What do you think of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding homosexuality? Is it a reasonable means of protecting homosexuals from senseless discrimination, or must must gays be allowed to show it?
How can a policy that is itself discrimatory be said to protect people from discrimination? Then there’s the fact that it is routinely ignored.
I’m not sure what you mean by “must gays be allowed to show it.” It shouldn’t even be an issue.
I don’t know if you were in the military. I can only speak from my experience as to how completely inane this “policy” is. “Policy”…that’s a laugh. I’d wager that our S.o.D. would be shocked and that ramant number of “gays” in our heralded military. (Hint: there are more than 5) It is mind boggling that we are reduced to these name-calling tactics. It’s pre-adolescent at best. I knew a lot of “gay” soldiers. It may shock the nation to know that I was not analy raped in the shower once, nor did these nefarious “gays” try to change me over to “their” side. In Desert Storm, I spent a many night in a foxhole with a “gay” soldier. Lo and behold, never once did I find him trying to “make” me “gay”.
People all over our country volunteer to join the military. They come from all walks of life, all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of histories. This is what makes America interesting. Even “gays” and “lesbians” join of their own free-will. And in return they are ostricized.
Should we implement a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for women? native americans? brunettes? vegitarians? those who prefer boxers? Are any of these groups more or less threatening than homosexuals?
It would be refreshing if we could all grow-up for a minute.
“Allowed”? Give me a break!
I think that the military is a good place for some sheltered boys to learn that there’s a real world out there.
And how to live with that fact.
Peace,
mangeorge
During Navy boot camp in Orlando, Florida, we took one class in which the nice instructor explained the no-gays policy. (This was in '91, which pre-dated "don’t ask, don’t tell by a few years.) He said, “How would you like to have a man come up to you in berthing and put your penis in his mouth.” Just like that; as though that happened all the time before the no-gays policy was put into effect.
The military (and, until fairly recently, the federal government in general) has had an interesting notion of homosexuality that is, at its heart, based on a stereotype. Gays are these godless creatures who want to convert others into their nefarious lifestyles. They do things like jump innocent sailors in the shower and perform anal sex on them. They sneak around berthing at night, performing oral sex on random sailors. And, of course all this happens without the consent of the person on whom the sex act is committed. There’s a word for that, when it happens. It’s called “rape”, and it is against the Uniform Code of Military Justice. No need for a separate policy for gays.
Ideally, there should be no policy regarding gays. They should be allowed to join and serve alongside other personnel. Someday, this may happen, but until it does, I’m not holding my breath.
Robin
I was Coast Guard, m’self.
A lot of pain has resulted from policies that are based on fear of a sterotype. The military is afraid of what the rank and file would do if they had to serve alongside someone who butters their bread on the other side. The correct response is “Deal with it, soldier.”
The incorrect response is to keep them out, or keep them silent - removing some basic rights. Keeping gays out of the military does not force military people to grow up and face the fact that we live in the 21st Century, and DADT means that gays are the only people in the outfit who are prevented from talking about their sex lives - discrimination again. Neither of these are good.
Anybody who is concerned that gay people can’t be good soldiers should read up on an outfit from an obscure hunk of rock called Sparta.
Deal with it, soldier.
And let’s not forget how ineffective the policy actually is - reports I’ve seen (and no, I don’t have a cite handy, but no doubt I could get one if I weren’t so frazzled over my move to San Diego) have said that discharges based on sexual orientation have increased like fourfold since the policy was implemented.
It’s broke - somebody fix it.
Esprix
An interesting point about the policy is that it has also hurt a number of heterosexual people. Once the accusation has been made, it must be investigated, and… well, I challenge anyone here to prove that they are of any sexual orientation. It’s harder than it sounds, if you think about it.
When I did a writeup on this I read about women who turned down dates from men and were subsequently accused of lesbianism… because they couldn’t conclusively disprove the accusation, they were discharged.
BTW, the grounds for accusing someone of being gay are absurd- the DOD guidelines, IIRC, include such things as hugging a member of the same sex.
And for that matter, what you’re essentially regulating is speech. On any given day, how many times does someone make a reference to their personal life?
I think the policy, while well-meaning, was an utter failure. Besides, there’s a difference between being openly gay and making camo look more tasteful. I don’t think that there are many gay people who make it an issue constantly. When I have to write a paper for school, my sexual orientation doesn’t come into play. If I had to dig a trench, I don’t think the shovel would care if I like girls. Hopefully, nor should the person next to me.
I wouldn’t categorize “well, you can just stay in the closet” as a well-meaning policy. I’ll wait to see if anyone supports the policy before getting involved in this. Anyone? I mean, it’s the law, there must be some idiot out there that thinks it’s a good idea.
