djchameleon

basically but I don't really see the negatives behind it, I mean I know you explained about people fighting that don't want to be there but at least they are in there getting benefits and better themselves as opposed to being on the street just fucking around selling drugs and robbing people.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

Zaqarbal

Why? Perhaps in certain contexts. But, actually, there is no intrinsic reason to think like that. There are thousands of examples of notable gay soldiers throughout History. Remember that Macedonian guy...



Didn't he have a pair of....... deadly impulses?

__________________

s_k

I hate the idea of militarism. I am really disgusted by it.
But that doesn't change my 'feelings' (sounds a bit gay ) for Freebase or the DJ. Great people, both of 'em.

__________________
Click here to see my collection

VEGANGELICA

Agreed, but I would add that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy was more than just silly. The policy was demeaning, unjust, sexist, mean and spiteful...the opposite of the Golden Rule. I DESPISED the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and the thoughts of people who conceived it.

I agree. I frequently see people in the workplace talking about and posting pictures of their opposite-sex significant others. No one accuses them of being "flamboyant" about publicly acknowledging their deep love for another human. Denying gay and bi people the right to acknowledge or talk about their loved-ones simply because one doesn't like the gender of the partner is a gross violation of civil rights, in my opinion.

Phanastasio gives good examples of why I feel all people should have been appalled by the policy:

Very sad, Phanastasio. That platoon leader treated his fellow serviceman cruelly by making a stink about him being out at a restaurant with his boyfriend. What should have been a sweet moment for two people was ruined by the U.S. government's acceptance of the bigoted opinion that romantic love should only exist between opposite-sexed partners.

If this was the original rationale behind the policy, Freebase, then I hate the policy even more, if that is possible.

In elementary school, you don't tell kids to hide who they are to avoid being bullied. You STOP THE BULLIES! If "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was indeed needed to protect people who love someone of the same sex, then the policy seems to be an admission that United States servicemen and women are less mature than children. That's pretty pathetic.

I think adults can learn to do their job without attacking gay or bi people. It is sad that the U.S. government didn't have such confidence in the character of its military members. I should have thought even anti-gay people would have opposed DADT because the policy implies they can't control themselves.

I suspect the rationale that DADT was implemented to "maintain unit cohesion" was a cover-up. In my opinion, the *real* reason DADT was implemented was because some people wanted to discriminate against and be mean to those of us who are gay or bi.

__________________

captaincaptain

I took the DADT training the other week (I am in the military). The repeal is great, but if homosexual/bisexuals want equality with heterosexuals, then their needs to be a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

TockTockTock

Maybe I am wrong, but wasn't Don't Ask Don't Tell originally implemented to allow homosexuals to serve in the military? It was passed during the Clinton administration, and I certainly don't think Bill Clinton had a bone to pick with gay people.

captaincaptain

The DoD banned homosexuality in 1982, so yes DADT did allow homosexuals to serve.

TockTockTock

Reagan... not surprised.

VEGANGELICA

Good points. I wasn't thinking about how DADT was an improvement on the outright banning of homosexuality that came before. So DADT must have been a (compromise) attempt at making the military more inclusive of people who are gay, lesbian or bi.

Still, I feel the policy didn't go far enough toward full equality for people regardless of sexual orientation, and so in my opinion the policy was still demeaning, unjust, sexist, mean and spiteful. It treated a certain subset of people as if they were second-class citizens, and violated freedom of speech.

If the DADT policy had been fair (albeit still in violation of freedom of speech), then it would have prevented *everyone* in the military from discussing a significant other. Instead, "The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

I understand that steps toward equality under the law occur step by step (obviously)...but that doesn't make me approve of or applaud bigoted laws, policies, or acts, even if they are improvements over what proceeded them. Reading Wikipedia's article, I learned that "since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT." Sad.

__________________

djchameleon

I remember one of my high school teachers telling us that the word fair should be removed from our vocabularies because in reality life just isn't fair and it will never be no matter how hard we try. He would also tell his sons the same thing to remove the word fair from their vocab because it pretty much doesn't exist.

Also, I read that article a bit earlier when JackPat was asking about it's implemention and sure it discharged 13,000 troops over the time that it was implemented but after 9/11 the number of discharges were dramatically decreased and you can see that over time it was almost as if the policy was slowly being phased out. The strongest branch that was discharging people because of it was the Army and that doesn't even surprise me one bit.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.