Don't ask, don't tell repealed

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah but only the really anal ones.

There are better comics available here than you.

There you go again, always looking to Canada to calibrate America's measurement of societal norms.

You're kinda funny that way aren't you?

Purposely so....as it is very common for other members to invoke the "US" or "states" in Canadian topics/threads, and we both know why. Turnabout is fair play, no?

[eyeball]

Purposely so....as it is very common for other members to invoke the "US" or "states" in Canadian topics/threads, and we both know why. Turnabout is fair play, no?

Or reacharound, in the parlance of this discussion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Or reacharound, in the parlance of this discussion.

Whatever...don't dish it if you can't take it back.

[eyeball]

Whatever...don't dish it if you can't take it back.

Except you're the one I dished it back to.

[bush_cheney2004]

Except you're the one I dished it back to.

...and it was returned...such is the game.

[bush_cheney2004]

Homosexuality isn't limited to those who identify as gay.

Agreed....a visit to most any penitentiary will demonstrate this point.

[eyeball]

...and it was returned...such is the game.

Because you can't take it back.

Is playing with yourself allowed in the army down yonder?

[bush_cheney2004]

Because you can't take it back.

Is playing with yourself allowed in the army down yonder?

Yes...but not in ranks. Wanna play?

[bud]

Or, some in command who might have a problem with a gay soldier, would deliberately put them on the front lines or in danger. I fear that they might become siting ducks for those who have a problem with the issue. Maybe not, hope it doesn't happen.

oh shut up and support this move 100% instead of giving excuses.

is this the type of argument you would have made when black kids were given permission to attend public schools?

"these black kids would be in danger of being attacked and ridiculed in school by being allowed to attend any school.. so i'm not really sure if this whole allowing the black kids being treated like everyone else is a good idea. i fear that they might become sitting ducks. i am a caring person."

[M.Dancer]

oh shut up and support this move 100% instead of giving excuses.

is this the type of argument you would have made when black kids were given permission to attend public schools?

"these black kids would be in danger of being attacked and ridiculed in school by being allowed to attend any school.. so i'm not really sure if this whole allowing the black kids being treated like everyone else is a good idea. i fear that they might become sitting ducks. i am a caring person."

Black kids didn't have anyone asking them, "are you black?"

[Bitsy]

If Muslims didn't like troops in their countries, just wait until they find out about this!

Should be nothing new for them considering that all of our allies in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars allow gays to serve the military. The US and Turkey are the only members of NATO who do not allow them to serve. . Countries that allow gays to serve are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

[scribblet]

The fact that there has been so much news about it could add more to their (Muslim's) list of perceived grievances, although how they would determine who was gay or not on the front lines, I don't know. As I said, I do believe the problems will come more from within their own ranks, but eventually it will all blow over and no one will think about it.

If gays want to get shot at along with the other guys, it's their decision, not ours IMO.

[Bitsy]

I think it goes a little deeper than wanting to be shot at but whatever, I am delighted that this shameful law has been repealed.

[Shady]

Should be nothing new for them considering that all of our allies in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars allow gays to serve the military.

Yes, but I doubt that was widely known. This however will be. Who knows how many new terrorists will be created because of this new policy.

[The_Squid]

Yes, but I doubt that was widely known. This however will be. Who knows how many new terrorists will be created because of this new policy.

terrorists are bred by bombing civilians and bad foreign policy (not to mention poverty, religious fanatacism, etc, etc), not because a few soldiers in those tanks and bombers blowing shit up are gay...

This paper fills that gap by citing many examples of terrorist attacks on the United States in retaliation for U.S. intervention overseas. The numerous incidents cataloged suggest that the United States could reduce the chances of such devastating--and potentially catastrophic--terrorist attacks by adopting a policy of military restraint overseas.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html

[Bitsy]

Geez , even the most radical right-wing of the Republicans have not used that as an excuse.

[Guest American Woman]

terrorists are bred by bombing civilians and bad foreign policy (not to mention poverty, religious fanatacism, etc, etc), not because a few soldiers in those tanks and bombers blowing shit up are gay...

They're also bred by the desire to dominate, control; the desire of power.

[Guest American Woman]

I think it goes a little deeper than wanting to be shot at but whatever, I am delighted that this shameful law has been repealed.

Maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but I see the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a step in the right direction at the time. Up until then, as I understand it, the military was allowed to ask about sexual preference, and gays were strictly prohibited from serving. With the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, gays were allowed to serve because no one could "ask" them about their sexual preferences and thereby prohibit them from serving. The repeal of this law goes the one necessary step further: no one can ask, but now they can tell -- without being concerned about not being able to serve.

With the repeal of this law, it would seem to me that people in the military will no longer be able to use being gay as an attempt to be dismissed from service.

[GostHacked]

Well, I am glad it is repealed. However, it should not effect the way the military actually works. There will be some talk about it for a short while, but that will die down.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but I see the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a step in the right direction at the time.

Agreed....DADT was a political compromise that recognized gays continuing to serve admirably. Prior to this, homosexuality was legally defined to be incompatible with military service. So yes...DADT served as a transition DoD policy, but it has outlived its usefulness given changing attitudes in and out of the armed forces.

...With the repeal of this law, it would seem to me that people in the military will no longer be able to use being gay as an attempt to be dismissed from service.

This is a notable point....malcontents will no longer be able to garner a pain free administrative discharge.

Edited December 22, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[guyser]

Curiousity......if one was discharged for being found out to be gay (after DaDT) was it honourable , dishonourable or....?

Keep the pension and other perks ?, allowed to keep the education or pay it back?

[Bitsy]

Maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but I see the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a step in the right direction at the time. Up until then, as I understand it, the military was allowed to ask about sexual preference, and gays were strictly prohibited from serving. With the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, gays were allowed to serve because no one could "ask" them about their sexual preferences and thereby prohibit them from serving. The repeal of this law goes the one necessary step further: no one can ask, but now they can tell -- without being concerned about not being able to serve.

With the repeal of this law, it would seem to me that people in the military will no longer be able to use being gay as an attempt to be dismissed from service.

Seventeen years ago, a compromise was reached that the military could no longer ask about sexual preference upon enrollment or in administrating psychological testing…DA (don’t ask). If a member of the military was gay they could not tell anyone DT (don’t tell); if they did, they were automatically kicked out of the military and lost all their benefits. The military has paid a high price to keep this law in place, both in personnel and in money/training.

At least 11,000 service members have been discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the 1993 policy that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly. (The Pentagon has collected data only since 1997, so the number is likely higher, with gay-rights groups estimating the figure closer to 14,000.) Nearly 1,000 specialists with vital skills —Arabic linguists, for example—have been forced out, meaning millions of taxpayer dollars spent on military training have gone to waste. According to a 2010 report by the Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA that focuses on gay legal and policy issues, the U.S. Armed Forces spend about $22,000 to $43,000 to replace each individual discharged under DADT, and the discharges continue today.

With the repeal of this law, a gay person can now serve without fear of being outed and they can serve without hiding their sexual identity.

I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence; gays did not use this as an excuse for dismissal; if they were in the military it is because they wanted to be there...we have an all volunteer military and they were there because they wanted to serve their country, just like a hetrosexual.

[bush_cheney2004]

Curiousity......if one was discharged for being found out to be gay (after DaDT) was it honourable , dishonourable or....?

Depends on the separation circumstances, related misconduct, etc. It gets complicated depending on the proceedings and the desire for retention in the service. Example here:

http://www.girightshotline.org/discharges/homosexual/army/index.shtml

Keep the pension and other perks ?, allowed to keep the education or pay it back?

Administrative discharge is not punitive, and enlistment contract provisions must be honored by both parties. Commissioned officers serve at the pleasure of the president.

[bush_cheney2004]

...If a member of the military was gay they could not tell anyone DT (don’t tell); if they did, they were automatically kicked out of the military and lost all their benefits....

This is mostly true, except for the circumstances wherein a separation board determines that a finding of "homosexuality" is not warranted and/or it is in the best interest of the government to retain the service member for any number of reasons.

Edited December 22, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[guyser]

Depends on the separation circumstances, related misconduct, etc. It gets complicated depending on the proceedings and the desire for retention in the service. Example here:

http://www.girightshotline.org/discharges/homosexual/army/index.shtml

Administrative discharge is not punitive, and enlistment contract provisions must be honored by both parties. Commissioned officers serve at the pleasure of the president.

Thank You.