In my mind, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy seems to indicate a panicked rush to keep the Army’s ass out of the fire.
The only time a gay man should be punished in the military should be if he acts out of line towards another soldier. Same as straight men.
Esprix, you would know… you can be housed with other men for several months without falling to some “primal urge” to have sex with them, right?
Of course he can but he is bound by the Homo Law that says he must convert twenty innocents a week.
Curse you, Esprix! You’ve already taken our ability to dance! Must you take even more?!?!?
WHERE WILL IT ALL END?!?!?
Ah, but surely women shouldn’t be allowed in the military unless they’re gay - otherwise they’d be flaunting themselves in their low cut khakhi shirts and their regulation teeshirts causing all the red-blooded hetero male soldiers to sneak around the women’s berths at night and shove their penises in the female soldiers mouths, right?
DADT means consciously lie, all day every day, or risk ‘telling’.
DADT is a bad policy borne of political expediency and moral cowardice. It is, however, moderately better in spirit than the policy it supplanted. In practice, as has been noted above, it represents no improvement at all.
Speaking as a member of the military, DADT is an extremely gutless and completely unfair policy. Would I, a midwestern hick who had never personally known a (openly) gay man, have been uncomfortable showering with and bunking with a gay airman? Honestly, yes. I would also have been uncomfortable showering and bunking with women I found sexually undesirable. shrug So what? Either redo facilities to allow people more privacy or tell the military members to live with it or get out. Many of the same excuses about morale and such were used when it came time for racial integration or to let women in the services. The answer was basically “We’re doing it; you deal with it.”
This is not to say that there won’t be problems when the time comes (and I believe it is) that gays are openly allowed to serve. Some adjustments in housing may have to be made, for example. People should enjoy the right to feel secure from unwanted sexual attention when dressing or bathing, IMO, and I don’t think it is any more reasonable to pair a homo/hetero of the same gender as roommates in the barracks than it would be to pair two heterosexuals of opposite genders. Gang showers are already being phased out of the Air Force, but I don’t think the Army or Marines have made nearly so much progress.
Hey, if anyone, men, women, gay or straight wants to join the army and go to war, I’m all for it just so long as I don’t have to.
Getting sent to a place where people will try to kill you wasn’t much fun in high school, and I’m not looking to go through that again.
Some adjustments in housing may have to be made, for example. People should enjoy the right to feel secure from unwanted sexual attention when dressing or bathing, IMO, and I don’t think it is any more reasonable to pair a homo/hetero of the same gender as roommates in the barracks than it would be to pair two heterosexuals of opposite genders.
I see your point, but aren’t people in the military supposed to be well-disciplined?
If I had to live, work, eat, sleep, shower, and put my life on the line with them every single day? Damn right. That’s what we go off base for - to get some, er, what do they call it? “Poon tang?” Doesn’t sound like a very appealing flavor alternative to the more traditional orange-flavored Tang, if you ask me… 
Once The Agenda has been realized. Now go put on matching belt and shoes before we relegate you to Fashion Camp, where the boys are forced to sleep together, in one big bed, naked, for most of the day.
Esprix
My response to the OP is probably unsubltly hidden in my questions below, but may I ask any interested parties to respond to the topic as I understand it?
First Question (I my history flawed?): Wasn’t DADT not so much of a considered policy as much as a quick backpedal by Bill Clinton?
Background: Shortly after assuming office, and without fully studying full implemenataion, he announced to the press that he’d lift the ban on gays, in what seemed like a naieve grandstanding gesture. The military went nuts (well, probably not the rank & file, but the bureaucratic power players and the right-wing psuedo-intellectuals who think that being able to fix a sonar-scope makes them deep thinkers sure seemed to sound off). So the Clinton administration fell back on DADT as a compromise that angered everybody.
Second question (a simple request for statistics):
I read that dismissals from the service therafter actually increased. I also know several gay servicemen were murdered, but don’t know if this was also an increase from prior to DADT. does anyone have these figures?
Third (and my most loaded) question: If the military were to officially acknowlege the service of openly gay men and women, would it compromise its ability to conduct prompt and sustained combat operations? (an argument for this is that we cant’t fight without the average serviceman, who, before he had his mullet shaved off for bootcamp was a homophobic drop-out who shouldn’t have his Eminem-inspired sensibilities threatened. I apologize to all the decent people in uniform that are offended by this slur, but isn’t it true that you can’t expect to find plaster saints in barracks?)
Or, is the exclusion of gay people, often after their being exensively trained, a more serious compromise?
Please give this 3rd question more thought than Clinton did before he shot off his mouth and maybe got some gay people killed by homophobes. I’ll look in later tonight to see what you guys think. Thank you.