AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Don't Ask Don't Tell

27 4890
dwaxe
offline
dwaxe
9 posts
Nomad

Really, I fail to see why gay rights supporters make a huge big deal out of don't ask don't tell. Personally, it de facto has no effect. I would understand if they required you to deny being gay, but they don't. They also don't pass restrictions on your private life. They simply tell you not to talk about it, this does not seem unreasonable to me.

Before you argue "Well straight people can talk about being straight," first of all, being straight is normal in the US. Being gay is not normal. While I personally think it is also wrong and voluntary, that is not the implication of the above, and I understand the disagreement about the morality, but, simply put, gay people are the exception, not the rule, and it is very easy to become uncomfortable around a gay person. I myself share this discomfort in real life, which is not the same as an online forum.

I personally don't see how you can disagree with the above. For many people, being around someone they know is gay is an awkward experience, even if you think there is no moral issue with being gay. For instance, nobody would say being straight is wrong, but to be around someone of the opposite gender you think likes you can be a bit awkward. Now, when that person is the same gender, it is even more so.

Also, gay people are the exception that's a fact, and regardless of that, an employer has the right to ask people not to talk about certain things on the job. Now, regardless of my personal opinions, I can understand not being allowed to refuse employment because of someone's race or gender, because that cannot be changed. However, you can easily just not bring up the fact that you are gay, and if an employer wants to expect that, he has the right. In this case, the government is the employer, but it doesn't make a difference.

Also, if you require sexual orientation to not be a factor in employment, you cause a lot of problems. Imagine Christians being required to hire a gay man as their pastor because they had no other reason not to hire him. You are forcing them to do something immoral, essentially, persecution.

I can understand the vocalization for marriage and adoption rights, but I fail to see how Don't Ask Don't tell is against gays at all. It's not about not being gay, its just the employer demanding you keep that one thing to yourself, something which can make a lot of people uncomfortable if known and compromise their effectiveness in battle. I see nothing wrong with the law. If someone who supports gay rights wants to prove it wrong, they can feel free.

  • 27 Replies
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

Lets have a look at quotes from countries that have already got rid of the 'DADT' or similar policies:

"Large-scale resignations from the UK armed forces were widely expected in some quarters, when the ban on gays was lifted - but in practice they did not materialise.
At least one British army brigadier publicly resigned in protest, citing "strongly held moral and military convictions" but most observers were surprised at how smoothly the new law - which was forced on the UK government by the European Court of Human Rights - was implemented. "There was this expectation that there would be problems, but it just didn't happen. People just got on with their work" Dave Small, ex-Royal Navy

That's the first quote (That one is from England) - now for one from Israel:
"It's a non-issue... You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one and be gay at the same time" ex-IDF officer and Israeli Consul David Saranga


Can you see the evidence for removing the DADT policy mounting up yet? None of the supposed effects of removing it from the US have affected other countries. I'd even go as far as to say that the person who created this thread got their beliefs solely from republicans and faux news.
EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,220 posts
Nomad

Actually you are wrong. Gays can be barred in the US for 'ropensity to commit'. Simply being suspected is often enough for expulsion.


Depends on the commanding officer.

I say it should be don't ask don't tell for everyone. It's not the place to go to express your undying love for anything, it's a place where you are trained to kill. That's all the military is supposed to do, kill. That's how they operate, and rightfully so.
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

That isn't all they do. Capture ground, retreive stuff, liberation of the masses, steal oil and play a charming game of find the WMDs (here's a tip - there aren't any)

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

It's not the place to go to express your undying love for anything,


No one suggested that. There's a difference

it's a place where you are trained to kill. That's all the military is supposed to do, kill. That's how they operate, and rightfully so.


1) There's more to the military than killing. 2) Servicemen aren't robots. If you're stuck in a desert for 8 months, you will likely want to share stories with your comrades about your respective homes and spouses be they male or female. How this in any way prevents people from doing their job is beyond me, but if you have some evidence to suggest that it does, please share it with me.
EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,220 posts
Nomad

1) There's more to the military than killing.


That's not the point.

How this in any way prevents people from doing their job is beyond me, but if you have some evidence to suggest that it does, please share it with me.


It *can* create unneeded tension. Will it? Maybe, maybe not.

Everybody is different. Some people are okay with it, some people aren't.

here's a tip - there aren't any


When they're buried under 30 feet of sand somewhere, then they aren't going to find them.

