DADT

[JoeyC]

As for those polls, I belive that they were not annonomous.  People will say stuff in private they won't say if asked in person. Like neg nodders.     If poll was anounomus, I'm surprised at results.     

[kempsternyc]

I just want to say that I'm not really upset by Joey's quoting from what I wrote the other day. That post was in complete jest and has nothing to do with this debate, as I told Joey last night......

And Joey, if I was still in the Army, I would have never even posted something like that in the first place. It just wouldn't be appropriate to be a soldier and post something like that.

[kempsternyc]

As for those polls, I belive that they were not annonomous.  People will say stuff in private they won't say if asked in person. Like neg nodders.     If poll was anounomus, I'm surprised at results.     

Not sure why that matters. If your refering to the Tom Bradley effect, I think that has been basically discarded.

[JoeyC]

"Not sure why that matters. If your refering to the Tom Bradley effect, I think that has been basically discarded."

I think it is true (The Bradley effect)  Meaning i would not discard it.

I hear of  polls that have shown otherwise.   Maybe if they let soldiers, and only soldiers who are active, vote on it, we would have true answer. 

[kempsternyc]

"Not sure why that matters. If your refering to the Tom Bradley effect, I think that has been basically discarded."

I think it is true (The Bradley effect)  Meaning i would not discard it.

I hear of  polls that have shown otherwise.   Maybe if they let soldiers, and only soldiers who are active, vote on it, we would have true answer. 

I lost track of the article....but results differ depending on if you use the term "gay and Lesbian" or "homosexual"

gay and lesbian tends to invoke a more postitive reponse (towards my way of thinking) Homosexual tends to invoke a more negative response. The thinking is that it is a medical/technical term. I'll try to track it down later.....my partner is heading to bed and sore from the show and just asked for a back rub.

[JoeyC]

"I'll try to track it down later.....my partner is heading to bed and sore from the show and just asked for a back rub.""

Oh oh!   We can't have THAT in the barracks!    :-o

[kempsternyc]

"I'll try to track it down later.....my partner is heading to bed and sore from the show and just asked for a back rub.""

Oh oh!   We can't have THAT in the barracks!    :-o

hehe.....

Well, in all honesty, if I was in that deep of a relationship, I would probably be living off base at that point.

[Speebs]

No, I don't think that. You assume wrongly that I do.  The problem would be men, or women, who are stright, having to share close quarters and showers with people who may take unwanted liking to them.   If we put a bunch of straight men and women of age 18-25 in same showers every day, guess what??    That's why they are kept seperate.

Also, like it or not, many peole don't want gays around them at all--not me, but that's way it is.   Main two types in army are southerners and ghetto types, and many, believe it or not, are going to be very 'Gay friendly."    

We need military. If many refuse to join due to having to serve with gays, military will take a hit.   As for flambouyant RuPauls,  you said it, not me.  I don't see that going over too well at all.  I'd even get pissed off at that.      

Joey... you realize that gays/lesbians are allowed to serve and shower and stuff already, as long as they keep it quiet, right?  Getting rid of DADT just gives them the option to make the personal decision whether they can be open about it.  Is your concern that repealing DADT will result in more gays in the military and therefore dissuade more people from joining the military in general?  Because there's really only one way to test that theory.

[daisy]

14000 men and women have been discharged from our armed forces due to this discriminatory and useless law.  14000.  For what?  For something that has absolutely nothing to do with how well they can serve their country.  All armed services personnel are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner.  Many do.  Sexual harassment or massive PDA on the job by anyone of any sex is not tolerated or exemplary of a professional work environment.  Violators can be thrown out.  No matter what orientation they are.  Why can't it be as simple as that?   We lose so many good people for something so so stupid.

[Sweeper]

Sexual harassment or massive PDA on the job by anyone of any sex is not tolerated or exemplary of a professional work environment.

It has nothing to do with a "work environment" it has to do with a living arrangement. You don't just punch out for the day and go live your life.

Also, the US Military does not exist to provide positive affirmation for any individual. It's sole purpose is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Kemper's personnel story, while touching and obviously sincerely, is actually a reason for DADT.

