# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/81 "2004-06-22T18:34:30Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > …is staggering in **it’s** myopia. :smack: its, its, its, its ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/82 "2004-06-22T18:43:51Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Now, the gay guy in a situation like this could be the model of control, and the straight guy could by the model of tolerance. It still might not be a comfortable situation for either individual. And when it came time for reenlistment, this comfort factor could make a big difference in the decision. Missed this little gem. “A model of control”? I know that some straight guys have trouble believing this, but as far as i’m aware, gay guys do not all have an irresistible urge to hump every man within poking distance. You make it sound like the gay guy is going to be lying awake in the bunk every night thinking of baseball just so he doesn’t prod his bedmate in the ass with a rock-hard boner. If the people involved–both gay and straight–are the sort of professionals that the military commercials on TV insist are being produced in our armed forces, then they should be able to recognize that “hot-racking” is just another part of the job. ---
**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 22, 2004, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/83 "2004-06-22T18:55:29Z")
But what would you do, **mhendo**? to keep up mission readiness while you exclude the homophobes? Especially if there are a lot of them, and they fight really well? I’m dying to know, really, and I’m sure the DoD would love to hear your suggestions as well. ---
**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 22, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/84 "2004-06-22T19:02:17Z")
Sheesh, I wasn’t implying anything about gay guys. I was just remembering what I was like as a sailor in my early twenties. Hormones can run high, gay or straight. In any case, please accept my apologies for any offense inadvertantly caused. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/85 "2004-06-22T19:31:17Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > But what would you do, **mhendo** , to keep up mission readiness while you exclude the homophobes? Especially if there are a lot of them, and they fight really well? I’m not pretending that it would be easy. At the very least, i would make it clear to potential and incoming recruits that they are liable to runs across gays in the services, that the gay service people are no more or less important than any other member of the armed forces, and that homophobic taunts and actions would not be tolerated. While this strategy does not address the issue of homophobes who are currently in uniform, it would be a positive step towards gradually reducing their numbers by attrition. Hopefully, then, as the homophobes retired, they would not be replaced by more of their ilk. The very first step the military needs to take, and one that it seems singularly unwilling to take, is to make a clear and forceful statement that homophobia is actively discouraged in the armed forces, and that anyone who feels they cannot get over the hurdle of serving with gays should seriously consider whether or not they really should be in the military. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Sheesh, I wasn’t implying anything about gay guys. I was just remembering what I was like as a sailor in my early twenties. > > Hormones can run high, gay or straight. In any case, please accept my apologies for any offense inadvertantly caused. I wasn’t offended, just bemused. As i said before, i think that if these military men and women are really as professional as they would like us civilians to believe, then who their comrades choose to sleep with should really have no impact on their ability to do their jobs. Also, your own comment about hormones running high gets to the core of the issue for me. The military has always had to deal with problems that might affect troop morale and readiness–fraternization, drunkenness, adultery, violence, insubordination, etc. Why can it not deal with homophobia the same way–by ruling that discrimination against or abuse of homosexuals in the armed forces is a punishable offence, and making clear that any such offences will, in fact, be punished and not ignored or whitewashed. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/86 "2004-06-22T19:32:24Z")
I didn’t go thru the entire thread, but I’d like to ask Mr. Moto what actual evidence he has that gays in the military would cause a problem? I know there are a lot of hypothesis, but any actual data? On the other end of the spectrum, has there ever been a country that allowed gays to serve, only to reverse that policy because of its negative impact? IIRC, even the Israeli military has no ban against gays. If ever there was a country that depended on its military for its very survival, that would be Israel. I see no reason that a pilot program, at the very least, should not be tried in the US. Ban gay (and hetero) sex between members of the military, but what a guy or gal does for sex in his or her off hours is just simply besides the point. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/87 "2004-06-22T19:37:42Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] > [@](#): > > How can you understand and respect prejudice? Ah, you haven’t had diversity training yet. In order to deal with someone espousing a belief you find objectionable, you have to separate the person from the belief, listen to what the person is saying and maintain respect even in the midst of disagreement. Calling **Airman Doors** names does not get him any closer to seeing your POV. You have to negotiate consensus with him and get him to see things your way by being nonjudgmental yet firm in presenting your position. Mind, I know he (plus the rest of the board) doesn’t like or respect me, but it might work better for you. ---
