Don't ask, don't tell policy in the military

[Spin]

Do you think DADT is a necessary policy to have in the American military or do you think that it should be repealed?


Please DO NOT say if you think homosexuality is a sin, this is not what this post is about, and I will report your post for being off-topic.

What DADT says to me is that gay people aren't good enough to serve our country. I think that if someone is willing to fight for us then why should we stop them just because they are gay. If bullets are flying from left to right, up and down it won't matter if the guy/girl next to you is gay. It's just wrong that someone has to hide who they are because they're afraid of getting discharged. This problem doesn't only effect gays either. Women are sometimes forced into sexual acts and if they refuse, they're under suspicion of being gay. All DADT does is further discrimate against people and makes things harder for them. It needs to be repealed ASAP.

[Reality]

I'm not in the U.S. nor the U.S. military so it doesn't really effect me. But from what I've heard, the reason they have DADT is not to discriminate homosexuals but rather to cater for the insecure, homophobic soldiers who don't enjoy the thought of showering, being in the pit with, sleeping with, etc. homosexual soldiers.

I don't exactly agree with 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' but on the other hand, I don't think homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) should be flaunting his or her sexuality. I think the fact you can get discharged if you get caught being gay, though is very wrong.

Women are sometimes forced into sexual acts and if they refuse, they're under suspicion of being gay.
Really? Never heard about that.

[Spin]

I'm not in the U.S. nor the U.S. military so it doesn't really effect me. But from what I've heard, the reason they have DADT is not to discriminate homosexuals but rather to cater for the insecure, homophobic soldiers who don't enjoy the thought of showering, being in the pit with, sleeping with, etc. homosexual soldiers.

Well, like I said before if bullets are flying everywhere, you're not going to care who the guy next to you is sleeping with as long as he has your back. Or atleast you shouldn't care. Don't you think there's something wrong with "catering to the insecure homophobic soldiers"? If they have a problem with it, well that's their problem.

I don't exactly agree with 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' but on the other hand, I don't think homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) should be flaunting his or her sexuality. I think the fact you can get discharged if you get caught being gay, though is very wrong.
Usually they're not flaunting their sexuality, but I think people still have the right to be open about it. Why can the straight soldier have a picture of his girlfriend from back home under his pillow, but the gay soldier can't have a picture of his boyfriend under his pillow? It's a double-standard.

Really? Never heard about that.

Well surely it happens. There have been scandals of men forcing women to do sexual favors for them in the military. Women make up about 15% of the army, but they're about half the people discharged because of the DADT policy. Now I doubt ALL of them are gay.

[Reality]

Well, like I said before if bullets are flying everywhere, you're not going to care who the guy next to you is sleeping with as long as he has your back. Or atleast you shouldn't care. Don't you think there's something wrong with "catering to the insecure homophobic soldiers"? If they have a problem with it, well that's their problem.
I'm really playing Devils Advocate with you here; I don't actually support DADT. I actually think sexuality is a dumb reason to not allow/discharge someone from a military.

But anyways. The points I've heard about why they don't let (openly) homosexual people in the military, is because of how close knit a military unit operates.

They sleep together, they shower together, they train together and they're supposed to be 101% comfortable with eachother in order to function properly as a team.

The problem is, it's a fact many people are homophobic, and thus many people in the military are probably homophobic too. You do know that the vast majority of supporters of DADT are actually U.S. military servicemen, themselves, right? Their opinion is of course important, because this is who they effect.

A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% were in favor of gays and lesbians serving in the military, 37% opposed gays and lesbians serving, and 37% expressed no preference or were unsure. 72% of respondents who had experience with gays or lesbians in their unit said that the presence of gay or lesbian unit members had either no impact or a positive impact on their personal morale, while 67% said as much for overall unit morale. Of those respondents uncertain whether they had served with gay or lesbian personnel, only 51% thought that such unit members would have a neutral or positive effect on personal morale, while 58% thought that they would have a negative effect on unit morale. 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel.
Source: http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ZogbyReport.pdf

I don't think sexuality matters when bullets and bombs are going off everywhere, but face it, most of the military lifestyle is often social/training, which is the point I'm trying to express.

Usually they're not flaunting their sexuality, but I think people still have the right to be open about it. Why can the straight soldier have a picture of his girlfriend from back home under his pillow, but the gay soldier can't have a picture of his boyfriend under his pillow? It's a double-standard.
I actually agree. But you know, on the other hand, this can lead to homophobic bullying in the military, which is another issue. In a way, this actually means DADT benefits the homosexual soldier.

I don't think DADT should be a written policy, definitely not one that discriminates against people of different sexualities. However, you must accept that the vast majority of soldiers are straight and sadly there's a lot of soldiers who are homophobic. From what I can see, the U.S. military would rather keep the vast majority of their soldiers happy, than a minority.

Well surely it happens. There have been scandals of men forcing women to do sexual favors for them in the military. Women make up about 15% of the army, but they're about half the people discharged because of the DADT policy. Now I doubt ALL of them are gay.
I don't have any source or statistics on this - but I've never heard that half of the people Dishonourably Discharged due to the DADT policy are female soldiers, but I don't know enough on the issue to say anything,

[tammy_x3]

DADT is fine by me. I think it's just more comfortable for most people to assume everyone around them is straight. Homosexuality is considered wrong by a lot of people, and some people are just uncomfortable around it. I don't support that kind of thinking, but as long as homosexuality is not accepted overall, it's just easier for everyone. It's not life threatening, who really needs to know? If I really wanted to serve my country, I'd have no problem saying I was straight unless I was in a same sex marriage/union and couldn't hide it. It's not life threatening like AIDS or color blindness/other eye problems (in the Air Force more so than any other branch) or something.

