lets not just blithely say that letting gays into the military won’t cause problems. I personally witnessed one. I’m sure there were others. The _policy_ caused the problem, not the gay man. > [@](#): > > What some people in this thread fail to realize is that a sex drive can’t be wished away. And, if it’s not managed well in a military situation, it will harm readiness. I guess that explains all the sexual assault of female soldiers by male soldiers over in Iraq. Funny, but I haven’t heard of any rape epidemic being committed by gay mean. Maybe hetros are the problem. Certainly hetro men raping female personel is a far more serious problem then a guy who threatens to out a few guys who had consensual sex with him. > [@](#): > > They also seem to feel there’s some magical “right” to serve in the military, when in fact there isn’t. The military is a job, and the interview process is selective and discriminatory. If you’re too old, you can’t join. Too fat, or out of shape, and you’re out of luck. If you joined the Communist Party for a month to impress a girl in college, you’ve probably screwed up your chances of ever wearing woodland green. Convicted felons, drug abusers, and people with DWI’s are disinvited as well. No credible reason has ever been shown that a homosexual orientation in any way impedes the ability to serve. It’s a policy based on sheer bigotry and ignorance, no different than when segratory practices were implemented against black soldiers. You’re also missing the point that the military is shooting itself in the foot by discharging personel who possess critical skills during wartime for basically no sane reason. > [@](#): > > The military does not exist to give soldiers a paycheck and the GI bill after discharge. It exists to fight wars. Now, we can certainly debate whether letting gays and lesbians into the military will or won’t affect readiness, but let’s not do so on the basis of any fictitious “right” to be there. I could as easily claim discrimination against the flat-footed, or nearsighted. The fact is that it is incumbant on the government to show a reason that homosexuals are not as competent as heterosexuals to serve in the military. The discrimination cannot be arbitrary. The military cannot, for instance, decide that Jews are unfit to serve and offer no reason as to why. That, in effect, is exactly what they have done with homosexuals. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/20 "2004-06-21T17:37:38Z")
Point taken, **Maureen**. But I have to ask, what is your military background? Are you a veteran yourself? If not, have you given any particular study to the military to see how sexual politics can adversely affect readiness, especially when issues like security clearances are involved? I saw this stuff firsthand for years. I saw people lose their clearances, and imperil their jobs, for things that might seem minor to you. Things like extramarital affairs, for instance. They were weaknesses that a foreign agent could exploit, because the threat of blackmail was there. At certain levels of security, these things are taken extremely seriously. In no normal job should someone lose their livelihood because they slept around. But this is the deal that’s struck in the military, where adultery, sodomy, and carnal knowlege are all crimes punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As for other countries, that’s for them to decide. But the measure of a military ultimately is it’s effectiveness, and no other country can challenge the United States on this score. Can the Dutch fight with open gays in their military? Perhaps, but the United States can also fight without them, and very well. It’s not a great comparison. Ultimately, this issue should be decided on the basis of what’s right for America, and what the Dutch do really is immaterial. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400.md?page=2)