Obama supports repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"

myp · May 24, 2010

President Obama backed a proposal that would end the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy from the Clinton era. The policy, which says that gays can serve in the military so long as they don't say their orientation, was originally seen as a compromise between those who wanted homosexuals to be able to serve and those who didn't. It has since drawn criticism for not being conducive to gay rights. The change in policy is still pending the approval of certain leaders as well as a study being conducted by the Pentagon.

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64O07220100525

Thoughts?

Dirk · May 24, 2010

This is something heard very rarely from me, I know. But I dislike opposition for opposition's sake, and I have very strong personal convictions on the issue anyway. I am in absolute agreement with President Barack Obama that the unjust and discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" policy, disallowing open homosexuals to join the Armed Forces is a disgusting insult to human dignity and should be repealed.

Just in case there is any confusion: I completely support the President in repealing this law.

myp · May 24, 2010

While I agree in that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military and I do support repealing "don't ask, don't tell," I think the best thing for people going into the military- whether gay or straight- is to just not say their orientation. Not only is it a personal matter, but some may not agree with certain things and treat fellow soldiers differently because of it.

Dirk · May 24, 2010

myp said:
While I agree in that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military and I do support repealing "don't ask, don't tell," I think the best thing for people going into the military- whether gay or straight- is to just not say their orientation. Not only is it a personal matter, but some may not agree with certain things and treat fellow soldiers differently because of it.

As someone that has a number of gay friends, as someone that is attracted to men himself, as a libertarian and as a socialist, I think that someone's sexuality should be a matter entirely of the individual's own discretion. Gays in the military don't need to be outed, and at the same time, neither should they be obligated by authoritarian legislation to keep quiet about who they are.

myp · May 24, 2010

Dirk said:
As someone that has a number of gay friends, as someone that is attracted to men himself, as a libertarian and as a socialist, I think that someone's sexuality should be a matter entirely of the individual's own discretion. Gays in the military don't need to be outed, and at the same time, neither should they be obligated by authoritarian legislation to keep quiet about who they are.

I completely agree- the policy should not prohibit it. I am just saying that in practice, it could be a good decision to keep quiet anyway because frankly, everyone isn't accepting of different beliefs and it could just lead to a rougher time for the soldier.

Dirk · May 24, 2010

myp said:
I completely agree- the policy should not prohibit it. I am just saying that in practice, it could be a good decision to keep quiet anyway because frankly, everyone isn't accepting of different beliefs and it could just lead to a rougher time for the soldier.

Beliefs? I'll ignore the technicality and presume you are arguing from the perspective of social perception. I think that the first step, which, as you've stated, you agree with, is to repeal the policy, since it not only restricts, but also symbolises and facilitates homophobia within society. I'd like to be optimistic and say that in most cases, if they are good at what they do, people will be accepted by the people around them regardless of sexuality.

EDIT: I think there will be exceptions, of course, but social change does not happen overnight, you know?

myp · May 24, 2010

Dirk said:
Beliefs? I'll ignore the technicality and presume you are arguing from the perspective of social perception. I think that the first step, which, as you've stated, you agree with, is to repeal the policy, since it not only restricts, but also symbolises and facilitates homophobia within society. I'd like to be optimistic and say that in most cases, if they are good at what they do, people will be accepted by the people around them regardless of sexuality.

EDIT: I think there will be exceptions, of course, but social change does not happen overnight, you know?

Sorry, beliefs was the wrong word there. I need to get some sleep

But, I agree reversing the policy is the first step in bringing about that societal change.

Arlie · May 28, 2010

I'm not sure on this.....it wasnt JUST a compromise between those who did and didnt want homosexuals to serve. And you can't just abolish it because you think you're making rights equal and it's the next step since allowing marriage....

It's also a safety thing:

People who arent homosexual may feel uncomfortable around a homosexual which would/could compromise missions AND lives in the long run. If you're afraid of homosexuals (homophobia) and don't want to touch them, you're not going to save their lives or work with them properly in a war.

People who are homosexual don't want to stand out and draw attention because there ARE people who will do horrible things to them....even today there are hate crimes in the military and elsewhere towards homosexuals. If you're a religious nut in the military who believes homosexuality is a sin then you might become aggressive in your hatred towards them, or you could pester them senselessly to "repent"...either way lol.

It's not as simple as "these people are equal, deal with it" like he's making out. It's something that's going to take a LONG time to become "okay" in society I think.

notimpressed · Jun 18, 2010

He says allot of things, he never does much. This is talk and it won't be action. The Military is not society and should not be social experiment. Lives are at stake.

Dirk · Jun 19, 2010

notimpressed said:
He says allot of things, he never does much.

True. What's he actually doing about it? When will it be voted on? Why do they think equality and injustice is something to be procrastinated over?

notimpressed · Jun 19, 2010

I imagine he was schooled by the military as to why its not going to happen. Promises from American politicans are wortheless. Its good politicaly to pay lip service to Democratic base with this stuff. Reality is much different. The military is no place for these social experiments. Clinton did plenty of damage with his meddling into it.

