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

[thaiboxerken]

Maybe. Maybe not. It does not seem the same sort of thing as allowing women to serve. Despite what we would like to believe it does seem that some people are born with a predisposition to be repulsed by homosexuality. Considering this, it is not worth risking national security to try this particular social experiment of change.

Do you have ANY scientific data on this? Regardless, we should not cater to bigotry just because it could be inherent. How would allowing homosexuals to be open in the military threaten national security?!

You do know that life is not fair, don't you? You do know that the world is not good, fair and just. If it were, there would be no need for a military. Trying to sandwich a piece of fairness in an institution that exists to kill and destroy is perverse, some would say. To me it shows a lack of understanding of the real world.

Life is not fair, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it more fair. Just think if minority races decided to succumb to the "oh well, life isn't fair" argument. I am a minority and I hardly think giving up because "life isn't fair" is a good idea.

Something put into place by Bill Clinton is outdated? Explain.

It's outlived it's usefulness. Top brass in the military are calling for a change in policy. The Commander in Chief is calling for a change in policy.

You do know that the military does not function as a democracy, don't you? It really is not your or my call to make.

The military does function as an arm of the government. It's the people's governments call to make. I certainly hope they make the right decision.

Sorry, friend. I do not think you speak for experience or understanding. And it is non-sequitur to say that such-and-such culture is ok with it then we should follow.

If the British, Canadians and Israeli where so much different than us, it would be non-sequitor. However, they are human and live in modern civilizations very much like ours. Allowing homosexuals equal rights did not hurt their countries at all. In fact, I can't think of a case where giving homosexuals equal rights ever hurt a nation. Can you?

Today other modern militaries shoot and hang their homosexuals. I suggest you go and preach to the Saudis first if you think your logic is sound.

I'd hardly call Saudi Arabia a modern-thinking culture. They still beat their women.

Your logic is faulty. Pointing to one culture that you like and want the USA to emulate is cherry picking.

Pointing out that places where homosexuals are allowed to be open and in them military is not cherry picking. It would be cherry picking if there were cases where doing such actually harmed those countries. Have any examples?

We are NOT like other industralized nations. Most other modern nations are secular. We are not.

Our government is secular and should remain that way. Sure, the theocrats have snuck a few poor policies and laws in there, but that doesn't mean we should just give up.

Good luck with your wishful thinking revolution. I do not have as much faith as you.

What revolution? DODT will be repealed, if not now, then in a generation or two, as the younger and more tolerant generations come into government office.

 

[Skeptic]

The point of DADT was to have, de facto, an army where homosexuality is not an issue. The reason was political compromise: to let gays and lesbians serve without fearing expulsion due to their homosexuality, which is de jure not allowed in the armed forces. The gays for their part were supposed to not to tell so as not to put the army in a situation where it has to expel them if it is to follow its own laws.

In short, DADT was an attempt of cooperation between the army hierarchy and the troops to allow gays without officially recognizing them. Outdated perhaps, but certainly not a case of rabid anti-gay bigotry.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's intentions and how it was used are two realities, Skeptic. There are plenty of people who were kicked out of the military using DODT as a tool. Plenty of people also used it as a way to get out of their contract as well. Getting rid of the policy and allowing homosexuals to serve openly would eliminate these abuses.

 

[332nd]

Have they removed the "Sodomy Laws" from the UCMJ yet?

ETA: I guess not.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm

 

[GreNME]

Even if they did (hold water... your reasons), in a poll recently 100 million americans are for DADT. So just from a mathematical standpoint doing away with it is ill advised for the military which needs to keep their enlistment numbers up.

Ha, you go through each of parky's points and then make a plead to popularity. Even better, I bet you can't cite a single actual poll that 100 million Americans answered to back up your claim, so your number is conjecture at best.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Forget DADT. What about CWYDKA ("Criticize What You Don't Know About")? That is what is truly "stupid".

NATO, Israel, the UK and others do not equate to the US military. Bill Clinton promised to allow gays to serve legally in the military during his campaign. He did not know then what he learned later.

It was not until he saw the living conditions on Aircraft Carriers that he realized it would not work. And came up with DADT as a comprimise.

He realized gays serving openly would not work. So you are saying here that you have knowledge Clinton did not have even though the living conditions in some battle ships are such that you cannot imagine? You are smarter that Bill Clinton? You are in the know and he was not? Or the world has changed in a handful of years?

