Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[SavageTaker]

Don't ask, don't tell is the common term for the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." 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. The "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though mere suspicion of homosexual behavior can cause an investigation.

What are your opinions on this law that has been enforced in the United States Military since 1993?

I honestly do not like this law at all. Why can't gay, lesbians, and bisexuals not be allowed to serve in the military and be open about their sexual orientation if they are just like anyone else except for their orientation. These people pay taxes just like anyone else, yet there is laws that prohibit them from joining the military because they are “open” about who they are. No one should be forced to stay quite about what sex the prefer just because something will happen to them for speaking out.

I honestly think that if someone is willing to risk their lives for a country, then they should be allowed too. If they know the consequence of joining the military and know that they can possibly be killed if they go to war, then I say let them join. It is their decision to whether they want to join the military or not, but for them to join they have to keep secret about who they are. I honestly don’t think things should be that way, especially in a country like the United States of America.

So what do you guys think?

 

[Harthan]

I'm a firm supporter of gay rights and a believer that gay marriage should be universally legalized, and I used to think the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was wrong. I spoke to a friend of mine who's in the Army, and he really changed my views on it.

Essentially, what he said to me, was that it's not a matter of discriminating against gays, it's just about making everyone comfortable. The fact is, in the armed forces, you're gonna be shacking up and living with a whole bunch of guys. You could be the most open minded, liberal guy out there, but I'm pretty sure that if you were standing naked, in the shower, side by side with a guy you know is gay, things are going to be awkward. There's being supportive and there's going too far.

So this is how I basically had it explained, and it makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think the intent of the law is to keep gay people down - it's just about helping the unit get along comfortably. You need to build a lot of support and friendship with your fellows in the armed forces, and let's face it - knowing someone's gay can't help. If you're not a supporter of gay rights, or outright disapprove of homosexuality, it's going to ruin your relationship. It's all fine to stand up and be proud of who you are in a civilian situation, but you're talking about going into combat with these guys. If they don't like you because you're gay (and chances are, you won't like them back either) shit is not going to go well. And if you're alright with homosexuality, well, in most situations, it won't be a problem - but like I said again, it might be sophomoric, but face it - you're standing side by side with another dude, checking out your package? Shit gets weird, fast.

Basically, openly admitting you're gay is not going to help anyone. At worst, it completely alienates some of your squad, and at best, it produces occasional moments of awkwardness. The former is crushing, and the latter can't do anything positive.

From the homosexual standpoint...I mean, be proud of who you are, it's not wrong. But I think they have to understand how other people are gonna feel and be respectful of that, in the armed forces situation. In the civilian world, fuck it, march up and down the street, I don't care. But when you have to go into combat with someone, any tension, any awkwardness, is just gonna hurt things.

So basically, I think the DADT policy is the best solution to an awkward problem. It's not perfect - it's going to be a drain on a homosexual member of the armed force's attitude, which is not a good thing, but there's no way around it.

 

[Raw Power]

So this is how I basically had it explained, and it makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think the intent of the law is to keep gay people down - it's just about helping the unit get along comfortably. You need to build a lot of support and friendship with your fellows in the armed forces, and let's face it - knowing someone's gay can't help. If you're not a supporter of gay rights, or outright disapprove of homosexuality, it's going to ruin your relationship. It's all fine to stand up and be proud of who you are in a civilian situation, but you're talking about going into combat with these guys. If they don't like you because you're gay (and chances are, you won't like them back either) shit is not going to go well. And if you're alright with homosexuality, well, in most situations, it won't be a problem - but like I said again, it might be sophomoric, but face it - you're standing side by side with another dude, checking out your package? Shit gets weird, fast.

Why does that matter? What if someone is a racist and outright dissaproves of black people? Does that mean there should be a policy to separate blacks and whites in the army, just to accommodate intolerant people? You made some good points but accommodating bigoted attitudes isn't one of them.

 

[Harthan]

Why does that matter? What if someone is a racist and outright dissaproves of black people? Does that mean there should be a policy to separate blacks and whites in the army, just to accommodate intolerant people? You made some good points but accommodating bigoted attitudes isn't one of them.

