Don't Ask Don't Tell: Finally Repealed

[Ferrouswheel]

With that kind of thinking we wouldn't allow any minorities to serve in the military.

Or people who are just generally irritating.

 

[Deck Knight]

Glad you agree with the larger community for once, DK. However, I would characterize your reaction to repealing DADT as exactly that, bad faith opposition. Without doing proper research, you jumped to the conservative position in, well, bad faith towards anything that liberals support.

As Ancien said, America is one of the world's most homophobic nations. While ALL opposition might not be rooted in bad faith and homophobia, the vast majority of it is. (Especially considering that the opposition stems from the conservative religious right.)

You have no idea what you are talking about. The implicit assumption in the very first sentence of the OP implies that all but the five Republicans that supported the repeal have some intrinsic moral failing. That's a bad faith argument.

Could someone explain to me the syntax of homophobe, please?

What language does it come from, exactly?

I know what it's supposed to be, but in order to buy that you have to combine an english slang term (homo, specifically) with the greek "phobos." It's a buzzword much like terrorist is.

Nobody fears homosexuals, and even if they did, it wouldn't impact the validity of their argument. It's a term of demonization meant to shut off debate. I will repeat this in every thread the word comes up, because the word is a bunch of bullshit even at the syntactical level.

Homosexuality is like the third rail. Take a scenario after DADT repeal where you have a seven man Army company. A promotion is coming up and only one of them is eligible. Five of them are straight, one is openly gay, and one of them is questioning their orientation. That soldier has a girlfriend back home but they've always had mixed feelings growing up and now that they're spending all their time with men they're thinking of coming out. The five straight guys are all fairly average. They perform their duties and don't screw around, but aren't particularly exceptional. The openly gay soldier does slightly better in some aspects, but not a huge amount, and has a bit of an attitude problem. Even despite the added mental stress of questioning his orientation, the questioning soldier excels in many areas and has the greatest overall merit.

The Army brass want to make sure to avoid the scrutiny of a liberal administration in Washington and want more gay people in positions of power. This immediately singles out the slightly above average gay soldier for the position. Military politics exist. So even though there is a soldier who is in all likelihood gay but has not come out, even despite greater merit he will not be selected. So what does he do? Does he come out? How can he prove he is gay? He'll just get the resentment of the other soldiers who think he's just ambling for promotion. Instead the objectively less-qualified, hothead prone, but orientation declared candidate will get the promotion. The comparative competence of our military has been reduced for bullshit civilian politics.

This is the problem you get when you inject identity politics into the military, especially regarding such a small selective (and indeed, self-selective) group. What if you don't know your orientation going in because you're an 18 year old and you haven't come to grips with it? Situations like the one above are going to come up. Under the current policy it wouldn't be an issue because the brass that have to answer to activists in Washington aren't considering it either way.

We can dance around on pins all day and pretend that sexual orientation is a characteristic indistinguishable from any other. If you can't tell that something that affects directly how you relate to other human beings at a basic, primal level is different from skin pigmentation or preferred place of worship we will not get anywhere. How graphic do I need to be? Point blank if you are a homosexual you will likely get the urge to make a sexual advance on another member of your same-gendered company. You may never act on that urge, but it will be an additional stress on your mind. I will relish it if the same people who call me a prude and that "you can't stop people from having sex" will make the argument that soldiers are a special breed of human being that can kill off their libido. No other single characteristic relies on a drive that primal for fulfillment. That concern in close quarters makes other people uncomfortable. It's a real concern. If you want to call any who experience it "bigoted," fine, but I bet you never intend to be placed in that situation so you can armchair it like a pro for your own moral gratification.

It is also going to become a wedge in unit cohesion when the activists take over and start demanding a "representative" military. By which they do not mean a military comprised entirely of patriotic Americans but rather a bean counting scheme where the military upper ranks averages out to the exact proportions of the US population in blacks, hispanics, women, and gays (or more preferably, if they were ever honest with you, no evil white males at all, or only gay ones to fill out another bean counter quota). They already do this to some extent, this just adds a new minority class they can use to hasten the process. They do this precisely because there's a bunch of self-righteous types out there calling the United States and it's military racist, bigoted, and homophobic. They're all rich, have too much time on their hands, and possess armies of lobbyists and lawyers.

Deck Knight, where do you keep getting this 1% figure from? You've said it so often I assume you have this source you're just dying to show everyone as soon as someone asks.

