Dont Ask Dont Tell. Good or Bad?

[imaBK]

Alright so this is my first post and a lot talk has been going on with the military and the dont ask dont tell repeal, etc. I believe in the dont ask dont tell method because it creates a uniform, unanimous lifestyle for all soliders of any rank or division no matter your orientation. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gays and respect any sexual interest, but in this case its what works best for the military. So i was wondering, whats everyone elses take on all of this? Yes, no, good, bad? Speak away.

[msbachman]

because it creates a uniform, unanimous lifestyle for all soliders of any rank or division no matter your orientation

Unless you're gay, of course.

There's a lot of other things we could do to create a uniform environment for soldiers: how about eliminating blacks, mexicans, and women altogether? Surely that'd be even better in promoting "unit cohesion."

I'm being sarcastic. If we were really concerned with 'unit cohesion,' we'd do better to eliminate the bigots who have problems with gays rather than gays themselves.

[sanddbox]

Protection of freedom trumps any other fears, legitimate or otherwise. In this case, the fears aren't even legitimate. Don't ask, don't tell is bad - although it's obviously better than the earlier policy.

[insomaniacal]

I think don't ask, don't tell is totally reasonable.

You're in the army. Your job is to complete orders given to you by high ranking individuals. It doesn't matter if you're gay or not, and no one should be going around asking if you like dudes or not, because it's totally irrelevant to your job. Furthermore, no one should be going around proclaiming they're gay, because again, it's totally irrelevant.

On the issue of homosexuals, I'm fairly neutral. Do I support their annoying "IM GAY AND I HAVE RIGHTS" campaigns, no. But I firmly have a live and let live attitude towards them.

[imaBK]

I'm being sarcastic. If we were really concerned with 'unit cohesion,' we'd do better to eliminate the bigots who have problems with gays rather than gays themselves.

I agree with that completely. The only problem would be the fact that almost half of the military are "bigots" who have problems with gays. But on the other hand, insomaniacal is correct. It doesn't matter if you dislike gay's or are even hateful towards them. In the matter of relevance, orientation or any other individualistic attribute has none. Black, white, gay, lesbian, male, female, anyone can be a great soldier. It's just easier for soldiers to stay ignorant to their fellow members orientation so that it cant even create a problem.

[mShred]

I just got done doing a history project on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I'd say that if they aren't going to let gays openly serve, then it should stay in place. But since it seems like gays are going to be able to openly join, they should just stop Don't Ask, Don't Tell and let gays join the military and move on.

[msbachman]

Furthermore, no one should be going around proclaiming they're gay, because again, it's totally irrelevant.

It's also irrelevant if you're straight or not, the only difference is that DADT doesn't apply to heteros, only homos. If you're going to take that line of thinking, I'd think it only consistent that persons proclaiming they're straight be expelled as well.

But of course, that's preposterous; as you've said, orientation is totally irrelevant to your being a good soldier.

I'd guess similar conversations have been had on this very topic concerning differing groups throughout history: women, blacks, other minorities.

[insomaniacal]

It's also irrelevant if you're straight or not, the only difference is that DADT doesn't apply to heteros, only homos. If you're going to take that line of thinking, I'd think it only consistent that persons proclaiming they're straight be expelled as well.

Here is where it gets tricky. Does carrying a picture of your significant other, or talking about her/him violate DADT? It's not explicitly telling, but even the dumbest high-school dropout of the platoon can figure out you're gay if you're talking about your boyfriend back home.

The military has different rules that apply to it because it must be effective, not necessarily fair. And so, if the majority of the military is offended by homosexuals, or homophobic in nature at all, DADT is a good policy. It allows anyone to serve, without risking upsetting the balance.

In time, when homosexuality becomes accepted, DADT will be largely irrelevant, and the need for these kinds of discussions will be essentially gone. When the need for the discussion goes away, it truly means it's ready for military integration.

Just like no one would question whether a black man can be in the same squad as a white man; but these were once major concerns.

[OnlyHuman]

I think that no person should ever be told that they're incapable of doing anything just because they are different than somebody else. Especially, if their differences don't preclude them from doing the job at hand, and the people that are telling them they're incapable, are a group of their peers. Don't Ask Don't Tell pretty much assumes that a person's sexual orientation is still somehow a prerequisite for accomplishing the job properly, but it's okay to let a person stumble through it, as long as they keep their sexual preference a secret. In that vein, I guess I'm sort of glad to see it go, but at the same time, I know they'll most replace it with something else. Whatever that policy is, I just hope it's a less assumptive one.