Also, the US military is a machine not to be messed with in even subtle ways. It has to get things right all the time. They only have to be wrong once. It is not like any other job. There is no reset button.

You are ignoring the fact that backlash to change has always been a part of American culture. A backlash to this change would be devastating.

Loosing the Civil War led the south to lynching, the creation of the KKK and civil right abuses that lasted for decades.

The Creation of Mormonism was a backlash against The Industrial Revolution.

The Woman's Movement and the Civil Rights Movement had long and bloody backlashes.

Racial integration in the military also had an ugly backlash.

But I think it would be mild compared to homosexual integration which has a deeper engrained intolerance in the USA.

It would be stupid and costly to perform a social experiment at the heart of the military while conducting two wars. And I mean costly in military termns, not in financial terms.

 

[GreNME]

You are ignoring the fact that backlash to change has always been a part of American culture. A backlash to this change would be devastating.

Quantify such a claim. The UCMJ specifically prohibits any overtly abusive behavior already. There's already bullying and mistreatment already in the military, for sure, but feel free to actually quantify your assertion with some real predictions instead of naming every instance of backlash as if this would be some kind of culmination of them all.

And I'm ignoring the sheer cowardice you're advocating by bringing up backlash as a reason not to do it.

It would be stupid and costly to perform a social experiment at the heart of the military while conducting two wars. And I mean costly in military termns, not in financial terms.

Again, back up your BS with some quantifiable assertions. Name some of the costs, how they would be negatives, and how any of them aren't already going to run afoul of the UCMJ or other policies for conduct and behavior in the military.

In other words: instead of vague, broad assertions, substantiate any of your claims.

 

[Skeptic]

It's intentions and how it was used are two realities, Skeptic. There are plenty of people who were kicked out of the military using DODT as a tool. Plenty of people also used it as a way to get out of their contract as well.

Surely this was the situation before DODT? Claiming to be gay to get out of the service is hardly new. The point is, before DODT, if you were gay and served, you were always afraid it would be discovered since the very fact of being gay was grounds for dismissal. With DODT, there was dismissal only if you actively told people about it (at least that was the idea). There was explicitly a curb on anybody except for the soldiers themselves "outing" people (the "don't ask") part.

 

[GreNME]

Surely this was the situation before DODT? Claiming to be gay to get out of the service is hardly new. The point is, before DODT, if you were gay and served, you were always afraid it would be discovered since the very fact of being gay was grounds for dismissal. With DODT, there was dismissal only if you actively told people about it (at least that was the idea). There was explicitly a curb on anybody except for the soldiers themselves "outing" people (the "don't ask") part.

You're still failing to acknowledge that your claimed "reason" for the legislation was wrong. It was a political compromise, yes, but not make it so gays didn't have to fear expulsion. It was a compromise because Clinton had zero political capital to allow gays to serve in the military and DADT was as far as Congress would let it go-- it still allowed for section 8 if someone was found to be gay, but it limited the ways it could be "found out" in that it blocked hearsay allegations or suspicions as grounds for investigation. It was far less conciliatory than you're acknowledging, and still caused (and continues to cause) a great deal of anxiety in serving homosexuals as a result.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Well, I think a lot of the support for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, was because it was expected that there would be a lot more emphasis on the "don't ask" part. Regardless, it was poorly implimented and outdated anyway.

Ditch it.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Do you have ANY scientific data on this?

Yes. The best. Personal experience from serving in the military beats any imagionationary fantasy world of ultimate fairness that you are dreaming of.

Regardless, we should not cater to bigotry just because it could be inherent. How would allowing homosexuals to be open in the military threaten national security?!

Combat is stressful. Adding an additional level of stress because you have to make men more correct in their behavior is, in truth, inhumane. I think it is YOU who are advocating harsher treatment for homosexuals indirectly.

How would allowing officers to have sex with the enlisted threaten national security? It does. And it does for simular reasons.

What civilians who only know combat throught their XBOX cannot imagine is that the miltiary is hellishly unfair for everyone in the military. You do not own yourself anymore. You are owned by the miltiary. They tell stright people who they can and cannot screw and when they can and cannot talk about it. So, no special treatment, for anyone.

I have 20 reasons why it would lessen the quality of our military on www.arguemax.com and I am posting more.

