What do you think of Don't Ask Don't Tell?

  • Paradigm_Shif...

    Posts: 251

    Mar 13, 2007 2:57 AM GMT
    I saw this on yahoo news:

    Full article:
    WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.

    Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.

    What do you guys think about don't ask don't tell and people who hold views like the one expressed by General Peter Pace.
  • jc_online

    Posts: 487

    Mar 13, 2007 3:40 AM GMT
    DADT is on the way out. Although the current Joint Chief may be a 'phobe, there are numerous current and retired military personal with significant clout that think it time for the policy to change. The Service Members Legal Defense Network has been working on it for years. Check out their website and you can also find more info on the Advocate dot com website by searching their archives. That being said, I don't think anything will change with the current administration still in charge, but once a more fair-minded President is elected, expect some movement. Most of the democratic candidates and at least one of the republican candidates supports repealing DADT.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2007 2:49 PM GMT
    DADT is ridiculous. And as for likening it to adultery, don't let those who commit it to serve either! Why are we discluding people from volunteering then talking about reinstating the draft? Stupidity. Make rules about treatment among comrades rather than catering to the few 'phobes that can't handle the thought.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2007 3:21 PM GMT
    Clearly this man is a genius.

    While some may say that his two wars are immoral, I propose that we support Gen. Whatshisname and presume he really does know what he is talking about!

    Then the Joint Chief of Staff must put his money where his mouth is and immediately bring home every single gay or lesbian currently serving in his two wars.

    Also, he can lead by example. He can replace returned gay military personnel with all the straight sons and daughters who have NOT risen to our country's call to military service.

    He can start with the Bush family members and then his own who have not served yet.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2007 3:24 PM GMT
    i fully support gays & lesbians in the military. i am gay, i was in the air force for 8 years.

    the only people that have a problem with it are a) insecure ass welts and b) insecure religious low IQ grunts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2007 3:43 PM GMT
    Harry Truman ended racial discrimination in the military with one stroke of his pen. There was a great uproar that last all of a few days. All the generals that said they couldn't support such a decision had a choice to honor their oaths and obey their commander-in-chief or resign. I don't think there was a mass resignation of officers.

    Bill Clinton had the opportunity to do the same for gays. He didn't and thus we have DADT. We need a commander-in-chief with guts, the same kind that all those gay and straight guys have demonstrated, and give the order and be done with it. Let's move on.
  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    Mar 13, 2007 4:26 PM GMT
    I can't understand why anyone would want to join the military, especially to fight for a country that treats them, and their life-style, like crap.

    However I do defend the right for all Lesbians and Gays (and Bis) to be treated equally and so if they want to join up. Why should they hide what/who they are?

    It is so depressing that it's year 2007 and we're still having these issues raised and having to fight for the most basic thing..equal rights.
  • Paradigm_Shif...

    Posts: 251

    Mar 13, 2007 5:47 PM GMT
    Great posts guys. Im happy that you guys are interested in the subject.

    I personally was very disappointed and slightly angered when I heard the comments General Page made. I have seen him in other interviews and he seems like one of the few truly intelligent and kindhearted leaders in our government.

    Yet to call being gay immoral was just plain stupid. At least other opponents of gays serving in the military make up some ass backward excuse as to why we can’t defend our country. Lower troop morale, battlefield distractions, and fellow troop safety to name a few. But to say that being gay is immoral based solely on your upbringing is just irresponsible and foolish.

    With the Army missing recruitment goals, allowing those with criminal records to enlist, and raising the maximum age to the highest its ever been, kicking out service men on the basis of immorality should seem idiotic. Already over 10,000 service members have been removed because of DADT and over 50 were Arabic specialists.

    As one of the top leaders of the army General Page has many problems to deal with and sharing his moral code with the world should not be a priority. With thousands of American solders dead and many thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens dead he has NO moral high ground on which to stand. I suggest he keep his “upbringing” to himself and focus trying to end this war that has already cost everyone way too much.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2007 6:22 PM GMT
    one thing no one else seems to have said is that most other western countries allow gays to serve openly in their militaries. we're one of the last that still hold this policy.

    while it is sad when anyone is discriminated against for something so completely unrelated, it is even sadder considering the military loses some valuable resources by doing so. there has been a great many articles written about how DADT has caused us to lose a good chunk of our arabic and persian translators from military intelligence.

    congress is now looking into repealing DADT, along with many retired military leaders. don't be fooled though, it's merely because we can't recruit enough people for bush's "surge", not because anyone has seen the light. granted, once it's repealed people may realize it's no big deal.
  • MarkX

    Posts: 101

    Mar 13, 2007 7:04 PM GMT
    This just in from the Associated Press...

