How many gay people will end up hurt by the ending of DADT?

  • Little_Spoon

    Posts: 1562

    Jan 29, 2010 6:32 PM GMT
    icon_confused.gif

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

    Jan 29, 2010 6:52 PM GMT
    There will be hate crimes. There already are hate crimes in the military against gay soldiers or those perceived to be gay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 6:54 PM GMT
    Only the ones who were silly enough to join a homophobic, Christian fascist institution? I realize, however, that everyone's life situation is different.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 6:55 PM GMT
    Back in the 80s, there was a gay bar a few blocks from the marine's barracks on Capitol Hill in DC. Every so often, some marines would invade the bar and rough up the patrons. Finally, there was a march to the gates of the barracks and the city came down on the marines, and the commandant put a stop to marines doing that stuff. It only occured once after that and that was that.

    So if the military wants to stop any violence, they can.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 6:57 PM GMT
    Caslon13000 saidBack in the 80s, there was a gay bar a few blocks from the marine's barracks on Capitol Hill in DC. Every so often, some marines would invade the bar and rough up the patrons. Finally, there was a march to the gates of the barracks and the city came down on the marines, and the commandant put a stop to marines doing that stuff. It only occured once after that and that was that.


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

    Jan 29, 2010 6:58 PM GMT
    TheIStrat said
    Caslon13000 saidBack in the 80s, there was a gay bar a few blocks from the marine's barracks on Capitol Hill in DC. Every so often, some marines would invade the bar and rough up the patrons. Finally, there was a march to the gates of the barracks and the city came down on the marines, and the commandant put a stop to marines doing that stuff. It only occured once after that and that was that.


    Holy shiticon_eek.gif

    It's the bar now called Remington's, thei. Back then it was called Equus.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 7:07 PM GMT
    DADT is dangerous because a soldier cannot file a complaint for an assault on them without breaking the law and being discharged. It actually enables homophobia, protects the perpetrator and puts gay soldiers in a very precarious situation.

    Ending DADT will make it safer for gay soldiers to report abuse and will create transparency within the military.
  • Little_Spoon

    Posts: 1562

    Jan 29, 2010 7:08 PM GMT
    Riptide42 saidDADT is dangerous because a soldier cannot file a complaint for an assault on them without breaking the law and being discharged. It actually enables homophobia, protects the perpetrator and puts gay soldiers in a very precarious situation.

    Ending DADT will make it safer for gay soldiers to report abuse and will create transparency within the military.


    Good point.
  • JayDT

    Posts: 390

    Jan 29, 2010 7:17 PM GMT
    While innitially it will be dificult for those soldiers who are out and proud in the American Military; that will eventually dissipate as it becomes more and more normal and as laws protecting their rights are upheld. Israeli Defense Forces overturned their anti gay military laws in 1993 with very little back lash.

    http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/28637/u-s-military-could-learn-from-israel-gay-ex-idf-officer-says/
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jan 29, 2010 7:19 PM GMT
    Riptide42 saidDADT is dangerous because a soldier cannot file a complaint for an assault on them without breaking the law and being discharged. It actually enables homophobia, protects the perpetrator and puts gay soldiers in a very precarious situation.

    Ending DADT will make it safer for gay soldiers to report abuse and will create transparency within the military.


    Exactly! DADT doesn't actually protect gay soldiers it enables prosecution of them. People have been so misinformed about DADT it's frustrating.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 7:37 PM GMT
    JayDT saidWhile innitially it will be dificult for those soldiers who are out and proud in the American Military; that will eventually dissipate as it becomes more and more normal and as laws protecting their rights are upheld. Israeli Defense Forces overturned their anti gay military laws in 1993 with very little back lash.

    http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/28637/u-s-military-could-learn-from-israel-gay-ex-idf-officer-says/


    I have lived in Israel and their social attitudes are different(exceptions being the Haradim). Israel is much more secular as a society and also due to the situation, they need every person to serve. It is a different dynamic than the USA so I am curious to see how this pans out if at all. I also believe the Dutch allow openly gay people to serve...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 8:02 PM GMT
    I've stressed this a number of times before, but let's try again: eliminating ONLY DADT would HURT gays, because the underlying law is based in US Code, and promulgated through the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

    These laws, passed by Congress and signed by the President nearly 60 years ago, can only be undone by the same method. The President cannot change them unilaterally, all on his own.

    What Clinton's DADT did was to direct the Department of Defense not to ask the gay question, and not require that gay service members tell about themselves. But it always was, and remains to this day, illegal to be gay in the US Armed Forces. If you take away DADT without changing the underlying US law, then service members can again be compelled to reveal their orientation, and admit if they are gay, and so be legally barred from joining, and involuntarily discharged.

    The permanent solution is to change the USC and the UCMJ, which Congress and the President must both do together. DADT was just procedural smoke & mirrors which Clinton devised. DADT does NOT make service by gays in the US military legal; it merely means no one can ask about it.

    A lot of you guys are still not getting the point about it. And fail to understand that the solution rests with Congress, not just with Obama.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 8:07 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidI've stressed this a number of times before, but let's try again: eliminating ONLY DADT would HURT gays, because the underlying law is based in US Code, and promulgated through the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

    These laws, passed by Congress and signed by the President nearly 60 years ago, can only be undone by the same method. The President cannot change them unilaterally, all on his own.

    What Clinton's DADT did was to direct the Department of Defense not to ask the gay question, and not require that gay service members tell about themselves. But it always was, and remains to this day, illegal to be gay in the US Armed Forces. If you take away DADT without changing the underlying US law, then service members can again be compelled to reveal their orientation, and admit if they are gay, and so be legally barred from joining, and involuntarily discharged.