The situation is different. You can't tell someone you're not black - you can't hide it, you can't "not tell" someone you're black. If you're black, and you're in the army, your only option is to be proud of it and it's on everyone else to get over it. It's the only recourse you can take.

With a homosexual, you can take a different route, and that's just not telling anyone, which ultimately results in something better. In a civilian situation, I wouldn't want to associate with a bigot, and would generally have nothing to do with them. But you don't get to pick who you serve with in the armed forces, and if you get stuck with an unrelenting bigot, and you're a homosexual...you have two options. One is to escalate the situation and the other is to make it better. When you could be going into combat any day with this bigot, which is better? So what if he's an asshole, so what if he hates gays - you still want this guy to have your back, and it's a better idea to lie and have him watch your back than be honest and have him screw you over in a life or death situation.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

Meh? Honestly I am just so sick and tired of people discriminating against gays, or gays bitching about their rights that this doesn't bother me. In a perfect world it wouldn't matter if someone was gay and it would seem completley normal, so there would be no reason to hide it, or for people to be freaked out, but sadly this is not a perfect world.

While I think gay people shouldn't have to hide the fact that their gay just so people don't get unconfortable. Not my fault I'm gay and your unconfortable about it. Not my fault me liking another guy is going to make you feel that I'm inferior to you. But alas I do see how this could effect morale and make drama where drama shouldn't be.

It's sad to think you have to hide who you are just to make people feel confortable and not ruffle feathers, but if your in the Army your main goal is to protect and fight for your country, not discuss your sexual oritentaion.

I just don't think you should hide it. I mean you should stay professional and not go around wearing booty shorts, waving the pride flag, and singing Beyonce, but if the guys are talking about who's back home waiting for them, you shouldn't have to lie and say Martha is waiting for you, when it's really Martin.

So I see why this law/rule is in effect, I just wish we lived in a different place.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Harthan got it, right on. Basically, you cant have gays in straights three to a hea din a shower. Not becuase gays are some wild sexual deviants, but just becuase its not proper. Its no different than having women and men three to a shower head together. This isnt fuckin starship troopers, and that shit aint happening. Its nothing to do with discrimination, more than it is group and mission integrity and effeciency.

Another layer to this is the same logic that applies to women not being allowed on the front lines of the battle field. Men, for the most part, have a natural need to protect women, just in general. Also, goodness forbid romance starts, or people are fighting over a girl, or whatever. This kind of thing can cause people to take unecessary risks to protect, or unecessary animosity between members of a group. Same thing. Say if a gay guy gets sweet on another member of his crew, and we are on the front lines together. He will be thinking about, or going specifically out of his way, even if its subliminally, to protect that person, which breaks down mission effeciency and integrity. Its alot akin to why people arent allowed to date or become romantically involved with their superiors, if your in the same group, or chain of command.

I dont mind gay people at all. I wouldnt mind even showering next to a gay dude (becuase I wouldnt mind showering next to a girl, y'see). but a LOT of people would. Tons. It breaks down mission effeciency and integrity.

 

[JenovasWitness]

I understand the whole mission integrity thing, but honestly, everyone should be given the fair chance to defend one`s country if that is there desire.

I`m not big on the idea of someone shooting a gun at me. Not my idea of a good time, personally. But if an individual who happens to be homosexual wants to take that risk and defend his or her country, I say give them a gun and point them in the right direction.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I understand the whole mission integrity thing, but honestly, everyone should be given the fair chance to defend one`s country if that is there desire.

I`m not big on the idea of someone shooting a gun at me. Not my idea of a good time, personally. But if an individual who happens to be homosexual wants to take that risk and defend his or her country, I say give them a gun and point them in the right direction.

Thats not all there is to it though, man. You all have to live together, almost literally at times, stacked on top of each other, have to share showers, all sorts of things.

Do you, as a straight man, want to shower at the same shower head, inches away from a gay man? Live with one, or many of them? Thats how it is, and you CAN NOT force people to live in those kind of conditions. Its no different than forcing men and women to do the same thing. Not different at all.

