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

[Gravekeeper]

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.

Ah yes, the greater gaythropy theory. Even just a bite or a scratch and you'll be gay by the next full moon.

Seriously though, its amazing and appaling it took this long.

[smileyeagle1021]

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

Okay, I will admit to having attention deficit OMG PENIS
Hell, I'll peek in the locker room, if someone's trunks slip I'll peek, but I highly doubt that straight men would do any different with women and breasts given the chance... doesn't mean they plan on raping them (well, most straight men at least).

[tropicsgoddess]

I'm happy they dropped the DADT policy. When it was first made during the Clinton administration, I thought it was just to appease both sides to allow gays to serve but not be in the open about their sexuality. I personally don't see anything wrong with somebody being openly gay and serving in the armed forces at all. We're all human here.

[HYHYBT]

I personally don't see anything wrong with somebody being openly gay and serving in the armed forces at all. We're all human here.

That's the trouble: some think we're not!

[crashhelmet]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, aka the laws of the Military, make it "illegal" to be gay in the military. Actually, if I remember right, it's sodomy that's illegal. Depending on which of the various definitions of it you use, it could be used to kick out heterosexuals too.

DADT was implemented as a band aid to let gays in. Just as the name implies, they're not going to ask if you're gay and you're not going to tell them. As long as that's agreed to, you could enlist.

The unit cohesion issue had nothing to do with the fear of being checked out in the shower, that was just homophobia. The biggest concern with cohesion was the fear that the gay soldiers would live up to the stereotype of being "pansies" and either freeze in a crucial situation or flee the battle altogether. When the person beside you could mean the difference between you living and dieing, it's a very important concern.

Implementing DADT allowed for gays to show that they could do what was asked and expected of them. High ranking officers recognized it and asked for its repeal.

General Amos's concerns with the possibility of it causing a distraction are somewhat valid. There's no telling what could happen if the someone is too open to or around someone that's homophobic.

[JustaCashier]

The biggest concern with cohesion was the fear that the gay soldiers would live up to the stereotype of being "pansies" and either freeze in a crucial situation or flee the battle altogether.

Then along the same line of thinking, the stereotypical "butch dyke" Lesbian should make an excellent Soldier.


I'm a straight guy. And I have felt so fortunate to have not even having to ever sign up for the Draft.

I admit, I'm a wuss in many respects. Especially back when I was much younger. Had I been actaully drafted, I honestly don't know what I would have done. Gone ahead with it, scared shitlees and possibly frozen up should a critical situation arise? Dodge the Draft and flee to Canada, or just try to lay low in the U.S.? Taken my own life?

I'm fairly certain of one thing had I dodged the Draft; I would have felt guilty as hell, and that likely would have stuck with me until this day. Especially if I had beem confronted about the dodging.

I was actually lucky, because at some point in my earlier life, they brought back the draft for a short while. This may have been back in the mid-'70's, just before I turned 18. A buddy of mine, who is literally 5 weeks shy of being a year older than I am, had to sign up back then. He was as nervous at the thought of being drafted as I was. (He's straight too). I lucked out, because by the time I would have been eligible, they had discontinued the Draft again.

Mike

[Talon]

What were they worried about, that the gay soldiers would capture the enemy and give them a makeover?

Check out the upcoming brand new reality-TV show, Extreme Makeover, Prisoner of War edition!

[Ladeeda]

General Amos's concerns with the possibility of it causing a distraction are somewhat valid. There's no telling what could happen if the someone is too open to or around someone that's homophobic.

This I definitely agree with. Any problems related to homosexuals being out and equal is rooted in the gay-haters. Same with every other group that's been denied rights for stupid reasons.

[Andara Bledin]

This I definitely agree with. Any problems related to homosexuals being out and equal is rooted in the gay-haters. Same with every other group that's been denied rights for stupid reasons.

Seems to me, then, we should be denying the bigots, not the focus of their bigotry.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

Then along the same line of thinking, the stereotypical "butch dyke" Lesbian should make an excellent Soldier.

That's another change that's in the works. As it stands, women are not allowed in the front lines of combat. Some cite the fear factor, others cite the travesties they might experience if they're captured.

There are some in the front lines in support roles, but that's only because we have a shortage of men in those positions. Currently though, there are no women in the active infantry.

[Sage Blackthorn]

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?

Studying history is sort of a hobby of mine, ancient civilizations in particular are fascinating to me. Many years ago I was reading up on Greco/Roman culture (since the Romans borrowed heavily from the Greeks) and found an article mentioned that there was a group in the Roman Legions of Pikemen and Shieldmen. The Pikeman needed both hands to use their Pikes and attack, so they depended on their Shieldman to defend them and protect them. You had to trust your partner with your life in this situation.

