FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Obama orders "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy ceased (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Obama orders "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy ceased
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
We talked about this a few months back, and it looks like Obama is moving on this now. He ordered the policy to cease, but there is a hitch...


Turns out the authority to get rid of it lies with Congress.


Stay tuned for more news.....lol....

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Well realistically from what I am reading there are not any contemporary studies with serious funding behind them designed to predict how repealing this policy will effect the social structure of the military. While I am for this decision, it feels counter-intuitive to predict that there will be no difficulties with this decision.

I think Robert Gates is right to insist on new studies as well as recycling some of the older studies attempted in the past.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Miro
Member
Member # 1178

 - posted      Profile for Miro   Email Miro         Edit/Delete Post 
It's a safe assumption that there will be difficulties with this decision. I foresee an increase in the already annoyingly high number of sexual harassment/fraternization type powerpoints I have to sit through. The price of doing business.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
No difficulties? Of course not. Manageable difficulties? Probably, just like every other country that allows it.

Furthermore, ultimately it doesn't come down to study. If you were to study the impact of blacks in non-segregated military units before it became permissible, I am sure you would have found significant adverse effects on unit cohesion by including blacks in units with whites. That would not have been a good reason in the least to exclude them.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
No difficulties? Of course not. Manageable difficulties? Probably, just like every other country that allows it.

Furthermore, ultimately it doesn't come down to study. If you were to study the impact of blacks in non-segregated military units before it became permissible, I am sure you would have found significant adverse effects on unit cohesion by including blacks in units with whites. That would not have been a good reason in the least to exclude them.

Certainly not, but it's something worth investigating. But then again, I've always assumed the reason women were excluded from combat roles was based on definitive studies, and yet I've never read said studies. That is something I ought to remedy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But then again, I've always assumed the reason women were excluded from combat roles was based on definitive studies
Nope.

edit: it is also pretty easy to see that those calling for more studies are not acting in good faith. If they just wanted it studied more thoroughly, they very much had the power to make certain that was done -- it wasn't like it was at all unclear that somebody was going to revisit Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What's more, if they were really interested in basing the conclusion off of studies, they would have called for a revisitation after doing studies.

No studies were done until it was a convenient way of attempting to fend off a change of policy. The calls for studies are not about basing policies off of evidence, they are tactics to preserve a position based in bigotry.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
And of course the argument is...dubiously honest right from the get-go, since it hinges on, "It'll be bad for the unit right now, so we can't do it." The problem is that it will likely always be bad for the unit in the short term, but they said the same thing about racial integration, and about gender integration-some are still saying it, in fact, though as time passes it proves to be less and less dreadfully bad for the unit.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, this was never something Obama could just DO. DADT is the law, and Congress has to change it, but the fact that he's pushing for it is good. It was a major campaign promise, or at least, major to the gay community.

Lots of different opinions on this one, but I think they could scrap together support in Congress if they can enough military people together to back them up. Thus far, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs supports ending DADT, as do many former Secretaries of Defense. Either way Obama will probably win a larger political battle. If he can blame Congressional Republicans yet again for failed legislation, he'll secure the gay community's support for some time to come, even if he fails.

But I actually think Obama might have a decent chance of getting this through. I haven't seen any unofficial head count thus far of what the vote will look like, but I think this will depend on what Republicans decide to do as far as the filibuster goes.

The fact that the military is involved might actually work in Obama's favor. If the military supports him, Republicans, and conservative Democrats, will have a much harder time arguing against it. Playing politics with the military is playing with fire, and Republicans know that midterms are almost here.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
No difficulties? Of course not. Manageable difficulties? Probably, just like every other country that allows it.

Furthermore, ultimately it doesn't come down to study. If you were to study the impact of blacks in non-segregated military units before it became permissible, I am sure you would have found significant adverse effects on unit cohesion by including blacks in units with whites. That would not have been a good reason in the least to exclude them.

Certainly not, but it's something worth investigating. But then again, I've always assumed the reason women were excluded from combat roles was based on definitive studies, and yet I've never read said studies. That is something I ought to remedy.
They are, and my Aunt helped conduct some of them, although it was years ago. I would imagine that that will continue to change as well. Women are non-combat in name only most of the time these days.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Props to Obama on this one.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
I just hope they strengthen the sexual harrassment procedures to go with that. I still don't really get how the military functions without a human resources department. Is there something in place to let folks go past their supervisor if they're the problem?

