|
Post by DubiousKing on Apr 20, 2010 21:42:46 GMT -5
I recently commented on a video concerning this policy, and now I'm in the middle of a debate with another YouTuber over it. This got me thinking, "Why don't I bring this issue to the Pogotribe and see what happens?"
So, what's your stance? I'll post about mine once we get this moving.
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Apr 20, 2010 22:05:13 GMT -5
DADT is actually a good thing from my perspective.
The first thing that should be kept in mind in this discussion is that DADT is not the same thing as the US military policy barring homosexuals from service. That policy is outlined in the Uniform Code of Conduct, which can only be changed by Congress, not the President. However, the President can issue a "stop-loss" order that restrains military officials from discharging homosexual personnel based on their sexual orientation.
Prior to DADT being put into place under President Clinton, the US military could actively investigate the sexual orientation of its soldiers with invasive questions and searches. Homosexual soldiers who refused to answer questions about their sexual orientation could be discharged for their refusal. If they lied they could be discharged for lying. And if they were honest they would be discharged for being homosexual. DADT gave all members of the military the right not to be questioned or investigated about their sexual preferences.
That said, in recent years DADT has become increasingly redundant. Homosexual members of the military are being caught via social networking utilities that spread personal information faster and easier than anything that existed when DADT was put into effect. Also, there are a number of open homosexuals in the military who aren't prosecuted because their commanders and the members of their unit just don't care. The country as a whole is becoming more tolerant of homosexuals and that social shift is carrying over into the military.
If anything, we should be working to remove the bar from homosexuals serving in the military, not the caveat that just stops them from doing so openly.
|
|
fletcherblack
Meteorite
I'm for whatever you're against and against whatever you're for.
Posts: 13
|
Post by fletcherblack on Apr 20, 2010 22:16:58 GMT -5
I think the Don't Ask Don't Tell is absolutely ludacris! It was a policy born in 1993. It's a generation later, some call it "The Will and Grace generation", where homosexuality is no longer seen as a disease, not even necessarily a lifestyle. It's just being gay. All of our greatest allies have homosexuals to openly join and serve in the military, the biggest of these being the UK, Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Ireland, etc.. There's a famous quote by someone who's name eludes me at the moment, that goes as follows, "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight."
|
|
|
Post by DubiousKing on Apr 20, 2010 22:42:44 GMT -5
Prior to DADT being put into place under President Clinton, the US military could actively investigate the sexual orientation of its soldiers with invasive questions and searches. Homosexual soldiers who refused to answer questions about their sexual orientation could be discharged for their refusal. If they lied they could be discharged for lying. And if they were honest they would be discharged for being homosexual. DADT gave all members of the military the right not to be questioned or investigated about their sexual preferences. I wasn't aware of that. The way the media and politicians present it, those are considered one and the same. It's very confusing.
|
|
koralth
Meteorite
Rest is for the dead.
Posts: 44
|
Post by koralth on Apr 21, 2010 0:31:28 GMT -5
Yeah, it's something a lot of the less politically oriented members of the LGBT community are not aware of, also, Dubious. I totally agree with ImaginaryPhilosophy's take on the situation. Unfortunately, the movement has already targeted DADT as being THE number one negative trait in the military rather than the actual legislation that bars homosexuals from joining the military, and getting the movement to shift it's focus is like trying to get a train to switch rails after the point of no return has been reached - nigh impossible.
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 21, 2010 3:21:24 GMT -5
This is a tricky issue to talk about, mostly because my opposition to the existence of the military is stronger than my support for equal rights.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 21, 2010 4:55:20 GMT -5
The don't ask part of it is great, but the don't tell part is horrible.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Apr 21, 2010 8:00:54 GMT -5
As an Egalitarian Libertarian, I must say that I am appalled by the faggotry that goes on with this policy. If I knew someone gay in the military, I am NOT going to ask, and I am NOT going to tell. One of my dad's students was a lesbian. Nobody asked, and nobody told. However, she got into a slight tax issue, and police knocked on her door because of it. When the officer came inside and saw the mock up marriage certificate hanging on her wall, and found out she was gay, he made a phone call to her CO, and she got kicked right the fuck out. Well, I guess somebody told.
You know, she'd already fought in Iraq.. Twice!
