Dadt

[Shadow]

"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on gays serving in the military from December 21, 1993, to September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. The restrictions were mandated by United States federal law Pub.L. 103–160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability" Now I made this thread mostly to rant and also to debate. I love the fact that this got abolished, don't get me wrong, but this policy was enacted on December 21, 1993 but it took the government about 18 years to get rid of this policy that was discriminatory and biased. Why take so long? Another thing who let this get passed in the first place? Seriously why?

[Harry Smith]

It was passed by Bill clinton, the US Army is over 200 years old. Just like any organisation there are more conservative elements within it

[Nellerin]

It was passed by Bill clinton, the US Army is over 200 years old. Just like any organisation there are more conservative elements within it

Yep, it was just one of the many backwards policies that are still in place here in the good ol' USA.

[TheBigUnit]

So would this allow homosexual couples to serve and have sex together at camp? I know heterosexual couples could

[Gigablue]

DADT was a discriminatory piece of legislation, and I'm glad it was repealed, however it is important to remember that DADT was a major step forward at the time. Before it, someone could be discharged simply for being gay, and the recruiters tried much harder to stop homosexuals from getting into the military. Under DADT, at least gays could serve while closeted. It was a step forward, just not nearly far enough.

When it was passed, Clinton wanted to make it so that gays could serve openly, but the republican controlled house wouldn't allow it. DADT was the compromise.

Hopefully the repeal of this legislation is another step towards complete equality for LGBT citizens in the US.

[Nellerin]

DADT was a discriminatory piece of legislation, and I'm glad it was repealed, however it is important to remember that DADT was a major step forward at the time. Before it, someone could be discharged simply for being gay, and the recruiters tried much harder to stop homosexuals from getting into the military. Under DADT, at least gays could serve while closeted. It was a step forward, just not nearly far enough.


That is a good point which a lot of people tend to forget. DADT was bad but still better than the previous way gays were handled in the military.

While it was not great, at least it gave gays more opportunity but either way it is nice that it is gone.

[drew6]

never saw the acronym DADT until today. Guess it's good it's gone, but seems like it was better than nothing when it started. FOr a somewhat fast paced society, we sure are slow to change. haha

[Sugaree]

The reason it took so long was because LGBT issues weren't a big thing back in the 90s. Many more people have come out as LGBT now, and as their population rises, we look more to discriminatory (or supposed discriminatory) policies with a scrutinizing eye.

Was it discriminatory and biased? Yes; but it was also a sign of the times. Not many people cared about the LGBT community back in the 90s, so no one really thought. And while the policy was discriminatory, there's a bit of sense in it. I mean, is there really a reason to just tell people you're gay without them asking? I'm not saying I'm in support of DADT, but if you were a gay service member, does it really matter if you tell your platoon if you're gay or straight? With that said, it was wrong for these gay service members to be kicked out because of their orientation, but why tell people in the first place? Even if they ask, isn't that a personal thing?

[Professional Russian]

I dont know why it matters if your gay or not. if you want to serve the country and possibly risk your life they should let you in just cause you got the balls to do it.

[Prodigy17]

I dont know why it matters if your gay or not. if you want to serve the country and possibly risk your life they should let you in just cause you got the balls to do it.

Hopefully not :) It should be up to the army who they take - if the army does not want gays to serve why should they be forced to accept them just because they want to join?

When it comes to defence there are more important issues than a gay person "right" to join the army.

[Professional Russian]

Hopefully not :) It should be up to the army who they take - if the army does not want gays to serve why should they be forced to accept them just because they want to join?

When it comes to defence there are more important issues than a gay person "right" to join the army.

Well im pretty sure this applies to the navy but still i mean i have no p[roblem serveing gays. when and if i go into the army i dont care if your gay or not as long you got my back i got yours. see how that works?

[Nellerin]

Hopefully not :) It should be up to the army who they take - if the army does not want gays to serve why should they be forced to accept them just because they want to join?

When it comes to defence there are more important issues than a gay person "right" to join the army.

It's called equality. The army can't discriminate for any reason, that would just be stupid. The army shouldn't be treated differently than a regular company. It is a workplace.

[Sugaree]

It's called equality. The army can't discriminate for any reason, that would just be stupid. The army shouldn't be treated differently than a regular company. It is a workplace.

That's like equating a missile to a business meeting. The army isn't a business or a workplace, it's a national program funded by taxpayer dollars. And last I checked, (most) businesses aren't funded by your money from the federal government.

[Nellerin]

That's like equating a missile to a business meeting. The army isn't a business or a workplace, it's a national program funded by taxpayer dollars. And last I checked, (most) businesses aren't funded by your money from the federal government.

My point in saying that is that the Army is not an exclusive club and anyone that meets standards should be allowed in. Otherwise they are discriminating on unjust grounds, correct?

