Repealing of "don't ask don't tell"

[fireheart17]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/first-...-1225973462951

Even though we don't have that law in Australia (gays and lesbians have been allowed to serve openly since 1992 and they found that it didn't drop morale), what are your thoughts on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...d_the_Military

(they voted to drop the "Don't ask don't tell policy"

[AdminAssistant]

I'm thrilled, although it's too bad that we had to kowtow to the Republican tax cut demands in order to pass it.

[Greenday]

I'm thrilled, although it's too bad that we had to kowtow to the Republican tax cut demands in order to pass it.

Pretty much this.

Also, it's pathetic it took so long to change this. It shouldn't have been an issue to change it in the first place and now we can focus on stuff that makes sense to debate.

[AdminAssistant]

Now if we can just pass the Zandroga (aka 9/11) bill.....

[HYHYBT]

It was a stupid law, and poorly implemented, from the beginning.

For one thing, the only arguments I've ever heard against gays serving all boil down to a variation of "I don't want those [deleted] watching me in the shower." Pretending for a moment that this is at all a rational position, the answer to that is "OK, well, they're going to be there anyway, but we'll make sure you don't know who they are?"

And that's ignoring things like telling people integrity, etc are core values while simultaneously forcing them to lie, treating any failure at all at keeping your orientation a secret, even if it's done by a third party or is the only way of defending yourself from criminal charges, as disallowed "telling," having no penalties at all on the "asking" side of things, etc.

[Talon]

Hell, it's about time.
As for kowtowing to the republicans, I guess Toby of The West Wing was right: "Perhaps the civil liberties only come a few dollars at a time."

[BlaqueKatt]

Now if we can just pass the Zandroga (aka 9/11) bill.....

sorry but if the Democrats hadn't been worried about "being embarrassed in an election year" it would have passed.

[AdminAssistant]

sorry but if the Democrats hadn't been worried about "being embarrassed in an election year" it would have passed.

Actually, as Jon Stewart pointed out in the latest Daily Show, the Republicans are the ones fillibustering the bill because 'there isn't enough time' before Christmas.

[Boozy]

"Don't ask, don't tell" was one hell of a security issue, and I'm surprised that no one really argued against it from this perspective.

Basically, by forcing members of the armed services into the closet, you're giving a lot of nefarious individuals some excellent blackmail material against some potentially very high-ranking military personnel.

[Rageaholic]

"Don't ask, don't tell" was one hell of a security issue, and I'm surprised that no one really argued against it from this perspective.

Basically, by forcing members of the armed services into the closet, you're giving a lot of nefarious individuals some excellent blackmail material against some potentially very high-ranking military personnel.

Interesting. I never thought of it from that perspective. I never agreed with it and thought it was stupid, but I didn't realize how stupid until now.

[Rapscallion]

Does repealing this rule mean you do have to ask and do have to tell? If so, how often?

Maybe every morning?

Sergeant: "Private, are you gay?"

Private: "No sarge."

Next day.

Sergeant: "Private, are you gay?"

Private: "I wasn't until I saw you during PT yesterday, sarge. The way you did those jumping jacks, oh my!"

Rapscallion

[blas87]

I cannot fathom how it was not blatant discrimination to not allow gays to serve in the military. What were they worried about, that the gay soldiers would capture the enemy and give them a makeover?

[DrFaroohk]

I heard it was something to do with "unit cohesion" or something....the idea being that a platoon of straight guys will be feel less comfortable with a gay guy in there too....seems ridiculous actually.

[Dreamstalker]

Nobody "has to" out themselves (it's astounding that it took me 3 days to convince mom of this fact--she thought that the repeal meant all gay & lesbian soldiers needed to tell the world).

From what I understand (I still don't understand precisely why DADT was implemented in the first place), the repeal means that not only can gays not be discharged for being gay, but servicemembers who were discharged under DADT can re-enlist if they want.

[Plaidman]

For one thing, the only arguments I've ever heard against gays serving all boil down to a variation of "I don't want those [deleted] watching me in the shower." Pretending for a moment that this is at all a rational position, the answer to that is "OK, well, they're going to be there anyway, but we'll make sure you don't know who they are?"

Yeah, because being gay automatically means your just on the lookout for naked men peepees all the time. All gays are hoping that you drop the soap, so they can have your butt and nothing you can do to stop it, because once your looked at, or touched, your turned gay. It's a disease that just spreads until the entire world is just one big male orgy.
I find it funny, that the people that are disgusted by being /leered/ at it, if only in their mind, are typically the first to want and/or demand to do the same thing to women when they're showering if they have a chance. So it's fine for men to stare at women, but god forbid if men stare at a guy or something. It's just so stupid.

From what I understand (I still don't understand precisely why DADT was implemented in the first place), the repeal means that not only can gays not be discharged for being gay, but servicemembers who were discharged under DADT can re-enlist if they want.

If I remembered correctly, you were required to state you were gay, and could be disbanned from joining the army on that before that policy came into effect.