Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[Texsox]

Organizations all over this country deal with relationships in the work place.

 

The local Dunder-Mifflin office doesn't have to deal with the same issues soldiers in the field have to deal with. Perhaps only a small group of people believe a military unit in combat is different than organizations all over this country.

[bmags]

The local Dunder-Mifflin office doesn't have to deal with the same issues soldiers in the field have to deal with. Perhaps only a small group of people believe a military unit in combat is different than organizations all over this country.

 

That's a great example tex.

[Balta1701]

The local Dunder-Mifflin office doesn't have to deal with the same issues soldiers in the field have to deal with. Perhaps only a small group of people believe a military unit in combat is different than organizations all over this country.

Hasn't the military already established rules about workplace relationships?

[Y2HH]

Hasn't the military already established rules about workplace relationships?

 

So? Code Red's were illegal but it didn't stop Jack Nicholson from ordering one in order to keep a miscreant in line.

[Heads22]

yeah but you don't have gay dudz lookin at ur weiners in normal workplaces!

 

I'm guessing if its ferociously cute they do.

[lostfan]

The person who brought up that this isn't really that black and white had a point.The whole point about privacy, and living with/being naked in front of someone who's openly gay is a valid one IMO. You can't just tell someone "get over it." That said, that's why you have leadership make policies and iron things out (this is what DADT was in the first place, after Congress made the law). I think that, for the time being, gay servicemembers shouldn't go out of their way to "tell" and should be advised not from doing so. It's different in a communal shower with a closeted gay man and someone who's already known to be gay showering next to you. Of course *I* know that's not the point of a person being gay, that people aren't going to start suddenly getting raped in the shower, and people aren't just going to run to recruiting stations so they can see naked dudes, but that's how Private Joe Snuffy from the Bible Belt probably perceives it and these kinds of things do matter. So it should be something like "you can tell, and if you don't tell and we find out not a big deal, but don't press the issue or we'll have problems." Then you'd be disrupting the mission and you can be chaptered out on those grounds (not for being gay).

 

I saw someone making a point about roommates and privacy but really I don't see how that's a whole lot different. I didn't walk around letting my roommate see my junk, and if my roommate was female and I made advances towards her there are already sexual harassment laws she could report me for. This wouldn't be that much different if someone of the same sex was coming onto you. Even before the change in policy it was possible to report someone of the same sex for sexual harassment/inappropriate advances. Still - better for the gay soldier to not openly flaunt their sexuality if it can be avoided.

[lostfan]

Hasn't the military already established rules about workplace relationships?

Yes. Pretty extensively.

[kapkomet]

Yes. Pretty extensively.

 

And now, you've taken the last institution that had a autocratic function and broke down the very pillars upon which it was built. This law (to break DADT) had nothing to do with "rights", it absolutely was to send a message that the military doesn't control what happens, CONGRESS does.

 

Nah, ... it was just bigoted law until now (please... that is a f***ing joke).

[StrangeSox]

And now, you've taken the last institution that had a autocratic function and broke down the very pillars upon which it was built. This law (to break DADT) had nothing to do with "rights", it absolutely was to send a message that the military doesn't control what happens, CONGRESS does.

 

Nah, ... it was just bigoted law until now (please... that is a f***ing joke).

[kapkomet]

 

 

Tell me how that's wrong. And tell me exactly how DADT is bigoted. Tell me why a gay soldier has to scream I AM GAY in the military and not just serve. Why is all this necessary? Equal rights? Equal rights for what? They already had equal rights in the sense that they had a choice to sign on that dotted line - equal for all. I guess we need to have a DADT for heterosexuals now, right? I mean, they should have equal opportunity to scream I AM HETERO and not have anyone care, right?

 

Oh, except gay people because they'll be pissed that someone can express themselves that way... OH and it gets better... I bet gay people didn't even care (with those rare exceptions who wanted to make it a point - which are nothing but attention whores anyway) - people who want to serve shouldn't have to check the box of male/female/lesbian/gay/transgender when they sign up... equal rights for what, exactly?

 

The only reason (again) this is forced on the military is because some social f***s in Washington wanted to prove that they can dictate how the military runs things. Do you think Harry f***ing Reid gives a s*** about gay people or gay rights IN THE MILITARY other then perhaps a voting block? Seriously?

 

I want to know why this matters. And I don't want to hear (oh, this is the first step in equal rights and marriage and blah blah blah... this had NOTHING to do with that). They could have passed a real law about the issue and not mess with DADT, which was something that was (generally) working... oh, but wait, it's "bigoted". Fail. Serious fail.

 

Oh and one more point... I'm seriously not some lunatic that thinks all gay people are bad, or wrong, or will burn in hell, it's not for me to judge. In fact, I wish the government would stay out of the issue altogether, including and ESPECIALLY the gay marriage ban people. It's not their place - just in the same parallel that it's not the government's place to deal with the military policy of DADT, in my opinion.

