Don't Ask, Don't Tell Strikes Again.

[mhendo]

@Airman Doors

Actually, I’m avoiding the topic because a) there’s nothing I can do about it, b) I have no desire to get into a fight over this, and c) I am getting a strange sort of satisfaction from your attempts to pick a fight with me.

And I never compared homosexuals with deserters. You made that comparison by trying to pin it on me.

To take your points in order:

(a) What a lame excuse. If we avoided topics that we could do nothing about, these message boards would contain about one tenth the posts they do now. At least have the guts to say that you’re torn between the choice of appearing to be a homophobe, and appearing to criticize the military. For what it’s worth, i suspect you’re not a homophobe.

(b) What fight? This is just a debate like any other. If you really had no desire to address the topic, why bother responding to the thread at all?

© See (b), above. When someone responds to a thread, it is generally assumed that the person is willing to address the issues raised in the OP, and to become involved in a debate. As for picking a fight with you specifically–don’t flatter yoursaelf. I’m simply pointing out where and why i disagree with DADT and those who support it. Same technique that most Dopers use in most threads.

While you might not have directly compared gays to deserters, all you did in your first post was point out how DADT gave some people an opportunity to punk out of the military. So, while you claim not to want to address the topic, your own first post did address it. You just punked out on drawing the logical conclusion that arises from your own post, which is: Get rid of DADT, and you not only rid the armed forces of a bigotted rule, but you close a loophole that is allowing people to leave the army early. It’s a win-win.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@mhendo

(a) What a lame excuse. If we avoided topics that we could do nothing about, these message boards would contain about one tenth the posts they do now. At least have the guts to say that you’re torn between the choice of appearing to be a homophobe, and appearing to criticize the military. For what it’s worth, i suspect you’re not a homophobe.

This topic has been done before, and I took a beating. It wasn’t a debate, it was a dogpile. If you try to explain objectively about why things are the way they are then you’re attacked as a homophobe, bla bla bla, and I have no desire to be attacked over something like this again.

(b) What fight? This is just a debate like any other. If you really had no desire to address the topic, why bother responding to the thread at all?

Because the OP was being very indignant about the whole thing, and I wanted to point out that while it does suck, I’m willing to bet that the numbers are skewed by non-homosexual cheaters, and that pissed me off. After that it went off topic and I continued to participate because I had some other stuff to say.

(c) See (b), above. When someone responds to a thread, it is generally assumed that the person is willing to address the issues raised in the OP, and to become involved in a debate. As for picking a fight with you specifically–don’t flatter yoursaelf. I’m simply pointing out where and why i disagree with DADT and those who support it. Same technique that most Dopers use in most threads.

Right. By tossing out insults. Or is “Hasn’t got the guts to actually take a stand on the issue, and contents himself by making veiled comments that obliquely compare homosexuals to deserters…” not an insult. You were baiting me, just admit it.

While you might not have directly compared gays to deserters, all you did in your first post was point out how DADT gave some people an opportunity to punk out of the military. So, while you claim not to want to address the topic, your own first post did address it. You just punked out on drawing the logical conclusion that arises from your own post, which is: Get rid of DADT, and you not only rid the armed forces of a bigotted rule, but you close a loophole that is allowing people to leave the army early. It’s a win-win.

No, my first posts was all about pointing out that the numbers are undoubtedly skewed by cowards who skirted their duties by lying through their teeth. My opinions on DADT are well documented (read the above linked thread), and I don’t feel the need to incite more hostility from people who see what they want to see instead of what I said.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Fixed link.

[Syntropy]

I’m not indignant. I’m too damn tired to be indignant. I’m astounded. And saddened. And disgusted.

That we make advances in science and medicine and technology, and socially we’re still toddlers.

That all these phobias and all the hatred and intolerance and anger come from one thing: Fear. And no one is willing to admit it, or do anything to correct it. As if being afraid is something to be ashamed of. As if being wrong is a mortal sin.

That it takes countless lawsuits and beatings and senate hearings all to come to the same conclusion: there is no reason for this to be happening. It’s stupid. A waste of talent and of resources. They are citizens, they vote, they want to serve our country. Just fucking let them.

[Otto]

@Airman Doors

In which case there’s no guarantee that declaring true homosexuality would result in dismissal, either. They either take all such claims seriously or they take none of them seriously, in which case the problem goes away.

Or they quietly stop enforcing the policy, as any number of comanding officers already do according to anecdotal reports I’ve read offline. And they tell Congress that the policy has the potential to cost American lives, that it’s untenable and that it needs to be scrapped.