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 21, 2010 14:01:15 GMT -5
After what IMAGINARYphilosophy said, it's made me understand the whole DADT thing. So instead I will refer to the whole basis of homosexuals in the military - it should be totally acceptable, because there shouldn't be anything wrong! I realize people may disagree with me, but in my personal opinion I don't think homophobia should be particularity more acceptable than racism.
|
|
koralth
Meteorite
Rest is for the dead.
Posts: 44
|
Post by koralth on Apr 21, 2010 14:11:36 GMT -5
Your opinion is appreciated, Jake. It's frankly one of several factors that kept me living the civilian life. Now, I'm going to be honest and say that other factors played a larger role (I was planning on joining the naval academy to get a degree in Operational Psychology, but I feared that my professional opinions on where the line is between torture and interrogation would be largely ignored, making my service a waste of my time and a waste of the federal government's funding and time as well.) So thank you, and I agree wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 21, 2010 15:26:05 GMT -5
Your opinion is appreciated, Jake. It's frankly one of several factors that kept me living the civilian life. Now, I'm going to be honest and say that other factors played a larger role (I was planning on joining the naval academy to get a degree in Operational Psychology, but I feared that my professional opinions on where the line is between torture and interrogation would be largely ignored, making my service a waste of my time and a waste of the federal government's funding and time as well.) So thank you, and I agree wholeheartedly. I find it very interesting that this has be a part of you choosing to keep the civilian life - and also about the torture thing. I hope that perhaps things change so that you feel more willing to join the Naval Academy.
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on Apr 21, 2010 15:55:37 GMT -5
I think homosexuals should be able to be open and serve in the military.
Mostly because I'm DAMN sure not gonna do it, so if they're willing to take on that duty, let 'em go.
|
|
|
Post by DubiousKing on Apr 21, 2010 16:23:50 GMT -5
Okay, so here's my exchange with the guy over the YouTube comments so far. It should outline pretty well my opinion on the issue. I'm going to start with his post that I responded to. ---------- quarterexchange @seblasian How do you suppose we were to divide up 50 lesbians and 50 gay men among 1000 straight women and 1000 straight men so that they didn't have to dress or shower with the opposite sex or the sex they found attractive? It's impossible. That's why so many top military powers have declared homosexuality incompatible with military service. If they are willing to not act gay and keep it a secret then it won't be a problem for anybody, big deal if they can't tell that they're gay. quarterexchange @quarterexchange let me rephase that last part, Big deal if they can't go around proclaiming that they are gay. That seems like a very small sacrifice don't you think. And in turn they can have a job in the U.S. military. DubiousKing @quarterexchange Concerning the sleeping/showering/changing argument, I've been part of a summer activity that has military roots where that happens on a regular basis, and there've never been any problems. There is also quite a handful of homosexual Americans I know that would serve if not for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They prefer living in a very open fashion and don't like denying who they are. It's a matter of pride. quarterexchange DubiousKing Okay so you consider it a good idea for gays of the same sex to shower together? Well why not let straights of the opposite sex shower together and start running the military like a brothel? Keeping the genders seperated instills discipline and order. Letting people who are sexually attracted to each other shower and sleep in close quarters together goes against this. DubiousKing @quarterexchange It's all about self-control and discipline. Just because you are showering in the same room as someone you're attracted to does not necessitate you will have sex. Sure, some will probably do so, but then you punish the soldiers who are not conducting themselves properly (as is already done in the military) instead of punishing a whole group because of a really big "IF". Also, from my experience homosexual men tend to have lower sex drives than heterosexuals. I'm just saying. quarterexchange No the military is about someone else controlling you. That is why we seperate the genders, that is why it is divided on sexual attraction. Most top military powers have the same policy. Gay men don't sleep and shower with gay men, straight men don't sleep and shower with straight women. That behavior is for your private life according to 90% U.S. military personel and according to 8 out of 10 of the planets top miltiary powers. DubiousKing @quarterexchange I didn't mean the military is about self-control and discipline, but that you need it to thrive in that society. And regardless of the fact that men and women don't shower/sleep together, sex still happens. And, despite what I said in my previous comment, it seems that sexual behavior is not as regulated as I thought. I found an article on NewsMax that says sex is very prevalent in bases over by Iraq and the personnel don't do much to stop it or slow it down. quarterexchange DubiousKing Yes, but letting men shower with women does not encourage self control. Yes and it shouldn't happen. They are trying to restrict it. Sexual behavior is regulated the pentagon and other officials are trying to cut it down. They have began to integrate genders in Iraq which is proving to be troublesome and an issue. So what makes you think it would be a good idea for gays to have sex in the miltiary as well. ---------- I haven't replied to him past this, yet, but I probably will later tonight.
|
|
novak
Meteorite
Posts: 18
|
Post by novak on Apr 21, 2010 21:44:45 GMT -5
I'm in a rush to post this reply, so I didn't read any posts above mine (with the exception of the first) so apologies if some things are repeated here.
