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?
[quote=Paradoxymoron]Don't forget it was Democrat who introduced DADT. No one is squeaky clean.[/quote]
Why don't you go ahead and read my post, hmm?
[quote=Freakenstein]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.[/quote]
DADT turned out to be a compromise. Did Clinton want this? No, but he had to so gays could have the right to fight for their country. Can you imagine not having the right to serve in the military and protect your country?
That's like being denied the right to vote---OH WAIT.
The fact that don't ask don't tell was not repealed really upsets me for many reasons. First, anyone should be able to serve if they want too. Also, does anyone recognize this little tidbit? all men are created equal. Gay men are definitely included in that.
Well Sgtpeppers, I truly wish that was what they were thinking back then.
All Men are Created Equal meant, back then, that every white man should be able to serve freely with equal representation, free from tyranny, and free from the many oppressions that the tyrant from Britain tried to pull on them.
If that phrase was set in stone in the Constitution, we either wouldn't be discussing this topic, or it would be discussed at length about the ambiguity of the phrase. If we didn't have the damn people in the South worry about the slaves and the slave trade, we wouldn't have had the 3/5 compromise, we wouldn't have had a Civil War....everyone in the Union would be equal, regardless of sex, color, ethnicity, and sexuality. We could have popped that little phrase in there, and everything would have been so shweet.
Paradoxymoron wrote: 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.
Of course, that has nothing to do with what I was getting at.
If we didn't have this, then homosexuals would have been banned from serving in the military in the first place. DADT is much better off than the former. Yes, we need to up it a notch, but we need to get rid of those that think this is a problem.
Of course, that has nothing to do with what I was getting at.
It has everything to do with it. The fact that such a policy is deemed as a good compromise in the US goes to he root of the problem - prevalent American homophobia.
And I certainly do not admire Clinton for shoehorning in this bill. What it shows is a lack of political will, sucumbing to the bigots in congress, as he didn't challenge them on it, merely tried to sly something in.
If Clinton. Did not. Propose this. Homosexuality. In the armed forces. Would have been BANNED. It does not matter whether one president challenges Congress-- he does not make the rules. He can veto the bill but that veto can be overturned.
This is what I was getting at. I do not like DADT, as it is just hiding a shadow of what the bigoted members of Congress wishes to not see, but I respect Clinton entirely, for adding this to prevent the ban of homosexuality. Do you know what he is guilty of? Having a heart of gold. Do you want a president that has balls of steel to challenge Congress only to FAIL? Grab another Nixon.
President Obama has a better chance at this than any other, since the majority of Congress is Democratic--he better keep trying to propose this before Republicans have the majority again. Maybe it was just the defense policy bill that included the lift of the ban. Maybe it just needs lifting the ban as an individual policy.
I want to know exactly what arguments those guys are making in there and whether or not they are really arguments instead of BS and boohooing.
Maybe paradoxymoron didn't know there was no other option to aid homosexuals in this particular scenario, than DADT. Are we certain that REALLY is the case? Could Clinton could have done more?
I remember that in one of his interviews Bill Clinton said: "I accepted it because it was better than an absolute ban" and "I was promised it would be better than it was".
He said also that "Don't ask, don't tell was only adopted when both Houses of Congress had voted by a huge veto-proof margin to legislate the absolute ban on gays in the military if I didn't do something else".
In this case I believe him, I think that he really wanted that (as he said) "gay service members would never get in trouble for going to gay bars, marching in gay rights parades as long as they weren't in uniform, getting gay materials, for any of the places they went or any of the things they did as long as they didn't talk about it".
I also agree with him that General Powell sold him.
I personally believe that the DADT policy was a very little step forward. Sure it could be way better, but the DADT is always better than nothing. I am pretty positive that someday in the -near- future the DADT policy will be repealed.
Given the release of the recent poll of military personnel and their spouses I'd like to revive the discussion of this topic. You can read more about the recent study here.
