Latest on "don't ask, don't tell"

[MrFun]

What the **** does this have to do with your opinion about gays in the military? You dodged the question. Again.

And now you're quoting BK in my thread.
I'm not sure what professionalism has to do with sexual orientation, either.

If you make aggressive sexual advances on someone, you should get reprimanded, disciplined, or booted out regardless of your sexual orientation.

[MrFun]

I don't believe I said that they were insurmountable obstacles but it isn't exactly as simple as you seem to think. An essay you might be interested in: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pa...ons/i55/14.pdf

I'll try to remember to check the article out on my lunch break.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is not about political correctness. If BK knew how to read, he would have seen my comments in the OP about real-world, practical issues of "don't ask, don't tell" that negatively affect the quality of life for gays and lesbians enlisted in the American military.

And I addressed my comments towards those. Counsellers have an oath of patient confidentiality. If that is not being addressed, this can be dealt with via other means than repealing a policy that has proven successful.

You seem to be drawing the invective that 'don't ask don't tell" is a ban on gay people in the military, which is no such thing. I don't know why Imran included seems to think that it's a barrier at all to enlistment.

And there's nothing petty or "politically correct" in the pejorative sense, about recognizing gays and lesbians as being equally human as straight people.

Last I checked the policy applies equally to everyone, not just gay people. Are you suggesting that straight people who are involved in harrassment are mollycoddled?

[Asher]

****ing learn to read, for **** sakes.

[MikeH]

Hell, IIRC, the British and Israeli militaries allow gay people to serve and there have been few problems there.

Two of the best armies in the world!

[MikeH]

Speaking of the British Army and gays. This is worth dredging up again if only for the bolded bit...

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-29-2005-75698.asp

The British army regularly attends cultural events and parades in England to drum up support for the military and recruit potential soldiers. This weekend the army decided to take part in another march through the city streets of Manchester with thousands of people watching. Only this time the parade was part of the annual Gay Pride festival, and some of the onlookers were dancing men in makeup dressed in Lycra. There were about a dozen uniformed soldiers participating in the parade and manning a booth to offer recruitment information. The Royal Air Force also took part for their second successive year, but this was the first year that the army has attended. There was no official representation from the Royal Navy, although several parade marchers were dressed in sailors’ uniforms.

[Patroklos]

As I have said before there are a few minor issues mostly related to housing and fraternization standards, but overall nothing that can not be completely hammered out given enough time and attention. Which is exactly what Gates is giving it.

[rah]

While I agree that some time should be given to hammer out the details, I do find it interesting that this will put off actually changing anything before the elections in November, so incumbent Dems won't have to go out on a limb.

[DinoDoc]

While I agree that some time should be given to hammer out the details, I do find it interesting that this will put off actually changing anything before the elections in November, so incumbent Dems won't have to go out on a limb.

Given the fact that DADT is codified in law, someone is gonna have to go out on a limb sooner or later if they wish it repealed.

[rah]

Again, right after the election is always a good time because it leaves the maximum amount of time before the next election for people to hopefully forget.

[MrFun]

As I have said before there are a few minor issues mostly related to housing and fraternization standards, but overall nothing that can not be completely hammered out given enough time and attention. Which is exactly what Gates is giving it.

Enough time and attention = more talk, but no action.

[MrFun]

And **** it - I'm taking BK off of Ignore. I'm finding myself responding to some of his posts anyway, when others quote him.

[Felch]

I don't get what's terrible with DADT. If they had a similar policy for marijuana, I'd be killing hajis right now.

[MrFun]

And I addressed my comments towards those. Counsellers have an oath of patient confidentiality. If that is not being addressed, this can be dealt with via other means than repealing a policy that has proven successful.

You seem to be drawing the invective that 'don't ask don't tell" is a ban on gay people in the military, which is no such thing. I don't know why Imran included seems to think that it's a barrier at all to enlistment.


Last I checked the policy applies equally to everyone, not just gay people. Are you suggesting that straight people who are involved in harrassment are mollycoddled?

I would need someone who knows more about DADT in the military, but as I understand it, if a gay enlisted member comes out to a counselor then the oath of confidentiality does not apply in the face of DADT policy, right?

Your second point in this quoted post of yours is simply retarded, though. Nowhere did I say that straight people are not being disciplined for inappropriate sexual behavior, such as sexual harrassment. Although, I'm sure plenty of enlisted straight women have stories of many of their male comrades getting away with it anyway. But that is for another thread.

You implied earlier in this thread that gay people lack self-control, and thus will hump every straight person they find attractive in the military without the other person's consent. So in response to that, I, rah, and others have pointed out that policies regarding sexual harrassment, rape, and other such behavior will apply equally, to straight people AND gay people. Get it now?

[MrFun]

My belief is that if a platoon cares more about not offending people, that they are useless in standing up for me and the rest of us. Excluding people who do not reach the mark is not discriminatory. Rank discipline is important, and anyone who deviates from it to engage in sexual advances, gay or straight should be drummed out. Professionalism comes first.

And for the record, this is where you made the stupid implication that gay people lack self-control. You brought up the issue of the need for rank discipline and professionalism as if eliminating DADT will destroy such discipline and professionalism with gay people serving openly in the military. This implies that gay people lack self-control - you're making the idiotic assumption that gay people will deviate from rank discipline if DADT is eliminated.