New study finds little to no risk in removing the "Dont ask Dont Tell" Policy.

[BasketCase]

Hmm. What makes the US military so unprofessional that it couldn't handle openly gay troops when a lot of other militaries can?

You're aware that the military that can't handle gays is the same one that kicks total and complete ass on all the others worldwide? DADT is part of the reason. First off, it allows ALL the best soldiers, gay or straight, to get into the military; and second, it keeps gays from getting attacked by straights because nobody knows the gays are gay.

I practice DADT myself; I'm an atheist, but I don't go wearing a goddamn t-shirt saying "religion sucks". When I meet a religious person, I keep my mouth shut unless they ASK if I'm an atheist. Of course, there's places like this forum where I say I'm an atheist because it's relevant to the extremely wordy point I'm trying to make. Other than that? If you don't ask, I won't tell. And so nobody gets into arguments with me over atheism.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I practice DADT myself; I'm an atheist, but I don't go wearing a goddamn t-shirt saying "religion sucks". When I meet a religious person, I keep my mouth shut unless they ASK if I'm an atheist. Of course, there's places like this forum where I say I'm an atheist because it's relevant to the extremely wordy point I'm trying to make. Other than that? If you don't ask, I won't tell. And so nobody gets into arguments with me over atheism.

On similar grounds would you ban Athiests from joining the Army?

 

[BasketCase]

Not at all. But all soldiers would be prohibited from revealing their religion to other soldiers, or asking another soldier's religion. Punishment for violation? KP duty. It's nobody's business but your own what your religion is.

You have the right to BE religious--nobody said you had the right to shove the fact in everybody's face. And, I will point out again, the above is what I practice myself.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not at all. But all soldiers would be prohibited from revealing their religion to other soldiers, or asking another soldier's religion. Punishment for violation? KP duty. It's nobody's business but your own what your religion is.

Okay. So if you made your religious affiliation known say by, appearing publicly at the Mass, and the army found out about it, that would be grounds for discharge?

 

[Lone Wolf]

I practice DADT myself; I'm an atheist, but I don't go wearing a goddamn t-shirt saying "religion sucks". When I meet a religious person, I keep my mouth shut unless they ASK if I'm an atheist. Of course, there's places like this forum where I say I'm an atheist because it's relevant to the extremely wordy point I'm trying to make. Other than that? If you don't ask, I won't tell. And so nobody gets into arguments with me over atheism.

Do you think that there should be some kind of punishment meted out for you if you slip up and confess your atheism to someone who didn't ask you about your beliefs at all; likewise, should religious people who ask you about your beliefs out of the blue receive some kind of punishment for that, too?

(Mmm, punishment. Sounds so kinky...)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I practice DADT myself; I'm an atheist, but I don't go wearing a goddamn t-shirt saying "religion sucks".

And gays wear goddamn t-shirts saying: "Heterosexuals suck"? Great analogy.

You do realize that people in the army engage in small talk? Show each other pictures of wife/kids? Ask each other things about their personal life all the time to get to know each other? Do you have a girlfriend? Do you have any kids? Are you married? Do you think this girl is hot? It would also mean that soldiers can't wear their wedding rings.

You do realize that this isn't possible for gays:

Link to video.
Because that would be telling.

You being an atheist is not comparable.

When I meet a religious person, I keep my mouth shut unless they ASK if I'm an atheist.

How would you know it's a religious person under DADT?

 

[Crime Doesn't Pay]

No, more like additional proof....i.e. cohabitation proof, supportive statements from others, sometimes even a civil union certificate, and a mental health status evaluation is also required as part of the process.

Isn't it a waste of time and resources to do this?

 

[NovaKart]

I don't have the patience to read through 10 pages of this so sorry if someone else has said this.

I think the military will remain overwhelmingly heterosexual even when DADT is overturned which I think is inevitable in the long run. If some servicemen are so unprofessional as to let a small number of openly gay people seriously disturb them then maybe they aren't cut out for service.

Sure people have to conform to a certain standard of behavior in the military but that doesn't mean it has to intrude into their personal lives. Before anyone says, it doesn't mean you have to reveal your personal life, take a look at ziggy's post which has a good example about how someone can be openly gay without flaunting it. I mean how much longer will gay troops have to pretend they find hetero porn hot???

 

[MobBoss]

You do realize that this isn't possible for gays:

You do realize they absolutely know this going into the situation and signing up?

Gays KNOW they cant openly serve. Its not a secret. There is no hide the ball about it. So you pointing out what is or is not possible for them is utterly moot. They know it and volunteer regardless.

If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen. No one is forcing them into Ziggy.

Isn't it a waste of time and resources to do this?

Nope.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You do realize they absolutely know this going into the situation and signing up?

Gays KNOW they cant openly serve. Its not a secret. There is no hide the ball about it. So you pointing out what is or is not possible for them is utterly moot. They know it and volunteer regardless.

If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen. No one is forcing them into Ziggy.

Nothing you said contradicted me. Maybe you should read the post I replied to to place mine in perspective, MobBoss.

Or simply read the post, since my point is explicitly in there.

Hell, I'll be a sport and repeat it, "You being an atheist is not comparable."

 

[MobBoss]

Nothing you said contradicted me. Maybe you should read the post I replied to to place mine in perspective, MobBoss.

Or simply read the post, since my point is explicitly in there.

Hell, I'll be a sport and repeat it, "You being an atheist is not comparable."

I wasnt arguing that point, but rather your use of the video and comment regarding it. Thanks sport.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Indeed, That is great advice for the homophobes who think their military will be ruined when DADT is finally repealed instead of apparently no longer really enforced anymore. I'm sure the military lost a few racists when it finally integrated after going tthrough essentially the same absurd excuses why it would never work.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I wasnt arguing that point, but rather your use of the video and comment regarding it. Thanks sport.