**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 22, 2004, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/88 "2004-06-22T19:47:50Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Why can it not deal with homophobia the same way–by ruling that discrimination against or abuse of homosexuals in the armed forces is a punishable offence, and making clear that any such offences will, in fact, be punished and not ignored or whitewashed. I think it can, and should. That would be my preference, as opposed to DADT. **John Mace** , in my five years in the Navy, I’ve seen some instances of sexual misconduct firsthand, including some committed by gays. Some of them incidents are recounted above. They were quite serious and represented major violations of order and discipline. That’s why I take this issue seriously on all fronts. ---
**Author:** ![Hamadryad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6de8d8/32.png) [@Hamadryad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamadryad)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/89 "2004-06-22T19:49:16Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > **Mr. Moto** , the two can be compared because they are both considered sexual offenses under the UCMJ. I also saw junior sailors and officers “punished” for adultery. Usually non-judicially, as you said, usually confinement to base. In other words, “nudge, nudge, wink, wink, don’t let me catch you again, you scamp!” But it was hardly enforced with as much zeal as the DADT policy. As I’ve mentioned, several Marines I treated got away with it cold. One lovely specimen even brought his wife in after he’d been away on a West Pac. Why? Because he gave her chlamydia. Didn’t tell her they couldn’t have sex til after he’d been treated, because then he’d have to explain why. Same reason as to why he didn’t wear a condom. Oh, that and they were trying to get pregnant. What happened to him? Well, aside from his wife beating him with an umbrella, absolutely nothing. > > Adultery in the military is expected. It isn’t rigidly enforced, and if you’re going to say “homosexuality is a sexual offense under the UCMJ and will be enforced,” then you have to enforce ALL sexual offenses. Do I _really_ need to bring up Tailhook for proof that there’s a bias regarding sexuality in the military? This is _ **exactly** _ what I was talking about. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Sorry, Maureen. I meant that the numbers wouldn’t compare, as we know. What I was saying was that the numbers wouldn’t compare…because even though I would be willing to bet there are significantly more people committing adultery and having heterosexual sodomy than there are people outing themselves as homosexuals, homosexuals are **far** more likely to be booted out of the armed forces for their offenses. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Please read my posts above, where I pretty much concur that sexual responsibility needs to be tightened up in the military far more than it is. If this course of action was taken, the armed forces would be ALARMINGLY depleted. Imagine the fighting force we’d have if everyone who committed adultery or engaged in sodomy (which includes anal AND oral sex, remember) were kicked out for their crimes. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/90 "2004-06-22T19:56:27Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > But what would you do, **mhendo**? to keep up mission readiness while you exclude the homophobes? Especially if there are a lot of them, and they fight really well? > > I’m dying to know, really, and I’m sure the DoD would love to hear your suggestions as well. **Mr. Moto** exchange Black for Gay and you have your answer. It’s really that simple. How did intergration finally work? Let’s ignore the fact that there are most likely lots of racists right now that are working and functioning as a unit. Do we exclude every bigot in a uniform now? Every excuse that can be made about Gays were made for denying Blacks the ability to serve…and women. It’s amazing. We’re fighting ANOTHER civil rights war in this country, when are we ever going to grow up as a nation? We never freaking learn. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/91 "2004-06-22T20:05:00Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I didn’t go thru the entire thread, but I’d like to ask Mr. Moto what actual evidence he has that gays in the military would cause a problem? I know there are a lot of hypothesis, but any actual data? On the other end of the spectrum, has there ever been a country that allowed gays to serve, only to reverse that policy because of its negative impact? IIRC, even the Israeli military has no ban against gays. If ever there was a country that depended on its military for its very survival, that would be Israel. > > I see no reason that a pilot program, at the very least, should not be tried in the US. Ban gay (and hetero) sex between members of the military, but what a guy or gal does for sex in his or her off hours is just simply besides the point. From a report entitled: Belkin and Levit, “Effects of Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Israeli Forces: Appraising the Evidence,” hosted on the website of the [Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military](http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/IsraelPub3.htm#_Toc475351419), at UC Santa Barbara: > [@](#): > > Although no studies have been conducted that formally analyze the impact of either the restricted or unrestricted inclusion of sexual minorities in the IDF on operational effectiveness; combat readiness; unit cohesion; or morale, there is no indication that the participation of homosexuals has compromised Israel’s military performance. IDF officials have declared that the inclusion of homosexuals has not harmed its operations, and RAND and GAO reports in 1993 concluded that Israel’s policies had had no negative effect. Further, the scholars, former and present military personnel, and representatives of gay and lesbian organizations interviewed for this report indicated that they had not heard any intimations that IDF performance had been compromised by the inclusion of openly gay and lesbian soldiers. In this security-conscious country, where the military is considered to be essential to the continued existence of the nation, there has been no public debate or expressions of concern about possible harm to IDF rates of success by sexual