Discussions
"Don't Ask Don't Tell" (Again)
Posted by lotusb • 7/06/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: dont ask don't tell
I posted this earlier but it got locked because of some out of hand comments...
Basically, I wanted to know where my fellow BC'ers stand on this issues. Lt. Dan Choi's entire career is on the line because he decided to come out publically as a gay man. He hasn't harrassed anyone or been innappropriate, but he is fighting to maintain a career he worked his whole life for, JUST for speaking out against the anti-gay policy in the military.
Personally, I think gender or sexual orientation should NEVER be an item of determination for one's ability to serve his/her country. EVER.
What do you think?
User Comments
-
i think the whole dadt is dumb.-
Agreed. I still can't believe such an outdated way of thought is pushing people out of their careers....why the EOE act doesn't apply is beyond me.
-
-
You may get a more serious discussion going with this in the political discussion board
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss -
I served four years in the military many years ago and I feel on a matter like this nothing is going to work perfectly. So, I don’t have a problem with staying with what works probably as good as anything. You can’t have a military without discipline.-
Well I think that's a convenient opinion for someone whom this policy does not effect in any major way. If you were asked to please not tell anyone you were black or of whatever religion you are part of...perhaps that would present a problem.
-
...
"I'm not black, I swear!"
"Okay."
"Whew!"
"Hey, wait a minute! I can perceive your skin color. Nice try!"
"Awwww darn."
Yeah, that example sucks.
-
I know, that example sucks...But I have reletives who could have easily passed as white back in the 30's. So aside from the typically percieved dark brown black people, there is a whole slew of blacks who could definitely pass as white.
-
I find the concept of "race" to be silly and outmoded. We're all homo sapiens sapiens.
-
@Fred, what does discipline have to do with someone's sexual orientation? -
Well this topic isn't about race..thank goodness...but I was just using it as a comparison to something as natural as sexual orientation.
-
Gender makes a good parallel, since women are also largely discriminated against to this day.
-
My thing is these people are willing to lay their LIFE down...who is anyone to tell them they should hide ANYTHING about themselves?
-
Yeah, it's bullshit.
-
-
As I said in the previous, I have seen no rational argument against gays serving in the military. If there is one, the DADT supporters sure as hell aren't using it.
Let's review some common objections, and why they are unsound:
Sexual harassment
- Some people think that if their son/daughter is in the military and they allow gays to serve in the military, then their son/daughter will be sexually harassed by gays/lesbians. I shouldn't have to point out why this is bullshit, but I'm going to anyway.
There are already gays in the military. They're just forced to remain in the closet. Being allowed to be openly gay isn't going to make them more likely to harass straight people, and if they hook up with other gay soldiers as a result of their openness, they will be even less likely to do so. This objection to allowing gays to serve fails on every level.
- Some people believe that having servicemen visit gay bars in foreign countries will embarrass our country. They ignore the fact that many servicemen (I can attest for the Navy-- my dad was enlisted for 8 years and my mom for 4) ALREADY go to bars and have sex with citizens of foreign countries. How is that not an embarrassment but if the one-night stands in question were same-sex they would be?
-
100% agreed...if there is a SOUND argument for the policy then it should be stated. If not, it should be thrown out. We are living in an age where fact based ideas and thought should be upheld and old schools of thought based mostly on prejuduce (sp) and bias should be let go, as they do nothing but hold back forward moving thought.
-
The correct spelling is prejudice.
-
Thanks...
-
-
- Question: Personally, I think gender or sexual orientation should NEVER be an item of determination for one's ability to serve his/her country. EVER.
What do you think?
Answer: I agree with you. -
At the end of the day it makes absolutely no sense. Not only is it ass backwards it's completely prejudice. There is no evidence to support that being a homosexual makes someone incapable of being a soldier. If someone signs up and wants to serve his/her country sexual orientation should be the least of the military's worries.
-
Exactly. And as a side note, my bff Phil (who is a gay male) could fuk up anyone on site...he's as bad as them come.
-
Oh- and PS:
How do you like my new AVITAR!!??? -
It's a little hard to see. I liked your old one.
-
darn it...changing you look is such a hard transition...it's actually a picture of me...
Maybe Afro Lady was better than the real thing? Lol.... -
If you were to post a higher-res version it'd be great.
-
I'm not sure how to do that...
-
Take the original picture, upload it to Photobucket, and then use the code they give you.
-
Lets face it most males are still squimish sharing the shower with a gay guy. even those who think they 'defend' the gay right would agree with this. -
I wouldn't, but then again I'm not 100% straight either.
