U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/)
-   -   Will Obama end Don't Ask Don't Tell? (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/will-obama-end-dont-ask-dont-tell-191008.html)

Moonlit_Angel 12-19-2010 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7075462)
ultimately, change came from within the military itself.

It usually seems that's how these things are done. The government finally listens when the people most directly affected by the issue actually raise their voices. Which should sound pretty "no duh", but I don't think enough people are truly aware of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7075462)
and in a few months, let alone a few years, this will all seem so mundane, and we'll wonder what all the fuss was about, and the homophobes will wind up in the dustbin of history alongside the racists, the segregationists, and the misogynists.

Yeppers.

And AchtungBono, er...I think you misunderstand. I fully agree that if people don't wish to disclose their orientation they shouldn't have to. But repealing this isn't going to force anyone to do that if they don't want to. All this means is that a man can talk about how much he misses his boyfriend or husband back home when he's commiserating with other soldiers who talk about missing their girlfriends or wives, and he won't be kicked out the next day for saying so.

Angela

AchtungBono 12-19-2010 01:58 AM

Irvine and Moonlight,

If I go to a job interview, it is not right for the employer to ask me if I'm Jewish, right? Because my religion has no bearing on my job performance.

So why should the military have the right to ask a soldier if he/she is gay or not? A person should be allowed to serve his country regardless of whether he/she is gay and orientation should not be an issue.

I'm sure gay soldiers have the same loyalty as straight soldiers, so why single them out? Why not leave things the way they were and have everyone serve equally?

mobvok 12-19-2010 02:18 AM

AchtungBono, could you state what you believe Don't Ask Don't Tell was?

AchtungBono 12-19-2010 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobvok (Post 7075517)
AchtungBono, could you state what you believe Don't Ask Don't Tell was?

As I understood it, DADT was the policy of giving gays the right to serve in the military without being asked about their sexual orientation. There would be no difference between them and their fellow soldiers. They had the right to serve and the right to keep their private lives private.

Am I correct?

coolian2 12-19-2010 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AchtungBono (Post 7075532)
Am I correct?

i wouldn't say so, no.

yolland 12-19-2010 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AchtungBono (Post 7075532)
Am I correct?

What you seem to be misunderstanding about DADT is that it didn't just give gay soldiers the 'right' to hide their orientation, it required them to do so, or else be given the boot. To use your analogy--DADT would be like your employer saying, 'Look, I won't make you tell me your religion, but at the same time you'd better not slip up and say something about spending Chanukah with your family, because then you'll be fired.'

DADT was created as a compromise between those who didn't want gay people in the military at all and those who thought gay people should be able to serve (whether they're 'out' or not). What DADT basically said was: No one can directly demand that you reveal your sexual orientation, but, if you should slip up and 'out' yourself--say, by passingly referring to your partner, or by confiding that you're gay to someone who decides to rat on you to a superior--then you will be automatically discharged. So, what repeal of DADT means is that now gay people can serve in the military without constantly living in fear of accidentally 'outing' themselves. If you don't wish to disclose your orientation to anyone, ever (whether by actually saying 'I'm gay,' or by simply casually referring now and then to your partner), then that's fine--no one's forcing you to do so--but, at the same time, if you do wish to disclose it, that's fine too, and you're no longer under threat of automatic discharge for that.

mobvok 12-19-2010 03:45 AM

yolland basically nailed what I was about to say.

Is it possible you think DADT repeal means going back to the old pre-DADT status quo? As a political term in the US, "DADT repeal" means the US military no longer views sexual orientation as any sort of a relevant issue to service.

And anyone thinking about "open discrimination and persecution" of gays is about to discover how effective the court-martial system is.

AchtungBono 12-19-2010 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yolland (Post 7075541)
What you seem to be misunderstanding about DADT is that it didn't just give gay soldiers the 'right' to hide their orientation, it required them to do so, or else be given the boot. To use your analogy--DADT would be like your employer saying, 'Look, I won't make you tell me your religion, but at the same time you'd better not slip up and say something about spending Chanukah with your family, because then you'll be fired.'

DADT was created as a compromise between those who didn't want gay people in the military at all and those who thought gay people should be able to serve (whether they're 'out' or not). What DADT basically said was: No one can directly demand that you reveal your sexual orientation, but, if you should slip up and 'out' yourself--say, by passingly referring to your partner, or by confiding that you're gay to someone who decides to rat on you to a superior--then you will be automatically discharged. So, what repeal of DADT means is that now gay people can serve in the military without constantly living in fear of accidentally 'outing' themselves. If you don't wish to disclose your orientation to anyone, ever (whether by actually saying 'I'm gay,' or by simply casually referring now and then to your partner), then that's fine--no one's forcing you to do so--but, at the same time, if you do wish to disclose it, that's fine too, and you're no longer under threat of automatic discharge for that.