    "Don't ask, don't tell" was passed by Congress in 1993 after a firestorm of debate in which advocates argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would hurt troop morale and recruitment and undermine the cohesion of combat units.

    John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.

    "These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2007 7:34 PM GMT
    I just find it ironic that someone who's job is basically to kill people thinks he can make pronouncements on morality.

    Always interesting how people can rationalize things to fit their own needs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2007 8:18 PM GMT
    Great topic Paradigm_Shift. I think the idea of don't ask don't tell is just plain stupid. The moral and recruitment will go down is just plain dumb. Will it not get more gay, les and bi to join the military not fearing a dishorable discharge?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2007 2:47 AM GMT
    In 25 years or less, DADT will be viewed as an intermediate step in the full intergration of gay and lesbian people into the military. And that is mimicing what is going on in American society as a whole. People are becoming more accepting...but are not quite there yet.

    For some strange reason, some people still feel that it's better to hide our natures, to make them feel more comfortable. Like all intermediate steps...it's nonsense viewed in retrospect.

    However, remember the historical context. Clinton did what he could...and even that, DADT, viewed against the reactionary right's real desires, was a step forward.

    But it's really an awful concept, isn't it?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2007 10:29 AM GMT
    Small victory... HUH?

    Pace merely said he regretted airing his personal views. He did not budge at all on the content - or weight - of his words. Nor did he apologize for insulting his own GLBT servicewo/men whose lives are currently on the line for his professional benefit in TWO wars.

    Take this for what its worth but this morning 63% of AOL poll responders say they AGREE with Pace's remark! Last night I saw a more scientific news opinion poll that tallied just 51% opinion against Pac'es comment.

    My point is MANY Americans really DO share Pace's view. And it is OUR fault for not living our lives honestly.

    DADT is a horrendous policy that effectively lets the 'moral majority' have it both ways at expense of OUR lives for THEIR self-righteous comfort. They send GLBT service members off to war to protect their assets with the tacit instruction that they must also live in denial while doing so. Then IF GLBT servicemen do manage to make it home alive, they are called 'immoral' by their leaders (with impunity) and categorically denied equal protections under the laws of this country.

    Where is the victory here?! I don't see it.

    Question to all: have you taken 2 minutes time to write to the Department of Defense or the White House to demand an apology or to air your views about DADT??

    Here is a quick way to act on your personal conviction:


    PEACE. PM8
  • Paradigm_Shif...

    Posts: 251

    Mar 18, 2007 4:45 PM GMT
    FirefighterBlu, since you were in the military for 8 years, what do you think about the ability for our servicemembers to accept gays in their ranks? Any other men who served have input?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2007 1:15 AM GMT
    DADT is ridiculous, the US should look at other nations forces and see what they do.

    I am gay, I am Australian, I am in the Army and damn proud of it. My partner of 5.5 years is in the Royal Australian Air Force and we are reasonably open about it, within reason of course. The Australian Defence Force even allow us to notate our de facto relationship in our service records, which we have done. Having said that, I don't act gay (if there is such a thing) or outline the fact for anyone, it isn't their right to know anything about my personal life, but if they ask or query it, I will tell them.

    The US people need to throw the religious minority out on their collective ass and speak up for themselves before anything will change though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2007 5:40 PM GMT
    i don't understand the type of mentality that has a desire to be in the military in the first place. if you really wanna "defend" your country, you don't need a uniform. and if the uniform is what turns you on, you don't need to serve in the miliary to get into one. or out of one, either. now you guys are gonna get pissed at me and label me a "twink" so you don't have to take what i say seriously- fine with me, i don't need approval from you or the government or my parents or the media to be content with who i am. and most americans are killed by other americans, so what's to protect?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2007 6:34 PM GMT
    I'm not pissed at you, and I would only label you smokin' hot sexy.

