Thank you crash. I wish people would listen to people like you that have actually been/are currently in the military on this subject! Not some bimbo that covers herself in meat for attention.

The main biases that we have in the military are all based on things that can't be hidden, for obvious reasons... mainly skin color and gender. But there can't be a DADT policy on skin color and gender. If there could be, I guarantee you the military would adopt it.
What's important to understand is that there is and always will be a myriad of factors behind team decisions. But what's more important than that is the fact that the bias that may be behind leadership decisions is far more affecting. Lowly bottom-end enlisted grunts can hate each other all they want but they still have to follow their superior's orders. But when the people giving the orders are biased, then you can see how this would be both dangerous for the affected persons and for the trust of leadership and the entire team as well. And it goes all the way up through the ranks.
It's bad enough that the military can ultimately only be reactive when it comes to dealing with race and gender biases, but at least the DADT policy does some good in regards to having some measure of control about how much more potential for abuse of leadership and its affecting factors is added to the equation.

Ultimately, it sucks that we even need to be at a point where DADT is necessary, but I wouldn't be so quick to single out DADT as a reason so much as it is a compromise near a milestone of progress. We're not quite there yet, but protesting DADT is a misappropriation in my opinion.
In this military case, you need to change the people, then you can change the rules. Doing it the other way around may work for the rest of society, but when it comes to the military, it's different.

agreed. i think what most of the rest of society needs to remember is that while their differences might result in some tense discussions or awkward situations regular society is not routinely being placed in life or death situations that may be compromised by these biases.

Really? I've found my experience in the military to indicate quite differently. It seems they change the rules first and then enforce them upon the service members, forcefully if necessary. Sure you'll have some people rebel and resist the new rules, but they'll make examples of a few people and the rest will adapt accordingly. I don't think the military is willing to keep the current policy, and I definitely don't think they'll go with the "If you're not OK with gays then you can't join the military" approach. I know from first hand that when I was in training they shoved diversity and tolerance down our throats. We weren't even allowed to have roommates in tech school that were all of the same race. They have programs in place now to make it very clear to all new service members that discrimination of any type will not be tolerated.

I think the military will enforce this new policy using the same method they always use, fear mongering.

I meant people in the sense that if society rids itself of the stigma, then people joining the military won't likely contribute to a need for the rule.

That's really good to know. I had no idea that they were so adamant about tolerance and diversity.

That makes me wonder though, why is this such an issue then?

Don't you think that the DoD removing this current policy will shift the public opinion though? How are the people supposed to be tolerant to something when their own government and leaders have policies in place that support and encourage intolerance? Seems to me like the DoD, and the government in general is taking a huge step in the right direction. I think this will do more good for our country than bad.

Yes Sir, the Silent Service, ha!

I said IF a man wanted to check out what I'm packing in the shower, then so be it. No talk of attraction, and it was a hypothetical statement. I think you're grudging from my hate on Texas, I was only joking...partially.

On another note, I did meet more men that were straight and said they were gay just to get out, rather than actual gay men. This loophole is actually a huge plus in my book, and that is really the only positive aspect I see in the situation. Aside from being gay or mental health reasons, it is surprisingly hard to escape the contract from a downsizing military, without resorting to committing UCMJ violations, or "military crimes", which in most cases in the real world, don't mean shit.

I'm not grudging. xD I kinda sorta agree with you.

My only issue with your statement was assuming a gay soldier would be automatically attracted to you because you're male. That's all. Did I misinterpret what you were trying to say? >_<

I don't think he's assuming anything. Hence the use of the word "if".