@Airman Doors

The benefits are great, but you joined the military, not the local college. You can’t take the college money and then change your mind when you are told to go somewhere and fight. That is about as cowardly an act as ever was.

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.

@Airman Doors

This topic has been done before, and I took a beating.

And the reason you took a beating is because you deserved it for saying stupid shit like this:

Dismissing seven people with valuable skills is VITAL to our national security. Morale in the military is essential for recruiting and retention. Homosexuals are the minority group here, and if the morale of the majority is dramatically affected by homosexuality then they have to go. Clearly this has proven to be the case in the past. It’s that simple. It’s a case of the few having to pay the price for the many.

This comment was in regard to seven Arab linguists who were dismissed for homosexuality. Seven people whose job in the military was pretty much to translate intercepted terrorist communications. Ask the average servicemember if, given the choice between having seven openly homosexual people in the military versus dying in a terrorist attack because there weren’t enough translators, and my bet is that even the most virulently homophobic of them would choose life.

You should have stuck with

That’s my last word on the subject.

because every time you put out more words on the subject you come off more and more like an bigoted ignorant dumbfuck asshole.

[Otto]

Oh, and because somehow no one ever corrected Ms Robyn from the thread ADUSAF linked, let me.

@Ms Robyn

Look, people. The ban on gays was enacted by Executive Order, and can only be removed by Executive Order. All the laws passed by Congress isn’t going to change that. The President, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, is ultimately responsible for this, and would do so under the advice and counsel of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The gay ban was never the result of an Executive Order. The various branches of the military issued various anti-homosexual directives (dating back to a Selective Service directive issued in May 1941) until the Department of Defense issued uniform regulations in August 1949. The DoD kept those regs largely in place and unchanged until January 1982 when directive 1332.14 part 1, section H was issued, declaring homosexuality to be "incompatible with military service. This despite multiple reports dating back to as early as 1957 (the Crittendon Report) which found no evidence that homosexuality presented a bar to military service and that in some instances homosexuals might be better suited to serve. No less a personage than Defense Secretary Dick Cheney described the policy (in 1991) as “a bit of an old chestnut.” President Clinton moved to end the ban in 1993 but, because of homophobic maneuvering in Congress was able only to get as far as DADT, which was passed by Congress and signed into law.

Long story short, DADT is a law, not an Executive Order. The President does not have the power to overturn it. It must be either repealed by Congress or overturned by the courts.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Otto

You should have stuck with because every time you put out more words on the subject you come off more and more like an bigoted ignorant dumbfuck asshole.

Whatever. Remember what I said about selective reading, mhendo? There’s your proof, and that’s why I didn’t want to get into it about DADT.

Otto, you want me to be a bigot? Keep calling me one, even though virtually every single thing I said in that thread was in support of gays in the military. It’s people like you that create bigots. Which makes sense, because you’re one too.

[gobear]

@Airman Doors

Whatever. Remember what I said about selective reading, mhendo? There’s your proof, and that’s why I didn’t want to get into it about DADT.

Otto, you want me to be a bigot? Keep calling me one, even though virtually every single thing I said in that thread was in support of gays in the military. It’s people like you that create bigots. Which makes sense, because you’re one too.

Um, and then there’s folks like me who support the military, yet disagree with DADT. I understand and respect the military’s unease that openly gay soldiers could be prejudicial to good order and discipline, yet it seems to me that forced racial integration was met with the same objections that vanished over time. Ditto with women in the military, and it seems to me that the UCMJ riules now in effect would wqork well enough with gays in the military–no fucking in the chain of command, no harrassment and so forth.

Airmqan Doors is most emphatically NOT a bigot as he has shown himself to be open-minded and accepting of gay people in general. Although he does like to mock people for having college degrees.

[lissener]

@gobear

. . .
Airmqan Doors is most emphatically NOT a bigot as he has shown himself to be open-minded and accepting of gay people in general. . . .

Sorry, go, but this doesn’t follow. I have a pretty close friend (she used to be closer) who has a number of gay friends. It took me a long time to realize that, nonetheless, she harbors a deep and abiding homophobia. I’d be happy to go into more narrative if you’d like, but all I mean to suggest in the context of your last post is that, if what a person does and what a person says, and what a person reveals about how they really feel through their actions and words, don’t mesh, then you and I must be willing to re-examine our initial impressions of that person. Obfuscatorially multisyllabificatious and shit, but perhaps you understand what I’m trying to say. Like my grandfather: had a bunch of black buddies down at the steel mill, but disinherited my uncle for dating a black girl in college. If my uncle had never dated a black girl, I’d never have thought of my grandfather as a racist. (Not putting my g’father and Doors in the same basket; I’m just saying.)

