Pentagon set to repeal DADT today.

[LSN80]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/21/military.dadt/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

What is DADT, you ask? The "Dont Ask, Dont Tell" policy that has long been the official policy of the United States regarding homosexuals in the military. Basically, it prohibits other military personal from harrassing fellow soldiers due to perceived or believed homosexuals, but it also bans openly homosexual, lesbian, and bisexual men from joing the military. The reason for the DADT policy, according to the Title 10, #654 of the US military code?

"People who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts are prohibited 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, all which are the essence of military capability."

The bolded part is what bothers the hell out of me. How does someone's sexual orientation effect morale discipline, or unit cohesion, exactly? In my eyes, the things that effect those things would be if someone pushed their lifestyle upon another person, be it a straight man harrassing a female soldier, or a homosexual man making advances towards another soldier who is heterosexual. Admittedly, Im not a soldier, so I can't speak from experience, but this seems to be a heavy handed attempt to legislate morality. The policy is outdated and condtradictory. Don't harrass people if you think they live an "alternative lifestyle", but God forbid they disclose their sexual orientation. If they do so, except under extreme circumstances, they're to be discharged. Not looking at it on a case by case basis, but the very reveal is justification for discharge.

Last Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in California issued an order late Friday that temporarily re-instated the policy, although discharge for being a homosexual has been banned. President Obama and staff find themselves in a complicated situation. While it's expected the announcement of the new policy will occur today, his staff is fighting to keep it from being enforced too soon, and is targetting 6 months for full implementation. There's sound logic here, as it allows military personnel to adjust to a large change.

As would be expected, people are divided on the issue.

"Mo C:" said

"All the hype and hate-mongering will die down when people see that despite the fact that gays will be able to join and be productive members of the military, without the need for hiding the fact that they are gay, will do absolutely nothing to affect mission and day to day operations of the military at large. There will be haters in the military, I'm just saying the hype will die quickly and in less than a year things will be back to their normal, pre-repeal levels, if not less."

"SciFiChick" countered with:

"Sounds ideal & it would be nice... but it's hard to suppress hate even when it's not accepted by most of society that's why there are still racist out there even decades after segregation ended. These men and women will never be accepted or treated equallyby a large portion of their fellow officers."

"Th C." weighed in with:

"For the next month or year, people will make a big deal out of this. Then the fad will die down, people will forget about it, and this will make no difference to half the bigots in the world. To make this a big deal is ignorant. There have always been gays in the military. Now, if one mentions their partner, they won't be discharged. That's it. If a male soldier makes inappropriate sexual advancements towards a female soldier, they should be disciplined. If a male soldier makes inappropriate sexual advancements towards another male soldier, they should be disciplined as well. This is simply about equal rights. Not special rights."

"Don D" retorted with:

"How about equalizing the rights of drunkards? or drug addicts? or kleptomaniacs who have criminal record? You guys realize this is unnatural behavior that people CHOOSE to do, dont you? It's immoral behavior. Gays are incapable of the logical thinking and sound reasoning then the rest of us are."

For the record, I confirmed that all 4 men who weighed in here were either active or former military personal. But I want the final word to be from you. The only thing I want to make clear is that this ISNT the place to discuss the genetics or choice of homosexuality. This thread is solely about the DADT act, and it's effect on military personal, not the place to debate religious or moral viewpoints on homosexuality. Feel free to take the discussion of the DADT policy, its repeal, and effect on military personnel anywhere you choose. Thank you.

Was there ever a need for the DADT policy in the first place? Is it little more then an attempt to legislate morality among servicemen and women, or something more?

If you are military personnel, or capable of imagining yourself as one, how do/would you receive the news that homosexuals are now allowed to be active and open in the military? What do you see changing?
[
Any other thoughts on the repeal of DADT policy?

Let's talk about this!

 

[Slyfox696]

I think people look at Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the wrong way. I don't see DADT as a bad thing, but rather a stepping stone that was necessary for our country to become more open-minded and understanding of homosexuality. DADT was enacted during the Clinton administration (fairly early, if I remember correctly), when Clinton was trying to remove the prohibition of homosexuals in the military. Prior to DADT, homosexuality was grounds for refusal of allowing a person into military service, or if they were already in the military, it led to an immediate discharge, usually with the dreaded Dishonorable Discharge.