First, you're welcome

Second, what was wrong with the comment? Gays can't do that because that would be "telling" right? I assume that "don't tell" is a little broader than saying "I'm gay", but also includes anything that shows they are. I used the video to illustrate this to Basket.

 

[Camikaze]

I cant speak for everyone, just for myself. Since I dont see relligion in any aspect of my job on a daily basis, my assumption would have to be again zero to very little.

Now that seems a little bit of a stretch. You're telling me that although there is a lot of opposition to homosexuality within the military (and given that religion is a prime cause of such opposition on modern society), that you are assuming none of it is due to the religious beliefs of those individuals.

 

[MobBoss]

Indeed, That is great advice for the homophobes who think their military will be ruined when DADT is finally repealed instead of apparently no longer really enforced anymore.

Its still being enforced, just the authority level to approve the discharge was upped to Department of the Army.

I'm sure the military lost a few racists when it finally integrated after going tthrough essentially the same absurd excuses why it would never work.

Again, Form, your free to join up anytime to 'fight the bigotry'. Let me know, and I can even find a good recruiter living near you.

Now that seems a little bit of a stretch. You're telling me that although there is a lot of opposition to homosexuality within the military (and given that religion is a prime cause of such opposition on modern society), that you are assuming none of it is due to the religious beliefs of those individuals.

Your the one assuming. I'm not. I have an army regulation that covers the rules for what I do and how/why/when homosexual are discharged. And guess what? Not a single mention of religion in it.

In fact, if religion were perceived to be part of the issue, it most likely would give someone more opportunity to challenge said discharge for being unfair.

 

[Arakhor]

Even if I was American and wasn't a technical pacifist, I'm flat-footed, short-sighted, am terrified of heights and have dubious sexuality.

 

[RedRalph]

Mobboss, do you think any other institutions should have DADT?

 

[Camikaze]

Your the one assuming. I'm not. I have an army regulation that covers the rules for what I do and how/why/when homosexual are discharged. And guess what? Not a single mention of religion in it.

In fact, if religion were perceived to be part of the issue, it most likely would give someone more opportunity to challenge said discharge for being unfair.

I wasn't asking about whether religion is part of the institutionalised discrimination, I was asking whether or not it is a factor for individual soldiers and their individual views regarding homosexuals. We are both making assumptions, but your one seems to contradict what would seem to be common sense in this case.

 

[JollyRoger]

the rules for what I do and how/why/when homosexual are discharged.

So many one liners, so few points to burn.

Anyway, have you ever participated in kicking someone out where you thought the military was unnecessarily losing a great soldier? That perhaps the policy (whether DADT or some other policy), in this one particular case served as a negative?

 

[BasketCase]

Okay. So if you made your religious affiliation known say by, appearing publicly at the Mass, and the army found out about it, that would be grounds for discharge?

Uhhhhh.......you did quote me saying "punishment for violation: KP duty". Read more carefully!

Additional note: if I was running the military I wouldn't be holding a weekly Mass anyway. I did once go to a military school where weekly church attendance was required, and that always bugged me.

Do you think that there should be some kind of punishment meted out for you if you slip up and confess your atheism to someone who didn't ask you about your beliefs at all; likewise, should religious people who ask you about your beliefs out of the blue receive some kind of punishment for that, too?

Since my paragraph on this was referring to my behavior outside military service, I'm assuming your reply is likewise.

My answer is yes on both. I never slip up on "cofessing my atheism to those who don't ask" so there's no point on that first half. In any case, the Constitution pretty much doesn't allow such punishments, so it will never happen. Boo hoo.

And gays wear goddamn t-shirts saying: "Heterosexuals suck"? Great analogy.

That wasn't where I was going. I was heading towards this: if you have the right to say you're gay, I have the right to say I'm anti-gay. As Captain Kirk said: the words in the Constitution must apply to everybody (including free speech) or they mean nothing. If you want me to keep my mouth shut about something, you have to keep yours shut too. But that's not what gays want. They want to speak freely and they want me to shut the hell up. They want freedom of speech for themselves ONLY. So they can kiss my


Yeah, like I'd ever that THAT one slip.

Show each other pictures of wife/kids? Ask each other things about their personal life all the time to get to know each other? Do you have a girlfriend? Do you have any kids? Are you married? Do you think this girl is hot? It would also mean that soldiers can't wear their wedding rings.

In order from first to last:
-- You assume it's a wife, could be a housesitter and adopted kids.
-- No objection there.
-- There are lots of gays who have friends that happen to be women.
-- Once again: real kids or adopted? Adopted kids generally don't have an "A" stamped on their foreheads.
-- Married to somebody of what gender?
-- Gays comment about the hotness of girls all the time. As guys comment about other guys and girls comment about other girls. Carla from Scrubs: "if I was a guy, I'd definitely hit that!"
-- Are you sure it's a wedding ring? No. You assume.

Personal side note: most heterosexual interaction is not within view of the public. The soldier who popped out of the box and hugged his wife/girlfriend/sister was inside a house full of people who obviously had no objection to his being straight. No problem there.

Getting smoochy in public? That's just inappropriate, gay or straight. Straights should not be kissing and fondling on a damn bus. (trust me, your attempts to find hypocrisy in me were doomed to fail from the beginning)

How would you know it's a religious person under DADT?

Irrelevant. When I meet a religious person (whether I know it, or am just guessing, or genuinely have no idea) I keep my trap shut.