"Don't ask/Don't tell" is very stupid

[Thunder]

#1. Its 2010...its time for us to grow up.

#2. The Israeli military allows gays. They are doing just fine.

#3. The NATO forces allows gays. They are doing just fine.

#4. We have a lack of Arabic and other Middle Eastern and Central Asian languages. It is helping the enemy, to kick out language translators just cause they are gay.

#5. Our forces are stretched thin. We need as many willing and able bodies to serve as possible. Keeping out 10% of our population makes NO sense.

#6. Gays are in our workplaces. Our sports teams. Our gyms. Our halls of politics. All hell has not broken lose due to this.

#7. Its 2010!!!!!!! Time to grow up America.

 

[Bikewer]

I listened to a Republican congressman (and ex-marine) on NPR's All Things Considered tonight talking about why Don't Ask Don't Tell should be retained.
He stammered and stuttered and essentially made no sense at all.
He went on about "close quarters" for combat troops and "showers and bathrooms"....
The interviewer gently prodded him..."Acknowledged that there are at present gay troops in the military, and they are in these situations right now....."

The congressman thought it would be worse if they were "open".

I was a medic in the infantry back in the mid-60s, and the medic corps seemed to be about half-gay by my count. No one seemed to care...
When somebody got hurt the call was "Doc!" , not "straight Doc."

 

[hgc]

The Republicans can see this one slipping away from them, and they don't like it. Take McCain for instance. A few years ago, he said that we should listen to the military leadership about repealing DADT, and if in the future they came and said that it should be repealed, then we should consider it. Today, Adm Mullen (Chairman, JCS) said it should be repealed. Now, McCain doesn't think the opinion of the Pentagon leadership is so great. God, I hope this bitter old tool loses his primary to wingnut Hayworth.

 

[kuroyume0161]

#6. Gays are in our workplaces. Our sports teams. Our gyms. Our halls of politics. All hell has not broken lose due to this.

This is one of the first things that came to mind earlier today when I heard this tripe on CNN.

Can they show that there are no gay police officers (there are gay police organizations even)? Can they show that there are no gay firemen? No gay people working in any such work environments? And are those work environments suffering thereby?

This is traditionalism braced by homophobia, plain and simple. It is a worldview that died several decades ago but our military, being the progressive bunch that they are, is the last bastion of idiocy in this regard. They even allow women and African Americans in units now (though I'll say that women are still given a difficult time). They may have the most cutting-edge technology and weapons but it's about time to move with society and reality.

 

[Thunder]

T
This is traditionalism braced by homophobia, plain and simple.

and fear of change.

i think if they repealed it, they would find that very little..if anything...would change.

gays in the military know not to flaunt it..or they will get a beat down. that won't change.

our govt. has no business forbidding patriotic gay Americans from serving their country. and they have no business kicking patriotic, loyal citizens out of the military, just cause they find out they are gay.

i am not a fan of gay marriage. i'll admit it.

but gays in the military? it seems no nonsense to me.

we need all the folks we can get to serve!!! what kind of country kicks out loyal, useful, reliable, patriotic, intelligent soldiers?????

its time to grow up America. we voted for our first black President. that's a good start. now its time to let gays serve in the military.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Come gather 'round people wherever you roam ...

etc., etc . ..

' For the times, they are 'a changin' ....

 

[GreNME]

I listened to a Republican congressman (and ex-marine) on NPR's All Things Considered tonight talking about why Don't Ask Don't Tell should be retained.
He stammered and stuttered and essentially made no sense at all.
He went on about "close quarters" for combat troops and "showers and bathrooms"....
The interviewer gently prodded him..."Acknowledged that there are at present gay troops in the military, and they are in these situations right now....."

The congressman thought it would be worse if they were "open".

Worse than that, he stammered after he accidentally blurted out that his reasoning against DADT is that he opposed hermaphrodites and transgenders in the military and the interviewer incredulously asked him to clarify.

Really, a more stupid "representative" of the opinion could likely not be found. I'd have thought that the ATC folks searched for the most ridiculous stereotype of the type who support DADT, but this was a congressman and, honestly his explanations seem about par for the course on the stupidity of the DADT position anyway.

 

[SatanicSheep]

I get a little sick of people acting like Obama is striking down the last of the Jim Crow laws with this. DADT was part of the military budget for 1993, not 1893. It was signed off on by some of Obama's biggest supporters. It doesn't BAN gays in the military, it bans anyone talking about homosexual experiences/prefernces.

DADT was a response to vicious hatecrimes being commited in the military. However the language was poor and discriminatory and the implamentation turned into a debacle.

DADT is broken and should be tossed out (but MUST be replaced with stiffer hate crime penalties/SOME type of system with dealing with problems it was made to address)

It just REALLY disturbs me when people accuse the original supporters of DADT as being all a bunch of narrow minded bigots and champion Obama for losing an "antiquated" policy.