[Sugaree]

My point in saying that is that the Army is not an exclusive club and anyone that meets standards should be allowed in. Otherwise they are discriminating on unjust grounds, correct?

Ah, I see now. Thanks for the clarification. And yes, you're right. However, personal bias often gets in the way. Even if a business is neutral to hiring a gay employee, the person who ultimately approves the application of said worker could turn them away based on them being opposed to gays. So what you really have to deal with is the people who are not representing the business properly by following orders.

[Nellerin]

Ah, I see now. Thanks for the clarification. And yes, you're right. However, personal bias often gets in the way. Even if a business is neutral to hiring a gay employee, the person who ultimately approves the application of said worker could turn them away based on them being opposed to gays. So what you really have to deal with is the people who are not representing the business properly by following orders.

True, although I don't think applications generally ask for "sexual preference" so most of the times they are only discriminated against after they have been hired.

Most of the time when people file lawsuits for discrimination now it is because someone fired them after finding out they were gay like 6 months into employment.

[Prodigy17]

It's called equality. The army can't discriminate for any reason, that would just be stupid. The army shouldn't be treated differently than a regular company. It is a workplace.

It would be stupid for them not to discriminate
and the army is a lot more than a workplace it's a group of people who are prepared to risk their lives...more than most of us would do in our "workplaces"
If the army want to recruit gays then that's fine with me but if they don't it would be totally insane to make them
Defence of our countries is a lot more important than gay rights in my book

[Nellerin]

It would be stupid for them not to discriminate
and the army is a lot more than a workplace it's a group of people who are prepared to risk their lives...more than most of us would do in our "workplaces"
If the army want to recruit gays then that's fine with me but if they don't it would be totally insane to make them
Defence of our countries is a lot more important than gay rights in my book

So being gay impedes on someones ability to fight for our country?

[Prodigy17]

So being gay impedes on someones ability to fight for our country?

I don't know, I'm not gay or in the army so couldn't possibly answer that.

My point was the army should be allowed to recruit who they want. If the army feels being gay would make somebody unsuitable for the army then that's their decision to take.

The rights of the army to recruit the people they feel are most suitable to defend our countries is the important issue here - anyone else's rights comes second.

[Nellerin]

I don't know, I'm not gay or in the army so couldn't possibly answer that.

My point was the army should be allowed to recruit who they want. If the army feels being gay would make somebody unsuitable for the army then that's their decision to take.

The rights of the army to recruit the people they feel are most suitable to defend our countries is the important issue here - anyone else's rights comes second.

Rights come second? Are you insane?

Being gay doesn't inhibit ones ability to be in the army, so it is only discrimination. Last time I checked, discrimination is bad.

You are in the small minority of people that think otherwise.

[Prodigy17]

Being gay doesn't inhibit ones ability to be in the army, so it is only discrimination.

At 15 years old and never having served in the army how can you possibly know this?

[PinkFloyd]

Just like the Boy Scouts issue, there is a tradition involved. I am for one happy that it was abolished.

[Nellerin]

At 15 years old and never having served in the army how can you possibly know this?

Because it doesn't make any sense, there is no mental or physical difference in gay people.

Stop being so ignorant please.

[Prodigy17]

Because it doesn't make any sense, there is no mental or physical difference in gay people.

Nobody suggested there was. Mental/physical differences are not the reason the army does not want to recruit gays so it's totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Do you know why the army does not want to recruit gays or are you just sure they're wrong whatever their reason is?

Stop being so ignorant please.

So a 15 year old kid on a forum says he knows better than all the Army and then accuses me of being igorant. I give you 10 out of 10 for being amusing :)

[Nellerin]

Nobody suggested there was. Mental/physical differences are not the reason the army does not want to recruit gays so it's totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Do you know why the army does not want to recruit gays or are you just sure they're wrong whatever their reason is?



So a 15 year old kid on a forum says he knows better than all the Army and then accuses me of being igorant. I give you 10 out of 10 for being amusing :)

Well suggesting there is any reason not to allow them is ignorant so ya. And other than being homophobic (not a reason) there is no reason for them to say "no" to a gay person.

[Prodigy17]

Well suggesting there is any reason not to allow them is ignorant so ya.

I tend to think it's ignorant to just dismiss anyone else's reasons because you think you know better.

Why do you think Clinton didn't just force the army to recruit gays back in 1993 instead of all this dont ask dont tell stuff - was he ignorant as well?

[Nellerin]

I tend to think it's ignorant to just dismiss anyone else's reasons because you think you know better.

Why do you think Clinton didn't just force the army to recruit gays back in 1993 instead of all this dont ask dont tell stuff - was he ignorant as well?

The republicans and Navy commander Craig Quigley (overwhelming homophobes) refused to pass a bill allowing gays in the military, so they compromised in the middle with DADT.

