Home Non Cigar Related

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

So the president signed into law the repeal of DADT today. Personally I'm a fan of it. A gay guy is not gonna be thinking hey johnny over there looks pretty good when bullets are flying by him. He is going to do the exact same job as you or me. I'm glad we will allow everybody to join the military. They allow people who are not citizens of the United States, and now they will allow all citizens to be in the military and defend the country they love.

Comments

  • cabinetmakercabinetmaker Posts: 2,561
    I'm not opposed to gays serving in the military (they have been for quite some time), but I'm unsure of the ramifications of them openly doing so. Not just for the military, but for the country, specifically states. I think this is nothing more than a stepping stone to legalizing gay marriage on a national basis. I have no problem with gays having civil unions, but marriage should be left for the states to decide. I see this as just one more way to chip away the constitution that Obama and the left hate so much.



    That should get Kreig outta his hole...
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    I'm on the fence. On the one hand it disqualifies people who could be serving their country, but on the other hand, I'd prefer to let the military handle the matter on their own.

    Civilian virtues are not the same as military virtues, and to try to impose civilian ideals of how things should be done can interfere with a functional military. The military's goal is to crush America's enemies and win wars; civilian virtues are to treat everybody equally and allow people to go about their daily lives in peace - the two goals, in a lot of ways, are incompatible.

    That said, I don't know how this will affect the military - I'm not in the military, and I only know a few who are and I haven't asked them about it. It could be it won't affect them at all or may help the military - I just don't know, and I'm uncomfortable with the issue being decided in wartime by people sitting in comfy chairs, trying to pander and get re-elected.

    If anything, I think the issue could've been dealt with years ago, before the current wars, or it could've been post-poned a few years until Iraq and Afghanistan are stabilized more and the US role was simple peace-keeping, instead of combat operations. All in all, I just think the timing is bad; if you're gonna change something like this, do it when the troops aren't getting shot at and killed by IED's and suicide bombers. But at the very least, I'm still glad it wasn't done by the courts, but instead by the legislature
  • stephen_hannibalstephen_hannibal Posts: 4,317
    I RDGAF.... I rarely share my thoughts on military.
    So first off the guys on this board that have and are serving you guys have sacrificed so much. I am grateful and very much enjoy the freedoms you protect.

    That said I think the military is a necessary evil (for protecting our freedoms as previously outlined).
    But I have never been a huge fan of the way our service members do not have the same rights as US citizens.
    If you think about it for a moment it's true. Just try sharing your opinion as a service member....

    So if i had to sum it up I think I'm more opposed to military policy than the people who actually sacrifice day in and day out.

  • cabinetmakercabinetmaker Posts: 2,561
    xmacro:
    But at the very least, I'm still glad it wasn't done by the courts, but instead by the legislature
    +1
  • asolomonasolomon Posts: 128
    Xmacro, that's a great point about civilian virtues vs military virtues. In this case, though, I'm inclined to agree with the serviceman above (as I'm not in service either). I can't see open gays interfering with combat, and it's folly to keep willing men from serving their country.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,826 ✭✭✭
    I agree with a little of what everyone said actually...Hanibal a little more than others. To me, I look at it as a job issue. While I totally feel serving in the military is more than just a job and certainly carries a level of duty and honor few others know-------it remains, at least for those in it fully, a profession. No other profession can say no simply because one is openly gay. If you can perform the job duties and are qualified for what you are doing----thats a done deal to me, gay or straight. Some of course wont be happy about this, but youre not always happy with straight coworkers either. If their behaviors effects others, then its a problem. But if the effect is ONLY because of the sexual orientation, and not their behaviors----its the other persons issue...not they gay's.
  • I agree with pretty much everything everyone else has said as long as it doesn't interfere with doing a job well done. That's about as much as i can say since i'm not serving. If willing and capable, let em serve. And thanks to all those who are serving now and who have served in the past!
  • JCizzleJCizzle NYCPosts: 1,912 ✭✭
    Damn internet froze and deleted my post!