Cause while my sister's problems weren't sexual, they were definitely hostile work environment issues that wouldn't have been tolerated in a private company. She seemed to think if the guy running the base wouldn't do anything, there was nothing to be done without causing bigger problems than she already had.

Even if that's not true, the military might want to address that sort of perception going forward. Cause we know harrassment's going up in the short term. It would be really stupid not to be prepared for it.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, the JAG office, while NOTHING like the TV show, operates outside of the normal chain of command. Also, it's not like a regular company in that there is always someone higher ranking than the guy harrassing most of the time, so you can always follow the chain of command.

An HR department would be one of the worst things that could happen to the Army, IMO. It's a different world with different needs, and the chain of command is the only reasonable way to run it to be honest.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Well, the JAG office, while NOTHING like the TV show
Ah man, that totally ruins it for me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:
But then again, I've always assumed the reason women were excluded from combat roles was based on definitive studies
Nope.

edit: it is also pretty easy to see that those calling for more studies are not acting in good faith. If they just wanted it studied more thoroughly, they very much had the power to make certain that was done -- it wasn't like it was at all unclear that somebody was going to revisit Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What's more, if they were really interested in basing the conclusion off of studies, they would have called for a revisitation after doing studies.

No studies were done until it was a convenient way of attempting to fend off a change of policy. The calls for studies are not about basing policies off of evidence, they are tactics to preserve a position based in bigotry.

I personally was never in a position to alter the amount of studying done on this issue, when I feel like more studies ought to be done it's more because I do not have a solid grounding in military sociology or dynamics, and for fear of having an opinion without any grounding, seek to obtain evidence.

It's definitely not so that some sort of status quo can be preserved, nor is it born out of some sense of bigotry, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
In this case, the 'those' was the people in the upper echelons of the military.

I maintain that, given the broad history of military organizations with no particular problem integrating homosexuals (including several large militaries with homosexuals serving openly for over fifteen years), and the limitations (indeed, near impossibility to untangle effects that would be ongoing from effects that would be temporary, among many difficulties) of any attempt to do controlled studies, and the importance of military service as a foundational capacity of American citizens, there is no reasonable cause for the exclusion of homosexuals. This is like calling for the study of whether blacks can lead white people when there are numerous military organizations where they have been successfully for many years! It does not make sense.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
I am torn on this issue.

I have absolutely nothing against gays in the military. If someone wants to fight for and serve their country, I think everyone should have that opportunity, regardless of sexual orientation.

The thing is the policy does not ban gays in the military. They are allowed to serve just like anyone else. They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen. As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.

I don't believe homosexuals should have to hide their sexual preference for fear of being discharged from the military. I think the policy was partly put into effect to protect homosexuals from being treated badly. There are quite a few cases in which military servicemen have been beaten or killed for disclosing their sexual preferences.

I don't understand the argument that a people in a squad with a homosexual member have lower morale. Really? I know they shower together and that may be uncomfortable, but other than that I fail to see how it has anything to do with morale.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen.
This is blatantly false; heterosexual servicemen cannot be kicked out of the military for showing their coworkers pictures of their significant others, or for talking about their romantic weekend.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
Also, let's say I was gay and wrote a personal letter to my partner, where I mentioned personal aspects of our relationship. Or even say, a letter to my mom saying how great my homosexual relationship was going. Imagine that a fellow soldier picked that up. They could take it to the commander and I would get kicked out. I know someone was outed and kicked out of the army because of a letter they wrote that was never intended for anyone else's eyes, but someone else did see it.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.


I'm wondering how many regs I helped break when I dated the Navy band.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
It's seriously a dumb policy. Why can't the military concentrate on preventing sexual harassment of women in the military and worse instead of going on and on about gay people?
It's so... old fashioned in a bad way. You got two wars going on.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
My dad told me the other day that this was a good policy for avoiding a potential draft. If a draft was issued, the percentage of homosexuals would skyrocket.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.


I'm wondering how many regs I helped break when I dated the Navy band.
You dated the entire band?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I exaggerated. I only dated the brass section.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I only dated the brass section.
Sheesh! Talk about discrimination!!
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I hear they're a bunch of blowhards.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
It was all about the embouchure.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
The timing seems a bit odd to me. I wonder if Obama feels in need of a victory after the health-care thing? And I also wonder if he can get it. This does seem like it will be more popular with the Democrats' constituents than healthcare reform ended up being.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder then, how is that timing odd? It would seem to be perfect, no? Here's an issue that liberals have been hammering him on since the first day he took office, he needs a win, it's, at the moment, probably the second most viable piece of legislation he has to offer (behind banking reform, which he should be hammering like crazy), it's far more popular, especially in energizing his base and wooing moderates...