The exact percentage doesn't really matter, since it never breaks 10% in the general population. In either case you are still forcing over 9 out of 10 people to cater to that singular person. If you want hard numbers, this study was found after a quick Google search. I suppose 3% to 1% is a 300% error on my part, but such is the nature of small numbers. These estimates are based on data from the 2000 census.

relevant graphs

Estimating the number of gay men and lesbians in military service

Using the mid-point estimate that 3 percent of women and 4 percent of men are gay or lesbian
among adults in the general population, the findings shown in table 2 suggest that 1.8 percent of
active duty personnel are gay or lesbian, meaning that nearly 26,000 gay men and lesbians are
serving on active duty. The proportion of lesbians among active duty female personnel is
approximately four times higher than the proportion of gay men among male personnel,
regardless of the assumptions about prevalence in the population. The mid-range estimate of
the proportion of lesbians among women serving on active duty is 5.2 percent while the
comparable figure for gay men is 1.2 percent. These estimates imply that more than 11,000
lesbians and 14,500 gay men are currently serving in active duty.

One assumption used in these analyses is that coupled gay men and lesbians have military
service rates that are the same as rates for their non-coupled counterparts. Since being coupled
likely makes it more difficult to hide one’s sexual orientation (as is required by military policy), it
seems reasonable to suspect that, in fact, coupled gay men and lesbians are less likely to serve
in active duty than single gay men and lesbian. If this is true, then the estimates of the
percentage and number of gay men and lesbians in active duty are likely too low. One way to
assess how this “under-representation” might affect the estimates is to consider how coupling
affects service rates among all men and women. Single men are 1.17 times more likely than
men partnered with women to report being on active duty. Even more dramatic, non-partnered
women are 2.25 times more likely than their partnered counterparts to report active military
service. If single gay male and lesbian service rates follow the pattern of heterosexual rates,
then the estimates for the proportion and number of gay men and lesbians in active duty would
rise, as shown in table 3.1 The mid-point estimates suggest that more than 36,000 gay men and
lesbians are serving in active duty, representing 2.5 percent of active duty personnel.

Estimates for gay and lesbian service rates in the guard and reserve are complicated somewhat
because the census data do not indicate if individuals are currently in the guard or reserve, but
rather if they have ever been trained for guard or reserve duty. Nonetheless, the findings in
table 2 suggest that gay men are more common among men with guard or reserve training than
among active duty personnel. Mid-range estimates suggest that 3.0 percent of men with guard
or reserve training are gay while 4.2 percent of women are lesbian. If these figures are applied
to active guard and reserve units, they imply that nearly 6,400 lesbians and an additional 22,000
gay men are serving in guard and reserve units. These gay men and lesbians account for 3.2
percent of all guard and reserve personnel.

Combining the estimates for both active duty and guard and reserve shown in table 2, midrange
estimates suggest that 2.4 percent or more than 54,400 military personnel are gay or
lesbian. Lesbians comprise nearly 5 percent of all female military personnel while gay men
account for nearly 2 percent of male personnel. Using active duty mid-point estimates adjusted
for the partnership of gay men and lesbians shown in table 3, these numbers would rise to 2.8
percent or nearly 65,000 gay or lesbian military personnel.

I also ran across this About.com article while doing the search. It's a First Sergeant's background explanation and scenario. He has written an update recently.

Final point being there are real concerns with the repeal and the constant reliance on moral castigation by supporters is a sign they really have no clue. Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell on its merits, not because it's self-evident to someone that open service is a civil right (that the military can't revoke upon your joining the service) and your opponents must obviously be bigots, which is what the OP started with.

 

[Obsessed]

You have no idea what you are talking about. The implicit assumption in the very first sentence of the OP implies that all but the five Republicans that supported the repeal have some intrinsic moral failing. That's a bad faith argument.

I didn't mean it like that. Sorry that you took it that way. Literally, all the arguments I have heard from people (off this site) in favor of the policy have sounded homophobic (yeah sorry for using this word, I just can't think of a good substitute).

I was genuinely asking the right wing members to give me a reason that didn't sound homophobic.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

[random scenario]

This is the problem you get when you inject identity politics into the military, especially regarding such a small selective (and indeed, self-selective) group. What if you don't know your orientation going in because you're an 18 year old and you haven't come to grips with it? Situations like the one above are going to come up. Under the current policy it wouldn't be an issue because the brass that have to answer to activists in Washington aren't considering it either way.

First, as I mentioned earlier, a person of any minority could claim a similar situation, and the same dilemma would occur. Second, it would be an issue under current policy, because if the solider was passed up for promotion based on his sexual preference (illegal I know, but possible) he couldn't claim discrimination, because the act of claiming the discrimination would get him discharged from the military.