Servicemen aren't robots. If you're stuck in a desert for 8 months, you will likely want to share stories with your comrades about your respective homes and spouses be they male or female


They need to be able to handle the stress. They can talk to their best friends about their personal lives, but people they don't know may have a different opinion about them.

As you said they aren't robots. The aren't always a cohesive unit like the internet.

I'm not saying that being gay or straight is a problem, I'm just saying it doesn't need to be mentioned for everyone to know. The whole army doesn't need to know if the colonel is gay, or if he's straight.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

That's not the point.


Yes it is. You are presuming that sexual orientation/emotional bonding should not occur between comrades because the job they have to do - killing is best done in a cold calculated manner. The latter is true. The idea that all the military consists of is cold killing machines however, much less that that is all that it should consist of, is another matter.

It *can* create unneeded tension. Will it? Maybe, maybe not.


I tend to believe in the empirical evidence (such as the stuff Avorne provided) which has suggested that there has been no significant loss of unit cohesion in any of the militaries which have abandoned DADT rules.

When they're buried under 30 feet of sand somewhere, then they aren't going to find them.


Not to go too off topic, but it is well documented that the Iraqi regime gave up their quest for nukes in the early 80s due to the high cost of pursuing a nuclear option and also a war with Iran. Either way, we found Saddam, one single man in a hole in the ground. We would have found massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

They need to be able to handle the stress.


Talking about home and spouses helps people to handle stress.

They can talk to their best friends about their personal lives, but people they don't know may have a different opinion about them.


People who have fought together respect one another enough to hear about their lives, even if they disagree with it.

I'm just saying it doesn't need to be mentioned for everyone to know. The whole army doesn't need to know if the colonel is gay, or if he's straight.


No one is suggesting people announce their sexuality. All I am saying is that people should have the freedom to not to have to hide or lie about their own sexual orientation to their workmates. That's asking much less than expecting people to constantly deceive.
EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,220 posts
Nomad

I tend to believe in the empirical evidence (such as the stuff Avorne provided) which has suggested that there has been no significant loss of unit cohesion in any of the militaries which have abandoned DADT rules.


Be it as it may, this is America. The problem with comparing us with other countries a world away is just that: They are a world away. We follow a much less fluid popular opinion. We're not as progressive as most societies, and we never have been. It could cause problems here where it may not in other places.

Talking about home and spouses helps people to handle stress.


I'll give you that. It does.

People who have fought together respect one another enough to hear about their lives, even if they disagree with it.


Homophobes aren't so easy to sway. As far as I can see, in some areas of the world (at least in mine >.&gt being gay is a great way to get lynched and beaten the living crap out of. It's wrong, but some people just don't have any respect for different people. That would be my only problem.

No one is suggesting people announce their sexuality. All I am saying is that people should have the freedom to not to have to hide or lie about their own sexual orientation to their workmates. That's asking much less than expecting people to constantly deceive.


Just having no one mention it seems easier. Less risky too.

If there weren't a myriad of problems that could arise, I would support it. But we've already got more than enough people who tend to have a pure hatred towards gay people.
dwaxe
offline
dwaxe
9 posts
Nomad

Homophobes aren't so easy to sway. As far as I can see, in some areas of the world (at least in mine >.&gt being gay is a great way to get lynched and beaten the living crap out of. It's wrong, but some people just don't have any respect for different people. That would be my only problem.
If there weren't a myriad of problems that could arise, I would support it. But we've already got more than enough people who tend to have a pure hatred towards gay people.

Openly gay people are more likely to be killed? I highly doubt anyone is retarded enough to go to Afghanistan and lock lips with his fellow soldier.

Be it as it may, this is America. The problem with comparing us with other countries a world away is just that: They are a world away. We follow a much less fluid popular opinion. We're not as progressive as most societies, and we never have been. It could cause problems here where it may not in other places.

You mean like it caused problems when we moved to a racially integrated military?

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_history.html
Nevertheless, racial segregation remained official government policy until President Harry Truman's historic Executive Order 9981, issued a few months before the 1948 election, which "declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin." Following this order, the armed forces began to institute a policy of racial desegregation. Desegregation proceeded slowly, however, and met with resistance.

