"Dont ask dont tell."

• Roy Mustang wrote on 2010-12-21 03:36

  Quote from Cucurbita;254409:

  Loses all credibility because its against Christianity to kill but they have plenty of those in the military.

  
  
  I don't agree with that portion of Christianity. I am one of the very few Christians who STRONGLY believe in thought shall not kill anyone regardless. I view it as credible cause I am my OWN branch of Christianity with my own select beliefs I hold and agree to.
  
  I don't agree with any of the wars in the bible and if it's about the Great Flood that's all God's doing. Perhaps I should start my own religion branching off of Christianity lol.
• Intex wrote on 2010-12-21 04:17

  Quote from kingofrunes;255068:

  I don't agree with that portion of Christianity. I am one of the very few Christians who STRONGLY believe in thought shall not kill anyone regardless. I view it as credible cause I am my OWN branch of Christianity with my own select beliefs I hold and agree to.
  
  I don't agree with any of the wars in the bible and if it's about the Great Flood that's all God's doing. Perhaps I should start my own religion branching off of Christianity lol.

  
  
  If it was that easy to escape the draft no one would have ran to Canada. You'd have to be an official member of some religious group that strongly believes in non-violence/pacifism. Even then you'd probably have to be a longtime member of the group and not someone who happened to convert the day after the draft was announced.
  It's interesting talking about the draft but I doubt it will ever happen in America ever again. The rich would be outraged that their children would be at risk and the middle/poor would become outraged at the rich playing the draft system. Besides, there is no need for drafting troops as there are plenty of people in America who have to pick between McDonalds or enlistment after they leave high school.
• gentrone wrote on 2010-12-21 04:55
  I think wolfram has made this issue very clear.
  
  

  The armed forces are not and should not be a testing or proving ground for sociopolitical experiments or movements. Policy decisions should be made and implemented based exclusively on their effect on combat strength and readiness. This principle applies equally to all sides, and this article is authored with this rule in mind.
  
  Unfortunately, the issue of DADT has become the target of political demagoguery. The gay community wrongly views the policy itself as homophobic or discriminatory. The contrary, of course, is true. The DADT policy was a compromise enacted to remove outright discrimination and to allow gay Americans to serve their country. It is necessary because of the nature of the military as an organization.

  
  
  I believe this is true. Not telling you're gay, nor being asked, is a measure of protection.
  
  

  The most basic maneuver unit in the Army infantry is the squad. (...) In a healthy squad, the members know each other better than they know their own families, and they operate seamlessly as a warrior brotherhood. The squad is the cornerstone of the Army’s combat structure and a healthy, effective squad is a combat multiplier.
  
  Women are prohibited from serving in the combat arms because under most circumstances they do not integrate well into the squad structure. (...) Men and women communicate differently, (...) and most basically, are sexually attracted to each other. Under the most ideal of conditions and circumstances, introduction of females into a combat squad presents an obstacle to the healthy functioning of the team.
  
  The relationship between gender and homosexuality is direct and immediate. It boils down to sexuality. Most if not all of the issues introduced by mixed gender units would also be present with open homosexuality.
  
  

  
  
  It makes perfect sense. However, even if a gay person is attracted to other soldiers (because all that time they spend together must make something arise) it doesn't mean they will feel attracted as well, because they are not gay or because they didn't say so. If they keep it to themselves then there is no problem: don't ask don't tell.
  
  

  (...) It is impossible to prevent men and women from doing what men and women do with each other. Men and women who are sexually attracted to each other will engage in sexual behavior with one another. When this occurs within a squad, or even between Soldiers in the same platoon or company, the result is jealousy, inappropriate superior/subordinate relationships, preferential treatment, adultery, unplanned pregnancies, and general competition among the men for the attention and affection of the females. It is not uncommon to see schoolyard drama play out among male Soldiers, who should be singlemindedly focused on their mission, over the affection of a female. If this occurs within a squad, the result is disaster. Mixed gender units are also prone to sexual harassment complaints and incidents, whether justified or not. The ultimate consequence over time is a general degradation of discipline, morale, battle focus mindset, and combat strength and effectiveness.

  
  
  Same happens for male-male or female-female.
  