It takes time to remove silly prejudices and bigotry. I think DADT, while it looks bad in current day, was a great measure leading to more acceptance of homosexuality, to the point where homosexuals may now be free to join the military while being openly gay. It's a shame we had to use DADT to get to this point, but it was the only way it could ever happen.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

DADT was good when it was introduced and implemented. Now that we're in a more accepting society, there's just no more need for it. DADT only existed so that homosexual men and women serving in the military were able to continue serving, and, in my opinion, to protect them from harm. Homosexuals were in the military before, so this bullshit about "OH GOD, THE GAYS WON'T BE FOCUSED ON THE BATTLEFIELD," argument is silly.

Simply put, there's no need. Homophobia is becoming frowned upon in this society in general, and there's no reason why people shouldn't be honest about who they are while doing a job that consumes their entire lives.

 

[LSN80]

I think people look at Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the wrong way. I don't see DADT as a bad thing, but rather a stepping stone that was necessary for our country to become more open-minded and understanding of homosexuality. Its simply a means to an end. Clinton is his first year in officeDADT was enacted during the Clinton administration (fairly early, if I remember correctly), when Clinton was trying to remove the prohibition of homosexuals in the military

It's simply a means to an end. Essentially, it was a concession by Clinton, as he was pushing hard to repeal the law that disallowed homosexuals from enlisting altogether. His joint chiefs of staff didn't agree, so DADt was a concession. It's certainly progress, and paved the way for what happened today.

Prior to DADT, homosexuality was grounds for refusal of allowing a person into military service, or if they were already in the military, it led to an immediate discharge, usually with the dreaded Dishonorable Discharge.

DADT still prohibts homosexuals from entering the military. If they're outed, they're discharged immediately following an investigation. The things I do like about DADT is that it allows some leeway where homosexuals who entered the military in secrecy can't be harrassed, and while they can still be dischared, its not with the Dishonorable stigma. Its certainly progress, even if I dont agree with the reasons for why homosexuals are banned. I dont see how having them in the military disrupts morale, discipline, or unit cohesion. Thats what bothers me about it, but its certainly was a step in the right direction. Im just glad that the day is coming soon where these restrictions will no longer be in place.

It takes time to remove silly prejudices and bigotry. I think DADT, while it looks bad in current day, was a great measure leading to more acceptance of homosexuality, to the point where homosexuals may now be free to join the military while being openly gay. It's a shame we had to use DADT to get to this point, but it was the only way it could ever happen.

Well, Clinton tried to push an immediate repeal of the banning of homosexuals in the military. When he was unsuccessful due to the uproar by Congress and his Chiefs of Staff, he countered with DADT. Ive tried to think of other scenarios where we could have gotten to this point, and I can't. The spirit of DADT was essentially good, I just dont agree with the wording. But putting it in context, it was a large step in the right direction..

 

[Xemmy]

Was there ever a need for the DADT policy in the first place? Is it little more then an attempt to legislate morality among servicemen and women, or something more?

I think DADT had it's place. Homophobia was a bit more common, and homosexuals in the service would have probably been in more danger from their fellow soldiers than an actual enemy. I think the actual bold statement "their presence would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion" is a poor choice of wording- as it heavily implies that homosexuals are the ones at fault. They aren't at fault, and the statement certainly doesn't hold much strength in today's society.


If you are military personnel, or capable of imagining yourself as one, how do/would you receive the news that homosexuals are now allowed to be active and open in the military? What do you see changing?
I'd feel a little less ashamed of my country in regards to military policy. I wouldn't see them generating any changes in how the military is run.

Any other thoughts on the repeal of DADT policy?
I understand why it was implemented. It's wrong, but it certainly worked for their safety to a degree. Homophobia is not as socially acceptable anymore- though still much more acceptable than racism. I think the young people in the military can handle the presence of a few gays and lesbians in their company.

 

[H33LTurn]

Wait wait wait, I think i missed out on something. So people who put their lives on the line for our country have to hide their true selves? That makes zero sense to me. Who the hell gets hurt by someone admitting that they're gay. People are such babies these days, there are gay people in every line of work in every single place you can imagine. Banning them from admitting what they are isnt going to change what they are and I'm pretty sure thats unconstitutional. How the hell is it a free country if people dont have the right to admit their sexuality, people who are willing to die for our country. The first part of the law is fine, nobody has the right to harass someone else because of their sexuality. There has always been a code of ethics but I guess people are so rude that legal action is necessary.