Ok, i'm really confused. Why is DONT ASK DONT TELL being made into an issue right now? Isn't it a good thing? As far as I know, doesn't it mean that gays and lesbians can serve in the military as long as they're not out and rubbing it in people's faces? I mean, let me clarify, people should be aloud to express themselves how they want, but it's not like the law is saying they can't serve at all. And please don't take this as me being homophibic because I am gay, I just...don't get it. lol
DADT
- Thread starter Hero
- Start date
Angels baby101
I hath Returned! MWhaha
I think its because of the fact that gay's and lesbians still have to hide their sexuality from the military I mean its really no different from the past, I mean in reality what happens if the military really finds out you are in fact gay? I mean you can't exactly have your someone special meet you on the base and actually show that that someone is special to you. You have to hide that stuff still and I think thats the issue....people have been doing it for years already so whats the difference? Nothing has changed its still the same, and i think thats everyone's issue.
Because it spits in the face of equality.
Why should any individual have to hide who they are from the people they serve with? Why shouldn't every person be able to share stories of the who they spend their life with, or the person they love, with their fellow soldiers? Why should anyone be forced to stay quiet or face being kicked out of the service for it? Why should any gay individual who is willing to serve their country but who refuses to lie about who they are, be denied the opportunity to serve?
Would this stand if you had to lie about your ethnic origin? Or your faith? What about your political allegiance?
It treats gay and lesbian soldiers like they are second class citizens, like they are lesser than their straight counterparts.
DADT doesn't resolve a problem, it perpetuates one.
Why should any individual have to hide who they are from the people they serve with? Why shouldn't every person be able to share stories of the who they spend their life with, or the person they love, with their fellow soldiers? Why should anyone be forced to stay quiet or face being kicked out of the service for it? Why should any gay individual who is willing to serve their country but who refuses to lie about who they are, be denied the opportunity to serve?
Would this stand if you had to lie about your ethnic origin? Or your faith? What about your political allegiance?
It treats gay and lesbian soldiers like they are second class citizens, like they are lesser than their straight counterparts.
DADT doesn't resolve a problem, it perpetuates one.
Airam
I feel compelled to clap till my hands bleed right now!!!!
Washburne
[No message]
Wishing Oceans
[No message]
T
This Year's Girl
AMEN, sister! :D
Connor Holtz
Jasmine's Champion
While I don't disagree on principle, the problem is there are far too many homophobic people out there and quite a few of them serve. These soldiers don't want to serve with gay men and/or women and sometimes violent situations come out of their fear and hatred. I wish one day we could leave in a world swept clean of the ignorance, repression and hate but we don't live in that world yet and that's why we have "Don't ask, Don't Tell".
I personally don't give a crap whether gay people serve in the military openly, BUT I agree that there are more important things for the government to be focusing on right now. AND I think Lady Gaga using this as a ploy for media coverage is a big pile of bs
BuffyElevated
[No message]
TheGrandmaster
Like a Boss.
Check this out, as long as you trust Wikipedia 😉 ... LINK!!!!
Every nation on the list seems to allow gays to serve openly in the millitary. Even Russia, which apparently considered homosexuality a mental disorder in 1999.
So yeah, way to go America...
BuffyElevated
Scooby
I completely agree, Kean!! In my opinion, it shouldn't matter whether someone is gay or straight. If they want to fight for our country, then who's to tell them they can't, or that they have to hide who they are to do so?
My husband is in the Army, so we get into this debate a lot. My husband isn't against gays but he feels like if DADT is removed, it would cause more problems than good. He was saying that he's worried that gay soldiers will be targeted for hazing/harassment if they're open in the military. I see his point, but like I told him, not every single gay person you meet is flamboyant. Most gay people that are in the military are pretty conservative with how they act anyway; lifting DADT would just allow them to have more freedom to be around their partners in public, bring them to formal events, etc.
Definitely agree!!
It's the simple things that get me, like having a photo of a loved one and not being able to tell the truth of who they are to you. There is a significant bond shared between soldiers who trade stories of the people that are waiting for them back home. Why should that comfort (one of the very few available in a war zone) be gifted to a particular section of the military and not the rest?
MrWhite, that's interesting. I wonder how well it works for other nations. I think I might look into it a bit.
Bungle Jerry
Orthopedic Pants
Well here in Canada the armed forces actively recruit in gay neighbourhoods. During Pride celebrations they, and the police, are there in full regalia offering registration to anyone who wants it. Which just makes so much sense.
Any other argument is comical - save gay people from homophobes? Come on. In WWII they had black platoons and white platoons. What if the argument against integration had been 'but there are white racist soldiers; let's protect the black soldiers from them'. Even though that was undoubtedly true, would that have been the right thing to do?
