Go ahead, ask! Go ahead, tell!

[Ozero]

Ok, I missed something.

The military had decided on this "Don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay people in the ranks. Now people, many politicians (at least democrats) included, are racing to have this policy changed.

What's wrong with it? All I can see is maybe a problem with the "don't tell" part... what's the new proposal then?

"Don't ask, but feel free to tell, if you're out, proud, and it happens to come up in conversation in a situation you feel comfortable in?"

A little less catchy...

[Lea]

Well... it's a problem because if you're gay, and the army finds out, aren't you kicked out? I believe I saw a 60 minutes presentation about this very issue. If you want to be in the army and you're gay, you better keep it secret to keep your job. That's unfair. Orientation shouldn't matter. Just because you are for example, a gay man, doesn't mean you lack the power to fight.

So that's why politicians want it changed.

[Eddie Echoplex]

Orientation shouldn't matter. Just because you are for example, a gay man, doesn't mean you lack the power to fight.

But then again the president became disgusted with gay marriage...

Right-wing goverments suck.

[Lea]

Bleh, Bush's goals as president disgust me personally. :/

[Psychochink]

Greek hoplites, for the win.

Cygnus - I gotta ask, it's been bugging me for a while. Is your handle a Warmachine reference?

[Jetsetlemming]

Well... it's a problem because if you're gay, and the army finds out, aren't you kicked out? I believe I saw a 60 minutes presentation about this very issue. If you want to be in the army and you're gay, you better keep it secret to keep your job. That's unfair. Orientation shouldn't matter. Just because you are for example, a gay man, doesn't mean you lack the power to fight.

So that's why politicians want it changed.
The point is that a soldier might feel uncomfortable sleeping, eating, showering, and going to the bathroom, living 24/7 with no privacy next to a gay guy. The gay guy might not be interested, but the straight guy'll still feel uncomfortable. Imagine if, when you were in school or when you go to the gym, the showers and changing rooms were unisex and guys could and would be in there looking at you while you're changing or showering.
So the policy is, if you're into guys, cool, whatever, just keep it to yourself. Don't ask nobody if they're gay, don't make gay jokes, don't tell anyone you're gay.

I really don't see a problem with that. Being gay doesn't make you a 100% different individual. It just means you like dudes. It's not something you've just GOT to show off to everyone, God forbid someone think you're not gay.

[Lea]

^ Hmm, I guess that makes sense. But what about them getting kicked out if discovered? He could have tried hard to keep it a secret, but maybe somebody could have found out through snooping around or something.

[Kaji]

Lemming nailed it; it's a morale issue, plain and simple.

Further, before people continue the Bush-bashing, it was your beloved Clinton who instituted this policy in the first place...

[Kaji]

Ok, edit's being pissy, so I'll just make a second post, I guess...

^ Hmm, I guess that makes sense. But what about them getting kicked out if discovered? He could have tried hard to keep it a secret, but maybe somebody could have found out through snooping around or something.

That's why the "don't ask" part is there. So what if they find evidence? If they don't ask, it's not outright proven for these purposes, and therefore the worst that could happen would be reassignment so as to remove him from the environment contaminated by the rumors, thus resolving the morale problem. The moment he tells, however, there's no chance of plausible deniability.

[Jetsetlemming]

^ Hmm, I guess that makes sense. But what about them getting kicked out if discovered? He could have tried hard to keep it a secret, but maybe somebody could have found out through snooping around or something.
If someone goes snooping through your possessions and mail and reveals you're gay, I seriously doubt it's YOU that's gonna be getting in trouble. I'm not sure how they'd handle that situation: If I had to guess? Dishonorable discharge or other disciplinary action for the asshole snoop that went through your stuff, and transfer to another company for you if the snoop spread the word to the other guys before getting caught, for your privacy.

[Eddie Echoplex]

Greek hoplites, for the win.

Cygnus - I gotta ask, it's been bugging me for a while. Is your handle a Warmachine reference?

No, not really.

[Annoying MSN Person]

Lemming nailed it; it's a morale issue, plain and simple.