 

[SavageTaker]

I guess I can see where a lot of you guys are coming from. I especially understand it way better thanks to NorCal since he is someone who has served in the army.

I still think that they should be allowed to be open about their sexual orientation to whoever recruits them. But it shouldn't be something that is told to anyone they are living with because of the several reasons stated already.

Maybe they can have someone that they can tell this to so that they can feel like they are not hiding anything. It would be someone that everyone can come to tell everything, kind of like a confidential type of thing. I know that sometimes people feel guilty because they think they are lying to their country so in my opinion it would be a good way to get rid of the guilt and to just let people feel like they are free from their secrets.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I still think that they should be allowed to be open about their sexual orientation to whoever recruits them. But it shouldn't be something that is told to anyone they are living with because of the several reasons stated already.

Do you....do you seriously understand what you just suggested dude? Ok, so then someone is going to KNOWINGLY shack me up with, and throw me in the showers with gay guys, and keep it from ME? Your going to set people up like that? Thats absolutely absurd, and an assault on my personal rights and privacy. How about we cut peep holes in the girls shower room, have guys look, but dont tell the girls? Would that be alright? Its not EVEN as bad as what you are suggesting.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Another layer to this is the same logic that applies to women not being allowed on the front lines of the battle field.

They still don't allow this??

Eugh, anyway. I'm, completely split on this actually, the arguments from both sides have been very good. On one hand, I think it's unfair that a gay person has to hide a big part of their life while other soldiers can easily and freely talk about their wives/children etc.

That being said, I think NorCal has the right idea in saying this makes it much like men/women showering together, which never would happen. As a female, I feel fine undressing in front of women, but not in front of guys. I'm sure a guy could feel that way undressing/showering in the presence of a gay man. Not because they'd try and do anything, but because there's a possibility they could be looking at you in a sexual way, which would feel very awkward.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

They still don't allow this??

no, for reasons I already explained

Eugh, anyway. I'm, completely split on this actually, the arguments from both sides have been very good. On one hand, I think it's unfair that a gay person has to hide a big part of their life while other soldiers can easily and freely talk about their wives/children etc.

That being said, I think NorCal has the right idea in saying this makes it much like men/women showering together, which never would happen. As a female, I feel fine undressing in front of women, but not in front of guys. I'm sure a guy could feel that way undressing/showering in the presence of a gay man. Not because they'd try and do anything, but because there's a possibility they could be looking at you in a sexual way, which would feel very awkward.

it IS the right idea. its your inhumane to FORCE people to be in a situation like that. As said, that would not EVER happen with mixing guys and girls, and it shouldnt. Its inhumane. Yea, sucks they have to hide it, but there isnt any other way to go about it. it is what it is.

 

[Uncle Sam]

no, for reasons I already explained

Is it because men are naturally physically superior (you know, in a strength, speed, endurance sort of way) to women? If not, that's a good reason too.

But yeah, haven't read the thread. People shouldn't be kissing and fucking each other in a war situation. Simple as. If you want to talk about your boyfriend back home to your buddies, well, maybe you should do the risk assessment yourself.

This reminds me of The Simpsons episode where Homer signs up to the military and tries to read the scribbled out question on the form.

"Are you... a ho... mo..."

 

[Raw Power]

Wow, I actually see the other side of the argument and I have to be honest I'e changed my opinion. In normal civilian life this wouldn't fly, but in the army I guess it makes sense when you have things more important than someone's feelings on the line.

 

[Kip The Fury]

I understand the whole mission integrity thing, but honestly, everyone should be given the fair chance to defend one`s country if that is there desire.

I`m not big on the idea of someone shooting a gun at me. Not my idea of a good time, personally. But if an individual who happens to be homosexual wants to take that risk and defend his or her country, I say give them a gun and point them in the right direction.