Basically the study shows that the majority of service members polled feel that a repeal of DADT will have "mixed, positive, or no effect". Strikingly, this number was even higher among those who served with someone they believed or knew to be homosexual. This goes against the arguments defending this discriminatory policy and hopefully will push the government toward a full repeal and granting of equal rights to openly homosexual members of our military.
Given this new information on the opinions of current service members, what do you think should be done?
I, as a service member, know that gays serving openly in the military will happen eventually. I know a few already, and they dont let it affect job performance at all. The real question is, how to begin the changeover? Will homosexual military members get separate living arrangements from straight military members? This is something I worry about a lot, and more times than not I find the don't ask, don't tell convenient, it keeps your personal life just that, personal.
Why would gay service members need separate living arrangements? It's been shown time and time again, in countries around the world, that being openly gay in the military is a non-issue and that it doesn't really affect any of the soldiers - gay or not.
I do not believe the change would be that difficult. Let's take a look at the countries that allow homosexuals to serve openly:
1.1 Albania 1.2 Argentina 1.3 Australia 1.4 Austria 1.5 Belgium 1.6 Canada 1.7 Colombia 1.8 Czech Republic 1.9 Denmark 1.10 Estonia 1.11 Finland 1.12 France 1.13 Germany 1.14 Ireland 1.15 Israel 1.16 Italy 1.17 Japan 1.18 Lithuania 1.19 Luxembourg 1.20 Malta 1.21 The Netherlands 1.22 New Zealand 1.23 Norway 1.24 Peru 1.25 Philippines 1.26 Poland 1.27 Romania 1.28 Russia 1.29 Serbia 1.30 Slovenia 1.31 South Africa 1.32 Spain 1.33 Sweden 1.34 Switzerland 1.35 Taiwan 1.36 United Kingdom 1.37 Bermuda 1.38 Uruguay
[wiki article]
Countries that do not allow homosexuals to serve in the military:
Antigua and Barbuda[46] Bangladesh[46] Barbados[46] Belarus[46] Belize[46] Botswana[46] Brunei[46] Cameroon[46] Cuba Cyprus[46] People's Republic of China Dominica[46] Egypt Fiji[46] Ghana[46] Greece[46] -- The Greek ban on homosexuals is the object of criticism by the European Union, as EU law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[47][48] Grenada[46] Guyana[46] Iran Kenya[46] Kiribati[46] Jamaica[46] Lesotho[46] Malawi[46] Malaysia[46] Maldives[46] Mozambique[46] Namibia[46] Nauru[46] Nigeria[46] North Korea Pakistan[46] Papua New Guinea[46] Saudi Arabia Seychelles[46] Sierra Leone[46] Singapore[46] Solomon Islands[46] South Korea[49] Sri Lanka[46] St. Kitts and Nevis[46] St. Lucia[46] St. Vincent and the Grenadines[46] Swaziland[46] Syria Tanzania[46] Tonga[46] Trinidad and Tobago[46] Turkey[46][50] Tuvalu[46] Uganda[46] Vanuatu[46] Venezuela[46] Yemen Zambia[46] Zimbabwe[46]
Gays are natural attention *****s. Not that there's an ocean of gays,just waiting to join the military,definitely not.It's all about the fact that they want to "show off" their ****ed up lifestyle in the general public's eyes.That's just their nature,to provoke people and later complain when they get their *** kicked for dressing as pansies. I personally have nothing against them joining the army,it's actually is a good idea. "Fight fire with fire",or in this case,"Fight garbage with garbage".
Got any more stereotypes you want to throw in or are you done being a bigot?
Will homosexual military members get separate living arrangements from straight military members?
From what I've heard the answer to that is no, honestly though living with homosexuals wouldn't be that bad.
more times than not I find the don't ask, don't tell convenient, it keeps your personal life just that, personal.
DADT will stay in the military in it's proper position, that is common human decency. I don't go around asking people their sexual orientation and most don't go around yelling about their own. The problem would be if the policy become "You better dang well ask and tell".
After the study Walker cited I can't see a reason for it not to be repealed, it was the last argument of the opposition.