Regardless, it is not our call. Men in the know understand that it would not improve the military. If it would, the laws would have been passed long ago because the military would demand it. It is likely that THE MILITARY has scientific data since they have virtually unlimited abilities to make every scientific study possible.

You know, the burden of scientific proof is on your hands anyway. You are the one advocating for change. Saying it works in Israel or the UN is not nearly good enough.

I know you won't believe me because you have faith and this. And I will have to keep repeating myself. What fun!

What civlilians who think that a stint on the USS JFK must be just like a stint on the Starship Enterprise do not understand is that in the miltiary you do not own yourself. You are a part of a system and you are in it to your core. You cannot quit. You cannot quit like a "job". "Sorry, guys, I just got a better job offer and I am putting in my two week notice" well get you arrested. You belong to them. THey can tell you when and if to do anything. They can tell you when and if to pee if they think it is necessary. I am not kidding. I saw it happen. Fairness is a luxury. I am sure it is stressful for someone to be in the closet for 3 years of active service. So don't join if you cannot handle that because, believe me, you will be subjected to stressful situations that will make that look like a cake walk.

Patton had people dress him. And I think it was necessary and required for what he had to do and what he had to think about. Admirals today live in posh apartments that seem grossly out of place on an aircraft carrier. But it is necessary. They are not kings or princes but they have to be comfortable. They have to be constantly thinking of their job because their job is more important than a surgeon when it comes to saving lives. They are in charge of who lives and who dies every moment of their life. They brain has to be free of any unnecessary baggage. They don't want to deal with any crap they don't have to. You are asking them that they have to deal with this little thing. it is a distraction. It can hinder their job. That is, if you want to call it a job.

In the civlian world, officers are in charge of people's jobs. In the military, officers are in charge of people surviving or dieing.

So you are saying gays shold be open in the miltary because it is fair? Fair for whom? It would not be fair for people who would consider it a distraction (good or bad). It would not be fair for the homosexuals who would be more likely to become targets for gay bashing. I have read reports that homosexuals in the miltiary are more likely to be vicitims of hate crimes when they are on leave and more open than in the active service. Your proposal could reverse that. Way to go!

 

[Skeptic]

Yes. The best. Personal experience from serving in the military beats any imagionationary fantasy world of ultimate fairness that you are dreaming of.

Well, I'm a veteran, too, and so are many others here, and I'd say that my experience is different.

Combat is stressful. Adding an additional level of stress because you have to make men more correct in their behavior is, in truth, inhumane.

Oh please. It's inhumane to force someone to serve with a Jew, I mean a black, I mean a homosexual? I've served with homosexuals (and Blacks and, er, Jews...) Amazingly enough, it didn't seem to matter much.

How would allowing officers to have sex with the enlisted threaten national security? It does.

It certainly does. But that is forbidden for officers and enlisted men of the opposite sexes, as well.

[Regardless, it is not our call. Men in the know understand that it would not improve the military. If it would, the laws would have been passed long ago because the military would demand it. It is likely that THE MILITARY has scientific data since they have virtually unlimited abilities to make every scientific study possible.

Using this argument, one can prove that the food they serve in the enlisted men's mess in Ft. Hood is the best food in the world. Surely, the military knows it needs to feed its people -- if there was better food to be gotten elsewhere, won't they have it by now?

 

[Jono]

Homosexuals in the military, didn't the greek find this useful?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Regardless, it is not our call. Men in the know understand that it would not improve the military. If it would, the laws would have been passed long ago because the military would demand it. It is likely that THE MILITARY has scientific data since they have virtually unlimited abilities to make every scientific study possible.

You know, the burden of scientific proof is on your hands anyway. You are the one advocating for change. Saying it works in Israel or the UN is not nearly good enough.

You know, the like the Pentagon's own report in the '50s that found no issue with homosexual military service. Back when the worry was that gays might be security risks rather than just the ick factor. However, we all know laws and policies are crafted on reason and logic rather than politics and bias.... so there must have been something wrong with that report.

ETA: Also, the "men in the know" have flat out come out in favor of open homosexual service... Or does the Pentagon no longer count?

 

[GreyICE]

Do you have ANY scientific data on this?

Yes. The best. Personal experience from serving in the military...

...

 

[Ashles]

Quote:
Do you have ANY scientific data on this?

Yes. The best. Personal experience from serving in the military...

...

Yes I thought that was interesting. Apparently anecdotal evidence is now the best type of scientific evidence.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Yes I thought that was interesting. Apparently anecdotal evidence is now the best type of scientific evidence.

Also that his is somehow superior to that of the Pentagon Chief of Staff with a rank of Admiral and the Secretary of Defense that was a former CIA Director. These high ranking men who have each served since the sixties in the military or military support positions and risen to the top just don't have appropriate anecdotal experience.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes. The best. Personal experience from serving in the military beats any imagionationary fantasy world of ultimate fairness that you are dreaming of.

Your personal service in the military trumps mine?

Combat is stressful. Adding an additional level of stress because you have to make men more correct in their behavior is, in truth, inhumane. I think it is YOU who are advocating harsher treatment for homosexuals indirectly.

Having openly gay people in the military causes stress?! Is this like allowing women in the military?

How would allowing officers to have sex with the enlisted threaten national security? It does. And it does for simular reasons.

There are already laws in the UCMJ pertaining to this issue, and it's not just restricted to homosexual sex.

What civilians who only know combat throught their XBOX cannot imagine is that the miltiary is hellishly unfair for everyone in the military. You do not own yourself anymore. You are owned by the miltiary. They tell stright people who they can and cannot screw and when they can and cannot talk about it. So, no special treatment, for anyone.

Unless you're gay, then you get the "special" treatment of staying in the closet or getting kicked out.

I have 20 reasons why it would lessen the quality of our military on www.arguemax.com and I am posting more.

And all of them are fallacy, every single one. I would think this is a satire site if I didn't know any better.

Regardless, it is not our call.

It is our call. We voted in the people who make the rules and they should do what is right.

You know, the burden of scientific proof is on your hands anyway. You are the one advocating for change. Saying it works in Israel or the UN is not nearly good enough.

Scientific proof that military's do not die by allowing openly gay people in? Openly gay people have served in the most successful armies throughout history. There is not one case where it caused major problems.

What civlilians who think that a stint on the USS JFK must be just like a stint on the Starship Enterprise do not understand is that in the miltiary you do not own yourself.

I served on the USS Enterprise when I was in the Navy.

So you are saying gays shold be open in the miltary because it is fair?

Yes. Fair, and there is no reason to not allow them to serve. No reason that isn't based on religion, bigotry or fallacy.

 

[GreNME]

Yes. The best. Personal experience from serving in the military beats any imagionationary fantasy world of ultimate fairness that you are dreaming of.

And apparently you've never bothered to read the UCMJ despite being in the military. Lucky for the real world that you can't be bothered with, there are loads of people on this forum who not only have also served in the military, but understand the UCMJ far better than you do and realize your "20 reasons" are just as ridiculously out of place in heterosexual relations as they are with homosexual relations.

Combat is stressful. Adding an additional level of stress because you have to make men more correct in their behavior is, in truth, inhumane. I think it is YOU who are advocating harsher treatment for homosexuals indirectly.

Complete BS. You can't actually define how removing DADT is in any way changing the stressors in combat. I seriously question whether you can even define the stressors of combat outside of your "I was in the military" assertion.

How would allowing officers to have sex with the enlisted threaten national security? It does. And it does for simular reasons.

Again, have you read the UCMJ at all? This is already not allowed, regardless of homosexual or heterosexual sex.

What civilians who only know combat throught their XBOX cannot imagine is that the miltiary is hellishly unfair for everyone in the military. You do not own yourself anymore. You are owned by the miltiary. They tell stright people who they can and cannot screw and when they can and cannot talk about it. So, no special treatment, for anyone.

Which is actually an argument against keeping DADT, because the removal of DADT does not necessitate the removal of UCMJ.

I have 20 reasons why it would lessen the quality of our military on www.arguemax.com and I am posting more.

All of your "20 reasons" are incredibly flawed in that they assume that the UCMJ somehow wouldn't apply. The whole "AIDS scare" thing is right out of 1989-- welcome to 2010 with the rest of the real world.

You have no reasonable argument against removing DADT, Bill. Just because you assert you do does not make them any more reasonable. All your arguments do is show a perfect example of what I told Sabrina (who's in the military, by the way) way back on page 2 of this thread: that the biggest arguments against it all assume the UCMJ somehow won't apply.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It appears to me that that proponents of keeping military homosexuals in the closet do so based purely on hatred. It's as if anything that homosexuals want to do is "evil." Even serving the country to fight for the freedom of us all is "evil" if it's a gay doing it.