 

[kuroyume0161]

and fear of change.

i think if they repealed it, they would find that very little..if anything...would change.

gays in the military know not to flaunt it..or they will get a beat down. that won't change.

our govt. has no business forbidding patriotic gay Americans from serving their country. and they have no business kicking patriotic, loyal citizens out of the military, just cause they find out they are gay.

i am not a fan of gay marriage. i'll admit it.

but gays in the military? it seems no nonsense to me.

we need all the folks we can get to serve!!! what kind of country kicks out loyal, useful, reliable, patriotic, intelligent soldiers?????

its time to grow up America. we voted for our first black President. that's a good start. now its time to let gays serve in the military.

It doesn't make sense, does it? It'd be as sensible as banning or discharging people who like rap music or live in condos because it isn't 'acceptable'. The person isn't their sexuality as much as they aren't their music choices, hobbies, or ethnicity. Definitely fear of change and an unwillingness to accept that, under their noses, there are plenty of people who are gay who have served and served with honor and dedication.

My first 'gay mentor' (?) was an older man (platonic, believe me) who was a computer programmer (thus my skill as a computer programmer) who served in the USAF and was stationed in Japan (thus my japanophilia and love of sushi). He was taught programming in the forces as part of his training along with Russian for decryption of Soviet communications (during the Cold War era). He served honorably for years but was suspected as being gay at some point. He was called in, asked about this, and, responding honestly, was then dishonorably discharged from the USAF. All of that time and investment and skill wasted for that singular, useless, insignificant reason.

I will leave it to the reader to research homosexuality in the military at other times (Ancient Greece, Shogunate Japan, Rome) and how it disrupted performance, cohesion, success.

 

[kuroyume0161]

I get a little sick of people acting like Obama is striking down the last of the Jim Crow laws with this. DADT was part of the military budget for 1993, not 1893. It was signed off on by some of Obama's biggest supporters. It doesn't BAN gays in the military, it bans anyone talking about homosexual experiences/prefernces.

DADT was a response to vicious hatecrimes being commited in the military. However the language was poor and discriminatory and the implamentation turned into a debacle.

DADT is broken and should be tossed out (but MUST be replaced with stiffer hate crime penalties/SOME type of system with dealing with problems it was made to address)

It just REALLY disturbs me when people accuse the original supporters of DADT as being all a bunch of narrow minded bigots and champion Obama for losing an "antiquated" policy.

DADT just perpetuates an untenable situation. I don't blame people for a compromise which was better than nothing (at least we don't have an officer who admits homosexuality lead a fatal charge as a redeeming judgement as was done in the British Army at one time). It is just that it doesn't make it equal or forgiving. It makes it a 'pretend you aren't and we'll pretend not to notice' situation. Shouldn't we be past that? Notice that I have made no remarks concerning DADT with respect to its proponents. It is just that it doesn't really work (as has been made apparent). Accept it or not - don't force people to be dishonest or deceitful to satisfy sensibilities.

DADT is a first step but it is a rather bad one. Being reallllly gay: Get ovah it.

 

[GreNME]

I get a little sick of people acting like Obama is striking down the last of the Jim Crow laws with this.

Could you give an example of someone who does?

DADT was a response to vicious hatecrimes being commited in the military. However the language was poor and discriminatory and the implamentation turned into a debacle.

Where are you getting this from? The bill was a compromise with the Republican party regarding Clinton's campaign promise to allow gays into the military. Beyond the historical "blue tickets" that would be enacted toward any homosexuals found in the military from at least WWI into at least the 50's, section 8 was popular in the 50's and 60's for even suspected homosexuals (for being "sexual perverts"), and you could also look to the Vietnam War where some people pretended to be gay to avoid the draft (like Jimi Hendrix allegedly did), your claim that this legislation was somehow to protect gays from harassment is simply not supported by facts, history, and reality.

Honestly, did you just make this up or is this the new talking point for those who don't want gays in the military but don't want to sympathize with the stupid religious reasons for the position?

 

[332nd]

DADT just perpetuates an untenable situation. I don't blame people for a compromise which was better than nothing (at least we don't have an officer who admits homosexuality lead a fatal charge as a redeeming judgement as was done in the British Army at one time). It is just that it doesn't make it equal or forgiving. It makes it a 'pretend you aren't and we'll pretend not to notice' situation. Shouldn't we be past that? Notice that I have made no remarks concerning DADT with respect to its proponents. It is just that it doesn't really work (as has been made apparent). Accept it or not - don't force people to be dishonest or deceitful to satisfy sensibilities.

DADT is a first step but it is a rather bad one. Being reallllly gay: Get ovah it.

In my experience it makes it worse than that. A few of my friends in the Army got the impression that I was gay and since they were gay "too" they decided on a little "coming out party" at a gay club in Nashville. When I explained that I wasn't gay, they were absolutly terrified that I was going to out them and it took months to convince them that I truly didn't care.