Its not about keeping Gay people out of the army its about them keeping quiet about their sexuality. Personally im not homophobic, its their choice but i would feel different about living in very close situations with somone who was gay. Im not saying i would think any less of the person or not respect them as much, but being in that kind of situation with them would make me uncomfortable and im sure its the same for a lot of people.

 

[NYSandman]

If someone wants to defend their country and is physically able, what's the problem? It's all this macho shit.

Gay doesn't equal pervert. Most homosexuals are respectful to heterosexuals. It's not like if you have a gay bunkmate in the army he's going to try and rape you in the middle of the night. The question is, on the front lines will he save your ass?

Sure he will. What the hell does it matter who or what someone likes to have sex with? If you can fire a gun, and you are a patriot, you should be allowed to serve.

If a homosexual does sexually harass someone, he should be punished just like a male soldier who harasses a female soldier.

It's complete and utter bullshit. Jesus! It's the 21st Century. Grow up!

 

[FromTheSouth]

It's not at all about gay rights. At some point, tolerance becomes forced, and that is not right.

The military has real problems to face, and something like discrimination can't get in the way. NorCal is right. When on a mission, things like hiding your love for a platoon member, or even worse, the thought of losing your love, when in combat is deadly for the entire unit. A chain is as strong as it;s weakest link, and if that link is a gay man worried about hiding his feeling, or an informed bigot full of hatred for the gay man, puts the entire unit in danger. Any individual has the right to hate gay people just the same as someone has the right to be gay. When in conflict, you act in the interest of the entire unit. That means no gays.

The Army is not a social experiment. It is not fucking reality TV where you see how manly men act when confronted with homosexuals. Those men are getting shot at, and any division of focus at any time is a risk to many young lives, and these lives are of the bravest young men, the best we have to offer. Why risk those lives so someone can feel better about themselves? Is it really a violation of human rights to not allow someone to be a complete individual in the Army? Fuck no. Everyone has to subjegate important parts of their lives for the good of the unit, and gays are not special. They don't deserve extra rights. It's part of the sacrifice. And if someone is using "Don't ask, don't tell" as an excuse to not join the Army, then they aren't a patriot. Anyone who claims that they would join the army, except they can't live an openly gay lifestyle never had any intention of joining in the first place. If you really want to serve your country, shut your mouth and join. Don't hide behind sexuality. A girl I used to work with had a gay pride tattoo removed, at her own expense, to rejoin the Army. She is a patriot, and in two years she will restart her life as a proud gay woman, but for now, she is a soldier, and just as proud of that.

 

[Raw Power]

No offence dude but you just came across really badly. I agree with the DADT policy to some degree, but you come across like you don't even understand the policy.

if that link is a gay man worried about hiding his feeling

Why does this even support DADT? If anything, it's an argument against it. DADT means you have to keep your sexuality a secret. Why would someone be worrying about hiding his feelings if DADT didn't exist and they were allowed to express them? Makes no sense.

That means no gays.

DADT doesn't mean no gays though. It means you can't make your sexuality known, and the army isn't allowed to investigate people's sexuality.

You like to bang on about how these guys being the "best we have to offer" yet you're all too ready to limit their liberties - fitting treatment for such brave guys?

Everyone has to subjegate important parts of their lives for the good of the unit, and gays are not special. They don't deserve extra rights.

Sincere question - what important parts of ones life would other people have to subjegate?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

If someone wants to defend their country and is physically able, what's the problem? It's all this macho shit.

Gay doesn't equal pervert. Most homosexuals are respectful to heterosexuals. It's not like if you have a gay bunkmate in the army he's going to try and rape you in the middle of the night. The question is, on the front lines will he save your ass?

Sure he will. What the hell does it matter who or what someone likes to have sex with? If you can fire a gun, and you are a patriot, you should be allowed to serve.

If a homosexual does sexually harass someone, he should be punished just like a male soldier who harasses a female soldier.

It's complete and utter bullshit. Jesus! It's the 21st Century. Grow up!

IT IS NOT THE SAME!!! FUCKS SAKE!!! Are females forced to shower with males? forced to get naked in front of them daily? No, they arent. Becuase thats inhumane, and inappropriate. Its not about lifestyles, its the living conditions people are forced to deal with. You cant force people to do that.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Sincere question - what important parts of ones life would other people have to subjegate?

Im pretty sure South is debating the absence of DADT, he is enforcing why it needs to exist.

and yea, they do. Social and geological prejudices. People from the east dont like people from the west. People who used to party like fuck dont get to anymore. Privacy. Being with/around/ within a thousand miles of your family. Racial prejudices. Cultural differences. There is all SORTS of shit that gets sacrificed, or put aside for the betterment of the group.

 

[Razor]

Harthan got it, right on. Basically, you cant have gays in straights three to a hea din a shower. Not becuase gays are some wild sexual deviants, but just becuase its not proper. Its no different than having women and men three to a shower head together. This isnt fuckin starship troopers, and that shit aint happening. Its nothing to do with discrimination, more than it is group and mission integrity and effeciency.

Another layer to this is the same logic that applies to women not being allowed on the front lines of the battle field. Men, for the most part, have a natural need to protect women, just in general. Also, goodness forbid romance starts, or people are fighting over a girl, or whatever. This kind of thing can cause people to take unecessary risks to protect, or unecessary animosity between members of a group. Same thing. Say if a gay guy gets sweet on another member of his crew, and we are on the front lines together. He will be thinking about, or going specifically out of his way, even if its subliminally, to protect that person, which breaks down mission effeciency and integrity. Its alot akin to why people arent allowed to date or become romantically involved with their superiors, if your in the same group, or chain of command.

I dont mind gay people at all. I wouldnt mind even showering next to a gay dude (becuase I wouldnt mind showering next to a girl, y'see). but a LOT of people would. Tons. It breaks down mission effeciency and integrity.

What Norcal said. He's a military man, after all.

I don't think Don't Ask Don't Tell is as much "You're gay. The military can't be gay." This isn't some 150 years ago when people were erupting over blacks in the military because whites were "clearly superior" or blacks were just simpleton heathens who don't really know how to effectively operate on the battlefield. It's more along the lines of "We need the mission to get done. Nothing in the way of the mission."

It's why fraternizing amongst the ranks is frowned upon. It's why women aren't allowed on submarines (well...I know they weren't at one time. I'm not so sure about it now), and it's why women aren't on the front lines. I know some douchebag spokesman once said on TV it was because of their periods, but it's because of mission integrity. Fraternizing amongst ranks will lead to preferential treatment, women on submarines will make the risk of fraternization and impregnation go up tenfold, and women on the front lines will just make men a lot more of a hero then they need to be. Impregnation may not seem like a big deal on a submarine, but those subs go out for months and years at a time. They can't be going into port months ahead of time because a female got a little handsy with the captain.

Everything I said above about women is the same for gay men. If a guy was being romantic with another man and fighting erupted, it'd be the same as a man fighting alongside a woman. Heroics will be way to large of a factor. Being openly gay will open one more avenue for fraternization amongst the ranks, as well.

It's not that gay men are sexual deviants that will fuck everything that moves and the Army is afraid all of their straight men will wake up sexually assaulted if men can come out about their sexual leanings. It's all about mission integrity. It's always about mission integrity.

 

[Tenta]

I'm going to have to side with those that are in favor of the rule, but my reasoning has far more to do with gay people that enlist in the army.

I personally have no problem with gay people, as I have roomed with one before, and have actually come to learn what it means to be homosexual in today's society. To us, the word "Gay" should not be a dirty term. We should respect all of those for their preferences, and if a Gay man or woman has any interest in joining the army, that is that person's preference.

Unfortunately, not all of the world is nearly as free thinking as the people who are posting in the Wrestlezone forums. For every person that is accepting of Gays and Lesbians, and accept their way of life, three or four more homophobes come out of the woodwork to demean these men, and attempt to make them feel as an unwanted member of society. For every advocate for Gay and Lesbian rights, there's another five people that sound something like this:

i don't have homophobia. i have gay friends & i have party with them many times . they are people just like me but they do not belong on wrestling forum where children go
. yes st louis is a dangerous city . new orleans in no.1 & st louis is no.2
. go look it up it is fact .

Now then, I'm not going to say that I don't like what our military does, nor am I saying that I don't support their efforts across the globe. Our military has saved us from many a crisis. So, naturally, I support the military. However, I support the military as a group entity. There is no guarantee that individuals members within the Army are as accepting of homosexuals as we are. As it stands, homophobia is still a prevalent issue in society, and unfortunately will be so forever, I fear. You simply can't convince everyone to have a good outlook on something, and even though it is homophobia is completely wrong, it's still very much a part of our nation. And with that comes individuals who are homophobes themselves. And while the Army has jurisdiction over these men, to some extent, it might not stop a case of assault or discrimination to occur within the ranks. The Army can monitor only so much, and there is no guarantee that gays and lesbians are safe within their own comrades. Having to live with the ever-growing thought you could die today is extremely unnerving, but could you imagine how much so it would have to be for somebody when they have to worry about the men within their own army?

While our society is doing very much to accept the differences found in homosexuality, you will always find that one son of a bitch that is completely ignorant, and wouldn't think twice to attack someone based on sexual preference. We may not like it, but unfortunately we have to accept it. Perhaps some day we may be able to come to grips with homosexuality in society, and this really would no longer be an issue. But as it stands, that simply is no longer the case.

I yearn for the day "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" isn't necessary. As for now, unfortunately, it very much is.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I yearn for the day "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" isn't necessary. As for now, unfortunately, it very much is.

Right. I too yearn for a day when its acceptable for men and women to be forced to shower three to a showerhead, and live practically on top of each other as well. Then ill like, get to see naked chicks a lot.

 

[FromTheSouth]

No offence dude but you just came across really badly. I agree with the DADT policy to some degree, but you come across like you don't even understand the policy.

Umm, actually, yeah, I do.

Why does this even support DADT? If anything, it's an argument against it. DADT means you have to keep your sexuality a secret. Why would someone be worrying about hiding his feelings if DADT didn't exist and they were allowed to express them? Makes no sense.

Because expressing those feelings is worse for the unit than one or two guys having to hide them. I don't mean that they have to hide the feeling that they are gay. I mean having to hide their feelings for a platoon mate. How is it good for the unit if Sam is always trying to save Jeremy, who is his open partner, when it is Jeff who needs the attention? Keeping the feelings to oneself allows for proper mission function.

DADT doesn't mean no gays though. It means you can't make your sexuality known, and the army isn't allowed to investigate people's sexuality.

For all intents and purposes, it does mean no gays. A gay man has to turn asexual when in his work context. What a crazy idea, right? Imagine having to leave your personal fucking business at home. Every facet of professional life should adopt the policy. Everyone should leave their love lives at home, not just gays, but everyone. That is called professionalism. Abandoning DADT is forcing tolerance, which, in turn, is a violation of one's right to choose to be bigoted. When in conflict, act in favor of the unit as a whole.

You like to bang on about how these guys being the "best we have to offer" yet you're all too ready to limit their liberties - fitting treatment for such brave guys?

It is fitting. Expecting everyone to act as a professional is not too much to act. If you're going to say that homosexuality is nothing to be hidden, then I could just as well say it is nothing to be celebrated either, right? Leave it at home, act like adults, and complete your mission, whatever it may be.

Sincere question - what important parts of ones life would other people have to subjegate?

I don't know, but everyone has secrets. I don't see why homosexuality is this big secret that people have that others want them to expose. Like I said, the military is not a social experiment to see how men in intense situation act when you add a homosexual to the mix. Act like professionals, and leave your love life at home, whatever that entails.

 

[Raw Power]

Interesting point of comparison - in the UK we don't have a DADT policy, and gays are allowed to serve openly (i.e. they don't have to hide their homosexuality) and there;s nothing to suggest it's had a detrimental effect on our military. Is that down to the gay people in the UK being less likely to "fall in love" with their comrades, or down to the greater likelihood of bigotry in the American army?