CBS News Report on U.S. Military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS


No. It was Clinton's idea. He proposed it.

It was a compromise. He wanted to make it legal for gays to serve openly but Republicans in Congress wouldn't support it so he came up with don't ask, don't tell.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DanS


Why are you doing rhetorical contortions to excuse him for proposing it?

Oerdin beat me to this with his reply.

[SlowwHand]

Beginning of the policy

It was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 and approved by then President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the then complete ban on those who are not heterosexual. The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell and has been maintained by Clinton's successor, George W. Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

[Dinner]

It seems to me DanS is going through contortions to deny reality.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
the politician who made the above statement insulted NATO leaders in Europe ...

Why shouldn't they be insulted given how useless they've been to the alliance?

[Patroklos]

Mr. Fun, being gay yourself perhaps you can answer this for me.

Would gay military memebers require seperate facilities such as heads and quarters like the current male/female separation?

I gurantee the straight ones will homophobe or not, and the military would require it, but what would the gay members want in your opinion?

[SlowwHand]

United States, Russia and China are the major countries that don't allow it. UK, Israel and everyone else does.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Would gay military memebers require seperate facilities such as heads and quarters like the current male/female separation?

I gurantee the straight ones will homophobe or not, and the military would require it, but what would the gay members want in your opinion?

Why do you feel it would be different that the civilian world?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Mr. Fun, being gay yourself perhaps you can answer this for me.

Would gay military memebers require seperate facilities such as heads and quarters like the current male/female separation?

I gurantee the straight ones will homophobe or not, and the military would require it, but what would the gay members want in your opinion?

Gay men are already sharing showers with straight men in the military though; and this includes not only those who are closeted but also those who are open/honest with their comrades within their unit until they were discharged, or perhaps have never been punished at all under the "don't ask don't tell" policy.

Believe it or not, most gay men are professional in whatever career they choose to work in, and can control themselves. Saying that gay men lack as much control as horny dogs dehumanizes gay men in a gross, bigoted manner.

Maybe since there have been some straight teachers in elementary and high schools who have had sex with students that all straight men should be prohibited from working as teachers?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by MrFun
Even a besieged country like Israel, with overtly hostile neighboring countries allows gays and lesbians to serve openly. Talk about frontline conflict experience.

That's a pretty crappy example.

I mean, when the country's existence is held in the balance EVERY DAY it tends to put some steel into the population's spine.

[David Floyd]

But there is no logical argument on WHY gays and lesbians openly serving would undermine combat effectiveness. Homophobic soldiers should be able to continue doing their duty, just as racist or sexist soldiers do their duty today, in spite of racial minority and female soldiers.

Well, I agree that all things being equal, there is no logical reason as to why having homosexuals in the military would undermine effectiveness.

But let me ask you this. Up until the early 1950s, the US armed forces were segregated - basically, there were very few instances were black soldiers were allowed to serve in combat. The reason was basically racism, and on the face of it that's ridiculous.

However, if the goal is combat effectiveness, and if the vast majority of combat soldiers were strongly opposed to the idea of integrating the armed forces, would it have made sense to forcibly integrate in, say, 1942?

What about letting women serve in combat zones in the same period?

Now, granted, the circumstances were somewhat different in that we were in the middle of WW2. However, my point is that even though racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., is all patently ridiculous, I think that we have to recognize that in the case of the military, sometimes "social change", as it were, takes longer, because the true interest we should have is 100% effectiveness, and that means taking the viewpoint and morale of individual soldiers into account - even the racist, sexist, homophobes.

In fact, once gays and lesbians are allowed to openly serve in the United States military, the effectiveness of our forces should improve, as we will gain more highly qualified recruits who will bring their valuable skills and knowledge.

Well, maybe. Some of this sounds like the average "diversity is good" argument, which may or may not be accurate. Personally, I think that promoting diversity for it's own sake is stupid. Again, though, my point remains that right now, the benefits gained would probably be offset by the liabilities, in terms of turmoil within the armed forces, which would NOT be conducive to the overall goal of combat effectiveness, much like fully integrating the US Army before it was actually done would probably not have been a great idea.

This also brings up an ancillary point - women in combat. This remains a hot button issue. Now, the "right thing to do" seems to be to ensure that everyone has equal rights, but we're talking about the military, where there are other factors at work. My question becomes, then, in addition to abolishing "Dont Ask, Don't Tell", should we also lift all restrictions on women serving with infantry units?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lonestar


That's a pretty crappy example.

I mean, when the country's existence is held in the balance EVERY DAY it tends to put some steel into the population's spine.

Yes, of course that means Israelies have "steel" in their spines; hence, why they don't have such a strong insecurity about sexuality in general, as many Americans do.

[David Floyd]

Also, MrFun, do you at least concede the point that if abolishing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the US military, we should not abolish the policy?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My question becomes, then, in addition to abolishing "Dont Ask, Don't Tell", should we also lift all restrictions on women serving with infantry units?

Yes; women are adults and are perfectly capable in deciding for themselves whether or not they should enlist in any branch of the U.S. military forces with possibility of being placed in frontline combat situations.

Please, none of that "we need to preserve the frail virtues of women" crap.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Also, MrFun, do you at least concede the point that if abolishing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the US military, we should not abolish the policy?

I do not believe that repeal of "don't ask don't tell" would undermine effectiveness of combat of soldiers because some of them are homophobic, anymore than racial integration undermines combat effectiveness because even today, some soldiers are racist.