DADT repealed

[whitesoxnation]

I see a lot of survey numbers being thrown around of military personnel.

Whenever higher leadership comes to talk and the floor is opened up for questions, someone always asks about don't ask don't tell. The response is usually, "well, what do YOU guys think." The hand raising is always nearly unanimous that it would have a negative impact.

Totally unscientific but it makes me wonder about these polls that are always cited.

 

[Floppy_D]

So in essence, be you, but don't get in other people's faces about it, and don't bring it into spaces when on duty.

Right. Be gay, but don't be gay about it. I understand my phraseology is crude, but the real change is that homosexuals have the right to disclose. Good order and discipline presides, and acting out of order in any fashion can/will draw attention upon one's self. As a fan of personal freedom... that folks have gained personal freedom is a win for me. Beyond that, carry about the plan of the day, and post.

 

[eas7888]

Have we ever allowed "moral opposition" to impact implementation of policy?

Abortion is a great example of this.

If you're looking for military examples of this, well. . .I just don't care enough to put that much thought in to it.

 

[blackbart22]

Is Article 125 of the UCMJ still in force?

 

[GreenLantern330]

I see a lot of survey numbers being thrown around of military personnel.

Whenever higher leadership comes to talk and the floor is opened up for questions, someone always asks about don't ask don't tell. The response is usually, "well, what do YOU guys think." The hand raising is always nearly unanimous that it would have a negative impact.

Totally unscientific but it makes me wonder about these polls that are always cited.

Maybe since it's hand raising, and therefore not anonymous, people feel like they would have to be against it in fear of being thought of as a homosexual? Just a thought.

 

[Seafort]

Is Article 125 of the UCMJ still in force?

Article 125 is used only when there are other acts involved as well.

It's still "in force," but is almost never "enforced." Think of how many straight, married folks there are that have violated 125...

 

[phrogdriver]

I'm done reading a hundred pages of posts.

To all those who worry that the sky is falling: it isn't, and it won't. I'd be willing to bet that other than hearing some story about some ship, somewhere, that allegedly had a problem, 99.9% of you will not even notice that there's been a change.

Guess what? You've been serving with gays all along. And I'm pretty sure none of them were lusting after your cock before they were allowed out of the closet. What will change, though, is that someone who's being harrassed for being gay can now actually get redress, rather than being afraid of being outed.

The Royal Navy and Marines are doing fine since they changed their homosexual policy. So are the Australians and Israelis, as are all the militaries of Western Europe. So, basically, according to those against repeal, our troops are somehow vastly better, yet somehow vastly more immature than those of all these other countries.

If you are really upset about this, then honestly, you are being reactionary, and socially right wing in regards to gay rights. I won't insult your viewpoint, but don't try to sell, "I've got nothing against them, but..."

 

[HercDriver]

Is Article 125 of the UCMJ still in force?

Dear God, I hope not, since Art 125 includes oral sex, given or received. I'm guessing 90% of folks in the military (and 100% of fortunate folks in the military) have given or received it. In fact, I'll bet there are plenty that hope and pray to break this Article.

Repeatedly, on a good night.

 

[phrogdriver]

Is Article 125 of the UCMJ still in force?

Yes, but at least in news accounts, it's been thrown out as being under review. Laws consensual sodomy were ruled unconstitutional for civilians several years ago. It's likely they'd be thrown out by SCOTUS if a military case ever got that far.

Truth be told, they're usually used by JAGs to pile on in other cases and force a plea--e.g. "We've got you on conduct unbecoming, adultery, and sodomy...take the BCD and we'll drop the last two."

They're BS rules, anyway. What is this, 1855?

 

[ryan1234]

I'm done reading a hundred pages of posts.

To all those who worry that the sky is falling: it isn't, and it won't. I'd be willing to bet that other than hearing some story about some ship, somewhere, that allegedly had a problem, 99.9% of you will not even notice that there's been a change.

Guess what? You've been serving with gays all along. And I'm pretty sure none of them were lusting after your cock before they were allowed out of the closet. What will change, though, is that someone who's being harrassed for being gay can now actually get redress, rather than being afraid of being outed.

The Royal Navy and Marines are doing fine since they changed their homosexual policy. So are the Australians and Israelis, as are all the militaries of Western Europe. So, basically, according to those against repeal, our troops are somehow vastly better, yet somehow vastly more immature than those of all these other countries.

If you are really upset about this, then honestly, you are being reactionary, and socially right wing in regards to gay rights. I won't insult your viewpoint, but don't try to sell, "I've got nothing against them, but..."

I love how the supporting rationale is comparing us to the Brits, Aussies, and Israelis...

What does that have to do with anything?

we could be like this:

 

[HercDriver]

I'm done reading a hundred Pages of posts.

...Words and stuff I agree with 100%."

Not much more to add. Gays have been allowed to serve, now they won't be thrown out. DADT told our troops to lie about themselves....and lying is usually more detrimental to good order and discipline than who my navigator is in love with.

 

[coolhandlukesd]

Is there a *chance that after the DADT is fully implanted, that we could see something like the tail hook witch hunts, just for the purpose of some one being mad an "example of" even if the said discrimination was overblown or imagined? *

 

[phrogdriver]

I love how the supporting rationale is comparing us to the Brits, Aussies, and Israelis...

What does that have to do with anything?

we could be like this:

What does it have to do with anything? Gee, rather than rely on someones half-assed opinion, dubious sense of moral superiority, and wild hypothesis of what MIGHT happen, maybe we should get data about what actually has happened in similar scenarios.

By your logic, maybe military historians should only study American battles, because those fucking Euros can't teach us anything about fighting. Besides they tawk funny, too...

 

[CAMike]

What does it have to do with anything? Gee, rather than rely on someones half-assed opinion, dubious sense of moral superiority, and wild hypothesis of what MIGHT happen, maybe we should get data about what actually has happened in similar scenarios.


Get data from where? There is no data in the USA because it's never been acceptable to be openly gay in our military. Data from other countries is not the same. The issue here is that there WILL BE many new obstacles and challenges that are created with this new progressive political effort. As well intentioned as this is- there will be no winners when someone pulls the Pixie Card and the accusations of unfairness or worse begin. As with other social issues -you can think of the most basic challenges. Frequency? Time will tell.

 

[ryan1234]

What does it have to do with anything? Gee, rather than rely on someones half-assed opinion, dubious sense of moral superiority, and wild hypothesis of what MIGHT happen, maybe we should get data about what actually has happened in similar scenarios.

By your logic, maybe military historians should only study American battles, because those fucking Euros can't teach us anything about fighting. Besides they tawk funny, too...

Warfare and social experiments are not the same. Studying and implementing are also two totally different things... do you really agree with everything those other nations do despite not having immediate consequences?

Just because we would study someone else's battles/doctrine... even if what they did worked..... doesn't mean that we necessarily want to fight like that.... nor does it mean it would work in an entirely different culture.

Some militaries do just fine with an all male mandatory military service requirement - would that work here?