Quigley's own words were that "Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous" and that in shared shower situations, heterosexuals would have an "uncomfortable feeling of someone watching" which we know is not how homosexuals behave in any way.

Then it was repealed in 2010 because of how wrong it was, and you are sticking up for it still? :lol:

[Prodigy17]

heterosexuals would have an "uncomfortable feeling of someone watching" which we know is not how homosexuals behave in any way.

OK so you know how all homosexuals behave as well? You are incredibly knowledgable for a 15 year old :)

In any case the point is hetrosexuals would feel uncomfortable sharing a shower with homosexuals, in the same way as a woman would no doubt feel uncomfortable sharing a shower with men.

As a hetrosexual I certainly would feel uncomfortable, wouldn't you? Assuming you're not gay obviously.

[Nellerin]

OK so you know how all homosexuals behave as well? You are incredibly knowledgable for a 15 year old :)

In any case the point is hetrosexuals would feel uncomfortable sharing a shower with homosexuals, in the same way as a woman would no doubt feel uncomfortable sharing a shower with men.

As a hetrosexual I certainly would feel uncomfortable, wouldn't you? Assuming you're not gay obviously.

Im not gay and no I would be fine with it, no reason not to be.

[Korashk]

On one hand I realize that the whole issue with gays and the military is discriminatory and hypocritical, but I can't really fault the policy because it achieved the commendable goal of preventing people from joining the military.

[xmojox]

OK so you know how all homosexuals behave as well? You are incredibly knowledgable for a 15 year old :)

In any case the point is hetrosexuals would feel uncomfortable sharing a shower with homosexuals, in the same way as a woman would no doubt feel uncomfortable sharing a shower with men.

As a hetrosexual I certainly would feel uncomfortable, wouldn't you? Assuming you're not gay obviously.

How dare you take issue with someone's age on a teen forum! Foul.

[Apollo.]

At 15 years old and never having served in the army how can you possibly know this?

I'll give you some evidence, I have several friends that are currently serving in Afghanistan with the British army most of them have mentioned their gay friends in the army, nobody has any problems with serving with gay people, spending a lot of time with them has clearly made people see that homosexuals are just normal people.

I am awaiting entry into the royal navy and have had to sign many legal contracts saying that if any homophobic remarks or bullying due to sexuality comes from me I will be disciplined. The military aren't small minded homophobes they understand the importance of fighting for your country and anyone willing to risk their lives to fight along side you deserves utmost respect.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Backwards. It sounds like the work of hypocrites.

[Shadow]

Okay guys let me clean this up "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on gays serving in the military from December 21, 1993, to September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. The restrictions were mandated by United States federal law Pub.L. 103–160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability". The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces". Since DADT ended in 2011, open gays and lesbians have been able to serve.
The "don't ask" part of the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate investigation of a servicemember's orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors, though credible evidence of homosexual behavior could be used to initiate an investigation. Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass".
A congressional bill to repeal DADT was enacted in December 2010, specifying that the policy would remain in place until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal would not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period. A July 6, 2011, ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members. President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, sent that certification to Congress on July 22, 2011, which set the end of DADT for September 20, 2011.
Before this homosexuals would be immediately "DISHONORABLY DISCHARGED" such as what happened to Leonard P. Matchlock-At that time, the Air Force had a fairly ill-defined exception clause that could allow gays to continue to serve if there were extenuating circumstances. These circumstances might include being immature or drunk, exemplary service, or a one-time experimentation (known sarcastically as the "Queen for a day" rule). During his September 1975 administrative discharge hearing, an Air Force attorney asked him if he would sign a document pledging to "never practice homosexuality again" in exchange for being allowed to remain in the Air Force. Matlovich refused. Despite his exemplary military record, tours of duty in Vietnam, and high performance evaluations, the panel ruled Matlovich unfit for service and he was recommended for a General, or Less than Honorable, discharge. The base commander, Alton J. Thogersen, citing his service record, recommended that it be upgraded to Honorable. The Secretary of the Air Force agreed, confirming Matlovich's discharge in October 1975. He sued for reinstatement, but the legal process was a long one, with the case moving back and forth between United States District and Circuit Courts. When, by September 1980, the Air Force had failed to provide US District Court Judge Gerhard Gesell an explanation of why Matlovich did not meet their criteria for exception (which by then had been eliminated but still could have applied to him), Gesell ordered him reinstated into the Air Force and promoted. The Air Force offered Matlovich a financial settlement instead, and convinced they would find some other reason to discharge him if he reentered the service, or the conservative US Supreme Court would rule against him should the Air Force appeal, Matlovich accepted. The figure, based on back pay, future pay, and pension was $160,000.

[Emerald Dream]

Locked at OP's request. :locked: