Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort by Democrats and the White House to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military, voting unanimously against advancing a major defense policy bill that included the provision.
Do you feel that the military should keep the DADT policy, or do away with it and why?
I'm all for allowing gays to serve openly. I personally see no issue with it, although I have seen the effects of people 'coming out' to friends in the service. I think that it is sad that they are discriminated against. However I recognize that until we abolish the discrimination of homosexuals in our society there will always be those who will make life rough for them. That being said I think the DADT policy needs to be repealed, or at least revised, to allow people to be open about their sexuality without fear of reprisal.
[quote=Asherlee]What do you think is the reasoning behind keeping DADT intact, besides this non-issue of morale?[/quote]
I think I can shed some light on that.
Bill Clinton was the president at the time and proposed this idea. This is not his idea in truth; he wanted homosexuals to serve openly, but DADT turned out to be a compromise. Those who were against homosexuals serving openly in the military were in favor of banning homosexuals from serving in the military altogether. Clinton thankfully added this bill in to save the rights of gays.
Honestly I don't even think it should be a political issue. The only ones affected by it are those in the military. I say allow the military to decide. Put it to a vote of only military personnel and leave the politics out of the service.
Put it to a vote of only military personnel and leave the politics out of the service.
I agree.
besides this non-issue of morale
Fact stated as opinion?
So, personally this is a disgrace.
Correct personally, America is backwards in a lot of things (DADT included) and I don't believe it's the most important issue at hand. Also DADT, as Walker pointed out, wont help to solve the problem of discrimination against homosexuals.
What do you think is the reasoning behind keeping DADT intact, besides this non-issue of morale?
well, um its the little danish kid with his finger in the dam, i guess.
Attack the root not a branch.
exactly right, and this really speaks to me semms how i run a mill, and take down trees for a living. there are several roots to a big tree, just like the government, and in this case, cutting a root symbolises obtaining gay rights from each section. as much as this shouldn't be a government matter, it is, whether we like it or not. now to bring down a tree, safely, and correctly, and to make sure it doesn't grow back, you have to break all the roots, but if you cut them without thinking, the tree turns and falls on you, covering the roots that you havent cut, and allowing the tree to grow on its side, you have to cut the big roots first, digging around each one, and making sure you dont have rocks or other roots hiding underneath, the little roots will break when the tree falls. now once you have the roots cut, its a simple matter of pulling or pushing the tree over, exposing the tap root (a large root coming out of the center on the bottom of the tree) chop that out, and your tree is dead, never able to return. seems easy to do, but in the issue of a government law, the roots will be hard to dig out and even harder to cut, but it can be done. you need to have alot of patience, and alot of time on your hands. thats how i believe this problem could be fixed.
Honestly I think the major force behind the DADT policy is the prevalence of social stigma and misconceptions surrounding homosexuality. Unfortunate as it is, there are far too many prejudices and misconceptions regarding what causes homosexuality, the homosexual lifestyle, and the effects of being close proximity with homosexuals. Too many people are afraid that homosexuals will try to 'turn them gay' or that every gay man wants to push themselves on straight men.
Far too many times did I hear the argument that people were uncomfortable being in a foxhole or on patrol with a gay man because they were afraid that he would come on to them. While this is utter bullshit, it is a common misconception, especially among the highly religious as well as the socially uneducated, many of whom come from small towns where homosexuality is not common or often even accepted.
I agree that it would be a 'culture shock' for them to join the military and be around openly gay men, but then it is a culture shock joining the military in the first place. I disagree with the policy, as well as the social misconceptions, but I think that they have some merit as a reasoning for the policy.
I could see how allowing openly gay people in the military could cause some division, however this is inevitable until education and understanding are further promoted and I feel that the military would be a great place to start this acceptance and understanding.
I could see how allowing openly gay people in the military could cause some division, however this is inevitable until education and understanding are further promoted and I feel that the military would be a great place to start this acceptance and understanding.
i disagree, putting an openly gay man in a room with 20 rednecks with guns, just seems like a bad idea. the way i see it, the gays need a martin luther king type figure, who can become a marter for the cause. cuz im out here grindin
What do you think is the reasoning behind keeping DADT intact, besides this non-issue of morale?
Guaranteeing the rights of a minority is in itself a good thing. A minorities support is less likely to secure a seat post election than the bigoted majority.
That I suspect would be the thinking of the Republican party, although I think from a long term point of view, it's more of a reflection of the homophobia that exists in America. Don't forget it was Democrat who introduced DADT. No one is squeaky clean.
Don't forget it was Democrat who introduced DADT. No one is squeaky clean.
as previously stated he introduced the law to thwart the original plan to just keep gays out of the military al togethor, and anyway, your right, im sure there are democrats out there that are all for DADT.
as previously stated he introduced the law to thwart the original plan to just keep gays out of the military al togethor, and anyway, your right, im sure there are democrats out there that are all for DADT.
Well it doesn't seem very well thought out at all since openly gay people are not allowed to serve. No one has been kicked out because they were straight.
Actually it was rather well thought out for the time. Previously you were asked, when you were enlisting, if you were a homosexual. If you answered yes you were barred from service. DADT did away with that and set it so no one is allowed to ask you about your sexual preference and you are not required to tell if they break that rule and do ask.
Walker, that's interesting. I could see how that would support the idea that sexuality (gay or straight) should not be spoken of, period. However, that isn't the reality.
Actually it was rather well thought out for the time.
If you think that is a well thought out policy, then this highlights why such prejudice is still acceptable in America. Regardless of how bad the discrimination could have been, by barring openly gay people from serving in the military the US government is using a discriminatory policy.
If someone has to hide X to keep their job, then you aren't saying that people with X can have that job. You are clearly implying they can't. I can see no purpose for such a policy in a supposedly enlightened 21st century democracy.
