Comments for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" may go to Supreme Court »
Posted By bubba2 1 year, 4 months ago in StyleFederal appeals courts recently have come down on both sides of the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals serving in the military, raising the possibility that the Supreme Court might take up the issue.
Read Full Story at armytimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 98
-
Neutral
kboy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem still is 70 people living in one room and using one bathroom. The other 69 have a right to privacy and should not be subjected to sexual pressure. Change the situation slightly. How would you like to be the only straight person living with 69 gay people? How about being the only female living with 69 men? Ever been uncomfortable being forced to work with a couple that are sexually active? Sex is something that needs to be kept in the bedroom, not in the workplace.
Reply-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What alternate universe do you live on? In all communal situations, there is almost always an adjustment or accommodation that must be reached in a society for the group as a whole to function. Sounds more like your fears and uncomfortableness.
Reply -
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you are afraid of sharing a bathroom with a group of others, some of whom may be of a different sex or sexual orientation, how will you ever function on a battlefield where there will certainly be people of both genders and every persuasion? If you can't handle someone who MIGHT want to have sex with you and is unlikely in the extreme to do anything about it, how are you going to handle someone who wants to kill you and will try anything to do so?
This is a bogus objection on the face of it.
Reply-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I dunno...it's not bogus to the people that feel that way.
Understand me...I don't care what a person does in the bedroom. It's none of my business.
There ARE people serving that have very strong opinions on the issue. Right or Wrong doesn't matter to them. They DO view it as a sexuality issue, the same feelings they have about separate toilets between the sexes. Some cultures are not nearly so hung up about that sort of thing as Americans, but there it is.
I don't think anything that would be disruptive to unit cohesion is a good thing. This is going to cause problems, like it or not. Don't ask, Don't tell may not be the best policy, but the Government doesn't have the right to enforce association.
The Military is not a platform for social experimentation.
I have heard the objections of some military members, it's their Club...Let's leave it to them.
Hell...let them Vote on it.
Reply-
Neutral
ZippySpincycle1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Alakazam says, "The Military is not a platform for social experimentation."
Actually, the military is in some ways an ideal platform for social experimentation: it was the first major US institution to be racially integrated, and one of the reasons military integration worked so well is that it could be demanded much more easily than in civilian society. Much less of that bothersome "personal freedom" that gets in the way in civilian settings. An order is an order, and disobedience is not simply rude, it's insubordination. Odd that you should simultaneously argue in favor of "unit cohesion" while saying that "the government doesn't have the right to enforce association." Unit cohesion is nothing BUT enforced association.
Heh...as for letting members of the military vote on policy, you definitely have a pretty novel idea of how military organizations work.
Reply-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is a good platform for all kinds of physiological experimentation too! Give me a break!
Forcing some things upon people who have signed away their Rights in order to Serve is a great disservice to them.
I know just EXACTLY how the military works, I am playing Devil's Advocate maybe...I dunno.
What EXACTLY is it gays want?
To be able to say "Hey hey I'm Gay."
I don't get it...sorry
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What EXACTLY is it gays want?
"To be able to say 'Hey hey I'm Gay.'"
"I don't get it...sorry"
What you don't seem to "get" is that we serve in the military for all the same reasons that straight people do. And that we want to serve our country with patriotism and honor...no more, no less.
All we ask is that we are not required to be dishonest about who we are in order to serve. Sexuality has NOTHING to do with it. Fairness has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Reply-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It makes YOU "uncomfortable", so YOU make it a problem for others as patriotic and capable as YOU to be in the service. THAT'S what our sexuality has to do with it, exactly NOTHING. This bigotry of STRAIGHTS has been codified into first, military regulation, and now, law.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why do you feel that we should make exceptions and allow homophobes to dictate military policy, when racists are not allowed to, nor religious bigots, nor any other bigots? We are normal citizens, how can you excuse this discrimination against us because of the irrationality of others?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ZippySpincycle1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So what is it you want? Acceptance?
Why? Do you need the approval of others."
Sorry, alakazam, but you are either trolling or unspeakably dense. My money is on the first, frankly.
What gay members of the service want is to not have their careers threatened for something that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with their ability to do the job.
Reply-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am NOT trolling. I have heard the same things over and over.
They are not going to convince the folks opposed to it.
I dunno what to tell you, the mainstream is going to have to find a reason to come to acceptance of it or it's going to stay just like it is.
So what will convince them, beating them into submission as suggested later in the thread?
Reply-
Neutral
ZippySpincycle1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Which "mainstream"? If you're talking about Americans at large, the polling is clear: "A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in March 2006 showed that 60% favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, with 31% opposed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
On the other hand, "an Army Times poll of military members found that 50 percent supported the ban and only 25 percent said homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly." http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/oct/12/20041...