  

  (...)All of the problems associated with mixed gender units discussed above also apply to the issue of open homosexuality. Allowing gays to serve openly injects sexual tension and labeling into the living quarters. This is unacceptable. It is not difficult to understand why a person would be uncomfortable showering in an open bay next to a person who may be sexually interested. The sexes are segregated for exactly this reason. Requiring women to sleep, shower, and live in extremely close proximity to men would be unconscionable. It should be no different for heterosexual and homosexual men and women.
  (...)
  Military policy decisions of this nature should be made based upon the cold analysis of their effect on combat strength and effectiveness, not on the basis of political correctness.

  
  
  I believe this is a perfectly reasonable explanation why DADT should stay. I broke down your text so people would read it and not skip it because it might seem too long. It's an excellent explanation that should not be missed.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2010-12-21 05:22

  Quote from gentrone;255170:

  I believe this is a perfectly reasonable explanation why DADT should stay. I broke down your text so people would read it and not skip it because it might seem too long. It's an excellent explanation that should not be missed.

  
  
  I read the whole thing already and while I did say I agree those are very valid points, but its completely unconstitutional to silence someone from their beliefs.
  End of story.
• gentrone wrote on 2010-12-21 05:33
  Not when they could negatively affect an organization.
• Kueh wrote on 2010-12-21 05:36

  Quote from gentrone;255215:

  Not when they could negatively affect an organization.

  
  
  What organizations, then, are worth silencing your constitutional rights?
  
  There isn't one.
  
  Even the whole government isn't worth silencing your rights over to avoid negative effects on it.
• Zid wrote on 2010-12-21 06:39

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;255218:

  What organizations, then, are worth silencing your constitutional rights?
  
  There isn't one.
  
  Even the whole government isn't worth silencing your rights over to avoid negative effects on it.

  
  
  He's pointing at the military. To some, the belief is that constitutional rights (even if some or one) can be "overlooked" to ensure a degree of protection or success in a critical situation of life or death, in the military.
  
  Take it as you will. Some are looking at this issue as "Constitutional right vs. combat efficiency/survivability".
• Cucurbita wrote on 2010-12-21 06:44

  Quote from Zid;255288:

  Take it as you will. Some are looking at this issue as "Constitutional right vs. combat efficiency/survivability".

  
  
  I think combat efficiency difference is blown out of scale anyways.
  Sure there will be a small negative impact, but its definitely not as bad as everyone thinks.
  
  And I'll say it a 3rd time, I read that full post.
• pompompom wrote on 2010-12-21 09:51

  Quote from Courier;253071:

  You guys took my opinion out of proportion. It would affect the way [SIZE="4"][FONT="Palatino Linotype"]I[/FONT][/SIZE] did my job, not the way he did. I don't tell you guys how to act, so don't try to push it on me. I'm allowed to view things the way I want and I think you guys should respect that. The "dont ask dont tell" policy, would make others who have the same views as me, to do their job worse, that's all I'm saying.
  
  As for anyone trying to justify what I think is wrong, you can go **** yourself, because I'm not poking in your business telling you that you shouldn't be gay/straight/white/black/purple/blue/w.e. I couldn't give a **** as long as you don't try to push something on me. Okay?
  
  The topic IS: "DON'T ASK DON'T TELL" not, "Oh Byte doesn't like Gays."

  can mods tell people to go f*ck themselves? wow, what a bad forum.......
  
  HOMOPHOBE
  
  SHUN THE HOMOPHOBEEEEEEEEE
• TA wrote on 2010-12-21 10:58
  I understand Byte. It's on the same reasoning they separate men and women. It does make you uncomortable when someone that is sexually attracted to you is checking you out in such a revealing state without your permission.
  
  I think wolfram's post was pretty good on this...
  
  

  Quote from wolfram:

  All of the problems associated with mixed gender units discussed above also apply to the issue of open homosexuality. Allowing gays to serve openly injects sexual tension and labeling into the living quarters. This is unacceptable. It is not difficult to understand why a person would be uncomfortable showering in an open bay next to a person who may be sexually interested. The sexes are segregated for exactly this reason. Requiring women to sleep, shower, and live in extremely close proximity to men would be unconscionable. It should be no different for heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Unlike the problem of mixed gender, however, the issue cannot be solved by simply housing gays separately since doing so would be placing them with others of their stated sexual preference (who also share the same-sex preference). The only solution would be to house every open gay Soldier individually - a luxury that even field grade officers don’t always enjoy in deployed environments, and which would be logistically impossible.