    The permanent solution is to change the USC and the UCMJ, which only Congress and the President must both do together. DADT was just procedural smoke & mirrors which Clinton devised. DADT does NOT make service by gays in the US military legal; it merely means no one can ask about it.

    A lot of you guys are still not getting the point about it. And fail to understand that the solution rests with Congress, not just with Obama.


    I understand it perfectly, hence why I said if. Obama is promising too much once again...I doubt it will be delivered on.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 29, 2010 8:15 PM GMT
    There might be some hate crimes

    But like rapes that go on in the Services right now
    that in no means is a reason to keep gays from serving

    So it's better to have some sociopathic homophobes or rapists representing America over seas?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 8:18 PM GMT
    I don't understand the DADT idea in the US. We have anti-discrimination laws that apply to our troups and there are loads of out gay men and women and there is no problem with it either.

    The bullying and abuse does not come from one being gay but maybe when people are being soft, camp and unwilling to soldier. If you do your bit and more, nobody gives a toss whether you like fucking guys or girls up the ass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 8:23 PM GMT
    agri_sci saidI understand it perfectly, hence why I said if. Obama is promising too much once again...I doubt it will be delivered on.

    When Obama says he'll eliminate DADT, I must assume that means Congress changing the underlying law, which makes US military service by gays illegal. DADT merely means nobody talks about it. And he may try to do that, but with highly-motivated, fanatically anti-gay Republicans in Congress, the Party of No, who again have filibuster ability in the Senate, I doubt it will happen, despite Obama's best intentions.
  • Devon_Fury

    Posts: 69

    Jan 29, 2010 8:25 PM GMT
    If Obama removes DADT, in the wake of the Matthew Shepherd Law the UMJC will be able to be challenged via the civilian courts. Recall he is still commander of the armed forces, he can suspend the parts of UMJC as neededl- a challenge of which would also yield victory. Its the same reason they haven't tackled DOMA. It makes more sense to take care of the nations health care amd use that as a vehicle to tackle same sex rights. Right now our only line of reasoning has been denied by the courts- its a different tact.

    My only concern that the lifting of DADT and UMJC suspensions will allow for a far more reaching draft system. Nothing fights worse than a conscript.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2010 2:28 AM GMT
    lol don't you guys think it more likely that once gays can 'come out' in the military that bad stuff described in your posts is less likely to happen because of what the media etc would do with it? We think the military will come down very hard on anyone going after gays, because it could end up so high profile (as in big scandalous news if anything did happen).

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

    Jan 30, 2010 2:54 AM GMT
    meninlove said lol don't you guys think it more likely that once gays can 'come out' in the military that bad stuff described in your posts is less likely to happen because of what the media etc would do with it? We think the military will come down very hard on anyone going after gays, because it could end up so high profile (as in big scandalous news if anything did happen).


    Right?

    I know that the navy (fairly stereotypically I guess, lol) is fairly open with their personnel as it is. I have a friend who is in it and was confronted by a superior officer, and was completely fine with his answer. Wasn't looking to kick him out, or hook up. Just curious.

    And besides, I have a friend who's training to be a helicopter nurse and I don't think any guys in the field would have problems with a lesbian nurse keeping them alive. Might take a bit of time for the problems to calm down, but it's WAY better than forcing people who literally trust each other with their livesto lie about their sexuality, even if they're never really asked.

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

    Jan 30, 2010 3:02 AM GMT
    i think the problem with DADT is that theyre making gay people hide their identity when instead they should be trying to figure out why it is a man would want to inflict pain on another man for something that is not of his concern.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2010 3:05 AM GMT
    Maybe it's me, maybe I'm vengeful. I would have considered that a prime point at which to arrange all sorts of awful surprises for them on next visit. God made baseball bats and knees for a reason. We're handin' out cupcakes and asswhoopin's, and we're aaaaaalll out of cupcakes . . .

    Caslon13000 saidBack in the 80s, there was a gay bar a few blocks from the marine's barracks on Capitol Hill in DC. Every so often, some marines would invade the bar and rough up the patrons. Finally, there was a march to the gates of the barracks and the city came down on the marines, and the commandant put a stop to marines doing that stuff. It only occured once after that and that was that.

    So if the military wants to stop any violence, they can.
  • jrs1

    Posts: 4388

    Jan 30, 2010 3:10 AM GMT
    abelian0 saidMaybe it's me, maybe I'm vengeful. I would have considered that a prime point at which to arrange all sorts of awful surprises for them on next visit. God made baseball bats and knees for a reason. We're handin' out cupcakes and asswhoopin's, and we're aaaaaalll out of cupcakes . . .


    abe ... love your mind ... love your posts ... but ...

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

    Jan 30, 2010 3:11 AM GMT
    jrs1 said
    abelian0 saidMaybe it's me, maybe I'm vengeful. I would have considered that a prime point at which to arrange all sorts of awful surprises for them on next visit. God made baseball bats and knees for a reason. We're handin' out cupcakes and asswhoopin's, and we're aaaaaalll out of cupcakes . . .

    Caslon13000 saidBack in the 80s, there was a gay bar a few blocks from the marine's barracks on Capitol Hill in DC. Every so often, some marines would invade the bar and rough up the patrons. Finally, there was a march to the gates of the barracks and the city came down on the marines, and the commandant put a stop to marines doing that stuff. It only occured once after that and that was that.

    So if the military wants to stop any violence, they can.


    abe ... love your mind ... love your posts ... but ...

    johnny_cupcakes.jpg


    damn hippie
  • jrs1

    Posts: 4388

    Jan 30, 2010 3:12 AM GMT
    waxon saiddamn hippie


    noted. you can have kisses while owen meany can have my prayers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2010 3:14 AM GMT
    jrs1 said
    waxon saiddamn hippie


    noted. you can have kisses while owen meany can have my prayers.


    taco kisses?