Edited December 22, 2010 by kapkomet

[NorthSideSox72]

Tell me how that's wrong. And tell me exactly how DADT is bigoted. Tell me why a gay soldier has to scream I AM GAY in the military and not just serve. Why is all this necessary? Equal rights? Equal rights for what? They already had equal rights in the sense that they had a choice to sign on that dotted line - equal for all. I guess we need to have a DADT for heterosexuals now, right? I mean, they should have equal opportunity to scream I AM HETERO and not have anyone care, right?

 

Oh, except gay people because they'll be pissed that someone can express themselves that way... OH and it gets better... I bet gay people didn't even care (with those rare exceptions who wanted to make it a point - which are nothing but attention whores anyway) - people who want to serve shouldn't have to check the box of male/female/lesbian/gay/transgender when they sign up... equal rights for what, exactly?

 

The only reason (again) this is forced on the military is because some social f***s in Washington wanted to prove that they can dictate how the military runs things. Do you think Harry f***ing Reid gives a s*** about gay people or gay rights IN THE MILITARY other then perhaps a voting block? Seriously?

 

I want to know why this matters. And I don't want to hear (oh, this is the first step in equal rights and marriage and blah blah blah... this had NOTHING to do with that). They could have passed a real law about the issue and not mess with DADT, which was something that was (generally) working... oh, but wait, it's "bigoted". Fail. Serious fail.

 

Oh and one more point... I'm seriously not some lunatic that thinks all gay people are bad, or wrong, or will burn in hell, it's not for me to judge. In fact, I wish the government would stay out of the issue altogether, including and ESPECIALLY the gay marriage ban people. It's not their place - just in the same parallel that it's not the government's place to deal with the military policy of DADT, in my opinion.

No one is asking to scream out their orientation. They are asking to not be kicked out of the military for it. Pretty simple to me, and no, its not working right now.

 

[StrangeSox]

Tell me how that's wrong. And tell me exactly how DADT is bigoted.

 

It treats homosexuals differently because they're homosexuals.

 

Tell me why a gay soldier has to scream I AM GAY in the military and not just serve.

 

Who is saying this? They want the right to serve, same as any other soldier--without fear of being thrown out if someone happens to find out they're gay. How horrible!

 

Why is all this necessary? Equal rights? Equal rights for what? They already had equal rights in the sense that they had a choice to sign on that dotted line - equal for all.

 

And darkies had equal rights to sign up pre-1949, they were just going to be kept away from the rest of the soldiers. Hey, man, it's equal rights in a sense!

 

I guess we need to have a DADT for heterosexuals now, right? I mean, they should have equal opportunity to scream I AM HETERO and not have anyone care, right?

 

Well, they do have the right to shout that. You don't get thrown out of the military if someone finds you emailing your opposite-sex partner, but people have been thrown out for emailing their same-sex partner. Straight service members can proclaim their sexuality all they want, gays cannot.

 

Why is that acceptable? Why do you think it's ok to have a separate set of discriminatory rules for gays?

 

Oh, except gay people because they'll be pissed that someone can express themselves that way... OH and it gets better... I bet gay people didn't even care (with those rare exceptions who wanted to make it a point - which are nothing but attention whores anyway) - people who want to serve shouldn't have to check the box of male/female/lesbian/gay/transgender when they sign up...

 

Have you not been following this issue at all? No one has to or will have to check their sexual orientation. You "bet gay people didn't even care" about getting tossed out of the military because someone found out their sexual orientation? You "bet gay people didn't even care" that the military fostered a homophobic atmosphere? The gays in the military aren't all activists, kap. You're making your usual incredibly-broad-handwaving-and-ignorant arguments.

 

equal rights for what, exactly?

Equal rights for what? For the same treatment as any other soldier.

 

The only reason (again) this is forced on the military is because some social f***s in Washington wanted to prove that they can dictate how the military runs things. Do you think Harry f***ing Reid gives a s*** about gay people or gay rights IN THE MILITARY other then perhaps a voting block? Seriously?

 

Seriously, enough with your retarded turn-everything-into-a-giant-conspiracy bulls***. No one is ever actually allowed to legitimately care about an issue in your world, it's all some big scheme.

 

This is "forced" on the military because most of the military is ok with it, most of the public is ok with it, the Commander in Chief is ok with it, and most of the top brass is ok with it.

 

I want to know why this matters. And I don't want to hear (oh, this is the first step in equal rights and marriage and blah blah blah... this had NOTHING to do with that). They could have passed a real law about the issue and not mess with DADT, which was something that was (generally) working... oh, but wait, it's "bigoted". Fail. Serious fail.

