Yukon Cornelius

I am a member of the military the branch i will leave out of this. Either way the government is having us do stage's or tier's of learning and dealing with openly gay, lesbian and bi sexual individuals in the service.

The standing law of don't ask don't tell was easy to deal with because nobody was the wiser.

I ask you how you feel about it. I don't really think that the current policy should change but i don't make the rules.

__________________
Attempting to find a cure for Stupid...

TockTockTock

I'm glad they got rid of the policy.

The Virgin

at least you'll know who among your comrades you can f*ck in the as* when you get lonely during war... look at it in a more positive note.

but seriously, it's rare to see gays deciding to risk their lives and contribute to the honor and protection of one's nation. is it that hard to accept them for who they are and just be proud that they're willing to die out there for the sake of their country? if being a patriot is not enough for a gayman to receive respecet, honestly, i don't know what else will.

TockTockTock

I actually don't respect patriotism... or any form of pride for that matter.

ThePhanastasio

I really feel that DADT was a good idea in theory - serving while keeping ones' sex life private seems as though it's the best course of action in any workplace and for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. It also allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons to serve in the military with more or less equal footing as the rest of the members of the service.

DADT also had stipulations which proved it to be a flawed system: If members of any branch of the armed services were outed through any means, or proved to have been practicing homosexual behavior, they were discharged from the service. In addition, the discharges were, naturally, not honorable discharges. As such, upon leaving the service, finding employment elsewhere became difficult because the status of their termination from any given branch of the United States military. In this way, what was meant as an anti-discriminatory bit of legislation was tainted with that bit of discrimination, resulting in those who were gay and serving not quite on even footing with their heterosexual brethren in the service.

With that said, repealing DADT and allowing servicemen and women to openly serve is, in my opinion, for the best. The classes you're required to take may seem stupid to you and to most, but ultimately, the military can't function as well if there are clear cracks in the firmament, as it were; if acceptance of those who choose to openly serve was not enforced, then there could potentially be sever issues amongst the troops - if you don't work as a unit of more or less equals, the job doesn't get done as efficiently.

I'm all for the new legislation, but if I were to serve, I still wouldn't do so completely openly, nor would the majority of those in the LGBT community - but it's nice to know that now, if someone's "outed", they're not going to lose their job under less than spectacular terms.

__________________

• Phish: Studio Discography Reviewed
• 100 Albums I Heartily Recommend
• My last.fm

RVCA

Right on dude, I actually had a debate with TheCunningStunt at length about how pride and patriotism are awful things

@op: I hope I'm not jumping to conclusions but you sound like a bigot. How is the repeal of DADT going to change anything? You aren't suddenly going to be coerced into gay shower sex.

adidasss

ot: Backs to the walls guys!!

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

Freebase Dali

I've discussed this before, but being a veteran myself, I do have a DADT perspective from an experience view. On one hand, its implementation was originally to allow gays to serve while maintaining unit cohesion by anticipating any negative effects that biases/fears may cause, and aligning with the gender segregation that's enforced in various situations. On the other, the DADT part of it was based on a an assumption that there would be significant problems as a result of having openly gay members of the armed forces integrating with heterosexuals. The reality of it, via my own experience, says this is not the case... at least from a unit standpoint. Anything beyond that is irrelevant, though.
I've never come into contact with any problems surfacing as the result of gays that were serving along side me and my fellow soldiers. DADT wasn't really a mask of sexuality either... we knew when someone was gay, and more often than not, those people would be open about it regardless.

While I can understand the idea behind its original implementation, I can't really see how it's all that relevant in our military. We'll always have biases against certain things, but when you consider the fact that there are still racists, and there are certainly racists in the military, you can make the comparison that gays will be just as successful in their integration as blacks were. Yes, there are times where military members in positions of leadership make decisions based on biases, but there are measures in place to report and combat it. I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable for those same measures to be equally useful in cases where the bias has to do with homosexuality.

s_k

These two .

So yes to equal rights for gay people, no matter in what branche.
But no for patriotism or fighting for your country.

Sorry again FD .

__________________
Click here to see my collection

OccultHawk

I love the hate for the military I'm seeing here.