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

[Wezil]

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

Oh give me a freaking break! You wouldn't be killing anyone from your couch with a bag of corn chips in your hand. Be serious!

[Felch]

Grrrrrrrr

If I caught hajis taking three puffs instead of two before passing, there'd be a lot of slow singing and flower bringing.

[Wezil]

Wow, that's harsh dude. Most people would just tell them not to bogart the joint...

[Wezil]

Regarding the thread topic -

I think the military should be entirely gays and women. These two groups have had a free ride for far too long. Time to step up.

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

I can't see why it would. Again, there is confidentiality between the counsellor and the patient. DADT, is meant to be a guide for enlistment, meaning that they won't ask about this, and provided you keep it private and to yourself, you are welcome to be in the military. After that, it's conduct unbecoming, etc, violating the same rules on fraternisation that everyone is required to abide. I can't see why talking to your counsellor about this would have any bearing unless you confessed to breaking the regs. Having the feelings the attractions and speaking about them to your counsellor, I can't see how that would break DADT.

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.

My problem with repealing the policy, is that the freedom would be interpreted by some as license to engage in whatever behaviour they desire. Given the climate in the military at present, I sincerely doubt that they would be willing to prosecute a 'protected class', especially after seeing that Hasan was in fact promoted, despite espousing Jihadi ideals. That's why I oppose changing the regulations because the current policy is working well.

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.

I implied no such thing. I've specifically referred to sexual harrassment, gay or straight as unacceptable conduct in the military.

I suggest going back and reading my posts again.

[Ben Kenobi]

Rank discipline is important, and anyone who deviates from it to engage in sexual advances, gay or straight should be drummed out

Bolded for Mr. Fun who seems to be having comprehension issues. Where do I single out gay people?

I believe that gay men and women can serve without breaking the regs. How am I asserting that they lack the self-control to do so? If I didn't believe this, I wouldn't want them in the military at all.

[Asher]

Bolded for Mr. Fun who seems to be having comprehension issues. Where do I single out gay people?

God ****ing damnit, Ben.

This IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT GENERAL SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE MILITARY.

THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT GAY PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY.

If you are NOT talking about an issue SPECIFIC TO GAYS IN THE MILITARY, it is NOT A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION IN THIS THREAD.

It is YOU that is once again failing at comprehension.

[self biased]

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

there's a reason it's called the english vice.

[MrFun]

DD, I read the article you linked; it was good reading. Here is something struck me as interesting from the article, in regard to professional performance:

This leads to the conclusion that
integration of open homosexuals might
degrade social cohesion because of the lack
of homogeneity; however, the effects can be
mitigated with leadership and will further
dissipate with familiarity. More importantly,
task cohesion should not be affected and is in
fact the determinant in group success. Given
that homosexuals who currently serve do so
at great personal expense and professional
risk, RAND interviews suggest such individuals
are deeply committed to the military’s
core values, professional teamwork, physical
stamina, loyalty, and selfless service—all key
descriptors of task cohesion.22

[HalfLotus]

This is how Obama placates the Democratic base now that they've realized we're a year into Bush's third term. Ride a wedge issue that affects .00001% of the population.

Good luck to gays seeking justice, but Dems don't give a damn about you. They just want more suckers to send into their no-win wars against imagined threats.

[rah]

That's why I oppose changing the regulations because the current policy is working well.

That is the crux here. You're the only one in this thread that I can tell that believes that it's working well. Everyone else is working on the assumption that it isn't. BK again is the majority of 1.

And I also agree with

This leads to the conclusion that
integration of open homosexuals might
degrade social cohesion because of the lack
of homogeneity; however, the effects can be
mitigated with leadership and will further
dissipate with familiarity.

Very similar to the integration of Blacks.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're the only one in this thread that I can tell that believes that it's working well. Everyone else is working on the assumption that it isn't. BK again is the majority of 1.

Last I checked enlistment is doing just fine. So what's the impetus for the change other then "Obama gotta do something?"

[rah]

Fairness and human dignity for all.
How would you like it if you were in the service and were told that your religion isn't allowed but as long as you didn't tell anybody what your religion was, you'd be ok. And you can't go to church because people might notice and find out your religion. And if you told anybody your religion you'd be booted out. The same could be said for enlistment. You wanted to join and they explained it to you. You thought it sounded reasonable at the time but after having to hide it for years you changed your mind.

[Patroklos]

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

This would only be true if there were no issues to work out. There are. They just decided to put women on submarines, but it isn't like they just dropped some off at the pier the next day.

You may think a year is excessive, but I can't be arsed to care about that trivial detail. I think it is pretty clear now that DADT will be gone far sooner than later. It gives you time to get your pudgy ass in shape for enlistment

[MrFun]

Yeah Patty, but we've had about seventeen years since passage of DADT to work this out and deal with the legitimate issues.

Another thing I found interesting in that article DD linked, was how Clinton's attempt to use executive authority as command-in-chief to eliminate discrimination for gays and lesbians led homophobic Democrats and Republicans to trump Clinton in denying him that authority. It created a controversy over authority of commander-in-chief versus authority of legislature with issues concerning the military.