Further, before people continue the Bush-bashing, it was your beloved Clinton who instituted this policy in the first place...
It was a compromise following controversy when Mr Clinton tried to lift the long-standing ban on homosexuals serving in the military. And it's cost the army over $200m link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4296325.stm)

The point is that a soldier might feel uncomfortable sleeping, eating, showering, and going to the bathroom, living 24/7 with no privacy next to a gay guy. The gay guy might not be interested, but the straight guy'll still feel uncomfortable. Imagine if, when you were in school or when you go to the gym, the showers and changing rooms were unisex and guys could and would be in there looking at you while you're changing or showering.
So the policy is, if you're into guys, cool, whatever, just keep it to yourself. Don't ask nobody if they're gay, don't make gay jokes, don't tell anyone you're gay.

I really don't see a problem with that. Being gay doesn't make you a 100% different individual. It just means you like dudes. It's not something you've just GOT to show off to everyone, God forbid someone think you're not gay.
Hi. Have you heard of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Being fired for your sexual orientation in any other scenario would result in lawsuits.
Let's try out the first two articles.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

The US military has fired several highly skilled Arabic experts - not even soldiers in the field - because they came out. And the same goes for lesbians in the army, not just males.
The 1993 law has led to more than 10,000 gays, including Arabic linguists, being kicked out and kept countless others from serving.
link to article (http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070108/OPINION03/701080317/1008/OPINION01)

Lesbians, as it turns out, have a rather good service record.
Gay men and lesbians have served in all military eras in the later part of the 20th century. In particular, military service rates for coupled lesbians far exceed rates for other women in every military era of the later 20th century. Nearly one in 10 coupled lesbians age 63-67 report that they served in Korea, compared with less than one in 100 of other women. Even in the most recent service period from 1990 to 2000, service rates among coupled lesbians age 18-27 are more than three times higher than rates among other women.
While years of service do not differ much between coupled gay men and other men, lesbians report longer terms of service than other women. Among all women age 18-67 who report military service, nearly 82 percent of coupled lesbians and less than 74 percent of other women report serving more than two years. link to article (http://www.urban.org/publications/411069.html)

The US army has even considered a "gay bomb" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4174519.stm), which would make enemy soldiers "sexually irresistible" to each other. How very fucked up.

Using the potential of soldiers to feel uncomfortable is a shoddy way to back up this stupid, illegal policy. The majority of those serving with somewhat openly gay soldiers are fine with it. Your argument was probably used when they were trying to keep females out of the military too. :/

This message was brought you to by fucking common sense.

[Kaji]

"Fucking common sense" states that running an effective military should come first if we want to preserve lives out in the field, meaning that preserving the overall morale is more important than letting every soldier have their preferences on things. A lot of rights are given up by joining the military that are enjoyed by civilians.

There's no arguing that homosexuals have served, and most likely even with distinction from time to time. Once they're out of the service and not a potential detriment to morale, let them march in all the parades they want. While in the service, however, the group comes before self.

[japanat]

This message was brought you to by fucking common sense.But apparently not by 'fucking common manners'. This line detracted from your rather well-organized argument - it certainly didn't strengthen it.

Most of your comments make sense, but I think you should reread article two.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
Nothing in there about sexual orientation. While you can interpret the article to mean sexual orientation, it is not explicitly spelled out.

And the idea about the 'gay-bomb', while laughable now, was not discrimination. It was hoping you could drop pheromones on enemy troops that would drive them into a sexual frenzy (the nearest behind likely being male - thus the name), and thereby make them inattentive and easy to wipe out by gas-mask-wearing troops. The only 'gay-bashing' would have been rifle-butts to skulls.

[Jetsetlemming]

Have we discovered any other human pheromone besides the one that makes women synchronize their cycles yet, btw?

[Annoying MSN Person]

"Fucking common sense" states that running an effective military should come first if we want to preserve lives out in the field, meaning that preserving the overall morale is more important than letting every soldier have their preferences on things. A lot of rights are given up by joining the military that are enjoyed by civilians.

There's no arguing that homosexuals have served, and most likely even with distinction from time to time. Once they're out of the service and not a potential detriment to morale, let them march in all the parades they want. While in the service, however, the group comes before self.