    In a nutshell: I'm not in, I used to be, I support the ban, gays have always served, just not openly, and they will continue to serve, ban or no ban.
    Light 'em up.
  • The SniperThe Sniper Posts: 3,910
    Having served for 16+ years, my opinion is I would rather have someone in the fire fight beside me who wants to be there to defend their nation. PERIOD. Doesnt matter the sex, creed, race, religion, SEXUALITY or anything else... I will take ANYONE who is there for the right reasons over one of the A-holes who joined just to get college money or some other reason other than defending our nation ANYTIME!

    And to piggyback a bit on what JCizzle said - homosexuals have always been there, and Im glad they arent second class citizens anymore. The policy was ludicrous to start with.

  • JCizzleJCizzle NYCPosts: 1,912 ✭✭
    Amen, brother!
    Light 'em up.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    This thread seems to be tacking along with prevailing public opinion. I read somwhere that when the ban was first put in place, the number of people accepting gays in the military was somwhere over 40%; today it's a bit below 80%.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 5,722 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The Sniper:
    Having served for 16+ years, my opinion is I would rather have someone in the fire fight beside me who wants to be there to defend their nation. PERIOD. Doesnt matter the sex, creed, race, religion, SEXUALITY or anything else... I will take ANYONE who is there for the right reasons over one of the A-holes who joined just to get college money or some other reason other than defending our nation ANYTIME!

    And to piggyback a bit on what JCizzle said - homosexuals have always been there, and Im glad they arent second class citizens anymore. The policy was ludicrous to start with.

    This is a well spoken opinion, to me. I spent most of my first couple enlistments in Combat Arms units, there were a couple guys who probably were gay, at least a couple over in HQ who certainly were, and really there was never any problem. One of the units across post had an incident where two guys who nobody suspected were caught in the act in the shower at 2 a.m., that was a problem. My last couple years active duty I was a recruiter, and there were a couple of women who were gay, no problems.

    I re-enlisted into a National Guard unit and went to college at the time that DADT went into effect, and it was a hot issue. I, and another prior service soldier, tried hard to explain to all these home-town guys that there always had been, and always would be, gays in the military, so judge them by their military skill and ability, and leave their sex-life to after duty hours, like everyone else. This was NOT a well received opinion. These guys were on the verge of coming un-glued over this, right over the edge. I think that it would have been quite unhealthy for any gay soldier to serve with them.

    That said, times are changing. It is going to be a touchy subject. I think that what's important, is for military life to go on as usual during working hours, and personal relations be relegated to off-duty, in private, etc.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as another person's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    I'm glad it was signed but now the military will drag its ass. I personally think it was shameful that this law was ever introduced. This country has a real problem with discrimitation. I don't get it. It seems as most if not most people I talk too or know that is or was in the armed services have never had a problem with homosexuals serving. It's just a talking point. I feel it's descraceful that after obama signed the law he asked those who were kicked out to relinist. I mean WTF?
  • Jetmech_63Jetmech_63 Posts: 3,454 ✭✭✭
    I am still active and know plenty of gays, I don't really care. Same rules apply to us all, gay, straight, male, female, white, black, etc... It's and idea who's time is long over due. I'm happy about it.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 5,722 ✭✭✭✭✭
    phobicsquirrel:
    I'm glad it was signed but now the military will drag its ass. I personally think it was shameful that this law was ever introduced. This country has a real problem with discrimitation. I don't get it. It seems as most if not most people I talk too or know that is or was in the armed services have never had a problem with homosexuals serving. It's just a talking point. I feel it's descraceful that after obama signed the law he asked those who were kicked out to relinist. I mean WTF?
    Well, I understand your sentiment, but this was really supposed to be a first step in the right direction. When I was a recruiter, we had to ask if an applicant had ever considered themselves to be a homosexual, or engaged in any homosexual activity. A "yes" answer was an automatic disqualification. Also, commanders were free to ask soldiers, and then boot them out, and less ethical means were also used and (unofficially) tolerated. Homosexuals were considered to be a security risk. I haven't been keeping up with the President's comments on the subject, but based on your comment I have to say that I think it might be more appropriate to simply re-instate on request. This could become a logistical nightmare, however, so it may be best to wipe the records clean and simply allow re-enlistment as an option.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as another person's bad habits."   Mark Twain
Sign In or Register to comment.