We can dance around on pins all day and pretend that sexual orientation is a characteristic indistinguishable from any other. If you can't tell that something that affects directly how you relate to other human beings at a basic, primal level is different from skin pigmentation or preferred place of worship we will not get anywhere. How graphic do I need to be? Point blank if you are a homosexual you will likely get the urge to make a sexual advance on another member of your same-gendered company. You may never act on that urge, but it will be an additional stress on your mind. I will relish it if the same people who call me a prude and that "you can't stop people from having sex" will make the argument that soldiers are a special breed of human being that can kill off their libido. No other single characteristic relies on a drive that primal for fulfillment. That concern in close quarters makes other people uncomfortable. It's a real concern. If you want to call any who experience it "bigoted," fine, but I bet you never intend to be placed in that situation so you can armchair it like a pro for your own moral gratification.

This argument is non-unique as gays are already allowed in the military, they just aren't allowed to admit that they are gay. Furthermore, you can't believe that 10 USC 654 forcing the individuals to lie through admission about their sexual preferences wouldn't also impose an additional stress on their mind.

It is also going to become a wedge in unit cohesion when the activists take over and start demanding a "representative" military. By which they do not mean a military comprised entirely of patriotic Americans but rather a bean counting scheme where the military upper ranks averages out to the exact proportions of the US population in blacks, hispanics, women, and gays (or more preferably, if they were ever honest with you, no evil white males at all, or only gay ones to fill out another bean counter quota). They already do this to some extent, this just adds a new minority class they can use to hasten the process. They do this precisely because there's a bunch of self-righteous types out there calling the United States and it's military racist, bigoted, and homophobic. They're all rich, have too much time on their hands, and possess armies of lobbyists and lawyers.

Why didn't this happen when they integrated the military? I completely agree with you that this would be a bad thing though.

Final point being there are real concerns with the repeal and the constant reliance on moral castigation by supporters is a sign they really have no clue. Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell on its merits, not because it's self-evident to someone that open service is a civil right (that the military can't revoke upon your joining the service) and your opponents must obviously be bigots, which is what the OP started with.

I completely agree with you on this one. I just believe that the merits outweigh the possible negatives. Also, you do agree that there are people who oppose the bill because they believe that for some reason or another that gay people shouldn't exist.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Homosexuality is like the third rail. Take a scenario after DADT repeal where you have a seven man Army company. A promotion is coming up and only one of them is eligible. Five of them are straight, one is openly gay, and one of them is questioning their orientation. That soldier has a girlfriend back home but they've always had mixed feelings growing up and now that they're spending all their time with men they're thinking of coming out. The five straight guys are all fairly average. They perform their duties and don't screw around, but aren't particularly exceptional. The openly gay soldier does slightly better in some aspects, but not a huge amount, and has a bit of an attitude problem. Even despite the added mental stress of questioning his orientation, the questioning soldier excels in many areas and has the greatest overall merit.

Compare this with the situation:
A promotion is coming up and there are 5 straight guys who are all fairly average. The other two gay guys got fired because they are gay.
Which sounds worse to you?

It is also going to become a wedge in unit cohesion when the activists take over and start demanding a "representative" military.

Will it also be a wedge in unit cohesion when peoples coworkers get fired because of their sexual orientation?

Allowing gay people into the military does not mean you have to listen to every demand any activist makes. This is another argument just as bad as what you are complaining about Obsessed making.

We can dance around on pins all day and pretend that sexual orientation is a characteristic indistinguishable from any other. If you can't tell that something that affects directly how you relate to other human beings at a basic, primal level is different from skin pigmentation or preferred place of worship we will not get anywhere. How graphic do I need to be? Point blank if you are a homosexual you will likely get the urge to make a sexual advance on another member of your same-gendered company. You may never act on that urge, but it will be an additional stress on your mind.

Yeah, it may be a stressful scenario. Why wouldnt you give the choice to the homosexual in question as to whether they feel they can handle it? If they fail in their duties because of this then you can fire them.

I will relish it if the same people who call me a prude and that "you can't stop people from having sex" will make the argument that soldiers are a special breed of human being that can kill off their libido.

I am pretty sure soldiers are allowed to have sex. Is the question here "you cant stop people from having sex with their workmates even if their workmates dont want to have sex with them if they have to share a room together"? Because I think the answer is "yeah, you can".

No other single characteristic relies on a drive that primal for fulfillment. That concern in close quarters makes other people uncomfortable. It's a real concern. If you want to call any who experience it "bigoted," fine, but I bet you never intend to be placed in that situation so you can armchair it like a pro for your own moral gratification.

I dont know what armchair it like a pro means. But if you are talking about like, even showering with gay men or whatever.. Honestly, I dont think it would bother me.. Obviously, I cant speak for everyone, but if you are implying here that I am being disingenuous by disagreeing with you is not true.

It just doesnt seem like it would be all that hard to accommodate homosexuals into the military. Especially considering they are already in the military..

Have a nice day.

