Don't Ask Don't Tell
 

I am really impressed with Lady Gaga's protesting of DADT. She is going out of her way to be a role model for what she believes in. Here are videos of her in Portland, at a protest rally. I think she is a brilliant speaker.





What do you guys think about this law? Should it be repealed?

I think it's ridiculous that gays are sent home from the military based on their sexuality. Especially when they are really good soldiers. I mean aren't you supposed to send people home that are not adequate to be a soldier?

Adidasss, I'm picking on you because you are gay, but would you ever want to enlist? And if so, how does this law make you feel?

Hooray for the real, east coast, Portland! None of that west coast bullpucky.

And, yes, I too think Don't Ask Don't Tell is silly. At the time when it was created it was a definite improvement over the existing situation, but it's certainly outlived its usefulness.

**** it, let them in, let me go the **** home.

It's a law that is out-dated, pure and simple. I'm sure plenty of folk would argue that it has always been out-dated and maybe thats true, i'm happy to admit that I don't know how long this has been in effect so I couldn't possibly comment on that. However regardless of history, I really fail to see how this is relevant in the modern day at all.

Theres been talk of Gaga taking this public stance in the Gaga thread but I will also state here that whereas I think the majority of her actions seem to be for attention and headlines, I certainly wont criticise someone of her celebrity status choosing to speak out on something like this. I don't think it can hurt, can it?

It came into effect in the 90s, under Bill Clinton. Prior to DADT, the military was free to ask people about their sexual orientation and the person was required to answer if they were asked, which could result in them being thrown out of the military. DADT was actually created to end that practice and protect people from sexual-orientation-based discrimination. It's certainly outdated now though, since the flip-side of it is that it effectively forces people to live in the closet.

17 years, the current DADT policy has been in affect for 17 years.

Before that, it was this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...llcredible.jpg

Right yeah, so it's outdated then. I was under the impression that it was initially intended to be a positive policy but I had no idea how long it had been in effect. I guess it was positive initially as it meant that gay people could serve in the military but there are still certain circumstances where they can discharged for being gay, arent there?

I have often wondered how those who have served in the military feel about this. It's good to see crash's take on things.

I'm with GaGa on this one.

I agree on alot of the views on this.I just don't think it's anyone damn business what a persons preference is. If they are capable of doing the job then let them do it.

Well when I was in basic training, my bunkmate was able to get out by claiming he was gay. He told me he planned to and I was called in to the drill-sergeant's office to corroborate the story, which I did.
Discharge for that is "other than honorable" I believe, which isn't a bad thing at all... and some people who can't handle the military are able to successfully use this as an escape mechanism.
You can't just decide you want out of the military and in most scenarios your only way out is to act a fool and end up getting kicked out with a dishonorable discharge, and that will follow you all your life.
So in that sense, the gay thing is a good thing. While most would say "don't join if you don't can't handle it", you don't know your limits until you're pushed to them, and you don't know how you'll handle it. Minimum contract in the Army is 3-6 years depending on your MOS, and that can be a long time for someone to be utterly miserable.

Anyway, another aspect to DODT is that while it doesn't seem relevant now days in a general social aspect, there are still a lot of people that aren't comfortable with homosexuality. Given the nature of the military and the fact that in a lot of situations, you're in a position to be bunking, showering, and even sharing a room with a member of the same gender (even well after basic training) the DODT considerations made are based on unit cohesion and welfare of the troops. It may seem like bigotry at first glance, but regardless of any member's personal distaste for homosexuals, the fact remains that if a unit can't operate like a team and trust each other on and off the battlefield, the mission itself is at stake.
While there are any number of solutions, the most amicable one, while keeping military goals in mind, was DODT and that's why it was implemented.

It is actually a General Discharge under Honorable conditions, which is then upgraded to an Honorable Discharge after 6 months for some reason. I know tons who have gotten out for this reason.

This movement began quite sometime ago, and now everyone that matters knows there is no suitable motive behind it, and therefore this will be abolished immediately. Lady Gaga just jumped on the bandwagon on this one.

I don't mind it at all, but after serving in the Navy, the gayest of them all, I can see how someone could feel uncomfortable. I was put into many situations in which I felt extremely uncomfortable, like showering with 40+ other men. If one of my shipmates was gay and was getting his jollies off looking at my genitals, I honestly wouldn't mind, but rather flattered, but I can see how less open minded folk...Texans...ahem...would not find it acceptable. All in all it comes down to just another man having your back and you having his.

^ Great post FD.

Although the discharge is a "Failure to Adapt" admin separation. It's a general discharge if the member has served less than 90 days of active duty service.

Were you on the subamarine side?

What makes you think he would automatically be attracted to you?

When I've been placed in situations with other (straight) men involving changing or showering (i.e. high school and university) all I focus on is changing, showering, whatever, and I get out immediately. I usually don't even look or speak to any of the other men to stop any sort of response. I've not ever been in any sort of really close-knit constant tight quarters experience, so I'm lacking in that department. I would like to think most gays that are in the military would have the same sense of consideration for others.


In regards to Gaga's speech, I agree with most of what she said. I didn't like a lot of her diction and her seemingly recent obsession with meat, but her overall message I can appreciate. I called both of my senators asking them to vote with Harry Reid to repeal DADT. I know that my efforts were futile, but I did it anyway.

Still seems strange though. I mean, considering that perspective, something as simple as a personality clash could disrupt a 'team' mentality in a group. People have their differences and conflicts in any group situtation, sexual orientation is just one of many MANY things that could cause dissent, so it seems silly to single it out. As for people using DODT to get out of honouring their contract...well, that just shows it's ridiculous as well as abused.

You would think that, and for the most part I think that's true. But there are definitely some meat gazers out there, looking to score some sausage.

Oh, I'm sure. There's creepers everywhere. I didn't deny that though.

^^ Only if it applies equally to any inter-straight advances, no?. :\

@vanilla: I'm not an American so this doesn't affect me either way and I'm certainly not crazy enough to join the military.

Agreed with everything goblin tears said. :\

Oh sorry hun my mistake! xx

It's an improvement over how things used to work. At least there's that. I don't know why you'd be sent home if you were homosexual, but oh well.

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".

here's what i think:
if gay people are willing to go out there and die for our country, are they any less american? and shouldn't they be allowed to?

the reason the government won't let them (atleast the openly gays) is because they think it'll lead to other things like gay marriage.

I don't know if they're worried about it leading to gay marriage or anything of the sort. I mean, ultimately I'm curious as to whether or not the military would accept or recognize civil unions or anything of the sort - actually kind of interested to see how that plays out.

I think that it was mostly intended as an anti-discriminatory measure so that gays could serve in the armed forces. It was meant to protect the gay soldiers from discrimination within the service. Ultimately, that proved to be further discrimination in and of itself as soldiers have been discharged in the thousands ultimately for their sexual preference.

It's flawed, and repealing it won't make anyone more accepting of the gay community per say, but it will at least give them an opportunity to live their life.

Not really.