It seems like a great idea, assuming he can rally support in the military establishment, and parlay that into support in Congress. He has a populist "republicans are obstructionist" mantra going on right now that might bear some fruit. We'll see.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:

The thing is the policy does not ban gays in the military. They are allowed to serve just like anyone else. They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen. As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.

You are either very confused about what constitutes active duty or seriously mislead. Anyone member of the armed forces that is employed full time by the military is on active duty. Those people, both men and women, date, marry and have children all the time. My SIL gave birth to two children while on active duty in the army. Heterosexuals do not get kicked out of the army for engaging in sex or getting pregnant while on active duty.

There was a recent case where a commander in Afghanistan announced he would court marshal anyone who got pregnant while deployed in Afghanistan. This was a completely new policy and to the best of my knowledge no one has yet been dishonorably discharged for getting pregnant (or getting someone pregnant) while on combat duty.

Even if that happened regularly, combat duty is not the even similar to active duty.

Many companies have policies that discourage people from pursuing romantic involvement with persons in their division. There are many reasons I think it would be wise for the military to forbid romantic involvement or sexual relations between members of the same unit. This would be doubly wise in combat situations. But that is entirely different than forbidding all romantic and sexual relations. Considering that both men and women serve in the same units in the military, that policy would seem as pertinent for heterosexuals as homosexuals.

Once such a policy was adopted, I can't see any reasons for restricting homosexual service in the armed forces that are any different from restricting people based on race. It simply isn't justified.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen.
This is blatantly false; heterosexual servicemen cannot be kicked out of the military for showing their coworkers pictures of their significant others, or for talking about their romantic weekend.
I didn't know showing pictures of your significant other or talking about your weekend qualified as sexual activity. I guess I should get rid of the picture of my wife on my desk.

As far as the sentence you quoted, I should have phrased it better to include only sexual activity in which servicemen are not to engage in with each other.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I didn't know showing pictures of your significant other or talking about your weekend qualified as sexual activity. I guess I should get rid of the picture of my wife on my desk.
Indeed, if you were operating by DADT rules, you would have to. Or lose your job. Would you like to admit that this is not, in fact, equal treatment of hetero- and homosexual, as you claimed in your first post?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I didn't know showing pictures of your significant other or talking about your weekend qualified as sexual activity.
It qualifies as the other condition in your statement: "disclosing your sexual preference."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... I can't see any reasons for restricting homosexual service in the armed forces that are any different from restricting people based on race.

Well, TWW brought up a good one.
You can't pick your race to get out of a draft, but you can definitely choose to gay it up in order to get out of it.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
I am sure you would have found significant adverse effects on unit cohesion by including blacks in units with whites. That would not have been a good reason in the least to exclude them.

Well, of course that would depend on *how* adverse those effects would be. Something (personal experience for one) tells me that gays being open in the military will be on par with desegregation, if not easier. Clearly it's a win-lose scenario for some people, gay and straight, who would like to keep the status quo. Still, my gut tells me it won't be that difficult- I would only hope that the military can find the strength to adjust itself to the change without too many issues. If we're talking about "men of honor" among the higher ranks, then they will understand that their duties supercede any personal prejudices, and just do their jobs as they're ordered to do. That we haven't been convinced as a society thus far that this is possible is a comment on our lack of faith in these people, really.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... I can't see any reasons for restricting homosexual service in the armed forces that are any different from restricting people based on race.

Well, TWW brought up a good one.
You can't pick your race to get out of a draft, but you can definitely choose to gay it up in order to get out of it.

But that is a compelling reason NOT to restrict gays in the military and certainly not a compelling reason for the restriction. Unless of course you trying to create ways for people to evade a hypothetical future draft. If you object to a draft, it seems more rational to avoid instituting a draft in the first place than to create a bunch of loop holes for people who oppose it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It was all about the embouchure.

I imagine that's what they said about you too. [Wink]
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fishtail
Member
Member # 3900

 - posted      Profile for Fishtail   Email Fishtail         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I just hope they strengthen the sexual harrassment procedures to go with that. I still don't really get how the military functions without a human resources department. Is there something in place to let folks go past their supervisor if they're the problem?
Military units have both an Equal Opportunity Office and an Inspector General's office (usually at the installation level, but there's also the DoD versions) to deal with harrassment and the chain of command being part of the problem.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fishtail
Member
Member # 3900

 - posted      Profile for Fishtail   Email Fishtail         Edit/Delete Post 
Also, military members may date/engage in relationships (sexual and otherwise) with other military members, even in the same unit. What the policies and guidance prohibit is those relationships between officers & enlisted members, or between those (officer or enlisted) who are in the same chain of command (e.g., an enlisted person/officer can't date another enlisted person/officer if they are the person's 1st-level, 2nd-level, or really, any-level supervisor or vice versa).

