Senate halts 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal

["User"]

Really...why is this being scrutinized so closely when there are over 9000 more immediate urgent things on the table?  (ex. ecomony, jobs, taxes, foreign relations).  Oh wait, thanks Harry Reid for throwing issues like DADT, illegal immigration amendments into this, these should have been dealt with separately and not part of a massive defense bill.  >_>  Thanks to this fine move by the Senate majority leader you can expect more drama in Washington politics. >_<

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/21/senate.defense.bill/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

My opinion on this whole matter is that this concerns another push for "normalization" of non-straight sexual orientations in civilian life as opposed to military life.  The vast majority of soldier's think that the repeal would be a negative thing overall.  When in the military should sexual orientation even really be an issue?  I mean, one thing you could do is bar ANYONE's sexual orientation from being discussed in the military PERIOD. People in the military are in cohesive units to undertake very serious operations under a very strict environment.  Something like this (whether you're straight or gay) is the last thing that should be on soldier's minds as they go into battle. 

The funny thing is that I expressed my opinion about this to a friend of mine and he labeled me a homophobe when I have nothing against non-straight individuals.  However, if the repeal of this act affects soldier's morale, discipline, cohesiveness, etc (which the vast majority of the military think it will) then it shouldn't be repealed.  Instead, discussion about one's sexuality in general should be forbidden.

Discuss.

[Sabre]

I can't speak for the US, but we got over this crap years ago.

It's hyporcritical, again, can only speak for brits, but occationally some photo or blog post or whatever will leak about squads innitiation stuff where they all meet in a field dressed in womens undies and have to beat him with rolled up carpets for a few minutes or some other embarrassing act. Assuming the US is the same (and assuming it gets reported/leaked) I'd image these rough tough anti gay types have some kind of similar situation where they paint their nails pink and wrestle naked to prove they are 'one of the guys' and 'a manly man'.

Also, whats the problem? That they will start bum sexing when under fire or something? There is a famous anti/pro war pic where a guy is in a firefight in a pair of bright red boxers because he was attacked getting changed or something. It's call priorities and I don't think being gay is high on the list, unless you have serious issues in which case why are they given a gun.

Lastly, if the army is short on troops, wouldn't repeal allow access to more possable recruits?

[Kursed]

The only thing I can say is if  a person's beliefs  affect their ability to fight they shouldn't be there in the first place.

As  stupid as it sounds  a  Clone Army  works  better than a  Army of Idiviuals  that  can't keep thier priorities straight.

[DZComposer]

Really...why is this being scrutinized so closely when there are over 9000 more immediate urgent things on the table?  (ex. ecomony, jobs, taxes, foreign relations).  Oh wait, thanks Harry Reid for throwing issues like DADT, illegal immigration amendments into this, these should have been dealt with separately and not part of a massive defense bill.  >_>  Thanks to this fine move by the Senate majority leader you can expect more drama in Washington politics. >_<

There are bills out there that address these things. It's just that the Republicans are filibustering EVERY. SINGLE. BILL. This is unprecedented in the history of the Senate, and is the real problem in Washington right now.

Not to say I don't place some of the blame on Harry Reid. He long should have, LAST YEAR, told the Republicans that if they want to filibuster, they better get out the cots. Have a REAL filibuster. Forcing them to stay a few to many late nights will make them not filibuster so much.

My opinion on this whole matter is that this concerns another push for "normalization" of non-straight sexual orientations in civilian life as opposed to military life.  The vast majority of soldier's think that the repeal would be a negative thing overall.  When in the military should sexual orientation even really be an issue?  I mean, one thing you could do is bar ANYONE's sexual orientation from being discussed in the military PERIOD. People in the military are in cohesive units to undertake very serious operations under a very strict environment.  Something like this (whether you're straight or gay) is the last thing that should be on soldier's minds as they go into battle. 

This kind of argument was used against racially desegregating the military, you know: "Desegregating the military makes it 'normal' for Negroes* to be near whites." It's an Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because a majority feels that way, doesn't mean it is right to discriminate. Desegregation was EXTREMELY unpopular with soldiers, but it was still implemented and it arguably overall increased the strength of our military because we were no longer throwing good soldiers into the garbage over the color of their skin. A good soldier will be a good soldier, straight or gay just as black or white.

