[Izzy]

..A joking post in Terminator Mafia made me think of this.. but what do you guys think about the policy?

I'm sort of undecided on this one.

The "don't ask" part I definitely agree with. As an employer, your employees orientation really shouldn't determine whether or not s/he gets the job and frankly it's none of your business. The "don't tell" is bull. Freedom of speech? Broadcasting it probably isn't the best ideas (homophobes..) but I don't see why you shouldn't be able to confide your sexual preferences in a friend without fear of being kicked out.

But, tbh, I can see it from both perspectives.

Military: We're here to be serious. We don't need distractions. A bunch of people attracted to each other bunking together = sex = bad. ...But DA/DT doesn't stop them from sleeping together anyway, so it's not really a valid point. It might reduce it.. but.. dunno.

People: It's a free country. This is discrimination. This violates my rights.

Military: The military is a private establishment (er.. sorta?), you have whatever rights we give you.

People: But that's wrong!

..I dunno, making this up as I go along. Tired. Meh. I'm leaning with the people on this one..

Thoughts?

(I was going to post it as the above, but I just googled whether or not you're allowed to have sex in the military, and found this:

Only with members of the opposite sex.

If you're enlisted, only with enlisted; officers only with officers, or outside your chain of command, or with civilians. I'd suggest you be selective when it comes to civilians.

Not during working hours.

As long as it doesn't affect your work.

As long as you're careful.

Mind changed. Consenting adults can do whatever the want. Shouldn't matter with who, if the military is cool with sex anyway. So.. the policy is uncool.

Ick, sorry if that's confusing. Typing whilst thinking, to myself, about this for the first time. That's the thought process. meh, tired. Discuss!

[Guest]

No, on the contrary, I'm saying that you can't expect 100% of the population to follow the rules that are only enforced upon 10% of the population, and that probably no more than 20% of the population are even aware of. Fixing the problem of bigotry in the Armed Forces will only fix the Armed Forces. It won't fix the problems that are still presented in civilian life. And if you think that there's less bigotry and hatefulness in the civilian world, then take a few guesses at how a homosexual would be received by a group that openly engenders hate and violence. The KKK, for example, are the archetypical example of an openly violent and hateful society aimed at the goal of complete genocide. And while that type of terrorist organization isn't as open about their goals anymore, they still exist, and they still make life difficult for the rest of the world out of pure intolerance.

And fixing 10% of the population's bigotry isn't going to do anything about the other 90% that take an active stand against fair rights for every person.

By the way, I can almost hear what you're thinking. 'How is it fair rights if they're not allowed to be homosexual?' Well, they are allowed to be homosexual as long as they don't commit homosexual acts. Here's what makes it fair: If a man and a woman commit sexual acts with each other in a workplace environment, the man and the woman are both punished. So it's not homosexuals that are punished. It's anybody that does anything sexual in nature in the workplace or between people that are deemed inappropriate (e.g. people that can have an effect on another person's advancement opportunities).

I understand that you and Izzy seem to be at something of an impasse, but I have to say that your description of the situation leaves me a little confused. If people are being treated the same way they would be treated under normal circumstances, then what exactly is DA/DT? If homosexuals are being removed from the military for unprofessional conduct (ie. something that would be against the code of conduct under regular policy), then what is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" actually achieving other than attracting the firebrands of the Left and the Right?

It seems like there must be some more specific policy attached to DA/DT than just removal for "homosexual acts." If the policy would be the same under other conditions, then giving it this special name seems to be attracting attention that it doesn't deserve...

Let me see if I understand the policy as you're describing it. Maybe part of the problem is that people are using different and conflicting definitions of what the policy entails: Gays are free to serve in the military as long as they don't openly pronounce themselves as such and if they commit a "homosexual act," then they are removed from service for their own protection for fear of some of their homophobic peers on base taking matters into their own hands?

I'm not sure if I'm understanding the situation at all...