minorities. Another [report](http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/2004_02_BatemanSameera.htm), by Bateman and Dalvi, entitled “Multinational Military Units and Homosexual Personnel,” concludes: > [@](#): > > Viewed collectively, the evidence presented in this study suggests that the presence of openly gay and lesbian personnel in multinational units in which Americans serve has not had a negative impact upon cohesion or military performance. Perhaps more importantly, it is an issue that has generated little attention, as one official with the UN DKO observed: “[I am] just not aware of any instances of sexual orientation becoming an issue in the field.” Experts from NATO, NORAD, the UN, and scholars who have studied these organizations all express similar observations. No one consulted for this study could think of an instance in which an openly gay or lesbian service member undermined a unitís ability to complete its mission. > > Four of the five case studies illustrate this conclusion clearly, but the fifth case study calls for additional commentary. First Lieutenant Joop Neijenhuijzen did experience difficulties in his unit. Unlike other service members discussed in this study, Neijenhuijzen was not fully candid about his sexual orientation with U.S. personnel. And, Neijenhuijzen served in a multinational unit ten years ago, while others served more recently. While Neijenhuijzen and his unit managed to accomplish their mission, conditions were more tense than ideally would have been the case. Neijenhuijzen’s example seems to confirm that strong and clear leadership is necessary for preventing problems and managing them should they emerge. In the absence of such leadership, units such as Neijenhuijzen’s tend to under-perform. > > \ > > Finally, scholars may debate the extent to which findings from this study may or may not be relevant for assessing the plausibility of the unit cohesion rationale, the notion that the presence of openly gay service members disrupts unit cohesion. On the one hand, the international setting itself may help explain why homosexual personnel do not disrupt multinational units. A number of experts discussed the diplomatic nature of personnel in multinational environments. As Thomas-Durrel Young observes, “When you’re working in [a multinational military] environment as you go up the chain [it] becomes excessively polite.” In places like NATO headquarters, derogative comments about someone’s sexual orientation become less and less likely; it would be improper for anyone, regardless of their personal opinions, to cause problems because of it. Many personnel who serve in multinational operations do so on a voluntary basis, and scholars have suggested that such personnel may display greater tolerance toward diversity. On the other hand, one underlying premise of the unit cohesion rationale is that American service members do not like gays and lesbians and cannot form bonds of trust with them that are necessary for promoting and sustaining military effectiveness. Evidence presented in this study, however, indicates that American personnel serving in multinational units have worked quite closely and effectively with openly gay service members from foreign countries, and that integrated service has not compromised the effectiveness of military units. You can read about those five case studies at the website, if you’re interested. The site also has a copy of a shorter [article](http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/ResearchResources/PressClips/news1_13_00.htm) that appeared in the _New York Times_ back in 1999. It states, in part: > [@](#): > > What the evidence suggests is that the sexual orientation of members of a military unit is not a factor in its performance. > > Hundreds of studies, summarized most recently in a 1998 report published in the Harvard University journal International Security, show that whether a unit’s members like each other has no impact on its performance. What matters is whether they are committed to the same goals in their work. Since the commanding goal of military units is a well-functioning defense, and even the Pentagon acknowledges that gay soldiers are as patriotic as everybody else, the studies conclude that dislike of gays will have no effect on military performance. > > Though many Americans may not know it, the military could simply look within for another test of the workability of units with members who are frank about being gay. Because some commanders are tolerant of homosexuality, there are large pockets in the military where gays already serve openly and, overall, these operations function at least as well as any others. The evidence from academic studies is that when commanders insist on tolerance, there are no problems. Make what you will of these reports, but if they are even close to the truth, then asserting that gays in the military undermine morale and compromise combat readiness is nothing but a big load of sophistry. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/92 "2004-06-22T20:13:45Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > **John Mace** , in my five years in the Navy, I’ve seen some instances of sexual misconduct firsthand, including some committed by gays. Some of them incidents are recounted above. They were quite serious and represented major violations of order and discipline. That’s why I take this issue seriously on all fronts. Using anecdotal evidence, as I’m sure you know, is not a good way to formulate public policy. Again, what do the Israelis know that we don’t know? Like I said above, if there is fear of undermining our entire military, then conduct a pilot program and move cautiously in that direction until and unless there is some credible evidence that the policy itself is flawed. **mhendo** : Thanks for the cites. Pretty much makes the case that fears of gays in the military is just that-- fear-- and little more. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/93 "2004-06-22T20:27:34Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **mhendo** : Thanks for the cites. Pretty much makes the case that fears of gays in the military is just that-- fear-- and little more. I think that’s right. For me, the most illuminating sentences in those reports were the following: > [@](#): > > Neijenhuijzen’s example seems to confirm that strong and clear leadership is necessary for preventing problems and managing them should they emerge. and > [@](#): > > The evidence from academic studies is that when commanders insist on tolerance, there are no problems. I’m realistic enough to realize that there will always be homophobes in the military. But, as others have pointed out in this thread, the military is an institution that is, in many ways, different from the rest of society. And one thing that makes it different is the very strong hierarchy, and the respect for the chain of command. If you get ordered to do something by your superiors, you may not always like or agree with the order, but you carry it out. Those quotes from the studies suggest that if the military brass makes it very clear that homophobic behavior will not be tolerated, and ensures that this is obeyed right down the chain of command, then there should be very little impact on morale or combat readiness. Professional soldiers, if they truly are professionals, will do their job. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/94 "2004-06-22T20:53:59Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Within a week of Truman announcing the racial integration of the Air Force, Secretary W. Stuart Symington accepted the resignation of approximately half of the general officers in the Air Force. This was right after World War II, when the Air Force was small and not as powerful as it is now. Something like that happening now would be catastrophic, and this issue has a high degree of probability making it happen. (in the other linked thread) Was this statement ever challenged? In other words, cite. [Digital History](http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/integrating.cfm) > [@](#): > > In March, 1951, the Army asked Johns Hopkins University’s Operations Research Office to analyze the impact of integrating its forces. Extensive surveys of troops and analysis of combat performance in Korea revealed that: > > Integration raised the morale of African American soldiers and did not reduce that of white soldiers; > Integration was favored by black soldiers and was not opposed by most white soldiers; > Experience in integrated units increased white support for integration; > Integration improved fighting effectiveness. > An essential finding is that integration reduced racial tensions within the military. In December 1951 the Chief of Staff ordered all Army commands to desegregate. [The Army’s website doesn’t mention it.](http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/integration/IAF-16.htm) > [@](#): > > (about the Air Force) > The fear of white opposition that had inhibited the staff planners and local commanders also proved groundless. According to a Fahy Committee staff report in March 1950, integration had been readily accepted at all levels and the process had been devoid of friction. “The men,” E. W. Kenworthy reported, "apparently were more ready for equality of treatment and opportunity than the officer corps had realized."36 At the same time, Kenworthy noted the effect of successful integration on the local commanders. Freed from the charges of discrimination that had plagued them at every turn, most of the commanders he interviewed remarked on the increased military efficiency of their units and the improved utilization of their manpower that had come with integration. They liked the idea of a strictly competitive climate of equal standards rigidly applied, and some expected that the Air Force example would have an effect, eventually, on civilian attitudes This history seems to point to the conclusion that the troops will do as they’re told if the brass is firm and dedicated. If it worked for racial integration and expanding the role of women, why wouldn’t it work for homosexuals serving openly? ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/95 "2004-06-23T03:21:00Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I know that some straight guys have trouble believing this, but as far as i’m aware, gay guys do not all have an irresistible urge to hump every man within poking distance. You make it sound like the gay guy is going to be lying awake in the bunk every night thinking of baseball just so he doesn’t prod his bedmate in the ass with a rock-hard boner. > > If the people involved–both gay and straight–are the sort of professionals that the military commercials on TV insist are being produced in our armed forces, then they should be able to recognize that “hot-racking” is just another part of the job. That’s absolutely true, of course. But it gets at the basic, very practical issue of privacy that everyone seems to be avoiding because they’re too busy calling each other homophobes and bigots. I’ve never served in the military and have absolutely no idea what living conditions are like – are male and female soldiers expected to share showers, bathrooms, and bunks? I’m assuming that they’re not, and they’re given separate facilities. If that’s not true, then ignore the rest of this post. But if they are given separate facilities, is that considered sexist? If a male soldier refuses to take a shower with a female soldier, does that mean that he’s questioning her competence or her professionalism? Or that he’s questioning her ability to control herself, and he’s sure she’s going to jump on him the moment his back is turned? I don’t think so; I think it’s just one of those basic matters of privacy. The military simply isn’t like other jobs, because you have to spend all day every day with your co-workers. I think the DADT policy is backwards and outdated, and it reinforces the idea that homosexuals are second-class citizens, and perpetuates homophobia and the idea that a person should be ashamed of or try to hide his or her sexuality. Still, I don’t think the issue is as cut-and-dried as some people would like to make it seem. Since we keep getting back to that example, how does the Israeli army handle living facilities? ---
**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 23, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/96 "2004-06-23T03:30:08Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > I’ve never served in the military and have absolutely no idea what living conditions are like – are male and female soldiers expected to share showers, bathrooms, and bunks? I’m assuming that they’re not, and they’re given separate facilities. If that’s not true, then ignore the rest of this post. It depends. The rules are that Officers and enlisted aren’t supposed to bunk together. That rule went by the wayside on my trip to the desert, where all the flyers in the squadron (except the women) stayed in the same tent. The women were initially given their own tent, but they annexed a portion of the support tent and built a wall for separation. Other times, like if we’re staying in a hotel, then there’s a good chance that everyone will get their own room, if it’s long term perhaps then you double up. Out in the desert, though, it’s all communal. Everything, with only a concession to the women for privacy’s sake. ---
**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 23, 2004, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/97 "2004-06-23T03:54:15Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > And if you can prove that a single person who claimed to be gay under DADT was lying to get a discharge, feel free to name names. I’ve not heard of any. [Cite](http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/rpt040798.html) I’m still looking for a specific case, but those are proving hard to find. Perhaps I’m not searching with the right terms. But anyway, this quote from the above cite should satisfy your curiosity on the topic for the time being: > [@](#): > > As a matter of policy, the Department has stated that homosexual conduct constitutes a basis for recoupment if it is punishable under the UCMJ or if an other than honorable discharge is authorized under the circumstances. **Statements acknowledging homosexual orientation generally do not provide a basis for recoupment unless it is expressly determined that the service member made the statement for the purpose of seeking separation from the military. For example, there have been cases in which medical and law school students, whose education had been financed by the government in return for a commitment to military service, made statements of homosexuality shortly after graduation.** In such circumstances, if it is determined that the service members who had received taxpayer funds were not acting in good faith, our policy authorizes recoupment in order to protect the public purse from abuse. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that if they have documented cases of people using that as an excuse after receiving educational benefits (as I asserted earlier) there will certainly be cases of people using that as a way to get out of combat. I’ll keep searching for a name, but barring that I think that that cite is sufficient to prove my point anyway. ---
**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 23, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/98 "2004-06-23T04:06:46Z")
[This](http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040427-092427-9980r.htm) is interesting as well, and worth the read. > [@](#): > > The latest tally of homosexuals booted out of the military for being homosexuals shows a startling trend: After climbing for the past decade, homosexual-related discharges suddenly declined during the past two years, the years of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, by almost 40 percent. > So says the latest annual report on such discharges by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a Washington-based advocacy group for homosexual military personnel. ---
**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 23, 2004, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/99 "2004-06-23T04:23:40Z")
And [this](http://www.davidclemens.com/gaymilitary/double.htm) will be my last cite for the evening because I need to go to bed. > [@](#): > > Air Force officials said a large number of the declarations of homosexuality – 293 of the 414 – took place at the service’s basic training camp at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. Most of those, the officials said, involved recruits who also requested immediate discharge during the six weeks of basic training. > > Lt. Col. Barbara Claypoll, a spokeswoman at the Air Force’s Education and Training Command, said one reason for the increase was that before the current policy took effect, the service did not count gay men and lesbians who were dismissed while at Lackland as discharges. > > **A survey ordered last year by Gen. Lloyd Newton, commander of the Education and Training Command, found that in the vast majority of cases the enlistees declared their sexual preferences to get a quick discharge, Claypoll said. She added that many appeared to be doing so falsely, as an excuse for getting out of the service.** I think I recall saying something along those lines. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400/100 "2004-06-23T05:35:53Z")
> [@Abbie Carmichael](#): > > **Ritalin, OTOH, does have mood- or mind-altering effects, and is a very common drug of abuse.** > > True. However, those who are on it for ADD aren’t the ones abusing it. I think “Ritalin abuse” and I think of speed freaks who hit up their friendly neighborhood drug dealer. People who actually NEED Ritalin aren’t getting a buzz off of it. > > **It’s not something you want to run out of on the battlefield.** > > I’m on Adderall, which is a step up from Ritalin. If I miss a dose, sure, I can’t hold onto a thought worth shit that day, but I’m not going to go through withdrawal or anything remotely life threatening. I’m also on adderall for fatigue stemming from multiple sclerosis. It makes my mind sharper, keeps me awake, and lucid. As adderall and ritalin are both amphetamines, they would alter perception but in certain doses it would improve focus and I am amazed it would be used as a disqualifier. On the don’t ask don’t tell bullshit, it is ludicrous, pointless, and an archaic dinosaur stemming from the egocentric fears and prejudices of straight men. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-dont-tell-strikes-again/251400.md?page=6)