By the way, this policy is also not just limited to when the soldier is on duty. If he/she at any time comes out, even off-base, they're done. This forces them to stay in the closet and lie about themselves for their entire military careers.

Regardless of what your religious book says, homosexuality is a natural occurrence. It has been observed in many species: ducks, penguins, cats, primates, and others. People who are homosexual are born that way, just like these animals were. It is unfair to discriminate against someone based on something that is not in their control.

* I used this word because that is how the argument was worded at the time. Well, that way and using a worse word.

I do agree with your last sentence, though. It shouldn't be about whether or not you ARE straight, it should be whether or not you can SHOOT straight.

The funny thing is that I expressed my opinion about this to a friend of mine and he labeled me a homophobe when I have nothing against non-straight individuals. 

You tell yourself that to make yourself feel better, but it is obviously false when you advocate for discrimination. If you have nothing against them, then why do you stand in the way of their equality?

However, if the repeal of this act affects soldier's morale, discipline, cohesiveness, etc (which the vast majority of the military think it will) then it shouldn't be repealed.  Instead, discussion about one's sexuality in general should be forbidden.

Another argument used against desegregation, BTW. One that was proven false when the military was desegregated. Overall morale was not a problem then, and I highly doubt it would be now.

[fox1235]

Pretty much what DZ said. And Sabre to answear question I have never seen anything like that. But I'm not sure if are military does that or not.

[Robert Monroe]

DZ, while I'm pretty much agreeing with you, here comes my nitpicking train.

Regardless of what your religious book says, homosexuality is a natural occurrence. It has been observed in many species: ducks, penguins, cats, primates, and others. People who are homosexual are born that way, just like these animals were. It is unfair to discriminate against someone based on something that is not in their control.

Noone mentioned their religious books, so I don't see much herpyderpy point in making note of this. And even if it was brought up, people are free to beleive what they want anyway. Their choices, their lives.

Also you aren't any more born gay than you're born straight because we are born sexually immature  :trollface:

[Kid_Cortet]

The whole thing is, people just want to serve without having to worry, with DADT, you can be discharged just because you are gay, even if you say nothing on the matter.

homosexuals just wnat to serve and protect their country just like the heterosexuals. but apparently there is way too much testosterone to allow it. plus there is the negative thought, "Do you want a person who is against God protecting you?" which is basically what it is, since we are all looked at as sinners.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

My opinion on this whole matter is that this concerns another push for "normalization" of non-straight sexual orientations in civilian life as opposed to military life.  The vast majority of soldier's think that the repeal would be a negative thing overall.  When in the military should sexual orientation even really be an issue?  I mean, one thing you could do is bar ANYONE's sexual orientation from being discussed in the military PERIOD. People in the military are in cohesive units to undertake very serious operations under a very strict environment.  Something like this (whether you're straight or gay) is the last thing that should be on soldier's minds as they go into battle. 

I agree.  I got some friends in the service who are either gay or bi, and they are in favor of "Don't ask, don't tell".  They prefer to choose NOT to disclose their sexual orientation in the workplace, the military, or, for a few of them, the police force.  I know that's not the case for all, but it's an example at least...

[DZComposer]

And they can still choose that option if DADT is repealed. The problem with DADT is that it forces those who wish to be open about it to stay in the closet.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

And they can still choose that option if DADT is repealed. The problem with DADT is that it forces those who wish to be open about it to stay in the closet.

Really? *does some checking*  Oh, I see...

["User"]

There are bills out there that address these things. It's just that the Republicans are filibustering EVERY. SINGLE. BILL. This is unprecedented in the history of the Senate, and is the real problem in Washington right now.

And was it not stupid of Reid to put this in one of the biggest annual budget bills?  Did he honestly think the GOP would just look over it, not take notice, and let the whole thing through given their history with filibustering?  I'd rather have them filibuster these things separately then in a bill that budgets the U.S. DoD (biggest department spender in government).  I mean, even people adamantly opposed to DADT are accusing the Dems of playing politics with soldiers here.   Reid just started a firestorm of political activity here.  I agree with you that the filibustering rules need to be rewritten, I think everyone can agree on that.