[Izzy]

...Medji, if the military wants to remove people for sexual acts, then call it such and admit that DA/DT is pointless. Calling it protection is bull because they're in as much danger, if not more, outside of the military.

[Guest]

...Medji, if the military wants to remove people for sexual acts, then call it such and admit that DA/DT is pointless. Calling it protection is bull because they're in as much danger, if not more, outside of the military.

Actually, I would tend to disagree with that statement. There's safety in numbers and such and there are (perhaps because of DA/DT) no brigades(?) made up with a majority of homosexuals or anything like that. Living is some parts of the country it would likely be safer since there are strong LGBT communities and such, though I imagine there are very dangerous communities to be living in as well...

However, since they are a guaranteed minority in the military, there are a lot of places where homosexuals could be in a lot more danger, especially since there could be a higher concentration of people with an intolerant mindset toward gays. The problem with your statement (below) is that it's only proportional to the actual population if it weren't picked with a bias:

Exactly what part of my statement was biased? I stated facts. When polls are taken, because it is impossible to survey every citizen, 1%ish of the population is used. The population of the US is roughly 300 million, and according to this source, the US army has 1.3 million people. ..Eh, so it's only roughly half a percent, but it all stays proportional. Because of this, homophobes (and those willing to do something against them) will be in roughly the same percentage inside of and outside of the military. This is a fact. The rest of what I said logically follows.

bigotry - intolerance to those of different beliefs ....Hmm, sounds like the military.

(If you're saying the streets are more safe than a military base not under attack, then man I'm scared for the US.)

The population of the military has never been (and likely never will be) an accurate reflection of the American populace. At least not socio-economically speaking. It's often been described as "Rich man's war, poor man's fight," and I think that statement still applies. Most of the rich and upper middle class will avoid military service, while the benefits and promises of college tuition are a big draw today for people from lower down the economic ladder.

And while being part of the lower middle or poor class doesn't make a person intolerant, many of the poorer, more rural areas tend to be the more intolerant ones. So chances are, there is a greater than average proportion of intolerant people in the military, meaning it may not be safer than life as a civilian. I don't know specific data, but there is a case to be made on Medji's side of the aisle on this issue.

My problem is that it's framed in such a way that it seems like something that I don't think it is meant to be (though of course, I could be wrong on that count ). The name itself implies an inherent transgression. It sounds like it's saying the individual has something about which he/she should be ashamed and I don't agree with that sentiment. Regardless of the specific definition, I think that there could be a reasonable solution to the issue, but I'm not sure what it is and no one really wants to look into it as far as I can see. People on one side say it is essential for morale et al. while the other side insists on immediate repeal in full. Maybe there is some middle ground that achieves safety and morale on one side without the stigma associated with DA/DT (and the associated feeling of impropriety that goes along with it).

An underlying problem in this country today is that we tend to talk past each other rather than engaging in reasoned debate. Discourse almost invariably devolves into name-calling and intractable disagreements. Neither side ever wants to compromise on anything since that would be a sign of being unprincipled or something like that. (Well, I didn't really intend to write this long passage, so I think I'll cut it off here where it's still mildly relevant to the topic at hand... )

[Guest]

My problem is that it's framed in such a way that it seems like something that I don't think it is meant to be (though of course, I could be wrong on that count ). The name itself implies an inherent transgression. It sounds like it's saying the individual has something about which he/she should be ashamed and I don't agree with that sentiment. Regardless of the specific definition, I think that there could be a reasonable solution to the issue, but I'm not sure what it is and no one really wants to look into it as far as I can see. People on one side say it is essential for morale et al. while the other side insists on immediate repeal in full. Maybe there is some middle ground that achieves safety and morale on one side without the stigma associated with DA/DT (and the associated feeling of impropriety that goes along with it).

Major clarification here: DA/DT was specifically created in an era where homosexuality was not tolerated on any level. The original purpose was to allow any American to serve in the United States Armed Forces regardless of their sexual preference when intolerance was still rampant. The current society is more tolerant of homosexuals, however at the current time it has recently been kept as a policy that helps to protect people from others who are violently, and some times militantly, opposed to the homosexual community.