    Had I ever faced being drafted into the military, I likely would have fully embraced the "special right" of gays to not serve. And, no, I don't understand gays wanting to belong to such a deeply homophobic organization. However, there are people who are simply wired to be warriors, and it's not for me to find fault with that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2007 8:18 PM GMT
    I work fo the VA system and I personally can tell you how DADT was a compromise, not enough, not equal, but BETTER than prior way gay men & lesbians were administratively treated prior to DADT:

    1. No, you are not equal, especially when it comes to spouse health care and pension plans or other benefits. Remember the congress man who died and his domestic partner got nothing...?

    2. No, you cannot change the old and ingrained homophobic mentallity in the military, amoungst peers AND leaders. That will persist for a LONG time in the macho world of the military REGARDLESS if DADT was implimented OR if gay memebers can serve openly. You are talking about culture and personal feelings, not legal matters, and you cannot change that over night, regardeless of DADT.

    3. BUT.... With DADT, a military personnel no longer has to answer to accusations of being ay from gay witch hunts. Prior to this, your commarades or your superior can take the INITIATIVE to ask about your sexual orientation even if just with slight suspicion or for politcal reasons, and then you are discharged, loosing all the pensions, health care, and other benefits that you served so many years to earn!

    So, it is a compromise. Equal and adequate? Not at all. Worse than beofre DADT? Certainly NOT..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2007 8:19 PM GMT
    So it is a an intermediate steps and a "small victory" for NOW... PHLmuslce 8...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2007 9:16 PM GMT
    Also PM8..

    AOL poll would be a BAD reference where the topic of DADT is concerned for the following reasons:

    1. AOL poll participants demographics were never disclosed or studied. What population are AOL polls representing? That makes AOL poll reliability questionable.

    2. How were the questions presented on these AOL polls? Poor formulation of questions can lead to biased outcome, in the forms of questions not paired with fair and detailed chocies of answers, participants not fully understanding the questisons asked, decreased interest to particiapte, etc, etc...

    A more reliable poll would be RANDOM and ANONYMOUS selection of current gay and lesbian military personnels being asked to COMPARE their views on the military under DADT policy vs the policies prior to DADT.

    When one pulls out evidence to support a claim, better to check the relevance and reliability of the study including all the co-founding variables and possible interanl and external threats to the design of the study...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2007 9:46 PM GMT

    Whats up with your little object lesson about my choice of references? I used them quite plainly and correctly.

    I said:

    "Take this for what its worth but this morning 63% of AOL poll responders say they AGREE with Pace's remark! Last night I saw a more scientific news opinion poll that tallied just 51% opinion against Pac'es comment."

    NYCMusc - Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "Take it for what its worth"?? I cited the AOL reference for its IMMEDIACY only. My second statement plainly referenced "a MORE SCIENTIFIC news opinion poll..."

    What was your point?! You sound angry.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2007 10:07 PM GMT
    for the muscle4muscle dude- "the congress man who died and his domestic partner got nothing"? i don't know this story.
    but why would he get someone else's pension?
    didn't he have his own?
    if he was supported by the congressman, why didn't the congressman provide for him in a will?
    i don't understand.
    if homosexuals don't make a will, why would their partners expect to be seen as widowers legally? especially educated people.
    but then i think alimony is a bunch of crap as well. if someone (male or female) makes a decision to not earn their own living, they are living in an alternate universe than i am. do people actually think they are going to feel the same about their partners forever? life and feelings are about change. wake up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2007 10:29 PM GMT
    All vets recieve a pension and this is passed down to the wife or husband when a person dies. There are a host of other benefits from being a vet such as super low loans to buy your first piece of real estate (no its much better than the ones offered to us as civilians,) a socialized medical health care system (the VA, which I work for), free education funds, etc..

    That is why it is such a big deal when a soldier gets a dishonorable discharge.. You get nothing. The military is a career and part of one's livelihood...

    I do not remember the exact name of the congressman who was gay and died, but his life time partner got nothing form the pension. If he was legally married to him, he would have gotten it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2007 10:48 PM GMT
    And its the miliatry law, you cannot will a pension to a domestic partner, and it does not matter what you put in your will in writing. The pension is not the savings that was already in the bank, but a monthly living expense paid from the government after death. You can only will it to a widow or widower...