[Hamadryad]

I’d kind of like to see the numbers on discharges due to homosexuality vs. discharges due to adultery or sodomy. If I’m not mistaken, the latter two are also violations of law in the Military.

If more people are discharged for homosexuality than for the other two offenses, then it should be obvious that homosexuality is being prosecuted disproportionately to other offenses. I find it impossible to believe that more people outed themselves as homosexuals, than were caught boning someone else’s spouse. Or, for that matter, receiving head from their boy/girlfriends.

I think DADT is a ridiculous policy anyhow, for reasons stated elsewhere in this thread. HOWEVER, if the Military wants to insist it’s not homophobic (“we don’t mind gays, we just feel - for gawrd knows what reason - that they’ll hurt morale” vs “we don’t like gays”), it’s going to have to start pursuing heterosexual adulterers and sodomites with the same amount of zeal.

[mhendo]

@Airman Doors

Whatever. Remember what I said about selective reading, mhendo? There’s your proof, and that’s why I didn’t want to get into it about DADT.

Well, you have every right not to get into a debate over DADT.

But if this truly your goal, may i respectfully suggest the following:

Next time someone starts a Pit thread with the words “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the title, maybe you shouldn’t be the very first Doper to respond. Because chances are very good that a thread with the title “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Strikes Again” will turn into a debate over the policy itself. Entering such a thread, and then throwing up your hands and saying you don’t want to debate the issue, is a little disingenuous.

As for selective reading, you may be right about Otto’s reading of your post. I don’t know, because i haven’t read that other thread.

But it seems to me that the passage he quoted stands by itself. I literally cannot think of a context in which i wouldn’t find that statement extremely problematic. No, it doesn’t mean you’re a homophobe, but it does strongly imply that you subscribe to the notion that it is better–or at least easier–to discriminate against gays than it is to address the underlying problems that bring about homophobia.

And let’s not forget that the whole policy of DADT is an effectrive acknowledgement by the armed forces that gays are, in fact, perfectly capable of performing military service. After all, if the military brass and the politicians actually believed that gays could not do the job properly, they would do their best to actively root them out of the military altogether, rather than just take the approach of passive ignorance about who is and is not gay.

Personally, i think DADT represents a stunning display of cowardice by those who make the rules. They are saying, in effect, “Yes, we know gays can do a military job perfectly well, so we’re not going to try to keep them out. But, once they’re in, they have to fend for themselves against any bigots and rednecks they come across. We don’t wanna know about it, and we’re not willing to enforce any rules about homophobic behavior.” That’s some great moral leadership.

[Mr.Moto]

Hamadryad, I don’t know how the two can be compared, since they are punished in very different ways.

I saw several junior sailors punished for adultery or abandonment or both. The punishment was always meted out nonjudicially, meaning at the discretion of the commanding officer and not a court martial. It typically took the form of some combination of restriction to base or ship, extra duty, forfeiture of pay, and reduction of rank.

Officers caught in adultery can typically find that their careers are effectively ended, since their leadership ability can be called into question. This is especially true at very high rank.

This article has a good treatment of this. Read the side stories.

Until very recently, homosexuality was declared as completely incompatible with military service, and homosexual behavior still is. So efforts to rehabilitate the sailor or soldier, like with adultery, weren’t contemplated in this case. Discharge was the available option.

I don’t have numbers, like you asked for, but I hope the information I provided provided at least some more data for you.

[Syntropy]

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?

[Mr.Moto]

Sorry, Maureen. I meant that the numbers wouldn’t compare, as we know.

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.

[Otto]

@Airman Doors

Whatever. Remember what I said about selective reading, mhendo? There’s your proof, and that’s why I didn’t want to get into it about DADT.

Otto, you want me to be a bigot? Keep calling me one, even though virtually every single thing I said in that thread was in support of gays in the military. It’s people like you that create bigots. Which makes sense, because you’re one too.

Whatever back at you, shit-for-brains. Speaking of reading comprehension, when did I call you a bigot? Oh that’s right, I didn’t, I said you came off sounding like one. You may be completely pure of heart and right of mind, but you express yourself like, well, a bigot. You advance arguments based on bigotry and you offer support to a bigoted policy by saying, effectively, “the brass has decided that’s the way it is and that’s the way it is.”

Still waiting for you to name a single straight servicemember who falsely claimed to be gay to obtain a discharge…

@gobear

I understand and respect the military’s unease that openly gay soldiers could be prejudicial to good order and discipline

How can you understand and respect prejudice?