-
@celticmusicfan, for some reason straight men tend to believe that all gay men find them attractive. I don't know why they are this conceited. Just like a straight man doesn't find every woman attractive the same goes for a gay man not finding every male attractive. This kind of thought is pervasive.
Also men are sooo stupid because of rules like this they shower with closeted gay men all the time so they really aren't protecting themselves from looks or whatever else they think they are hiding from.
Ok I shouldn't just pick on the men...women are just as guilty but I tend to find women less homophobic.
@Lotusb, noticed the new pic I was just about to comment on this....I like it but I agree with voodoo, a higher res will provide a crisper image. You are fading out on the left side of the image. -
@lotusb
I'd like to like your new avatar but I can't see it well at all. -
@ TT...hmmm this requires some tweaking. I'll work on it after this weeks session of brutal classwork has passed...thanks for the feedback as usual!
-
@ Faith
Agreed! I also don't know why this concept is so hard for some straight men to grasp. I mean most gay men aren't even attracted to straight men, unless they give off that "not completely straight vibe"....perhaps that's the real fear straight men have...that a gay man will sniff out their "not completely straight" side....hmmmmmmmmm..
-
-
ok same here
-
@faithsju243 indeed. but i know that first hand being a gay guy myself.i am glad i have straight friends who aren't quimish being with me...and surely i don't ham my sexuality on their faces. as they say if you want to be respected, respect other people's preferences too. i didn't knowthe day would come that i have to share this with many bc readers but that is a fact.
-
-
I'd love to hear from people who support his dismissal. Because it's one of those things that makes absolutely no sense to me.-
I do not support his dismissal, but I can make a valid argument for it. The military has a clearly articulated policy, which he understood and chose to violate. Obviously, he has reasons for making that choice, and he may be entirely in the right--but as in any other circumstance in which a person chooses to violate law or policy in the interest of a cause, he should expect to bear the consequences of that violation. So long as the policy is what it is, the safest and wisest course of action for the military is uniform enforcement. Should the policy be changed? You bet. And when it is, people will no longer face the decision that this particular officer faced. But in the context in which he made his decision, the rule and the consequences were clear and he made his choice knowing that. -
[but as in any other circumstance in which a person chooses to violate law or policy in the interest of a cause, he should expect to bear the consequences of that violation.]
MadameX is correct here. That's why I've been arguing against the policy, not arguing for the military to make an exception while deliberating about the policy in question. -
@Madame
I can see your point. However just like the Prop 8 movement and all the way back to Brown v BoE in 1954...there HAS to be a first stone cast. Someone HAS to stand up against the system in order for it to be changed. It is still a shame that this policy is even still in place at such a liberal time in US society...and that drastic measures such as these have to be taken at all.
-
-
@voodoo
I had no idea... -
@voodoo
I had no idea... -
@voodoo
I had no idea...-
So unaware that you posted three times.
-
So sorry...tried to log on from my blackberry..PS: bad idea, at least if your me. Hee hee....
-
-
This article is a must read on the subject. It was written by the late 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry M. Goldwater, during the Clinton administration:
www.integrityinservice.org/blog2/sen-barry-goldwater-r-az-on-gays-in-the-mi...-
wrong spot
-
-
Again let me just say:
Any oral or anal sex is against UCMJ, it is not specific to sexuality. It is based on outdated morality clauses however it is not a singled out thing. Serving on several bases you know who is who and what is what. There are little things done with the uniforms and whatnot to identify like minded individuals.
I have never seen someone kicked out for sexuality simply due to it, most have done something else (see the other thread for examples). The policy is a paper policy for the most part, kind of like how it's illegal to spit on the sidewalk but no cop enforces it unless you piss them off.
I would say gathering 38 other people to express a personal belief in uniform is something that would piss people off. It gives an undiciplined appearance to the military, who pride themselves on a uniform, clean cut and professional appearance. It is so easy to villify the military, especially in a time of war, however what these guys did was force the hands of those who had turned a blind eye. If I own a store, and issue uniforms, my employees better not go running around in those uniforms (a direct representation of my store) and protesting things. That is for their own free time, in their own clothing so it does not reflect on my store.
Sorry but while the policy is lame, it is the same as no discussing sex, no porn, etc. Military has policies for all types of sex (trust me, we used to giggle at them in basic) and no one straight or gay is supposed to go around discussing it because it reflects poorly and produces a crude work environment.. Not just gay sex but any sex. The policies are to make sure all are comfortable, gays are NOT the only ones affected by the military policies...
If you bring the attention on yourself, don't cry when people start looking. This is the most lax policy ever, this dude just violated about 10 (no protesting, dadt, not following the chain of command, bringing outsiders into military affairs, etc). Just seems like everyone wants to focus on the one policy and not any number of the others he violated.