David · Jun 21, 2010

And as the bill approaches the president's desk or signing... Secretary Gates warns that President Obama will likely veto it. Oh joy!

jdsingle · Jun 22, 2010

myp said:
While I agree in that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military and I do support repealing "don't ask, don't tell," I think the best thing for people going into the military- whether gay or straight- is to just not say their orientation. Not only is it a personal matter, but some may not agree with certain things and treat fellow soldiers differently because of it.

I feel open disclosure of their orientation may incite harassment as well as unequal treatment by other soldiers. If you're surrounded by nothing but men for a few months, people are going to start having some paranoid idea the homosexual might try and have their way with them.

I think homosexual's should be allowed to be in the military, I just don't suggest they disclose that they are. We don't need more problems in the military than there already is.

David · Jun 22, 2010

jdsingle said:
I feel open disclosure of their orientation may incite harassment as well as unequal treatment by other soldiers. If you're surrounded by nothing but men for a few months, people are going to start having some paranoid idea the homosexual might try and have their way with them.

I think homosexual's should be allowed to be in the military, I just don't suggest they disclose that they are. We don't need more problems in the military than there already is.

Agreed. We don't need straits going around talking about how they'd bang so and so ether.

notimpressed · Jun 23, 2010

Don’t as don’t tell, breeds mistrust. Allot of these kind of phrases would cause fights "Hey are you some sort of *****, you were looking at my ****"

Relationships of a emotional and/or physical nature. Would also lead to conflict and mistrust. The largest potential for these problems is Training, young enlistees with no professionalism or discipline would cause the largest issues. Regardless of legal age of consent. They are just kids, they are hard enough to train after Clinton's nonsense with sensitivity and such.

porsteamboy · Jun 26, 2010

UCMJ Art. 125 (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex with another person or with an animal is guilty of Sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of Sodomy shall be punished as a Court-Marshal may direct. This of course means ( humans ) any penetration of an orfice other than virginal. And any sex with farm animals. Now, we all know that we all were guility of Sodomy and could have been subject Court-Martial, if you were in the service and had been discovered, they never asked and we didn't tell. The problem with admitting that you are gay is that it's a confession to Sodomy according to ART.125, unnatural carnal copulation with the same sex. If they lift the don't ask, don't tell policy and you can serve openly gay, they would be respecting your sexual orientation but not your behavior. They would have to change the UCMJ or do away with Sodomy and I'm sure they would replace it with some type of military sexual behavior code. I retired from the military in 1985, just as they started letting women on ships, I didn' care if I guy was homosexual or not as long as he did his job. I didn't care were he stuck his pee-pee when he was off duty and off the ship, now, if he started sticking his pee-pee in things while he was on board, then he had a problem.

notimpressed · Jun 26, 2010

I dont care where you stick anything. Problem is lust, and any potential relationship in which judgment could be skewed due to that relationship. laws get broken often. And the women on ths ships btw were getting pregnant at fairly large rate. Even past training the pregnant women flow on of those ships shows how impractical and potential dangerous this stuff can be.

jdsingle · Jun 26, 2010

porsteamboy said:
UCMJ Art. 125 (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex with another person or with an animal is guilty of Sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of Sodomy shall be punished as a Court-Marshal may direct. This of course means ( humans ) any penetration of an orfice other than virginal. And any sex with farm animals. Now, we all know that we all were guility of Sodomy and could have been subject Court-Martial, if you were in the service and had been discovered, they never asked and we didn't tell. The problem with admitting that you are gay is that it's a confession to Sodomy according to ART.125, unnatural carnal copulation with the same sex. If they lift the don't ask, don't tell policy and you can serve openly gay, they would be respecting your sexual orientation but not your behavior. They would have to change the UCMJ or do away with Sodomy and I'm sure they would replace it with some type of military sexual behavior code. I retired from the military in 1985, just as they started letting women on ships, I didn' care if I guy was homosexual or not as long as he did his job. I didn't care were he stuck his pee-pee when he was off duty and off the ship, now, if he started sticking his pee-pee in things while he was on board, then he had a problem.

Thank you for your post. It was really informational. I didn't know all of that.

notimpressed · Jun 26, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/30/us/36-women-pregnant-aboard-a-navy-ship-that-served-in-gulf.html

porsteamboy · Jun 27, 2010

notimpressed said:
I dont care where you stick anything. Problem is lust, and any potential relationship in which judgment could be skewed due to that relationship. laws get broken often. And the women on ths ships btw were getting pregnant at fairly large rate. Even past training the pregnant women flow on of those ships shows how impractical and potential dangerous this stuff can be.

Well, control of your sexual desire is part of it. On a ship you're at sea for long lengths of time, 30 to 60 days at a time, Subs usually 9O days. If the only thing onboard is men and you are not gay then sex is not to big of a problem, there is none until you hit port, of course there is always masterbaition. which by the way is not prohibited by Art. 125, unless its mutual. Now, if you have gays on board then you always have the possibility of prision sex. When I retired they started letting females on non-combatant ships, like sub and destroyer tenders which hardly went to sea, some supply ships and some oilers. And yes when they first started allowing women onboard, there were alot of women getting pregnant and the women were discharged, now they are sent to shore duty. U.S. Navy is probably the only Navy in the world that dosen't allow drinking alcohol onboard, lift that band and initially you would have abuse but would be curtailed in short order.

Obama supports repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"

Similar threads