Don't Ask, Don't TELL

Rana said:
There is no rule that says they have to now expose they are gay, they can continue to keep their sexual orientation to themselves, most will want to do this. It is no one's business, it is private, but now they do not have to live in fear if their sexual preference is exposed by someone else or if they do tell another that they are gay, they don't have to worry about it!

The military will handle their discipline problems as they have in the past, be it racism or sexism, they will deal with it!

One guy they interviewed said he was bullied more for being Asian than being gay!
Click to expand...
Yes, the military will deal with it. But to deny or gloss over that problems will arise from this new policy is taking a head-in-the-sand approach. There will be discipline problems. There will be discrimination problems. Gays will be "outed" whether they willingly admit their preferences or not. Some will find themselves ostracized by the rest of their unit. (Hint - that is VERY bad for a combat unit.)

Having seen first hand the process the military had to go through when they were dealing with racial integration, and having a rather intimate knowledge of our military history on that issue, I can safely say integrating gays is going to have BIG problems that will last several years or more before things quiet down. Under DADT the anti-gay faction opwerated under the principle that if a gay person were outed, they would be gotten rid of, and that was just fine with the anti-gay faction. Now they will not have the option of simply outing a gay person and getting them discharged. That fact will result in more radical portion of the anti-gay faction to take other means to "get rid of" those they find undesirable to serve with. I anticipate there will be hazings, assaults, possibly even murders and self-defense killings before this all quiets down.

My first tour of duty in Vietnam, it was not uncommon for the white-majority upper NCOs to deliberately select minorities for the dirtiest - and most dangerous jobs. In a patrol of 10 soldiers, you would almost guarantee a minority would be on point, and another minority would be taking the rear. A white boy would have to get his Sgt really pissed to put them on point instead. What do you want to bet that if a gay soldier in a combat unit in Afghanistan is outed, they'll find themselves permanently assigned to the most dangerous job in their unit?

Other problems having to do with the timing of this endeavor: it does not matter if prejudice against another soldier due to their sexual preference is wrong. If the other soldiers do not trust that soldier, that lack of trust significantly diminishes the combat effectiveness of that unit. And diminished combat effectiveness results in unnecessary casualties.

Do not get me wrong here, though. I support that this is a step that needed to be taken. However, for those celebrating the event, you need to be aware there WILL be somme very negative consequences coming from this action.
 
Good Luck said:
Yes, the military will deal with it. But to deny or gloss over that problems will arise from this new policy is taking a head-in-the-sand approach. There will be discipline problems. There will be discrimination problems. Gays will be "outed" whether they willingly admit their preferences or not. Some will find themselves ostracized by the rest of their unit. (Hint - that is VERY bad for a combat unit.)

Having seen first hand the process the military had to go through when they were dealing with racial integration, and having a rather intimate knowledge of our military history on that issue, I can safely say integrating gays is going to have BIG problems that will last several years or more before things quiet down. Under DADT the anti-gay faction opwerated under the principle that if a gay person were outed, they would be gotten rid of, and that was just fine with the anti-gay faction. Now they will not have the option of simply outing a gay person and getting them discharged. That fact will result in more radical portion of the anti-gay faction to take other means to "get rid of" those they find undesirable to serve with. I anticipate there will be hazings, assaults, possibly even murders and self-defense killings before this all quiets down.

My first tour of duty in Vietnam, it was not uncommon for the white-majority upper NCOs to deliberately select minorities for the dirtiest - and most dangerous jobs. In a patrol of 10 soldiers, you would almost guarantee a minority would be on point, and another minority would be taking the rear. A white boy would have to get his Sgt really pissed to put them on point instead. What do you want to bet that if a gay soldier in a combat unit in Afghanistan is outed, they'll find themselves permanently assigned to the most dangerous job in their unit?

Other problems having to do with the timing of this endeavor: it does not matter if prejudice against another soldier due to their sexual preference is wrong. If the other soldiers do not trust that soldier, that lack of trust significantly diminishes the combat effectiveness of that unit. And diminished combat effectiveness results in unnecessary casualties.

Do not get me wrong here, though. I support that this is a step that needed to be taken. However, for those celebrating the event, you need to be aware there WILL be somme very negative consequences coming from this action.
Click to expand...

Good for you!
 
What the end to DADT means is that Homosexuals can openly and honestly serve in the military. It means that when there are battalion or company level activities, which happened in the Army all the time, a single gay or lesbian soldier can come to that function with their significant other and act like they are a couple. It means that when a gay or lesbian soldier is at a concert or movie or any other social function where it would be ok for a straight soldier to kiss their date, or hold hands they can do so without any fear of repercussions.
 
Dixie said:
They didn't have to fear losing anything with DADT... it's self explanatory. They continued to serve honorably, so this repeal doesn't change or alter any of that. C'mon, you made the claim, now back it up! What benefit or advantage has been gained by repealing DADT? I see NONE!
Click to expand...

How about vastly increasing our national security and saving wasted taxpayer's dollars?

August, 2008

csmlogo_179x46.gif


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2008/0805/p01s01-usmi.html

After firing over 300 gay translators under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which prevents gay and lesbian personnel from serving openly, the military is now preparing to offer retention bonuses of up to $150,000 to those who remain. The moronic policy that put the military in such a position, which costs to replace the translators, in bonuses alone, could reach $45 million.

George Bush, has told us for seven years that Iraq is the front line in the 'War on Terror.' John McCain has screamed it at us for seven months and talked about needing to keep an American presence there from anywhere from a month to a millennium. But we're kicking out Arabic translators who want to stay, while we're offering $150,000 to the ones who want to leave.

The U.S. military, the presidential administration, and our nation as a whole are officially more afraid of American gays than of Middle East terrorists.

That is insane.
 
Socrtease said:
What the end to DADT means is that Homosexuals can openly and honestly serve in the military. It means that when there are battalion or company level activities, which happened in the Army all the time, a single gay or lesbian soldier can come to that function with their significant other and act like they are a couple. It means that when a gay or lesbian soldier is at a concert or movie or any other social function where it would be ok for a straight soldier to kiss their date, or hold hands they can do so without any fear of repercussions.
Click to expand...
You are living in dream land if you think it is going to be that easy. While being gay is no longer a cause for OTH discharge, you can bet there are going to be a LOT of "unofficial" repercussions for military gays.

It is not right that such should happen. But anyone who thinks otherwise has no concept of reality on this issue.
 
Mojo said:
True. I congratulate you for admitting it.

Now what about my prejudices? Any examples, or are you just hijacking another thread?
Click to expand...

What's amazing is how you highjacked a suggestion for you and then tried to spin it, so that you appear to be better. :palm:
 
Good Luck said:
You are living in dream land if you think it is going to be that easy. While being gay is no longer a cause for OTH discharge, you can bet there are going to be a LOT of "unofficial" repercussions for military gays.

It is not right that such should happen. But anyone who thinks otherwise has no concept of reality on this issue.
Click to expand...

And hopefully; the upper brass will be honest enough to severly consequence any individuals engaging in such behavior and discharge them, if necessary.

The military is supposed to be trained to fight, not who or how to fuck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top