Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not sure about that. The Governator, for all his memetic value, is a social conservative, and from what I've heard certain parts of Caifornia are very, very conservative indeed. That's to be expected when you have a state as large as California.

You may be right, but if I see a state like Louisiana or Mississippi start popularly supporting gay marriage within the next few years, I'll eat my hat. Granted, I'd be happy to do so.

Will North Carolina work? Because I could probably get that done in the next few years if I was determined enough. Just need to beat the entire state's population with my message untill they start to accept it, then call a vote.

[Dr. D]

I think that South Carolina would not be up for it. Well, maybe some of the coast and around the universities.

Otherwise, as for don't ask don't tell, I don't see what sexual orientation has to do with shooting foreigners.

[Lord Shonus]

I thought DADT was a decent compromise of a policy. You can be as gay as you want and be in the military, so long as you keep your private business to yourself.

Personally, I think thats the best course of action anyways. Keep the bedroom out of your professional life. I never really agreed that gay soldiers should get discharged if outted, but I really don't agree with letting warfighters air out their sexuality out in the open in a professional environment like the military.

In the end, this change in policy won't effect much. There won't be any huge morale issues about this, disciplined warfighters do not form lynchmobs against their comrades in a functional unit.

It's not just "don't bring your bedroom to work." It's "don't ever mention or even insinuate that your personal life might not be entirely identical to that of the people around you or you get punted out and lose all benefits of your military service." Most soldiers, for example, have pictures of their wives or girlfriends. A guy carrying a picture of his boyfriend ciolates DADT.

[Montague]

It's not just "don't bring your bedroom to work." It's "don't ever mention or even insinuate that your personal life might not be entirely identical to that of the people around you or you get punted out and lose all benefits of your military service." Most soldiers, for example, have pictures of their wives or girlfriends. A guy carrying a picture of his boyfriend violates DADT.

Well, they usually don't lose their benefits, just get booted out without any chance of getting back in. Sometimes DADT wasn't enforced much at all, due to the war and the whole "queen for a day" thing.

Still, getting kicked out is probably isn't really ideal either.

[Leafsnail]

Is there much of a review process for kicking gay people out of the military?  Because otherwise it sounds like a great way to arbitrarily dismiss people you don't like...

[G-Flex]

"Probably isn't ideal"? The entire policy is unnecessary and discriminatory. That's like saying that rubbing your face on a cheese grater "probably isn't ideal".

[RedKing]

Scuttlebutt is that the certification won't be ready in time for Gates to sign off on it before he steps down on Thursday. And the worry is that Panetta, a consummate political operative, will back off on DADT to curry favor with the Republicans whose support he badly needs as Secretary of Defense (SecDef).

This is kind of tangential, but I have to say that Leon Panetta as SecDef worries the bejeezus out of me. I though he was a bad choice for CIA Director and I continue to think he's a bad choice for SecDef. Especially coming after Gates, who I think has been one of the best SecDef's since at least George Marshall. If Gates had been in charge from the beginning instead of Rumsfeld, we'd have never gone into Iraq and Afghanistan would have been wrapped up years ago. *sigh*

[Hiiri]

What, exactly, is/was the purpose of this law?

I'm just curious, as I honestly can't find a single valid reason. When I was in the army (Scandinavian country), we had a gay dude in our quarters for months and it never bothered anyone one bit. Not that I know of, at least.

[quinnr]

What, exactly, is/was the purpose of this law?

I'm just curious, as I honestly can't find a single valid reason. When I was in the army (Scandinavian country), we had a gay dude in our quarters for months and it never bothered anyone one bit. Not that I know of, at least.

To make the homophobes happy.
I think officially it is because it could make some people leave the military or not join if there were gay people or something like that.

At least, that's the only reason that I've heard.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It was mostly a compromise brought about by Bill Clinton. Before that, gay people couldn't serve in the millitary and would get dishonorably kicked out if discovered. After it, gay people couldn't serve openly in the millitary and would get dishonorably kicked out if discovered.

See what an amazing difference DADT made?

[Lord Shonus]

Not quite. After DADT, a gay serviceman had an appeal if discharged, on the grounds that he didn't "tell." This helped to prevent FBI witch hunts of the type favored by J. Edgar Hoover. The difference seems small by modern comparisons, but it was a massive step forward fifteen years ago.

As for the argument against gays in the first place, remember that not long ago, male homosexuality was almost universally considered a mental disease, and that alone was enough to raise a barrier. On a more practical note, and one on much firmer ground (now considered less firm than before, but it is, at least, far less malicious), the US military has long been opposed to any romantic or sexual connections between combat soldiers, and has made it very difficult for such to occur. (This is also why women had long been restricted to non-combat auxillary posts.)

[nenjin]

Which, you know, soldiers on post for 6 months straight become combat buddies and good friends already. People get traumatized by the death or threat to life of a friend, that's already present. I'm not saying they should approve relationships in the military, but the stress of losing close personal connections is already real for soldiers. They're not insulating them to any great degree for emotional hardship on that front, they can't.

[Montague]

Not quite. After DADT, a gay serviceman had an appeal if discharged, on the grounds that he didn't "tell." This helped to prevent FBI witch hunts of the type favored by J. Edgar Hoover. The difference seems small by modern comparisons, but it was a massive step forward fifteen years ago.

As for the argument against gays in the first place, remember that not long ago, male homosexuality was almost universally considered a mental disease, and that alone was enough to raise a barrier. On a more practical note, and one on much firmer ground (now considered less firm than before, but it is, at least, far less malicious), the US military has long been opposed to any romantic or sexual connections between combat soldiers, and has made it very difficult for such to occur. (This is also why women had long been restricted to non-combat auxillary posts.)

Homosexuality is the same as any other sexual deviant, no matter if its leather shoes, children, animals, bondage, whatever. It is sexual deviancy, and while chasing after homosexuals and foot fetishes in witch hunts to persecute them is a hilarious waste of money of time, its a sign of other things to come. A person who decides that his own particular sexual deviancy as his entire identify and parades it around to let everyone know how much they love it? It doesn't strike me as "Oh, well he fucks goats but he could be a great helicopter pilot" No, I think "this idiot can't keep his personal business to himself, if he can't keep is personal life in check, what the fuck good is he anywhere else?"

[freeformschooler]

No, I think "this idiot can't keep his personal business to himself, if he can't keep is personal life in check, what the fuck good is he anywhere else?"

So you're only supposed to keep your personal life in check if you're a sexual deviant? By this I mean, like previously stated, having pictures of your girlfriend or wife is perfectly allowed, whereas a gay man having pictures of his boyfriend is not.

[nenjin]

Lol. I had to re-read just to make sure. I'll enjoy the replies of the many stable and as far as we know, not deviant homosexuals who post here.

parades it around to let everyone know how much they love it?

They couldn't possibly be parading because they're being told they have no right to feel that way, could it?!