Not that it doesn't happen, but when it does, those are the relationships that get the cease & desist treatment.

Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Unless of course you trying to create ways for people to evade a hypothetical future draft.

Bingo.

quote:
If you object to a draft, it seems more rational to avoid instituting a draft in the first place than to create a bunch of loop holes for people who oppose it.
False dichotomy. You can always do both.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... I can't see any reasons for restricting homosexual service in the armed forces that are any different from restricting people based on race.

Well, TWW brought up a good one.
You can't pick your race to get out of a draft, but you can definitely choose to gay it up in order to get out of it.

But that is a compelling reason NOT to restrict gays in the military and certainly not a compelling reason for the restriction. Unless of course you trying to create ways for people to evade a hypothetical future draft. If you object to a draft, it seems more rational to avoid instituting a draft in the first place than to create a bunch of loop holes for people who oppose it.
I guess it only really works as an argument against someone who hates gays and would support a potential future draft. [Smile]
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Fishtail:
quote:
I just hope they strengthen the sexual harrassment procedures to go with that. I still don't really get how the military functions without a human resources department. Is there something in place to let folks go past their supervisor if they're the problem?
Military units have both an Equal Opportunity Office and an Inspector General's office (usually at the installation level, but there's also the DoD versions) to deal with harrassment and the chain of command being part of the problem.
That's good to know. I might have to pass that along to my sister.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
If you object to a draft, it seems more rational to avoid instituting a draft in the first place than to create a bunch of loop holes for people who oppose it.
False dichotomy. You can always do both. [/QB]
Its not a false dichotomy unless you think it is at least equally rational to do both, which I don't.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The White Whale:
guess it only really works as an argument against someone who hates gays and would support a potential future draft. [Smile]

It could also work for your gay war hawk who would support a draft as long as he isn't in it.

During Vietnam there was no shortage of war and draft supports who were willing to exploit any and every loop hole to keep themselves and their sons out of it.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I can't see any reasons for restricting homosexual service in the armed forces that are any different from restricting people based on race.
There is an element of desire, which I think is really under-appreciated in sexual harassment discourse. I think the issue is closer to the question mixed gender units. Being outed is slim comfort if you can't make passes. I think that not only should gays be allowed be able to be openly gay, they should be able to be sexual creatures, at least as sexual as the heterosexuals in the military.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Its not a false dichotomy unless you think it is at least equally rational to do both, which I don't.

I disagree.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
You might be surprised by my opinion on this matter. Don't ask don't tell is stupid. I spent 12 years active duty. While some gays may be transparent, most are obvious. Despite don't ask, don't tell...service members know they are serving with gays. The policy prevents harassment and admission but we all know they are there.

Sexual preference should be a non-issue. Hetero sex is against military policy on a military vessel. PDA is not allowed. I feel sorry for people who define themselves by their sexual orientation. It's pathetic that some people define their lives by what they enjoy in the bedroom. I am not defined by what I prefer sexually. There is meaning in my life beyond my physical desires.

I agree with the "don't ask" part and no one should "tell". There are two sides to this policy. If rescinded, they can "ask". Even if homosexuality is accepted, it should remain a private matter. Unless of course they are seeking a "protected class" status as a disadvantaged minority. Maybe we'll set quotas for gay promotions.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it is time to visit this, and make changes. We will see how it will work, and I hope it goes well.

For all of our sakes.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
just jumpin' in to say

quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
The thing is the policy does not ban gays in the military. They are allowed to serve just like anyone else. They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen.

the bolded portion is remarkably and clearly false, but it is always a surprise to me how many people think it is true.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
While some gays may be transparent, most are obvious.

Buy a dictionary, please.


quote:
It's pathetic that some people define their lives by what they enjoy in the bedroom.
Oh, it was too good to be true. You managed to turn your support for gay rights into a slam on gays anyway. Good job.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tatiana
Member
Member # 6776

 - posted      Profile for Tatiana   Email Tatiana         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm really glad to see that President Obama is finally addressing civil rights for GLBT people. I think the DADT policy is harmful and was long overdue at the huge historical scrap heap of bigoted former laws.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2