Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

[pheonix561 2080]

I think the rule is fine. Its good that people don't focus on sexual orientation when they're recruiting people. Its the firing business that bugs me.

[DocHobo 0]

But pheonix, they are clearly stating that they don't want homosexuals in the military, but won't ask them about it because they want an illusion of equality. How in the world is it fair that you have to keep the fact that you're gay bottled inside of you want to do something as simple as serving the country? How is the U.S. going to live up to it's promise of equality when it's so blatantly discriminating against a specific group of people? It is not fine, and it needs to be changed.

It doesn't even matter in the first place, since sexual conduct should not allowed altogether while you're deployed, but people are allowed to have sex if you're deployed in Afghanistan, as long as they are of the opposite sex (this is explicitly stated.). It's so blatant and stupefying that it makes me wonder how it honestly has lasted nearly twenty years...

[Aethix 129]

I'm kind of sick of people toting the right not to be discriminated against. Let's face it, there's a lot of discrimination. There are a whole bunch of minority-only scholarships, women-only scholarships. Nobody is going to hire a blind referee, and Mr. T is never going to play the role of Marie Antoinette. In parallel, to prevent issues between soldiers that could potentially lead to unnecessary deaths, people who are openly gay are prohibited from serving in the military. Discrimination happens. Everybody gets discriminated against. It's an uncomfortable truth, and I'm probably going to be flamed for saying it. Knock yourselves out.

[Skippy 82]

Alright, I'm just going to address this all in one big post.

1) DADT DOES apply to all people, you don't get discharged for being gay, you don't get discharged for DADT, when you get discharged for that, you get an article 15 for sexual misconduct. You must have an official complaint against you for it to happen. If a gay soldier wanted to pull it on a straight one, they would go to their CO and say the following "PVT so and so was acting in a sexually explicit way that I found offensive and unbecoming of a soldier/sailor/marine/airman." After that, an investigation would be launched, just as it would be against a gay man.

2) You all talk like the Military as if it is a job, and as such, has to follow all the procedures and laws employers must follow.

THE MILITARY IS NOT A JOB. It is a term of service. When you enlist, you give up your rights, it's in the enlistment paperwork, from the time you sign, to the time you retire, you are no longer a person, you are property. In fact you are Property of the U.S. Government. If you don;t believe me, go to basic and get a sunburn bad enough that you have to take time out. You will get medical leave and be charged with destruction/damage of government property by failure to maintain. As such, they can institute any policy that might otherwise be treated as discriminatory. Look at medical disqualification, I am fully capable of performing every task asked of me, and finishing basic, but I cannot join. Why? Because I have an inhaler. Also look at the fact that you can be fired from this "Job" for Failure to Conform.

3) Even if you consider the military a job, look at it this way.

At any job, you are given a set of rules and regulations, this may include what you can say or do in a sexual nature on the clock. This is not discriminatory, this is business sense, your employees are to be held up to a certain standard. As such, while on the clock, they are expected to conform to this code of conduct. Now, when you are in the military, you have a code of conduct, in that code of conduct is to not to talk about or reveal your sexual orientation. However, unlike most other jobs, in the military, while you are deployed or in training barracks(Which s where DADT applies, and is meant to be undertaken, along with on duty posts) you are on the clock, all the time. The military doesn't care what you do on your leave weekends, or what you reveal then, but if you are in a warzone, on post, or in barracks, you are on the clock, and as such, must follow code of conduct. If you don't you are fired. I will say this, the gays that get discharged, get Honorables, they are not less than honorable, Article 15 discharge, or dishonorable, they leave with grace, with their pensions, and with the ability to get a job.

Everyone looks at it as a job. But it i a term of service, and when you enlist you pledge to follow the uniformed code, so while you are "on the clock", you must follow it. But you are on the clock unless on designated leave, or in your private housing.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

1) You were talking about sexual harassment. Homosexuals wouldn't need to harass anyone, only admit they're homosexual. It's like, "That is an attractive woman that I would enjoy the courting of being a heterosexual male" would get you discharged? I don't believe that.

2) Oh OK, 'cause you know, the US GOVERNMENT discriminating versus the MILITARY is so much better.