[daisy]

Again I ask why is it not as simple as kicking someone out if they so much as make a move on another person?   Heterosexual people need no positive affirmation, so why is the distinction only made for homosexuals?   Just because someone is gay, it doesn't mean they are running around jumping in everyone's bed.  If you sign up for the military, you are expected to conduct yourself in a professional manner no matter where you are.  No matter what sex you are or orientation you are.  No matter what time it is.  If you cannot, you don't belong in the military.  It's a full time job and you don't get days off.  It's a non-issue and your sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with how well you can protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[28Grand]

The US military is a huge organization and not all service members live on base or in same-sex barracks, sharing sleeping quarters and bathrooms. Even on base, some members of the military have their own rooms. Accommodations can be 'accommodated' in many, but not all situations.

The Israeli military allows gay people to serve openly, even in combat situations (as do women), yet remains an effective, cohesive fighting force.

The problem with DADT is that too many times the Military ignores it so why bother having it in place? Many of the people discharged were done so after being outed by other people.

[28Grand]

The military seems to be keeping up it's bargain on the "don't ask" part. Service men and women just don't seem to want to keep up their part cause they keep telling.

Can someone tell me how repealing DADT makes our military more effective?

If only that were true -- it is not. In many cases service members are accused of being gay by other people and are forced to either admit the truth or lie, which is also against military regulations.

In 2009, 428 service members were discharged for violating the ban on openly gay troops. In 2008 the number was 619. Over 30% were women, which may or may say something given that women make up only 15% of the armed forces.

If you have them, please show the numbers discharged for committing adultery and fraternization between male and female service members. I'd like to see if the rules are being applied equally to heterosexuals.

[daisy]

I was quoting Sweeper's post but for some reason it has disappeared - I think the software had a hiccup - I would like to respond to his quote that we were essentially talking about the same thing because heterosexuals committed of adultery or fraternization are thrown out too.  "The military seems to be keeping up it's bargain on the "don't ask" part. Service men and women just don't seem to want to keep up their part cause they keep telling."

From me:
We are not saying the same thing, because it's not the same  - if a military man were to mention his wife or girlfriend in passing, about her new job, their kids, their family - that man would remain in the military.  If a gay military man or women were to mention their partner in passing, they would be discharged.  It is not the same.  Gay military can't even mention a word about their loved ones because it's as if they don't exist.  14000 military men and women are an awful lot to lose just because someone outed them.  Think about it - that's 14000 more troops that could be helping defend us.  And they are not, because of a technicality.

[holyfrjole]

I wonder, do the people like JoeyC who oppose it so vociferously -- civilians for whom the repeal of DADT would have no impact on whatsoever -- realize that there are gays and lesbians EVERYWHERE? We're doctors, lawyers, teachers, clergy, etc. People who you put your trust in to heal you when you're sick, take care of your legal affairs, teach your children, and look to for spiritual guidance. And odds are a gay person designed your clothing, cooked your meal at a fine restaurant, and wrote and recorded some of your favorite music too.

We can do all of those things and do them well, without offending anyone, without our sexuality being an issue. Yet, when we want to proudly serve our country openly and honestly, the homophobia rages on and suddenly we're sexual predators checking out the guy or girl next to us while we shower. Really? I'm shocked that people don't realize just how stupid that is.

I can only hope that someday, people will realize that being gay and lesbian is about so much more than just sex. Note to heterosexuals: we're just like you. We're just as diverse, just as multi-dimensional. We worry about global warming, the state of the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and health care reform too. And shockingly, some of us are fiscally conservative. Some of us are even more socially conservative than you'd expect. But no, according to folks like JoeyC, we're only interested in sex. And we check people out ALL THE TIME. Because we can't be professional and do our jobs -- whether we're doctors, lawyers, teachers or clergy; designers, chefs, or musicians, or in the military-- because apparently, we're so distracted by all that sex. If that were true, this would be a far more dysfunctional world than it already is.

DADT is destructive and discriminatory. It doesn't prevent gays and lesbians from being in the military, it prevents them from being out and being able to live their lives openly and proudly while serving their country in the most noble of ways. Why anyone would object to that is beyond me.