read this on yahoo... got me thinking...

Do you think Congress should repel the "don't ask don't tell" law/policy?

Study: Military gays don't undermine unit cohesion

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches. According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.

Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military — Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.

Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.

Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.

"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.

Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."

"Everyone was living a big lie — the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.

On the Net:

Palm Center: http://www.palmcenter.org

I really think they should. Just because someone has a difference sexual preference than others may share, it makes him or her no less of a man or woman who is capable of holding a position in the military. Maybe men feel differently about other men, but as a women, I am not threatened, or feel uncomfortable around another woman, who happens to be attracted to women. HOw many able bodied individuals have not joined the military even though they have a desire to, simply because you can't be homosexual and have a military career. Makes no sense to me, it is discriminatory of these people, and in my mind is unconstitutional. JMO

It kills me that they needed to do a STUDY on this. No duh, you morons! EFFING HOMOPHOBIA!!! :rant :rant :vent

I am going to go with I really don't know. I just wonder if they did how many hate crimes might occur. That is what personally scares me...is that there are always going to be closed minded people...

I am going to go with I really don't know. I just wonder if they did how many hate crimes might occur. That is what personally scares me...is that there are always going to be closed minded people...

At least if they repeal it when hate crimes happen the victims can report it. As it stands now, if a gay person is harassed or assaulted they can't report the crime or they risk being investigated themselves and being discharged for being gay. Crimes go unreported and people get away with it because of the DADT policy. Repealing it would make that better, not worse. At least then the people who commit the crimes cn be held accountable and kicked out, not the victims.

There is a guy on Patrick's ship eho is gay. Everybody knows it. It's kinda hard not to. Nobody harrasses him because he's good at his job and doesn't hit on the guys.

I think honestly for the most part guys don't really care. Once they get used to it and realize that just because a guy is gay doesn't mean he wants to fuck you, they just forget about it.

I am going to go with I really don't know. I just wonder if they did how many hate crimes might occur. That is what personally scares me...is that there are always going to be closed minded people...

I'm going to pull a Reductum Ad Absurdum argument here... but...

Along the lines of what you're saying... that we should limit people's abilities to express themselves because of potential of danger... If we follow your logic, then we should create a don't ask, don't tell policy with regards to religion. No matter what religion you are, you can't wear any object of your religion, can't pray (even in the privacy of your barracks), can't talk to anybody about religion... and, since homosexuals can't even attempt to get married without being kicked out, people can't even attempt to go to church.

What about race? Should we have a don't ask, don't tell policy for the color of people's skin? How would we enforce that... put blindfolds on everybody?

Yes, Reductum ad Absurdum is a logical fallacy, but so is the basis of the DADT policy... And, wasn't it our founding fathers who warned us against giving up essential liberties (be who we are) in exchange for temporary and illusory security?

There is a guy on Patrick's ship eho is gay. Everybody knows it. It's kinda hard not to. Nobody harrasses him because he's good at his job and doesn't hit on the guys.

I think honestly for the most part guys don't really care. Once they get used to it and realize that just because a guy is gay doesn't mean he wants to fuck you, they just forget about it.

I have heard the "but the military isn't READY for gays to openly serve" argument when this topic comes up countless times. Um, who says they aren't ready? Since when is the military this huge group of homophobic closed minded bigots who wouldn't be able to do their jobs if there was a gay person in the room? I know that I personally have a lot more respect for the military than that assumption gives them. I have faith that the military actually understands all of that stuff that they talk about all the time... Loyalty, duty, honor, sacrifice, selfless service... Serving your COUNTRY, not your own self interests.

Maybe that's just me? :dunno

I didn't want to enter into a big debate...:)...I agree with Wicked in that it would be good for the fact that if hate crimes do happen they could report it....In the end, I would want to know the opinion of gay people in the military. That is why I said I don't know...