Most civilians and military personnel opposed racial integration. One month before President Truman's Executive Order, a Gallup poll showed that 63% of American adults endorsed the separation of Blacks and Whites in the military; only 26% supported integration. A 1949 survey of white Army personnel revealed that 32% completely opposed racial integration in any form, and 61% opposed integration if it meant that Whites and Blacks would share sleeping quarters and mess halls. However, 68% of white soldiers were willing to have Blacks and Whites work together, provided they didn't share barracks or mess facilities.

As in past wars, the Korean conflict created a shortage of personnel and Black Americans helped to fill this need. Because of troop shortages and the high costs of maintaining racially segregated facilities, integration rapidly became a reality. In 1951, integration of the Army was boosted by the findings from a study of the impact of desegregation on unit effectiveness of troops deployed in Korea. The researchers concluded that racial integration had not impaired task performance or unit effectiveness, that cooperation in integrated units was equal or superior to that of all-White units, and that serving with Blacks appeared to make White soldiers more accepting of integration. By the end of the Korean conflict, the Department of Defense (DOD) had eliminated all racially segregated units and living quarters.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

We follow a much less fluid popular opinion. We're not as progressive as most societies, and we never have been. It could cause problems here where it may not in other places.


The DADT policy has occurred in all types societies, including overtly conservative ones, in Asia and the Middle East. And trust me. The British armed forces has never been well known for its progressiveness either. The top brass are horribly conservative. But we dealt with it.

Homophobes aren't so easy to sway. As far as I can see, in some areas of the world (at least in mine >.&gt being gay is a great way to get lynched and beaten the living crap out of. It's wrong, but some people just don't have any respect for different people. That would be my only problem.


It's policies like DADT which normalise such prejudice within society and serve to perpetuate it. If the US military joined us in the 21st century and didn't arbitrarily withold the right to freedom for expression for gays, perhaps less people would feel it was ok to bash them, both in public and in private. In any case, I don't want laws and policy making held hostage by homophobes, or any bigots for that matter. Where do you draw the line? DADT? Allowing them to join the military at all? Allowing them to even be openly gay? It's a sad state of affairs where we forsake others rights for something as inconseqeuntial as causing offence.

Just having no one mention it seems easier. Less risky too.


I really don't think rights for be witheld for the sake of ease. If people assualt gays, they should be punished individually. That's like banning people from investing their savings into a bank for fear of the bank being robbed. A much better solution is to outlaw bank robbing ie., discrimination and punish those that perpetrate it, ie., homophobes on an individual basis.

But we've already got more than enough people who tend to have a pure hatred towards gay people.


There will always be idiots in this world. Heaven forbid we bend our backs to accomodate their stupidity.
Blankness
offline
Blankness
57 posts
Nomad

For instance, nobody would say being straight is wrong, but to be around someone of the opposite gender you think likes you can be a bit awkward. Now, when that person is the same gender, it is even more so.


its only awkward if you make it awkward


Imagine Christians being required to hire a gay man as their pastor because they had no other reason not to hire him. You are forcing them to do something immoral, essentially, persecution.


you shioldnt of even brought this up... but i agree it would be a cruel thing to do

[/quote]In fact, marriage shouldn't be allowed between two members either. It just creates problems that shouldn't be there.[quote]

and this is just wrong...
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

In fact, marriage shouldn't be allowed between two members either. It just creates problems that shouldn't be there.


Jesus christ on a pogo stick - you guys are real homophobes, huh?

What the hell is wrong with two people wanting a bond, such as marriage, to show that their love of each other is pure, deep and true? Whether they be two men, two women, two men and a woman - IT DOESN'T MATTER (well maybe the last one but we aren't discussing monogamous marriages are we?)
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Found a 60 minutes segment about this topic.

60 Minutes "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (1)
60 Minutes "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (2)

But we've already got more than enough people who tend to have a pure hatred towards gay people.


As pointed out in the videos above there is still sexism and racism in the military but these things are not tolerated. hating someone for there skin color or thinking a women's place is at home is still out there but you are not allowed to promote this during service.

Here's a list of places that do and don't have policies about serving and one sexual orientation.

Allow gays to serve openly, just to list a hand full.
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, England, Uruguay

Those that don't allow gays serving openly, again listing a few.
Cuba, China, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Jamaica, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Korea, Syria, Turkey, United States, Venezuela, Yemen

It's interesting how the U.S. is on the list with mostly the same countries the U.S. often looks down on about there human rights policies. Yet here we are right along side them on this one.
Just something to think about.
Showing 16-27 of 27