 

[Myzozoa]

If most studies showed that this would work, I'd be all for it. On a similar note, I believe that the no frontline service is a determent to women in the military as it is, what's your stance on that?

You mean other than getting raped by a bunch of soldiers, that isnt enough?

 

[Ferrouswheel]

You mean other than getting raped by a bunch of soldiers, that isnt enough?

You do realize that the reason behind banning women from serving on the frontlines is that the Supreme court ruled that the men would end up being over protective of the women.

Why don't you go read the literature?

 

[Lelouch]

You do realize that the reason behind banning women from serving on the frontlines is that the Supreme court ruled that the men would end up being over protective of the women.

Why don't you go read the literature?

Because that's where human nature is decided. In a court room.

 

[vonFiedler]

The solution obviously is to keep DADT, but to discharge both straights and gays from the military.

 

[cantab]

Nobody fears homosexuals

Have you spoken to everybody in the world?

I will repeat this in every thread the word comes up, because the word is a bunch of bullshit even at the syntactical level.

Many words and phrases don't have the meaning that their literal derivation implies. 'Capitalism', 'right-wing', 'taxi', 'channel' (in the TV sense), I'm barely scratching the surface. You're really clutching at straws when you start criticising English.

So what does he do? Does he come out? How can he prove he is gay? He'll just get the resentment of the other soldiers who think he's just ambling for promotion.

Whereas today, he just gets fired.

You may never act on that urge, but it will be an additional stress on your mind.

I would have thought having to make sure you never blurt out that you're gay for fear of being fired would be a worse stress.

I will relish it if the same people who call me a prude and that "you can't stop people from having sex" will make the argument that soldiers are a special breed of human being that can kill off their libido.

IIRC the physical demands of military training tend to suppress sex drive.

Also, the police and fire services run just fine mixed. The male officers are not being distracted by coming onto the females, or vice versa. And they face situations scarcely less demanding than those in the military.

 

[Alan]

The thing I find funny about this, it kinda shows Obama is a coward and doesn't want to be held accountable for anything. Its an executive order, he can take it away by simply signing his name on a sheet of paper. The Senate/House doesn't have to vote on it, but if it becomes unpopular, he won't want to be held accountable for it passing, so he will make them take the blame for it. Its sickening how spineless he is.

As for the actual passing of the vote, I don't really care. It most likely won't affect me. Although, to be honest, I don't see why its so necessary that they [gay people] have to let everyone know that they are gay. It is kinda annoying though, because now I can't fake being gay to get out if they ever bring back the draft. :/

 

[Obsessed]

As for the actual passing of the vote, I don't really care. It most likely won't affect me. Although, to be honest, I don't see why its so necessary that they [gay people] have to let everyone know that they are gay. It is kinda annoying though, because now I can't fake being gay to get out if they ever bring back the draft. :/

Straight soldiers can mention their girlfriends/wife back home. If sexuality were not allowed to be mentioned at all then I'd be fine. However, heterosexuality can be mentioned while homosexuality cannot. This is not fair.

 

[Mike B]

Much more annoying hearing people talking about screwing girls shamelessly, which I hear many more times than self-professing of orientation. I think people do that to spread awareness, because doing so at prides where people usually don't look at don't seem be as effective

 

[Trax]

Holy shit, ITT I agree with Deck Knight..

 

[Myzozoa]

You do realize that the reason behind banning women from serving on the frontlines is that the Supreme court ruled that the men would end up being over protective of the women.

Why don't you go read the literature?

Yes, but the reason they dont join the armed forces is so that they dont get put in an isolated situation with little oversight with a bunch of testerone pumped adolescent "men."

 

[shiny_meta]

Whereas today, he just gets fired.

Actually, today he gets the promotion because he is the best candidate for promotion and sexuality isn't even in the picture.

 

[Polis4rule]

Also, the police and fire services run just fine mixed. The male officers are not being distracted by coming onto the females, or vice versa. And they face situations scarcely less demanding than those in the military.

Fighting on the front line does not compare to police and fire fighting services at all. And that's really what women are banned from, the front line. They're allowed to serve in other capacities of the military, including positions that will see conflict. But they aren't allowed to be on the front lines.

 

[Kuroi27]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone willing to fight and die for a country that doesn't want them to is just being silly. Don't ask don't tell is a phenomenal thing! I don't understand the criticism. When the government puts a gun to your head and demands you die for their causes, all you have to do is tell them you like dudes and you are legally prohibited from being sacrificed for a cause you have no connection to!!! It's awesome!!!!!

That said, let's be honest, the only ones still clinging to Don't Ask Don't Tell are closeted, self-loathing homosexuals in the upper echelons of the military. It's probably the most backward policy in America today, and literally for no reason. So come now, let gays die for America just like the rest of us.