 

Yeah, kap, your entire post is one big fail. DADT was "working" if you're ok with discriminating against gays for being gays and for kicking them out of the military. More likely than not, this was going to be ruled unconstitutional, so it was actually preferable for the military to have this legislated.

 

Oh and one more point... I'm seriously not some lunatic that thinks all gay people are bad, or wrong, or will burn in hell, it's not for me to judge. In fact, I wish the government would stay out of the issue altogether, including and ESPECIALLY the gay marriage ban people. It's not their place - just in the same parallel that it's not the government's place to deal with the military policy of DADT, in my opinion.

 

Your opinion is plainly wrong. We have civilian control of the military. DADT is a bigoted policy, regardless of your scare quotes, and does not serve any real useful purpose. In fact, it has arguably harmed the military in many cases when good men and women are tossed out simply for their sexual orientation.

[StrangeSox]

kap, please justify the existence of DADT. Explain why it's necessary or useful, what purpose it serves. If you can't justify the policy's existence, your whole point is moot.

 

Also, btw, DADT was originally enacted by Congress in the first place, so of course it had to be repealed by them. Which makes your rant against Harry Reid and "social f***s in Washington" all the more hilariously wrong.

[NorthSideSox72]

kap, please justify the existence of DADT. Explain why it's necessary or useful, what purpose it serves. If you can't justify the policy's existence, your whole point is moot.

 

Also, btw, DADT was originally enacted by Congress in the first place, so of course it had to be repealed by them. Which makes your rant against Harry Reid and "social f***s in Washington" all the more hilariously wrong.

Actually, as I recall, DADT was an XO (from Clinton) that was then confirmed by Congress. I should probably go look that up, but that was my memory of it.

 

[StrangeSox]

Actually, as I recall, DADT was an XO (from Clinton) that was then confirmed by Congress. I should probably go look that up, but that was my memory of it.

 

Could be, either way it doesn't mesh with kap's rant about Congress only doing this to assert authority over the military. The policy came from outside the military leadership in the first place. It required an act of Congress or an XO to repeal (this was debatable, I think, some claiming Obama could just get rid of it). Aside from him completely dismissing the point of why discrimination based on sexual orientation is a problem, the crux of his argument, that this is just a power grab by civilian leadership, is plainly wrong.

[lostfan]

Actually, as I recall, DADT was an XO (from Clinton) that was then confirmed by Congress. I should probably go look that up, but that was my memory of it.

I was in 7th grade or something but I remember it was a compromise (Clinton wanted to let gays in the military, back in the day it used to be a crime)

[NorthSideSox72]

I was in 7th grade or something but I remember it was a compromise (Clinton wanted to let gays in the military, back in the day it used to be a crime)

I was in college.

 

Anyway, yeah, maybe it was a compromise. The underlying UCMJ can only be changed by the executive if the military OK's it, and its not in violation of any legislated law. DADT was a policy either set by XO and then confirmed, or set by Congressional action. Either way, I think, if Congress acted on it, then it can't be undone by another XO.

 

[Balta1701]

I was in college.

 

Anyway, yeah, maybe it was a compromise. The underlying UCMJ can only be changed by the executive if the military OK's it, and its not in violation of any legislated law. DADT was a policy either set by XO and then confirmed, or set by Congressional action. Either way, I think, if Congress acted on it, then it can't be undone by another XO.

Based on my reading a couple days ago that I'm not rechecking...

 

The outright ban on homosexuals in the military was in place before DADT, and it was not changed by the establishment of DADT. That was in place as an act of Congress many years before DADT.

 

DADT was established as an executive order, setting rules for how that act of Congress was enforced. Basically, it was supposed to prohibit the military from actively checking to find out if a person was homosexual. It never really did that and they still obviously did everything they could to actively check, but that was how it was designed; the EO was supposed to set enforcement rules.

[Balta1701]

You know what really bothers me about Kap's rant there? This was something pointed out to me a long time ago while talking to a gay person I knew.

 

Kap asks why a gay person needs to have the right to walk around screaming "I am Gay" at every opportunity. To me, that's actually not the real question here. The way that my friend was describing it, the question was something along the lines of "why do you have to wear your homosexuality on your sleeve" or something like that.

 

What you don't realize unless you really stop to think about it is...you're wearing your heterosexuality on your sleeve just as much. Ever show someone pictures of your kids? Or put up a Facebook post talking about how you're going somewhere with your wife? Take your family to a company party? Complain about how hard the ride to daycare was that morning? Or tell an awkward story of something that happened when you took your wife to meet your family? Come up with your own examples.

 

Whether you realize it or not...just doing normal activities, you're holding up a big sign that says "I am heterosexual!". Most of the time, it's just not something you think about because you think it's normal. How weird would it be if every time your husband/wife called you at work, you had to deny that you were talking to them? Or when you were asked what you did over the weekend, you had to lie?