Thank you VERY much for that Yolland.....I guess I got it wrong.
I thought that DADT was a GOOD thing - I stand corrected.

I appreciate all of you clarifying this for me.

AchtungBono 12-19-2010 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobvok (Post 7075544)
yolland basically nailed what I was about to say.

Is it possible you think DADT repeal means going back to the old pre-DADT status quo? As a political term in the US, "DADT repeal" means the US military no longer views sexual orientation as any sort of a relevant issue to service.

And anyone thinking about "open discrimination and persecution" of gays is about to discover how effective the court-martial system is.

Actually YES....

I thought that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was another way of saying "Live and let live" - meaning, you can be whatever you want to be without having to let the whole world know about it.

mobvok 12-19-2010 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AchtungBono (Post 7075551)
Actually YES....

I thought that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was another way of saying "Live and let live" - meaning, you can be whatever you want to be without having to let the whole world know about it.

Glad we got on the same page. :wave:

AchtungBono 12-19-2010 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobvok (Post 7075552)
Glad we got on the same page. :wave:

That's one of the reasons I love this forum.....:wave::hug:

financeguy 12-19-2010 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AchtungBono (Post 7075472)
I'm very sorry about the repealing of this policy.

I also have reservations about the repeal of the policy, albeit for different reasons.

BVS 12-19-2010 10:55 PM

I'm glad the truth got past to a Fox News watcher...

Free Your Mind does work :applaud:

yolland 12-20-2010 03:05 AM

^ I hope that was intended as a lighthearted joke, but it sounds pretty patronizing to me.



This is kinda interesting--the Department of Defense has posted their implementation manual for DADT repeal on their website. Much of it is standard, bone-dry HR policy prose, but "Appendix D" (pp. 70-83) containing FAQs and hypothetical problem scenarios is worth a glance for anyone interested in how the military goes about this kind of thing.

https://www.defense.gov/home/features...ure-hires).pdf

AchtungBono 12-20-2010 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yolland (Post 7076825)
^ I hope that was intended as a lighthearted joke, but it sounds pretty patronizing to me.

That's ok Yolland....I know it was meant as a joke.....

(*hugs BVS*)

AchtungBono 12-20-2010 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS (Post 7076606)
I'm glad the truth got past to a Fox News watcher...

Free Your Mind does work :applaud:

It is precisely because I'm a Fox News watcher that the truth gets past to me....because they always tell me the truth.

https://www.foxnews.com/bios/img/headshot_oreilly.jpg

:bow::bow::bow:

Diemen 12-20-2010 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AchtungBono (Post 7076854)
because they always tell me the truth.

Sorry, but that simply isn't true. A recent study shows that viewers of Fox news actually tend to be more misinformed than viewers of other networks.

Fox and MSNBC Misinformed Some Viewers, Study Says - NYTimes.com

MrsSpringsteen 12-20-2010 10:01 AM

Finally :up:

I believe in the men and women in our military and that they can and will behave in a professional manner. If someone can serve with you and potentially save your life and/or give his or her life what the hell difference does it make whether he or she is gay or straight?

If anyone is going to abuse a gay soldier then THEY don't deserve to be in our military. After all when you serve you are taking an oath to protect all US citizens, not just straight ones.

Canadiens1131 12-20-2010 03:28 PM

Louis CK has this comedy bit about how straight men have this very constant, real fear of being anally raped at all times.

:wave:

Mrs. Garrison 12-20-2010 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen (Post 7077057)
Finally :up:

I believe in the men and women in our military and that they can and will behave in a professional manner. If someone can serve with you and potentially save your life and/or give his or her life what the hell difference does it make whether he or she is gay or straight?

If anyone is going to abuse a gay soldier then THEY don't deserve to be in our military. After all when you serve you are taking an oath to protect all US citizens, not just straight ones.

Well said. Soldiers, airmen, sailors, coast guard, & marines; they are all professionals. DADT was actually a good thing for 1993, all things considered. I was in the army at the time and it was a pretty big deal. But we've come a long way since then. We have the internet, phones that can play videos, cars that drive themselves, Tv's that can hang on your wall and also project in 3-D. Oh yeah, we've also got a black president.

I guess my point is that 1993 was, in some ways, a long time ago. An entire generation of people have grown up with a new outlook on life. Thank goodness people are evolving and putting the boogeyman behind them. Without DADT in 1993 we'd never have the chance to repeal it in 2010.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com