  
  
  Now I'll say this, while I don't believe the DADT is right and I do believe it infringes our solder's rights, I don't believe simply repealing it and still allowing gays to serve is the best solution. The problems mentioned above aren't going to magically disappear. It will cause problems.
  
  I think before it's repealed they should come up with a better solution. It may not even be something as direct as segregation, but perhaps heavy mental conditioning or direct prohibition of sexual identity related things entirely. It would have to be a microcosm and the soldier's way of thinking would need to be changed.
  
  With this done effectively, we wouldn't need to separate males and females anymore either.
  
  But, I imagine the general public would be against such heavy levels of brainwashing just for an effective war machine. I think it would even be a bit beyond Spartan levels. We would most certainly be the most deadly fighting force in the world, but the soldiers would be giving up a lot of rights, freedoms, freewill and self thought to do so.
  
  So, probably not the ideal solution either.
  
  Who knows, maybe with a bit of conditioning it'll work out. Obviously the military will find the most optimal way to implement it and it's not going to be as terrible as it simply being there one day and then not the next. Policies and procedures, training and other things will need to be adjusted.
  
  We'll probably hear a bit more of the hate crime stories, but in the end things will probably work out.
• Kueh wrote on 2010-12-21 18:09

  Quote from Tasha;255456:

  while I don't believe the DADT is right and I do believe it infringes our solder's rights, I don't believe simply repealing it and still allowing gays to serve is the best solution.

  
  
  Gay people already serve though. What's the difference between showering with someone who you risk your life for, who risks their life for for you, who you laugh with and suffer with, and showering with someone who you risk your life for, who risks their life for for you, who you laugh with and suffer with who's gay?
  
  I mean, you not knowing doesn't change anything, nor does your knowing change anything.
• wolfram wrote on 2010-12-21 18:26

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;255642:

  Gay people already serve though. What's the difference between showering with someone who you risk your life for, who risks their life for for you, who you laugh with and suffer with, and showering with someone who you risk your life for, who risks their life for for you, who you laugh with and suffer with who's gay?
  
  I mean, you not knowing doesn't change anything, nor does your knowing change anything.

  
  
  Understand that it is not about gay or straight, it is only about doing what is right for the men and women dying for us to keep us free. We need to understand the military is not our PC litmus test nor is it the place to demonstrate New Age inclusion. The military is only about two things and two things alone whether you are gay or straight, fighting and dying. Gays have always served and will always serve, but the military is not the place to come out of the closet or to make your sexuality known. It just does not belong in the military, gay or straight.
  
  We all know gays have served since the dawn of man, but that is not the point. We know gays have served and even died with distinction, but again, that is not the point. It is not about excluding gays from serving, it is about excluding an open announcement of their sexuality that will result in harm to the unit. Sexuality announcements do not belong in the military, no matter who is announcing them.
• Kueh wrote on 2010-12-21 18:30

  Quote from wolfram;255658:

  Sexuality announcements do not belong in the military, no matter who is announcing them.

  
  
  It's not like all gay servicemen and women will suddenly use this to announce their sexuality. This is to work against the fact that if your sexuality were to be found out by someone else, despite your trying to hide it, you would be expelled from service.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-12-21 22:26
  Other countries--the U.K., Germany, Frances--they are not worrying about this. They allow gays to serve in their military.
  
  What sets us apart from them?
  
  Women check each other out, like it or not. Doesn't make them lesbian. It's a people thing. We check each other out, even straight men. It's curiosity.
  
  And yes, it's not like this encourages people to all of sudden tell others about their sex lives. No. It's so they won't be kicked out for no apparent reason because they have a same-sex partner back at home. Crap and don't tell me that no straight men in the army ever talk about the girls they have slept with back at home.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2010-12-21 22:29

  Quote from Phunkie;255940:

  Women check each other out, like it or not. Doesn't make them lesbian. It's a people thing. We check each other out, even straight men. It's curiosity.

  
  
  10% of men who identify themselves as straight have had gay sex. 70% of them has done a gay sexual activity in the past 2 months.