[scuba steve]

to be perfectly honest dadt may still be in service because of it's historic background, as homosexuals male/female used to be burned and publicly executed as criminals

[Reality]

to be perfectly honest dadt may still be in service because of it's historic background, as homosexuals male/female used to be burned and publicly executed as criminals
That was really irrelevant.

[Oblivion]

I can see why they don't want people having sex randomly in the military, but what about female/male soldiers? Does this apply to them too?

In case your wondering, I'm actually asking the question, not posing a debate point. :P

[scuba steve]

That was really irrelevant.

i thought it was a vital point do you know how old militarys of certain nations actually are and some rules and laws are often never revised:mad:

[Reality]

I can see why they don't want people having sex randomly in the military, but what about female/male soldiers? Does this apply to them too?

In case your wondering, I'm actually asking the question, not posing a debate point. :P
Well it's very unprofessional if a male soldier and a female soldier get caught having sex. I don't think they get discharged for it, though. Perhaps a rank demotion at best.

This is very hypocritical, because of it's two male (or two female) soldiers having sex, then it's a guarenteed Dishonourable Discharge.

i thought it was a vital point do you know how old militarys of certain nations actually are and some rules and laws are often never revised:mad:
I thought you were talking about homosexuality in general. I don't know any military in the past that burned homosexuals.. now, maybe societies, but not militaries.

Don't Ask Don't Tell is not even an old policy. It was introduced in 1993 by former U.S. President Bill Clinton to actually let homosexuals join the military, as before then homosexuals were not allowed to join at all.

All DADT means is that nobody will (in official terms) ask what your sexuality is, and you're not to tell anybody if you enlist in the U.S. armed forces.

Although I don't exactly agree with it; it's not really as bad as people are making it out to be. I think it should apply to anybody, because face it. Nobody should really want to know or care whether you like vagina or penises, or whether you like six packs or boobs in the military.

[scuba steve]

o kk but yea society in general would influence government departments like military. but to be honest it was bill clinton!!! no offence to any members of the states (guessing the majority of this site) but he wasn't exactly the most respected man in government

[Camazotz]

Let me pose a scenario:

You are a new recruit in the Army. You are also an African-American. I am a 5-star general, capable of doing anything I please. We've never spoken before, never seen each other, and know nothing about each other. We just reach Iraq when our base gets under attack. We take cover and you and I find a hiding spot for protection. When the attack seizes I discharge you because I'm "uncomfortable" with your ethnicity. Forget the fact that you've spent several grueling years of training. Forget the fact you've left your family to help our country. You've sacrificed your life for everyone you know and love. And you are being discharged just because I am "uncomfortable" with you. Not the fact that you're a bad soldier, but the fact that I don't like you. It's not like you can help what ethnic background you come from either. (Please note that this is only a scenario, and nothing I have said here is true. I am not racist in any form)

Is this scenario logical? No, but now allowing gays in the army is the exact same thing using the same logic. Soldiers should be proud of their sexual orientation, not be afraid to be discharged because of it. In war, there are more important things to worry about than, "Maybe this guy is gay. If he is, I don't like him." The army is your family, through the tough and through the calm. Learn to accept them for who they are.

Discriminating against gays will only cause further discrimination. If we change the law now, we can take steps in ending this discrimination and people will be more understanding, instead of worrying about stupid things like one's sexual orientation.

[Modus Operandi]

Meh, it's a good idea in principle, but I think people need to be more free to express themselves. In addition, the "I'm uncomfortable around so-and-so" excuse shouldnt be grounds for a discharge(of so-and-so). There are plenty of people I'm uncomfortable around, but not to the point that I literally can't be in the same room with them. There is a article I read (sry, no link) that stated we are losing quite a few Arabic translators-a key need for operating in Iraq-because of DADT. The only time someone should be removed from the millitary for sexuality is if theyr'e FLAUNTING it in peoples faces. This goes for heterosexuals as well.

note: sry if this post reads poorly, half asleep while writing.

[Spin]

I'm really playing Devils Advocate with you here; I don't actually support DADT. I actually think sexuality is a dumb reason to not allow/discharge someone from a military.

But anyways. The points I've heard about why they don't let (openly) homosexual people in the military, is because of how close knit a military unit operates.

They sleep together, they shower together, they train together and they're supposed to be 101% comfortable with eachother in order to function properly as a team.

The problem is, it's a fact many people are homophobic, and thus many people in the military are probably homophobic too. You do know that the vast majority of supporters of DADT are actually U.S. military servicemen, themselves, right? Their opinion is of course important, because this is who they effect.


Source: http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ZogbyReport.pdf

I don't think sexuality matters when bullets and bombs are going off everywhere, but face it, most of the military lifestyle is often social/training, which is the point I'm trying to express.


I actually agree. But you know, on the other hand, this can lead to homophobic bullying in the military, which is another issue. In a way, this actually means DADT benefits the homosexual soldier.

I don't think DADT should be a written policy, definitely not one that discriminates against people of different sexualities. However, you must accept that the vast majority of soldiers are straight and sadly there's a lot of soldiers who are homophobic. From what I can see, the U.S. military would rather keep the vast majority of their soldiers happy, than a minority.


I don't have any source or statistics on this - but I've never heard that half of the people Dishonourably Discharged due to the DADT policy are female soldiers, but I don't know enough on the issue to say anything,

Yeah I know you're just playing Devils Advocate. I was just talking about in general, and I know DADT benefits somehow but I just think it does more harm than good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/washington/23pentagon.html

This isn't exactly where I got those stats from, I actually read it somewhere but I forgot as it was a little while ago.