I don't like that they don't want homosexuals in the military. C'mon people, do you really think a few gay people will distract these soldiers? They are TRAINED specifically to FOCUS on the task at hand, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't start freaking out if a homosexual was by them. Self-control is vital for a soldier, and it's not like a gay person is going to go trouncing around in the flower patch down there, if a gay wants to be in the military, it's their choice and they should be ready for the roads ahead.
I say, if they want to serve our country, let them and thank them.
|
|
koralth
Meteorite
Rest is for the dead.
Posts: 44
|
Post by koralth on Apr 21, 2010 21:59:02 GMT -5
Jake - Well, I'm unfortunately too old to join the academy by about half a year now. I still maintain the hope that social climate changes to the point that younger people can join the military without such inhibitions - and I have to reiterate that DADT was a smaller factor than the fact that my chosen field in the military turned out to have such a deep role in prisoner relations and it's frankly a call I wasn't willing to make when I can be sure that someone would be over my head calling my shots for me if I disagreed with them too often.
|
|
koralth
Meteorite
Rest is for the dead.
Posts: 44
|
Post by koralth on Apr 21, 2010 22:15:50 GMT -5
Novak, I hear you. One of the common arguments I've heard FOR disallowing LGBT citizens for openly serving is the fact that the military can't protect women soldiers well enough as it is, thus the problems for Gays in the military would be much more dangerous and they wouldn't be able to protect gays either. The implication, of course, is that because we can't leash the more bigoted heterosexual soldiers, gays can't be honest about who they are with the people they work closest with in an organization that values honesty and camaraderie highly. It's really a catch 22 for the men and women serving under an unjust stipulation.
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 22, 2010 0:40:50 GMT -5
I'd like to ask a question regarding this issue: What force is keeping this policy in place? In other words, who exactly is opposing the acceptance of homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military?
|
|
koralth
Meteorite
Rest is for the dead.
Posts: 44
|
Post by koralth on Apr 22, 2010 1:17:42 GMT -5
That's a damn fine question. I know that McCain was loudly opposing it when a military official came to meet with congress and implore them to end the policy, despite the fact that he's recorded as saying that he would accept the repeal of DADT at such time that top ranking military officials come to congress saying that the law is outdated. His party not being ina position of great power, though, one tends to think it's the infamous sloth of the Democratic party, slowly molasses-ing it's way through the term.
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Apr 22, 2010 4:53:16 GMT -5
I'd like to ask a question regarding this issue: What force is keeping this policy in place? In other words, who exactly is opposing the acceptance of homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military? DADT is a law. To be repealed it would take a vote by Congress. This is opposed by conservatives as well as some members of the military. As Kolrath said, Democrats currently control Congress, but they tend to be incredibly timid about... well, everything. And I should clarify my position in the above post. I don't mean to say DADT is completely good. I agree with RabbitWho that the "Don't Ask" part is good, and the military should not be allowed to poke their noses into the private lives of service men and women. But the provisions of the law that stop homosexuals from serving openly are not acceptable. The overall label "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does typically refer to the military's policy on homosexuals in general, and I may have been a bit picky in making my original distinction. I just like to point out that the military's discrimination against homosexuals didn't start with DADT and that President Clinton was trying to help when he signed it into law.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 22, 2010 12:07:59 GMT -5
Okay, so here's my exchange with the guy over the YouTube comments so far. It should outline pretty well my opinion on the issue. I'm going to start with his post that I responded to. ..... I read all of this, and it's very interesting - and you're totally right in my opinion. I mean, I get what he's saying about the showers, but it's unfair to think that gay men are horny for every man they meet. I mean, the "DADT" policy means there are still gay men in the military who are going to be in the shower with you. Just because they would be able to be open about their sexuality won't change the "shower-room atmosphere". It's not like homosexual men would start making sexual comments or anything...
|
|