[Rex Kickass]

Tell me how that's wrong. And tell me exactly how DADT is bigoted. Tell me why a gay soldier has to scream I AM GAY in the military and not just serve. Why is all this necessary? Equal rights? Equal rights for what? They already had equal rights in the sense that they had a choice to sign on that dotted line - equal for all. I guess we need to have a DADT for heterosexuals now, right? I mean, they should have equal opportunity to scream I AM HETERO and not have anyone care, right?

 

Oh, except gay people because they'll be pissed that someone can express themselves that way... OH and it gets better... I bet gay people didn't even care (with those rare exceptions who wanted to make it a point - which are nothing but attention whores anyway) - people who want to serve shouldn't have to check the box of male/female/lesbian/gay/transgender when they sign up... equal rights for what, exactly?

 

The only reason (again) this is forced on the military is because some social f***s in Washington wanted to prove that they can dictate how the military runs things. Do you think Harry f***ing Reid gives a s*** about gay people or gay rights IN THE MILITARY other then perhaps a voting block? Seriously?

 

I want to know why this matters. And I don't want to hear (oh, this is the first step in equal rights and marriage and blah blah blah... this had NOTHING to do with that). They could have passed a real law about the issue and not mess with DADT, which was something that was (generally) working... oh, but wait, it's "bigoted". Fail. Serious fail.

 

Oh and one more point... I'm seriously not some lunatic that thinks all gay people are bad, or wrong, or will burn in hell, it's not for me to judge. In fact, I wish the government would stay out of the issue altogether, including and ESPECIALLY the gay marriage ban people. It's not their place - just in the same parallel that it's not the government's place to deal with the military policy of DADT, in my opinion.

 

I'll tell you why this law is bigoted. Because when you have a personal life, and you work closely with people that you have become very close to, personal things come out. Eventually the conversation turns to the wife and kids, the girlfriend, the boyfriend, etc. The picture in their wallet, etc. People don't go around screaming IM HETERO in the army or elsewhere, but its acceptable to talk about your heterosexual personal connections in the workplace. It's no problem for you to talk about your wife, your kids, etc. Right now, it is a problem for someone in the military who has a same sex partner to even casually mention his or her partner, even in the most mundane way that you would never even think about. It is a problem to accidentally leave your email open because what happens if the person waiting in line to use the computer behind you accidentally reads the message from your partner and figures it out, and then reports you? What happens if you're on leave and you decide to have a drink at a gay bar, and someone in your chain of command sees it happening? Do you think that's the same penalties if your CO sees you walking into Scores on your leave? Probably not. This is not about the right to shoot porn at work for christ sakes, its about the right to keep your job if your sexual orientation is known or even suspected to be gay, bi or otherwise.

 

I have had to work regular jobs that take place in boring offices in the midwest where I had to carefully watch my steps to make sure I didn't slip up, because I knew if it came out that I was gay I would be fired. That was stressful enough. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for soldiers who have to fear not just being fired upon by the enemy, but also stabbed in the back by their own side because he forgot to switch the gender of pronouns when talk about significant others came up at some point during that job.

 

I think its pretty clear here, that I'm gay. I'm pretty proud of the fact that I am comfortable with who I am and who it turns out I'm wired to love. I don't hide it, sometimes I make that identity known, for a number of reasons (personal and political), but the truth is that in most situations, at most times, I don't scream out IM GAY. I got past that somewhere around hour 3 of the coming out process. But I also don't feel that its necessary or correct to hide who or what I am to be employed, get housing, or serve my country. Until this repeal happens, GLBT servicemen have to lie about who they are in order to serve their country. And by the way, even when the repeal is enacted, gay servicemen still won't have the same rights and opportunities as heterosexual servicemen. Because DOMA prevents same sex couples from receiving the same benefits that heterosexual couples can receive when employed by the federal government. So maybe you can tell me how this is all "equal" again.

 

Maybe you feel that heterosexual soldiers need to have their rights protected by law as well. I would support such a law, but something tells me that you and I both know that its unnecessary. But I know that today, 29 states say that an employer can legally terminate or deny you employment based on what they suspect your sexual orientation to be. Close to 40 states offer no protection for transgender individuals. You can be legally denied housing based on the same thing in these states. Maybe you can point out where this is a problem for heterosexuals? If it is, I would be happy to support your fight to bring equal rights to all people, heterosexuals included.

 

[Balta1701]

With a few penstrokes...this policy is now gone.

[StrangeSox]

Thank you both for a more coherent, to-the-point rebuttal of kap's inanity.

[bmags]

Thanks for sharing that Rex.

[BigSqwert]

Thanks for sharing that Rex.

Indeed.

 

I wish you could come out to our drinking outing so that I could buy you a drink.

[Rex Kickass]

Indeed.

 

I wish you could come out to our drinking outing so that I could buy you a drink.

 

Free drinks are always welcome.