[Skippy 82]

1) You were talking about sexual harassment. Homosexuals wouldn't need to harass anyone, only admit they're homosexual.

2) Oh OK, 'cause you know, the US GOVERNMENT discriminating versus the MILITARY is so much better.

1) That is exactly what the paperwork for DADT says. Well not exactly, it says sexual misconduct.

2) The US Gov. controls the military, same thing.

EDIT TO ADD:

Again, the military doesn't care what you do in your private housing or on leave, you can be just as gay as you want.

It is only in Basic, Training, Exercises, Barracks, and Post that you cannot talk about being gay. Gays know this when they enlist, if you can't handle the Uniform Code for what is expected of you while "On the Clock", then don't enlist.

Also, that whole no one cares if you are gay or not in a foxhole, that works both ways, a foxhole isn't the place to be talking about if you are gay or not, nor is a barracks, or any other place where you are expected to act in a manner becoming of a US Soldier/sailor/marine/airman.

[Ammonsa 308]

Skippy is right, guys.

Truth be told, I could be kicked out of Navy cadets for even asking Codi out.

[DocHobo 0]

No, THIS is what the paperwork says:

(15)The presence in the armed forces of persons who

demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts

would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of

morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the

essence of military capability.

...

(B) Policy. - A member of the armed forces shall be separated

from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary

of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and

approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such

regulations:

...

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual

or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further

finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set

forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that

he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in,

has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual

acts.

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person

known to be of the same biological sex.

I don't see sexual misconduct anywhere in there. Simply, all you have to say is "I'm gay." Also, Skippy, you talk as if being gay is a handicap to be consider when joining the military.

@Aethix: I don't get pissed at people for saying it, I'm not ignorant to the truth. I get pissed at people for DEFENDING it.

[randomfan 0]

That is a ridiculous and outdated piece of legislation and ought to be repealed immediately. Homosexuals shouldn't have to hide who they are, in the military or elsewhere. Enough said.

[Aethix 129]

There is a reason why you wouldn't cast Mr. T as Marie Antoinette. He could probably play the role just fine, but your entire movie changes from a story about Marie Antoinette to a story about Mr. T in a frilly dress. It's a similar situation: gay people aren't bad soldiers, but just having them among the troops creates problems.

[DocHobo 0]

There is a reason why you wouldn't cast Mr. T as Marie Antoinette. He could probably play the role just fine, but your entire movie changes from a story about Marie Antoinette to a story about Mr. T in a frilly dress. It's a similar situation: gay people aren't bad soldiers, but just having them among the troops creates problems.

>Implying gay people all act the same

[Aethix 129]

>Implying gay people all act the same

>Twisting my words into something I never stated nor implied.

No matter how Mr. T acts, he's still a large black man in a frilly dress. It's not about how they act, it's about the way the very presence of an openly gay person in a barracks setting creates problems.

[DocHobo 0]

Just because a person is openly gay does not mean that they have a "Gay" sign or are going around letting everyone know that they're gay. I don't think this would be much more of a problem that having women in the army, in fact I'd think it would be less problematic. Unless you mention some actual legitimate problems that could occur instead of pulling up your same vague defense repeatedly.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

So being gay is as visible as being a large black man in a frilly dress?

THIS IS TOTALLY TWISTING YOUR WORDS??

No. This is exactly what you're implying.

Unlike being a large black man in a frilly dress, homosexuality doesn't have some kind of birthmark or pattern.

If one man who is homosexual is no different from his best friend soldier in everything from skin tone to behavior, except he is gay, this would be grounds for booting.

Which is stupid, because admitting your sexuality if you're not gay or bisexual isn't grounds for dismissal. I would never believe that. My stepdad kisses my mom on the Air Force base and takes her on dates within the base. He still has his job, and has an important job, apparently.

Putting a black man in place of a white woman is not what homosexuality is described as in a military base. It's more like putting a hamster who has a spot on his ear in a cage full of hamsters with spots on their cheeks. Who should care about it? No one. Sure, a comment or two may arise, but they're all hamsters.

So what's the problem?

Sahaqiel

[Aethix 129]

Which is why there's no problem if nobody knows they are gay.