[Mr.Moto]

How can you, Otto, not understand that social justice concerns are extremely secondary when it comes to the military?

Again, this isn’t a fair-hiring program. The military exists solely to defend American citizens and American interests, and meet obligations imposed by our treaty responsibilities. Everything else the military does it does to support this primary goal.

What’s next, a requirement that the military obey the Americans with Disabilities Act? Comply with age discrimination requirements? After all, these are people who pay taxes and want to serve their country.

And before you flame me, note well that I support scrapping DADT. But these are bullshit arguments for doing so.

[mhendo]

@Mr. Moto

How can you, Otto, not understand that social justice concerns are extremely secondary when it comes to the military?

Again, this isn’t a fair-hiring program. The military exists solely to defend American citizens and American interests, and meet obligations imposed by our treaty responsibilities. Everything else the military does it does to support this primary goal.

What’s next, a requirement that the military obey the Americans with Disabilities Act? Comply with age discrimination requirements? After all, these are people who pay taxes and want to serve their country.

And before you flame me, note well that I support scrapping DADT. But these are bullshit arguments for doing so.

Again, whether or not you support DADT, your comparisons are asinine. The issue of denying admittance to the disabled and the elderly is not a social justice issue; it is an issue of their ability to do the job.

There is something intrinsic to the nature of a physical disability that makes someone unfit for combat. If you’re partially or totally blind, you can’t even see the enemy, let alone fight him. If you’re in a wheelchair, you can’t move with the necessary mobility over rough terrain, you can’t keep up with your squad, and you might not be able to handle your equipment properly. If you’re deaf, you can’t hear and respond to orders, especially over communications technology like two-way radios.

If you’re elderly, you may have no disability, but your bodily strength and mobility might still prevent you from carrying out your duties adequately.

There is nothing intrinsic to homosexuality that makes a gay person unfit for combat. As long as the person has all the requisite abilities, his or her homosexuality does not in any way prevent that person from being a good soldier. The DADT policy is an implicit acknowledgement of this fact.

In fact, the only thing that makes gay people “unfit” for combat is a “disability” found in other sections of the military–bigotry and prejudice.

[Syntropy]

I’m not going to flame you, Mr. Moto, just disagree with you.
I haven’t seen anyone give ANY bullshit reasons for gays being allowed in the military.

I have also yet to see your response on why you feel it is necessary to continue to compare gays to physically handicapped people. Being gay is not a physical handicap. You need to separate these two things in your mind. Perhaps Yeticus Rex was correct, and you are seeing it as such. Let me make it a bit more concise, then.

There is no acceptable reason why a healthy, intelligent young gay man (or woman) should not be allowed to join the military. If said individual passes all physical and mental requirements to enlist, they should be allowed to do so. Period. Their sexual orientation should not come into play any more than does the fact that they are married or single. It simply. Does not. Matter.

[Mr.Moto]

Can’t agree, mhendo. Homosexuality and the reaction to it can have effects on unit cohesion and morale. I’ve seen it myself, so can’t just wish this away. And I do support, like I said, doing away with the policy. I think these effects can be managed.

Because I’ve seen it, though, I can’t just dismiss the people in the Pentagon dealing with this as a bunch of bigots. My take is that they’re wrestling with this issue while trying to maintain military readiness and effectiveness.

Do you really think, in the America we live in, someone would willingly seek to be labeled a bigot? There are a lot of factors at work here. My brother, for example, was a submariner. For the first year he was on the submarine, he had to “hot-rack.”

Because of space limitations, there aren’t enough bunks for everybody on a sub. Some junior guys get to hot rack. They work out a schedule around their watch sections where three guys share two bunks. That’s how tight the quarters are.

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.

This is the kind of scenario the Pentagon has to think about, when they come up with policy. I really don’t envy them.

[mhendo]

@Mr. Moto

Can’t agree, mhendo. Homosexuality and the reaction to it can have effects on unit cohesion and morale. I’ve seen it myself, so can’t just wish this away.

The key word here is “reaction.” I’m not denying that the reaction to homosexuality can have an adverse affect of “cohesion and morale.”

But the fact that some people react adversely to homosexuality, and thus cause damage to cohesion and morale, is a product of their own attitudes, and not an intrinsic product of homosexuality.

If some people react adversely to homosexuality, and bring down unit morale, then why not exclude those people, rather than gays, from the military? The “blame the victim and avoid the real problem” attitude that underlies the DADT policy is staggering in it’s myopia.