During those months it was hard to work with them because they were trying to avoid me, and from their perspective I was trying too hard to prove I didn't care. All of this was distracting us from paying full attention to our training and had the potential for some very bad things to happen.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I listened to a Republican congressman (and ex-marine) on NPR's All Things Considered tonight talking about why Don't Ask Don't Tell should be retained.

Hunter?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I listened to a Republican congressman (and ex-marine) on NPR's All Things Considered tonight talking about why Don't Ask Don't Tell should be retained.
He stammered and stuttered and essentially made no sense at all.
He went on about "close quarters" for combat troops and "showers and bathrooms"....

A lot of homophobes are very focused on gay sex. They see it everywhere, and constantly imagine the possibilities of having it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I constantly think about gay sex and the possibilities of having it, but since I'm gay that's sort of expected. I can't imagine what the homophobe excuse is, nor can I imagine what a psychologist would say about their obsessive interest in same-gender sexual relations. Not suspicious at all.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

What are people's responses here to the claim that they don't allow women and men to share showers together so they shouldn't allow gays to serve openly for the same shower-related reason?

I suppose the example of firemen (Who presumably shower together) could be used. Their cohesion hasn't fallen apart.

What I just don't get is why bigotry and prejudice ("Most of the military are conservatives" say the Repubs) is rewarded.

 

[Thunder]

A lot of homophobes are very focused on gay sex. They see it everywhere, and constantly imagine the possibilities of having it. I can't imagine what the homophobe excuse is, nor can I imagine what a psychologist would say about their obsessive interest in same-gender sexual relations. Not suspicious at all.

Psychologists did a study of 100 straight men. Half very homophobic, the other half didnt really care about it too much. They forced all the men to watch gay porn. They measured their level of "sexual arrousal" during the movie, and found that the homophobes were 3 times more likely to get aroused by the gay porn, than the non-homophobes.

what does this mean? it means that there is evidence to suggest that obsessive homophobes may be repressing homosexual feelings, or great insecurity with their sexuality in general.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

They measured their level of "sexual arrousal" during the movie, and found that the homophobes were 3 times more likely to get aroused by the gay porn, than the non-homophobes.

Did they put string round their knob or something?

 

[HansMustermann]

Psychologists did a study of 100 straight men. Half very homophobic, the other half didnt really care about it too much. They forced all the men to watch gay porn. They measured their level of "sexual arrousal" during the movie, and found that the homophobes were 3 times more likely to get aroused by the gay porn, than the non-homophobes.

what does this mean? it means that there is evidence to suggest that obsessive homophobes may be repressing homosexual feelings, or great insecurity with their sexuality in general.

If you mean the plethysmograph, that's been discredited already, sad to say.

http://www.skepdic.com/penilep.html

Basically it could just as well measure anxiety (which would be a reaction that's far less mind-boggling in a homophobe), there is no real standardized scale, in various studies it failed to detect a ridiculous number even of confirmed sex offenders, etc, etc, etc. And it's not allowed in court for, basically, being crap.

Basically I wish people would already bury this "homophobes are repressed homosexuals" meme. It is just a trolling device and really doesn't add more than an insult to any discussion about homosexuality.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

And let's not forget a major important fact:

Don't Ask Don't Tell means that a person can serve as long as he's closeted... That in and of itself a major component that would be such an individual to blackmail. "Do as I say or I out you"

Why should anyone be forced into a compromise position such as this for something that is not a crime in the first place?

Psychologists did a study of 100 straight men. Half very homophobic, the other half didnt really care about it too much. They forced all the men to watch gay porn. They measured their level of "sexual arrousal" during the movie, and found that the homophobes were 3 times more likely to get aroused by the gay porn, than the non-homophobes.

what does this mean? it means that there is evidence to suggest that obsessive homophobes may be repressing homosexual feelings, or great insecurity with their sexuality in general.

Huh?!? I thought this was debunked a long time ago:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202035152/www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'

 

[daredelvis]

I listened to a Republican congressman (and ex-marine) on NPR's All Things Considered tonight talking about why Don't Ask Don't Tell should be retained.
He stammered and stuttered and essentially made no sense at all.
He went on about "close quarters" for combat troops and "showers and bathrooms"....
The interviewer gently prodded him..."Acknowledged that there are at present gay troops in the military, and they are in these situations right now....."

The congressman thought it would be worse if they were "open".

I was a medic in the infantry back in the mid-60s, and the medic corps seemed to be about half-gay by my count. No one seemed to care...
When somebody got hurt the call was "Doc!" , not "straight Doc."

Hunter?

Yes, it was Duncan Hunter. "But, but... not just teh gays, but the transgenders and the hermaphrodites!!!!!" Hermaphrodites don't have any rights?

Daredelvis