There are sexist soldiers - tonnes and tonnes of them. We ought to keep women out of the army?
The thing is that DADT is no different from 'gays can't serve'. If you say 'gays can't serve', really what you're saying is, 'if you are gay, hide it from us'. There were certainly gay people in the army well before Bill Clinton. THey had to stay in the closet. How is DADT any different?
There is one reason and one reason only McCain is reviving DADT...homophobic.
That is the only reason. As a former Canadian Military Engineer I couldn't give a rat's ass what someones sexual orientation was all I wanted was a competent, disciplined soldier who did their job and when the shit started to fly I wanted my six covered as much as I protected his six.
That is the only reason. As a former Canadian Military Engineer I couldn't give a rat's ass what someones sexual orientation was all I wanted was a competent, disciplined soldier who did their job and when the shit started to fly I wanted my six covered as much as I protected his six.
Airam
Zen baby.
Just like Kean said, DADT spits in the face of equality. And the argument that it serves to protect homosexual soldiers from the harassment they might encounter from homophobic soldiers were they to be open about their sexuality is moot, and frankly straight bs! Cause if that were the case then there would be a DADT policy for homophobic soldiers as well and the second a soldier displays homophobic behavior they would be removed from duty and prohibited from serving!
BuffyElevated
[No message]
Bungle Jerry
Orthopedic Pants
Actually it was the Democrats who revived it, wasn't it? As I recall, it was a 2008 election promise, and there was a military-spending bill under discussion and the Democrats tacked a repeal-DADT thing on it. The Republicans (and some Democrats) were so committed to preserving inequality that they rejected the whole bill, which they otherwise were going to support.
I don't think there are many people on the board here who would say, "there should not be gay people". Since homosexuality is a fact of life, and a benign one, it just comes down to, 'are gay people fully equal citizens or aren't they?' If they are, and if the USA is a country that does not discriminate against its citizens, then all follows from there: serving in the military as equals, marrying as equals, adopting as equals, working in schools as equals... all of this is the same topic, and there are no half-measures, because there is no 'half-equality'. "99% equal" is an oxymoron, because "99% equal" ultimately means "unequal".
I don't think there are many people on the board here who would say, "there should not be gay people". Since homosexuality is a fact of life, and a benign one, it just comes down to, 'are gay people fully equal citizens or aren't they?' If they are, and if the USA is a country that does not discriminate against its citizens, then all follows from there: serving in the military as equals, marrying as equals, adopting as equals, working in schools as equals... all of this is the same topic, and there are no half-measures, because there is no 'half-equality'. "99% equal" is an oxymoron, because "99% equal" ultimately means "unequal".
R
randiann
[No message]
Washburne
Protector of the key.
Another thread I stayed away from since the title didn't look enteresting enough. When will I learn? *sighs*
I'd say that if people have a problem with people being gay in the military they are the ones that shouldn't be in the military. Are they allowing racists in the military? What's the difference to look down on people because of their skincolour or their sexuality? (I'm sure I could have phrased that a whole lot better but I hope you get my point.) Humanity still got some way to go.
Seems we're (Sweden) doing well though which is nice to see. If you trust wikipedia that is. 😉
Sweden allows homosexuals to serve openly. Homosexuals are not banned from military service. The Swedish Armed Forces actively work for an environment where LGBT persons do not feel it to be necessary to hide their orientation
I'm looking forward on hearing opinions that might make me see things in a different perspective.
I'd say that if people have a problem with people being gay in the military they are the ones that shouldn't be in the military. Are they allowing racists in the military? What's the difference to look down on people because of their skincolour or their sexuality? (I'm sure I could have phrased that a whole lot better but I hope you get my point.) Humanity still got some way to go.
Seems we're (Sweden) doing well though which is nice to see. If you trust wikipedia that is. 😉
Sweden allows homosexuals to serve openly. Homosexuals are not banned from military service. The Swedish Armed Forces actively work for an environment where LGBT persons do not feel it to be necessary to hide their orientation
I'm not sure if I get "gay rights" the way you mean it. But to me it shows having trouble with gay people if you don't want them to have the same rights as yourself. Not like gays demand special rights just for them right? Or have I missed something? I don't think it's weird if people think that if you have something against gays you're homofobic. Denying them the same rights as most people have it gives the impression that you see them as being less than others.
I'm looking forward on hearing opinions that might make me see things in a different perspective.
Big Damn Hero
Scooby
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,580
Connor Holtz
Jasmine's Champion
To me, it implies fear, hatred, and/or ignorance. So, in my opinion, not supporting their right to be equals under the law and humanity means just that.