As noted elsewhere, this opposition within the military is not necessary a reason to keep the current policy--I would be willing to bet that a similar proportion of military members supported racial segregation when President Truman ordered that the armed forces be integrated.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The goal is to be treated EQUALLY. Nobody cares if you're straight, and nobody should care if you're gay, and neither one should be a secret, any more than any other socially important thing about you is secret. It should have no effect on membership or promotion or decoration or assignment or anything else. The Commander-in-Chief should long ago have ordered equal treatment of gays as Truman did the racial integration of the services: he called in all the senior commanders and over their exactly similar objections told them to make it happen with no incidents, and if they thought they could not or would not, then to leave their stars on the table when they left.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um...when I go to the gym or camping or anywhere, I am around straight men. I don't "pressure" them sexually. I am respectful just as I would be with a woman. A couple wouldn't need to be sexually active during duty. I would think that they could control themselves.
And, if you think that there aren't gay people serving right now, you are delusional. They are there. They have always been there. And they are controlling themselves.
You are not as hot as you think you are.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Of course a much more important story is the rape and murder of female soldiers serving in the military."
True enough. You know there's something wrong when female soldiers are frightened to use the latrine at night for fear of being raped by their 'brother' soldiers.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Don't ask, don't tell" is a ridiculous policy as is an outright ban on gays in the military.
Gays have ALWAYS served honorably and ably (although under the radar).
Regardless of whether you agree that homosexuality is just an alternate lifestyle or an abomination or something else entirely, forcing people to keep something like this secret in order to serve just opens the door to blackmail and security risks. Gays in the military are not a security risk because they ARE gay, they are a security risk because they are not allowed to ADMIT that they are gay.
Reply-
Neutral
buckncindykill1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Someone who is more interested in being a "GAY soldier" is more interested in being "GAY" than he is interested in being a "soldier"."
Garbage. They just don't want to have to hide who they are for fear of being thrown out of an institution they love. Just like the heterosexuals who have no problem with their outward displays of sexuality (other than the raping of fellow soldiers, of course).
Reply -
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who, exactly, is interested in being a "GAY soldier", and what, exactly, IS a "GAY soldier"?
I am gay, and I was a soldier for 12 years, promoted from pv1 to master-sargent in that time by a command who knew of my orientation, and awarded me more ArComs than anyone else of any rank in the garrison.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, the only people making the sexuality of a soldier an issue, are those who are prejudiced. This conversation hardly started because gay soldiers were wearing their sexuality on their sleeves. It started because heterosexuals made it an issue. Are they more interested in being heterosexual than being soldiers?
Reply-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmm...it that an either/or question?
Sorry, I reserve the right to determine my own sexuality.
I don't go around broadcasting what that may be because it's none of your or anyone else's business.
What are they supposed to do anyway? Add a box to the application?
I wish someone would tell me exactly what "openly" means.
Folks can find a room, so what's to be different?
Reply-
-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fair enough...I just want to know what recognition it is that is desired.
What does being Gay or Straight have to do with being a Soldier and why is it an issue?
Okay, Gays want to serve openly. What does that mean in real world terms?
What special recognition would make you happy?
Reply-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't see that gays want any 'special recognition.' They merely want the same right to serve in the military that heterosexuals have. In real world terms, 'serving openly' means nothing more than being homosexual, and not having to worry about being kicked out of the military if they are found out. You'll have to ask heterosexuals what 'serving openly' means. They're the one's with the vivid imaginations.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
-
-
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned7 Replies
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
-
Neutral
Hobe1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" may go to Supreme Court
Is it fair to say, Homosexuals are never treated fairly. If a HoMosexual Man or Women wants to have a private bath in the military, what is the problem?
Why should a Woman want to be or, a Man want to be, be forced to deal with joint private quarter's?
If there were seperate quarters pertaining to each individual needs there would not be the problem of Real men being upset with what his/her fellow group members are thinking.
What has this nation become anyway, Tough Darts?
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
okay, sure. We'll just make those tents and ships and all three or four times as big to accomodate all these "private quarters" you think are so necessary. We'll make sure to inform any enemy we might be fighting of our increased space needs so that they are sure to accomodate us.
"Real men" as well as "fake men" and "real" and "fake" women who wish to serve in the military just need to learn to suck it up (#1 lesson) and deal with whatever gets thrown at them.
I think that few, if any, gay men are going to go out of their way to hit on straight men (whether they are allowed to "tell" or not) because who needs the grief and aggravation of the appalled reaction of the straight guy to say nothing of the rejection.
It would be just as uncomfortable for the gay guy after a misfired pass as it would be for the straight guy.
Get over it.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that by making the orientation of a soldier a matter of secrecy, you make that person venerable to coercion. What better thing to threaten someone with than to make their orientation public and get them thrown out of the military.
Remove the rule and remove the problem.
Reply-
Neutral
ZippySpincycle1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good point, tchef--and as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that was one of several reasons for the CIA's decision, years ago, to no longer discriminate against gay employees.