Not to say I don't place some of the blame on Harry Reid. He long should have, LAST YEAR, told the Republicans that if they want to filibuster, they better get out the cots. Have a REAL filibuster. Forcing them to stay a few to many late nights will make them not filibuster so much.

While "ideal", we all know this would never happen.  Senators get paid salaries, and not by the hour. No way they would spend all night debating this.

This kind of argument was used against racially desegregating the military, you know: "Desegregating the military makes it 'normal' for Negroes* to be near whites." It's an Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because a majority feels that way, doesn't mean it is right to discriminate.

Although today it's easily labeled as discrimination back then it was perfectly "normal" thinking for the day.  Social conventions were a lot different back then than they were today.  What we considered normal or acceptable or even morally "right" today might be a lot different decades from now.  Of course, we all know that Democracy is based on appeal to popularity or the majority and thus Democracy does not obviate this; it merely makes the fallacy irrelevant as correctness is defined by popularity in its case.

Desegregation was EXTREMELY unpopular with soldiers, but it was still implemented and it arguably overall increased the strength of our military because we were no longer throwing good soldiers into the garbage over the color of their skin. A good soldier will be a good soldier, straight or gay just as black or white.

Agreed, and I'm not disputing that. 

By the way, this policy is also not just limited to when the soldier is on duty. If he/she at any time comes out, even off-base, they're done. This forces them to stay in the closet and lie about themselves for their entire military careers.

Didn't really know that but alright.

Regardless of what your religious book says, homosexuality is a natural occurrence. It has been observed in many species: ducks, penguins, cats, primates, and others. People who are homosexual are born that way, just like these animals were. It is unfair to discriminate against someone based on something that is not in their control.

Robert already pointed this out but what does religion have to do with this again?  My argument was not worded in a religious context in the slightest so I fail to see what religion has to do with my argument.  Otherwise, please show me.

As animal homosexuality goes there is a lot more to it then meets the eye and is not "Clear cut" as you are making it out to sound.  If it was this obvious then for one there wouldn't be so much confusion and questions regarding genetic undeniable "proof" (which I haven't seen any per se) and there wouldn't be microbiologists, geneticists, and other doctors taking various positions or sitting on the fence on the subject.  The vast majority of people a long time ago for centuries believed that the Earth was flat and that the Earth was the center of the Solar System and cited all kinds of "proof" on why they were right.  Of course, we all know now that the truth is otherwise but back then you had everyone believing otherwise.  However this is preferably for another topic.

I do agree with your last sentence, though. It shouldn't be about whether or not you ARE straight, it should be whether or not you can SHOOT straight.

And indeed it should.

You tell yourself that to make yourself feel better, but it is obviously false when you advocate for discrimination. If you have nothing against them, then why do you stand in the way of their equality?

Here's where you're completely misunderstood (and if it was anyone else I might have been offended by that statement).  I'm not advocating for discrimination and I never said flat out that I was against this policy - on the contrary I strongly implied stating otherwise by saying that it shouldn't matter what sexuality you are in the military.  My recommendation was that sexuality discussion about anyones orientation be forbidden.  What I have a beef with mainly is (and I stated as such) the timing of something like this when there are many things that Americans want their politicians to focus that are urgent and important and this isn't one of them.  Is it any wonder why a vast majority of Americans feel their government is not in touch with them and focusing on ALL the wrong issues in a recession?

Another argument used against desegregation, BTW. One that was proven false when the military was desegregated. Overall morale was not a problem then, and I highly doubt it would be now.

Time will tell.

[Kursed]

And they can still choose that option if DADT is repealed. The problem with DADT is that it forces those who wish to be open about it to stay in the closet.

Would you want to know that  your squadmate is possibly 'in love' with you? I mean  in this case that person could be uncomfortable knowing that the person next to you on a battle field want's to you know.... I mean seriously do they even have the time to worry about that  crap on duty?

PersonnlY I don't think it  should not be  weather or not are you straight  not even can  you shoot straight  ,but  Can you keep your thoughts  Straight and on the battle.  (Mostly anyone can be taught to shoot straight)

[Sarita]

Would you want to know that  your squadmate is possibly 'in love' with you? I mean  in this case that person could be uncomfortable knowing that the person next to you on a battle field want's to you know.... I mean seriously do they even have the time to worry about that  crap on duty?