...morale? If you want to talk morale, how about the far more pressing issue of a commander who doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, refuses to say that there's a possibility of them coming back, refuses to fund them adequately to keep them safe... ad nasuem :/
Gay did transmogrify itself from a word for happy, you'd think that'd bring the morale stakes up right there. But seriously, morale does not go down with incidences of homosexuality. Oh no, they'll all feel uncomfortable about the guy looking at their ass, because of course, all gay men and lesbian women are attracted to everyone of their own sex. That is bullshit, and stems from disinformation and a lack of any real attempt at understanding the situation. ~10% of the population have that oh so delightful 'deviant' sexual behaviour. It doesn't fucking matter whether they are in the military or in the police or the hospitals or any other highly stressful situation. They're fucking humans, and don't deserve to have their jobs depend on hiding what is a fundamental part of themselves.
Hopefully opening up the dialogue about sexuality at an earlier age will kick out this ridiculous bullshit from the minds of the next generation. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061201186.html?) Too bad this one is still stuck in mind-fucked paradigm. Honestly, look at the situation of the US military. They are in dire need of new recruits. They poach kids from high schools with false promises and dirty dirty lies about what enlistment is about and how they can leave when ever they like.

Who the fuck argues against people who want to serve at a time like this?

But apparently not by 'fucking common manners'. This line detracted from your rather well-organized argument - it certainly didn't strengthen it.

Most of your comments make sense, but I think you should reread article two.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
Nothing in there about sexual orientation. While you can interpret the article to mean sexual orientation, it is not explicitly spelled out.

And the idea about the 'gay-bomb', while laughable now, was not discrimination. It was hoping you could drop pheromones on enemy troops that would drive them into a sexual frenzy (the nearest behind likely being male - thus the name), and thereby make them inattentive and easy to wipe out by gas-mask-wearing troops. The only 'gay-bashing' would have been rifle-butts to skulls.
I like the word fuck. It expresses adequately my exasperation. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2007/06/13/notes061307.DTL&nl=fix)
Article two clearly states "without distinction of any kind, such as.." Sure, in the 1940s they probably weren't anticipating the sexuality question, but it's covered.
And the gay bomb was just a little cherry on the top of a pile of inexplicable behaviour from the people who depend on MAD for protection :/

[Beowulf]

The point is that a soldier might feel uncomfortable sleeping, eating, showering, and going to the bathroom, living 24/7 with no privacy next to a gay guy. The gay guy might not be interested, but the straight guy'll still feel uncomfortable. Imagine if, when you were in school or when you go to the gym, the showers and changing rooms were unisex and guys could and would be in there looking at you while you're changing or showering.
So the policy is, if you're into guys, cool, whatever, just keep it to yourself. Don't ask nobody if they're gay, don't make gay jokes, don't tell anyone you're gay.

I really don't see a problem with that. Being gay doesn't make you a 100% different individual. It just means you like dudes. It's not something you've just GOT to show off to everyone, God forbid someone think you're not gay.
I actually wouldn't feel uncomfortable in that situation with a gay person. As long as the gay folk kept shooting the bad guys and helping to keep me alive, then he can look at my ass all he wants.

[Kaji]

A curious note: support or lack thereof for the policy aside, it's amusing that the government has historically blocked social undesirables from being in the military (for the longest time, blacks and Indians weren't allowed, either). Seems to me that sending them out to get shot up would be the most natural way to reduce their numbers without resorting to outright extermination tactics. True, there's a possibility some might become heroes, but governments love toying with and spinning the news anyway, no?

Not that I support the above, but it's a question that's always stuck in my mind about people being prohibited from military service nonetheless...

[Jetsetlemming]

I actually wouldn't feel uncomfortable in that situation with a gay person. As long as the gay folk kept shooting the bad guys and helping to keep me alive, then he can look at my ass all he wants.
Why do you need to know that gay guy is gay, then? See the very last sentence of the part you quoted. Being gay isn't something that makes you into a whole separate person that is impossible to blend in with everyone else unless you make it that way. It's just your sexual taste, not your entire personality. Restricting the soldiers from discussing their sexual tastes sounds like a pretty goddamn reasonable restriction in comparison with banning gays or gay-only platoons or whatever.

[Beowulf]

Why do you need to know that gay guy is gay, then? See the very last sentence of the part you quoted. Being gay isn't something that makes you into a whole separate person that is impossible to blend in with everyone else unless you make it that way. It's just your sexual taste, not your entire personality. Restricting the soldiers from discussing their sexual tastes sounds like a pretty goddamn reasonable restriction in comparison with banning gays or gay-only platoons or whatever.
Uh, yeah okay. My point was that it shouldn't matter whether you know he's gay or not. If your a mature, responsible adult then the knowledge that he's gay shouldn't be bothering you. Thanks for the ethics lesson on homosexuality though...