In addition, many people would find it uncomfortable to sleep 90 to a room or shower 15-25 people to a shower with someone that they believe may be, to use the common phraseology, 'checking them out' in a sexual manner. One intent is not mutually exclusive to the other. If you want to allow that kind of discomfort, then perhaps it would not be too amiss to let men and women shower together, although we know that won't happen because of gender differences.

In a way, the nomenclature 'Ignorance is bliss' could be used as a poster boy for that aspect of the reasoning, however that still does not address the fact that in many ways, the first and best layer of protection that a soldier/sailor has is that the people that they don't know are violently bigoted don't know that (s)he has homosexual preferences.

@Izzy:

As as for being more in danger out of the military, every single person in the military has access to deadly weapons. Let me restate this for you:

Every

Single

Person

Has

Guns

The chances of every person you meet out on the streets having a gun is far, far less, and you are able to escape from those people by running away. You can't run very far on a ship that's only 330 meters long (and that's the longest one). Especially when you're expected to work with these people that are hateful and making attempts to do harm to you, and you see them for 20 hours out of every day for six months.

[Guest]

My problem is that it's framed in such a way that it seems like something that I don't think it is meant to be (though of course, I could be wrong on that count ). The name itself implies an inherent transgression. It sounds like it's saying the individual has something about which he/she should be ashamed and I don't agree with that sentiment. Regardless of the specific definition, I think that there could be a reasonable solution to the issue, but I'm not sure what it is and no one really wants to look into it as far as I can see. People on one side say it is essential for morale et al. while the other side insists on immediate repeal in full. Maybe there is some middle ground that achieves safety and morale on one side without the stigma associated with DA/DT (and the associated feeling of impropriety that goes along with it).

Major clarification here: DA/DT was specifically created in an era where homosexuality was not tolerated on any level. The original purpose was to allow any American to serve in the United States Armed Forces regardless of their sexual preference when intolerance was still rampant. The current society is more tolerant of homosexuals, however at the current time it has recently been kept as a policy that helps to protect people from others who are violently, and some times militantly, opposed to the homosexual community.

In addition, many people would find it uncomfortable to sleep 90 to a room or shower 15-25 people to a shower with someone that they believe may be, to use the common phraseology, 'checking them out' in a sexual manner. One intent is not mutually exclusive to the other. If you want to allow that kind of discomfort, then perhaps it would not be too amiss to let men and women shower together, although we know that won't happen because of gender differences.

In a way, the nomenclature 'Ignorance is bliss' could be used as a poster boy for that aspect of the reasoning, however that still does not address the fact that in many ways, the first and best layer of protection that a soldier/sailor has is that the people that they don't know are violently bigoted don't know that (s)he has homosexual preferences.

@Izzy:

As as for being more in danger out of the military, every single person in the military has access to deadly weapons. Let me restate this for you:

Every

Single

Person

Has

Guns

The chances of every person you meet out on the streets having a gun is far, far less, and you are able to escape from those people by running away. You can't run very far on a ship that's only 330 meters long (and that's the longest one). Especially when you're expected to work with these people that are hateful and making attempts to do harm to you, and you see them for 20 hours out of every day for six months.

[Guest]

I haven't read anything except the initial post, and I realize I'm hopping in at the end of a deep discussion... but I figured that maybe these 2 cents will be worth more than a couple of pennies:

I see the don't ask - don't tell policy as kind of similar to affirmative action, in that it is a necessary step, but one that will hopefully be phased out in the future, because hopefully it will no longer be needed in the future. (Don't ask - don't tell: trying to change a military tradition on the spot would be crazy. Affirmative action: if you break it down and oversimplify it, AA is just inverse discrimination, but it obviously has a very noble goal and I support it - it's just, there's the question of how long it should stick around.)