I must, however, point out that "venerable" and "vulnerable" are really, really different things... (grin...on the other hand, your typo is nothing compared to one of my students who wrote that after an adolescent run-in with the law, he has since been a "law biting citizen")
Reply -
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course gays should serve without having to hide their sexual nature.
One of the horrors of "don't ask" is that it enshrines gayness as "dirty secret"--the closet position. Of course, it also makes gay men and women vulnerable.
It's idiotic to contend that straight men are somehow at a disadvantage in the presence of gay men in close quarters. If anything, gay men have learned over time, for reasons of self-protection, to strictly inhibit expressions of potentially unwanted sexual attention.
Mostly, though, the notion of inevitable gay-straight conflict is bogus, an invention of the puritanical and/or homophobic.
Finally, one's sexuality is nobody's damn business!
Reply -
Neutral
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Backward as much of our society is about sexuality.. I believe that many gay's would be in almost as much danger from there "brother's in arms" as from the enemy....
gays in civilian life face danger from homophobes.. why would the military be any different..and those guys are armed...
that being said...
i don't care as long as we are shooting at the same people.. join right in white, black, gay, straight, green or purple.. you got my back.. I've got yours...
Reply-
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"i don't care as long as we are shooting at the same people.. join right in white, black, gay, straight, green or purple.. you got my back.. I've got yours...
Absent a compelling cause for doing so, I would like us to stop shooting.
So maybe I should say I do NOT support gays in the military; I do not support straights in the military either.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The first man seriously injured in Iraq is gay. He was a Marine who came out after he came home....without his leg. Here's his story on 'don't ask don't tell.'
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/28/alva-dont-ask/
Reply -
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, unome, I sometimes ask myself what it would take ME to go to war.
A great deal, is the answer.
Certainly more, much more than having George Bush declare that the leader of Iraq must be removed for all the putative reasons given.
Reply -
-
Neutral
ZippySpincycle1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Did you notice that in the good old days, when members of the military were found out to be gay, they were usually given dishonorable discharges and had their career ruined? Gosh, that worked out so well for everybody...oh, yeah, except the people most directly affected by it. "Keeping quiet" was no guarantee at all; gays in the military had to depend solely on the willingness of superiors and comrades to not lower the boom.
Hey, remember how the darkies were all happy with segregation until those Outside Agitators started making an issue of it?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am gonna go out on a limb here.
What I really think about it, my personal opinion of this thing.
I think a Soldier or Warrior should be a Man's Man regardless of his sexual orientation. Same for the Ladies of course, I guess you would call that a Ladies Lady.
Is that not part of their Duty?
I think the people who have actually served somewhere know what I am talking about.
Military Duty in a firm Military Mind, isn't that what makes a Soldier?
Spend a couple of months underway on a submarine and tell me about learning to deal with people and getting along.
Do I want to listen to people humping in the bunk above me? Not Particularly, I don't care what their sexes are.
It's a White Elephant.
Reply-
-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No.
A Soldiers True Duty is to Hearth and Home.
I am ashamed that the same people who sat by and watched Vietnam happen are sitting on the sidelines about the Iraq Conflict.
A Soldier has a right to refuse an Unlawful Order.
He may stand trial for it, but it's his Duty to refuse the unlawful.
Reply -
-
-
-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
-
kenpowerComment removed: Spammer
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bill, above: the reason that gays make (or made) an "issue" of being gay is that the can be denied the right to serve on the basis of sexual preference. Gays could--and can--be discharged for that reason. Not exactly fair, right?
And Alak: I'm not sure what you mean by a "man's man," although it has an ironic, probably unwanted homoeroticism to it.
To subscribe to the notion that gays must somehow meet a "maleness" test, which in fact all male soldiers must (putting aside for now what that might actually BE), is to imply that gays in particular MIGHTN'T.
Which means you'd be falling for very dusty stereotypes of what gay men are.
Reply -
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Condi, above, every marginalized and/or unjustifiably despised group must go through a period in which they assert their identity to be recognized and (hopefully) accepted for who they are.
Gay people have made great strides in the last twenty years or so--but there's still work to be done.
When homophobia is no longer an issue, or has decreased to a very, very dull roar, there'll be less need for the kind of "advertising" you reject.
Reply-
Neutral
Codi69341 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It has more to do with religion, less to do with homophobia. This is a nation of believers, like it or not. And if you are judged by your work/action etc. Your sex life will be less of an issue. The more you put it in peoples faces, the more others will look at your "advertisment" and not what you have accomplished.
Side note: phobia is a fear of... It isn't that people are afraid of being around homosexuals. They just don't want to around them or there lifestyle. Do you like everyone that you are around/meet? Is that a phobia? Or do you choose not to be around them because for whatever reason you don't like them ,there lifestyle or the way they act?
Reply
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.