By this logic, women should be taken off the battlefield, too. Really?

I'm not ignoring the second part of your post, I agree with it, but this part just really stuck out to me.

[Kursed]

If their feelings either from the man or the women affects their abilties to complete a mission then yes one of them should leave.

My main point is exactly what I said in the second part ,but this is not about women in the armed forces so that is going off topic sorry.

[DZComposer]

That's something that should be handled on an individual basis. Sexual misconduct needs to be dealt with when it happens, but it is a false assumption that gay guys want to cornhole every guy they see.

User, sorry about that last post. I didn't mean to be that harsh. Discrimination is something I absolutely abhor and I sometimes get a little carried away.

[Sabre]

And they can still choose that option if DADT is repealed. The problem with DADT is that it forces those who wish to be open about it to stay in the closet.

My question. Why is it relevent? You can be gay without dropping into the conversation every few seconds, and you can be extremely camp and still be straight.

On the one hand, it's dumb, yes, but on the other why does it matter that much?

[DZComposer]

By "open," I don't mean making mention of being gay at every waking moment of the day. I mean that they can be honest about themselves. They don't have to pretend to be straight.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

By "open," I don't mean making mention of being gay at every waking moment of the day. I mean that they can be honest about themselves. They don't have to pretend to be straight.

Well, as far as I know, DADT doesn't necessarily mandate that gay soldiers "pretend to be straight", it just simply says they gotta keep it to themselves.  Essentially, the core point of DADT is that all soldiers of all sexualities generally keep it to themselves, be they straight, gay, bi, etc.

[Robert Monroe]

Well, as far as I know, DADT doesn't necessarily mandate that gay soldiers "pretend to be straight", it just simply says they gotta keep it to themselves.  Essentially, the core point of DADT is that all soldiers of all sexualities generally keep it to themselves, be they straight, gay, bi, etc.

Thats the theory, but in practice it boxes up homosexuals in a little corner of shame.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Thats the theory, but in practice it boxes up homosexuals in a little corner of shame.

Oh, okay.  I see now. 

[Sabre]

Thats the theory, but in practice it boxes up homosexuals in a little corner of shame.

Would that change if the law changed?

[Kid_Cortet]

Well, as far as I know, DADT doesn't necessarily mandate that gay soldiers "pretend to be straight", it just simply says they gotta keep it to themselves.  Essentially, the core point of DADT is that all soldiers of all sexualities generally keep it to themselves, be they straight, gay, bi, etc.

um....you can be forced to either retire or be dishonorably discharged if you are found out to be gay -_-;;;

[Guest Julius Quasar]

um....you can be forced to either retire or be dishonorably discharged if you are found out to be gay -_-;;;

Well, I don't know if the DADT policy specifically says "you can be forced to either retire or be dishonorably discharged if you are found out to be gay".  I think it [originally] said You can be forced to either retire or be dishonorably discharged if you voluntarily and openly admit to being gay...however, that's just DADT in theory, as pointed out earlier...in practice it has become a point where, as you said, "you can be forced to either retire or be dishonorably discharged if you are found out to be gay".

My point is, the problem with DADT is that is says one thing on paper, and it does something else in practice.

Here's a definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

[Robert Monroe]

Would that change if the law changed?

To a degree, yes. Homosexuals would no longer be punishable by law for their lifestyle choices. As for shame from comrades in arms, thats up for grabs.

[Kid_Cortet]

Well, I don't know if the DADT policy specifically says "you can be forced to either retire or be dishonorably discharged if you are found out to be gay".  I think it [originally] said You can be forced to either retire or be dishonorably discharged if you voluntarily and openly admit to being gay...however, that's just DADT in theory, as pointed out earlier...in practice it has become a point where, as you said, "you can be forced to either retire or be dishonorably discharged if you are found out to be gay".

My point is, the problem with DADT is that is says one thing on paper, and it does something else in practice.

Here's a definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

I mean I am cool with DADT....all people in the military are supposed to be the same, same color, same race, same everything.....So everyone being celebite is fine lol. But to be kicked out because you are DIFFERENT.....is the problem