you’re missing the point. they aren’t discriminating in any bigot, immoral way. the policy is simply to erase the element of romance/emotions filtering over to the battle field.
it’s not a moral issue the way this world makes it out to be.
so getting booted for being gay is not a moral thing…it’s a policy thing. when i first got to boot camp, i almost got tossed for an unpaid speeding ticket simply because it was policy
That doesn’t make sense. Female soldiers serve in war zones, and they get pregnant in record numbers. At least gays don’t threaten readiness by getting pregnant.
and in the marines if you said to a female or in her presence “check out that fine ass,” there would absolutely be consequences
Bringing an end to “don’t ask, don’t tell” would not require soldiers, sailors, and marines to be open about their sexual orientation. It would merely make it unacceptable to discharge them from service should that orientation become known. Individual service members would have the freedom and the discretion to let everyone or no one in their platoon, squad, team, ship, or assignment know whatever they wanted them to know. The very same arguments were made back in the late 1940s when Truman ordered the military to be desegregated. While it’s very likely that there were ugly and even violent incidents between service members following desegregation because of race, people got over it.
The job of the military is to follow orders. They would not and shall not fail in this instance just as they have not in the past. There is no prejudice too great - be it against gender, race, religion or even sexual orientation - that it cannot be overcome through a combination of orders and bullets flying at you.
There are already regulations governing and in many cases prohibiting romantic/sexual relationships between service members, particularly when one outranks another. Women in the military have certainly complicated these kinds of matters, but they have not broken down unit cohesion and instead have shown naysayers that they have every bit the discipline and courage that male soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have. Having known gay men and women nearly my entire life, I can tell you that just because they are gay does not mean they are attracted and fall in love with any person of the same sex they are in close proximity to. This is a ridiculous argument (that was also made against female service members).
being in a war zone is not the same as being able to serve in combat. females don’t “rush the front lines.” they are part of support units, which are still subject to attacks.
and pregnant females don’t threaten any sort of readiness
Then why doesn’t it apply equally to heterosexual soldiers?
Consequences as in a reprimand, or consequences as in a discharge from the service?
In the context of this discussion, though, this is a distinction without a difference.
Oh, pregnant women most certainly effect readiness in war zones. Here’s just one article. Other gynecologic problems also contribute to women spending a significant more amount of time on sick-call.
I don’t know about the Marines, but when I was in the Army it was professional enough that people of all kinds lived and worked together, overcoming individual prejudice to accomplish the mission. It was probably my favorite part of the Army and one of the few things I miss about it.
I worked with plenty of homophobic, ignorant racist soldiers, but however they might have talked in private, they kept it out of the workplace. There is no Mexican unit in the military, no Black Battalion or Asian Brigade. If the rednecks can get over working with minorities, homophobes can get over working with gays. I know because not only have I known both homophobes and gay people work together in civilian jobs, but there were known gay guys in my Army unit and the homophobes got over it.
And Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has nothing to do with preventing romantic relationships in the Army. First of all, straight soldiers aren’t prevented from having romantic relationships with each other, outside of the fraternization policy. Second, the rule doesn’t prevent gays from having relationships with each other, it just prevents them from being open about it. And third, just because they’re gay doesn’t mean they’ll automatically have relationships with other soldiers. I was married to a civilian the entire time I served.
Oh yeah, keeping women out of combat arms is a stupid rule, too. Especially in Iraq, where the distinction between combat arms and support is pretty blurry.
The only way it would be a good law is if it applied equally to ALL individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.
If it prohibited ANY display or verbal “telling” related to sexual orientation among personel, sure. Sex has no place in the military anyway, and is terribly distracting, right? So it ALL needs to go. No more revealing that you are heterosexual OR homosexual.
Army veteran here, and I think DADT is a ridiculous policy. It is bigoted, and I see absolutely no reason to not allow openly gay people to serve. All the arguments against it are the same arguments that were originally made when the armed forces were desegregated. “I can’t serve with them.” “There will be assaults.” etc, etc. The only way to get over it is to allow it, crack down on anyone who attacks or discriminates against them, and let everyone get over themselves.
Camus…is that in reference to Albert Camus? i like your point about desegregation, and hopefully one day we can break more molds. i never thought of it that way, as simple as it may seem. so thanks for the knowledge. 
now…fraternization is a totally different point. and i never said gay people fall for anyone near them, or women ruin unit cohesion…so you can’t say my argument is ridiculous, because i never said that.
what i said was romantic/emotional attachments on the battle field break down unit cohesion…which is one reason why females can’t serve in battle.
You are making my point here. Rednecks get fired up when bullets fly.
The only way to apply it equitably, would be to enforce the same treatment to gay men as is given to women. After all the reason to keep women out of combat is to preclude diversion and sex during combat, correct? and of course also> No more revealing that you are heterosexual OR homosexual.
I remember when it was enacted and I never heard that it was supposed to be a “stepping stone” but a compromise.
IIRC, Clinton campaigned on the issue of eliminating the prohibition of homosexuals in the military. When he took office there was a huge backlash against the idea, so he, in typical Clinton fashion, came up with this “compromise”.
That’s just silly. Of course they do. Who does the female’s work while she is giving birth and after? On top of the fact that they require work to ferry out of the field, administrative work to replace, and decreased job performance because the person replacing her has to get up to speed.
oh how my words are being twisted. please quote me where i said DADT is to prevent romance in the military. and please quote me where i said gay troops automatically want to date other troops.
what i did say was romance/emotional attachments compromise safety on the BATTLEFIELD. that’s one reason why females can’t serve in combat, and why gay relationships pose the same problem. i never said it was a guarantee, only a policy the military has to prevent it.
and honestly, i never encountered racism or homophobes. because i was an MP, i saw the result of “gay bashing” on a professional level, but racism specifically was totally not tolerated in any way. homosexuals in the Marine Corps really isn’t that big of an issue, as i assume they served in other branches, or kept it well hidden.
not to bash the Army, but our standards in the Marines would not allow any sort of prejudice or hate…i can’t speak for the grunts though
i’m not saying it means diddly squat either…i’m just referring to military policy and what it’s about. i’m not arguing the moral issues of it
i guess i should have been more specific…i meant combat readiness
They kept it hidden. You’ll just have to take my word for it. I’ve known many gay Marines. There use to be, and may still be a gay bar practically right outside the Marine base in San Diego.
As an MP, I’m surprised you weren’t briefed on the local gay bars, but maybe they’ve cut down on that form of harassment.
it does apply to heterosexuals too…that’s one reason why females can serve in battle.
and consequences that would probably make you wish you were discharged. the marine corps is not some barbaric sort of thing. respect for a marine has no gender, race, or anything like that