Yes, I believe the DADT policy should be a thing of the past. Anyone willing to put on the uniform and serve our nation should be able to do so openly.

I didn't want to enter into a big debate...:)...I agree with Wicked in that it would be good for the fact that if hate crimes do happen they could report it....In the end, I would want to know the opinion of gay people in the military. That is why I said I don't know...

Adam and I are just quoting you cuz you got us thinking. You brought up a good discussion point. That's a good thing! :tu

Adam and I are just quoting you cuz you got us thinking. You brought up a good discussion point. That's a good thing! :tu

Didn't know you looked at it that way :) thanks for telling me. I am not big on the debating but I did want to mention what I thought.

Didn't know you looked at it that way :) thanks for telling me. I am not big on the debating but I did want to mention what I thought.

I can't speak for everyone, but I know that with me and Ghedi (that's my husband, Adam, BTW) we just love the discussion. If someone brings up something that gets the hamsters a runnin' we tend to quote it and start talking about it. You brought up a concern that I think a lot of people have. We definitely weren't saying there was anything wrong with the concerns you have at all, just responding with our opinions on it. ;) Neither one of us take debate personally or anything, so don't worry! We just like talking about this stuff! :D

Thanks for sharing your opinion. :tu I am always interested in other people's views!

Well here's how I see it. And I'm hung over and over-sharing, so bear with me.

If homosexuals can't be in the military, should Patrick be kicked out because we've had anal sex? What exactly is so wrong with being homosexual?

Does putting your penis in a rectum prevent you from doing your job? Are homosexuals evil, theiving, lazy, perverse people who are unfit to be in the general population?

Maybe we should make a list of other jobs gays shouldn't have.

Teacher: They could turn your kids gay.

Waiter: They might touch your food and get gay on it.

Dancer: Watching a gay person wiggle around in tight clothing might make you gay.

Actor: What if they had a gay man play a straight man in a movie? That's no good.

Camp councelor: Because we all know that all gays are child molestors.




It is ASININE to tell a person that because of where they LEGALLY stick their schlong they can't have a certain job.

Waiter: They might touch your food and get gay on it.

:rofl OMG this one cracked me up. Especially since my gay cousin works in a VERY popular restaurant in California. I wonder how many people he has infected with the gayness? :hungry :puzz :giggle

i'm with timsgirl. i just don't know while yes it would be extremely important to get rid of DADT but i don't think it'll really happen

At least if they repeal it when hate crimes happen the victims can report it. As it stands now, if a gay person is harassed or assaulted they can't report the crime or they risk being investigated themselves and being discharged for being gay. Crimes go unreported and people get away with it because of the DADT policy. Repealing it would make that better, not worse. At least then the people who commit the crimes cn be held accountable and kicked out, not the victims.

This is a great point.

My further question on this is that when I asked DB about gays in the military he said that lesbians tend not to bug the guys as much. If they are open about their sexual orientation, then the guys in the platoon just say "meh. big deal" and continue on. He said that what tends to freak guys out is having a gay man look at you in close showering quarters or dressing areas...etc. That's where I see the "trust and confidence" issue come up.

I also agree with Miss B'Havn though in that if they are willing to put on a uniform and fight for our country...go ahead! What do I care if you are gay or not?

I think they should stay with the, Dont ask dont tell policy.
Not because I am a homophobic or whatever. I just think that it would be easier on them. Some people are just not as excepting as others.

I think they should stay with the, Dont ask dont tell policy.
Not because I am a homophobic or whatever. I just think that it would be easier on them. Some people are just not as excepting as others.

So it is "easier" to have to hide your love live/significant other and deny who you are? It is "easier" to have to suffer through any attacks by those not as accepting as others because to report the incident would be "telling" which would result in YOU being punished? :dunno

I think they should stay with the, Dont ask dont tell policy.
Not because I am a homophobic or whatever. I just think that it would be easier on them. Some people are just not as excepting as others.