Now this entire regiment of the Legions was made up of gay men. The Pikemen and their partners were couples who loved each other deeply. I remember reading that the scribes who wrote of their last battle said that no other unit in The Legions fought as bravely or were as devoted to one another. The historians took special note of the fact that even though the Pikemen/Shieldmen were overwhelmed in this particular battle, not a single one of them had a wound in their backs while the Archers, Slingers, and Swordsman did. This means the units of Pikemen and Spearmen faced their enemy when they died while the other turned and fled. Each man guarded his partner with his life.

I mentioned this to a friend of mine who had been in the military in Vietnam (Bob), and he said when the fighting starts, you don't fight for ideals like Peace or Freedom, you fight to defend your life and the lives of your friends who are with you. He said that if some guy in the unit wasn't pulling his weight or was pissing everyone off, they didn't have to do ANYTHING other than not watch his back in a fight. Usually after a few times of going "What the hell!?" he either changed his attitude or he "got himself killed".

Then I was watching Penn&Teller a few years ago when they did an episode of their show "Bullsh!t" on Gay Parents. The significant thing I took away from that show was that the biological and adopted children of same sex parents in long term studies grew up virtually the same as those with Male/Female parents. The only difference was the teasing, bullying, and ridecule they experienced from others in school. In otherwords the so-called "problems" with having same-sex parents were due to the intolerance and homophobia of others. And this struck a parallel with me about the whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" thing in the military that all the so-called problems that are brought up with having "Gays" and "Lesbians" in the military comes down to the fact that it's not that they can't do their job, it's that those who are homophobic (prejudiced) have a problem.

So based on what I've read and seen, both in books, on tv, and in my life with my Gay and Lesbian friends, I agree with Andara: the logical policy would be to ban homophobes from the military because history has shown that they are the source of the problems. History has also shown that they "Pansey" theory is bullshit, that homosexual men have in the past (and continue to do so in the present) demonstrated that they can be just as brave, capable and competant as their heterosexual brothers. And in the case of the Roman Legions where they fought not only for the Empire but to protect their lovers in battle, they've shown more resolve than their heterosexual brethren who fled the battle.

My opinion is that sexuality has nothing to do with how capable a soldier someone is. If you are the type of person who has a deep sense of commitment, honor, loyalty, and courage.... if you are a good marksmen, if you can keep a level head during the chaos of battle then it doesn't matter if you are "gay" or "straight" and if that is a distraction for someone else in your unit, the problem is with them, not with you. It doesn't make sense to me to throw a soldier out of the military who's good at his or her job because someone else is allowing their prejudices to distract them and cause problems.

[crashhelmet]

The Roman legion isn't the only place where homosexuality was common. It was seen a lot with Knights and their squires as well as with the Samurai and their servants. But that was then and this is now.

The sad thing about all of this is there have been countless reports of heterosexuals being deserters and panicking in combat as well. Yet, the homosexuals are the ones that need to prove themselves. I personally believe that anyone should be allowed to volunteer to fight for their country. Let Basic Training weed out those that can or cannot perform their expected duties.

[Gravekeeper]

That's another change that's in the works. As it stands, women are not allowed in the front lines of combat. Some cite the fear factor, others cite the travesties they might experience if they're captured.

There are some in the front lines in support roles, but that's only because we have a shortage of men in those positions. Currently though, there are no women in the active infantry.

That seems to be a touchy subject through out the world. Though I'm surprised the US still doesn't allow women in direct combat roles. In Canada its been officially open to full service since 1982 or so. But we had our first direct service in all branchs for women in 1965 as a test.

We even put them in subs. >.>

[lordlundar]

That seems to be a touchy subject through out the world. Though I'm surprised the US still doesn't allow women in direct combat roles. In Canada its been officially open to full service since 1982 or so. But we had our first direct service in all branchs for women in 1965 as a test.

We even put them in subs. >.>

There's actually a group of women who wound up in active combat and performed heroically under heavy fire, only to be denied medals they fully deserved while the men in that same combat were appropriately awarded.

The excuse given was they were ineligible because they weren't assigned to a combat zone and that while "Women aren't assigned to active combat, doesn't mean that active combat won't find them."

[blas87]

I thought I saw on the news a year or so ago that women are allowed on submarines now.

My only theory about women having more restrictions....well, we can't have them killed because then there won't be as many BABIES!

I mean cripes....lest we forget it takes a man's sperm to fertizilize the egg in the first place? Everything has always been protect the women first because we need them to make babies (and certainly there may be more women in the world or they may live longer, but it's not a good enough argument for me).