Other policies that cost people careers due for lack of professionalism:
Too many tattoos
any facial piercings
Nude photos sent to their spouses
Adultery
Alcoholism (evn if not done while on duty)
bad credit
forclosures and or repossessions
not paying child support
making a sex tape with your spouse-
However, this does not change the fact that the policy we're focusing on is unfair, biased, discriminatory, and without sound rational basis.
Should Lt. Dan Choi be granted impunity just because one of the policies he broke is flawed? Nope. Should that policy be reexamined and potentially removed from the books? I certainly think so. -
@ ESS
There is a difference in expressing pornographically explicit references or speaking casually about sex AND simply making a statement of your sexual orientation in general. Lt. Choi did no harass anyone, nor did he pin up some male on male porno poster to his office wall. All he did was proclaim that he is gay, the same as any other officer can proclaim to be straight, Jewish, Jehovah's Witness, Vegetarian or allergic to cats. I think there is a confusion with sexuality and sexual orientation here. Just because someone is Gay does not make them ANY different that anyone else. It is their private affair WHAT they do as a Gay person, however being Gay is NOT private. It is as much a part of them as my big curly afro is of me. I think that it is hard for people to see that because homosexuality is so closely associated with things seen as abrasive or immoral. This is an unfair assumption. The bottom line is Gay or straight.....this has NOTHING to do with one's ability to be a respectable, strong and valid member of the US Military.
Period. -
@voodoo
- Should Lt. Dan Choi be granted impunity just because one of the policies he broke is flawed? Nope. Should that policy be reexamined and potentially removed from the books? I certainly think so.
I agree with you. -
@ ESS
I also want to mention in reference to the list you have there..that you have made mention of things that either a) are in BAD TASTE in general. or B) represent a personal choice and not a lifestyle that one feels is natural or that they were born with. According to the EOE Act, people cannot be judged based on race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, age, religion...etc. Getting your nose pierced to your cheek or sending your husband a picture of our hoo-hoo are unprofessional and have no place in any work environment. Being gay is just being gay. And whether they disclose it, they will still BE GAY. It's not that they are homosexual that is being prevented by this policy, it's letting people know that is. It makes zero sense to even regulate that. No sense at all. -
@voodoo, I would say firing him for that policy, the DDT, is wrong however the other ones he broke are grounds for termination
@ lotusb:
"Getting your nose pierced to your cheek or sending your husband a picture of our hoo-hoo are unprofessional and have no place in any work environment" no see it doesn't have to happen at work, even if you are on your own time and do so it is grounds for termination.
"BAD TASTE in general" who is to decide what is in bad taste? I am heavily and a model. I make more than many who have no tattoos simply because of that fact.
"B) represent a personal choice and not a lifestyle that one feels is natural or that they were born with" so a nymphomaniac deserves to be fired even though that is how they are, and how they will be after it is found out, but not a gay man?
I already said the policy was a lame one, the others that he broke however, are not. He chose to ignore a direct order, he chose to protest in uniform (a big no no.. realistically that is most likely the reason that will be listed on his DD214).
"It's not that they are homosexual that is being prevented by this policy, it's letting people know that is" I wish you all could have served with me, there is a thriving gay community in the military and certain groups alter their uniforms (also a no no but our CO looked the other way) to let people know. I know what the policy says but in reality, how it is enforced is not "letting people know" that is not acceptable, it's HOW a person does it. His methods were media whoreish and therefore he forced their hand. I'm sorry, others I have had sympathy for but not this guy. He wasn't even active so it's not like his boyfriend would have gotten any BAH or benefits. In cases like that I understand, this guy, had he had a wife she wouldn't have been entitled because he is national guard. I keep pointing that out because it is not the US Government and dept. of the army that fires him, it's the state. Don't slam the army in a time of war, go after the state he represented and slam their representatives. That's all I meant. -
haha I forgot to add tattooed after the "heavily" part of my latest reply
-
-
Prejudice doesn't have any place in our society and it is not upholding our constitution. Freedom for everyone.-
Here here...!
-
@Theresa111
- I also agree with you. The time has come for the promise of equality to be fully realized. No more posturing should be tolerated.
-
-
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802561.ht...
An estimated 75% of Americans support letting gays serve in the military. Since BC tends to have a more intelligent cross-section of Americans, I don't think very many people who support DADT will respond to this thread.-
Wow! thanks for the link.
-
With a 3/4 majority, it's hard to believe that the policy is still on the books.
-
- No kidding. I'm also surprised it hasn't been given the deep six.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