OK well then lets go back to separate water fountains and schools, and counters at the diner because SOME people are less excepting as others.

No one is asking straight members of the military to have gay sex with these people. They are asking them to let them do their jobs.

I'm with Liz on this... History has proven, time and time again that "Separate but Equal" is never equal, and is only an excuse to perpetuate injustice. While I don't personally approve of affirmative action, it had done a load of good for our nation, by increasing personal accountability and responsibility on the part of us white males... Something that I'm glad I've learned. I don't agree with affirmative action now because it is still racial discrimination, and allows people to be hired without having the skills required for the position... In its time, it was a wonderful step forward, but the time for true integration has come and gone. The same goes with the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy... While DADT was great for its time, and certainly a step forwards from overt discrimination against homosexuality, it is still discrimination, and it is still targeted against a minority. As many others in this thread have said before, the DADT policy creates a safe haven for people who attack homosexuals, because the person being harassed has no way to seek recourse. Also, by implementing the DADT policy, we are asking a good percentage of our service members to disobey their oath of enlistment by lying... After all, a falsehood by omission is still a falsehood, and when you create a falsehood knowingly, you are lying.

gay straight transexual whatever i can care less. whatever flosta ur boat! i love everyone (: its a free country we should be able to be free and open with our sexuality!!

People are, in general, stubborn people resistant to change.

People, in general, used to be uncomfortable with the idea of of interracial marriage, females working, and numerous other things. Hell there was a time when I wouldn't have been able to get a job in the US because I am Irish.

People won't change on their own. They need to be helped to change. What's the worst that could happen? It doesn't work out? Change it back, like prohibition.

There is a guy on Patrick's ship eho is gay. Everybody knows it. It's kinda hard not to. Nobody harrasses him because he's good at his job and doesn't hit on the guys.

I think honestly for the most part guys don't really care. Once they get used to it and realize that just because a guy is gay doesn't mean he wants to fuck you, they just forget about it.

i know... there is a gal on Jeff's ship (and division) that is lesbian... and everyone is cool. im friends with her, hell we have gone shopping together at VS!!! I think dh has told me once or twice that there is a guy thats gay whos in the division too... they all have fun and laugh jokingly about it but it doesnt bug anyone cuz its all fun and games, nothing totally insulting is said.

People are, in general, stubborn people resistant to change.

People, in general, used to be uncomfortable with the idea of of interracial marriage, females working, and numerous other things. Hell there was a time when I wouldn't have been able to get a job in the US because I am Irish.

People won't change on their own. They need to be helped to change. What's the worst that could happen? It doesn't work out? Change it back, like prohibition.

true you bring up a good point... but now a days people are becoming more acceptive of "indeferance"... awhile ago CNN took a poll about what US Americans are most concern about... and same sex marriage (im going to also throw in relationships in general) was not a major concern as some other factors like the economy that is falling and failing the american people, job losses.

Honsetly i dont see a problem with being either gay or lesbian.

I'm with Liz on this... History has proven, time and time again that "Separate but Equal" is never equal, and is only an excuse to perpetuate injustice. While I don't personally approve of affirmative action, it had done a load of good for our nation, by increasing personal accountability and responsibility on the part of us white males... Something that I'm glad I've learned. I don't agree with affirmative action now because it is still racial discrimination, and allows people to be hired without having the skills required for the position... In its time, it was a wonderful step forward, but the time for true integration has come and gone. The same goes with the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy... While DADT was great for its time, and certainly a step forwards from overt discrimination against homosexuality, it is still discrimination, and it is still targeted against a minority. As many others in this thread have said before, the DADT policy creates a safe haven for people who attack homosexuals, because the person being harassed has no way to seek recourse. Also, by implementing the DADT policy, we are asking a good percentage of our service members to disobey their oath of enlistment by lying... After all, a falsehood by omission is still a falsehood, and when you create a falsehood knowingly, you are lying.


Brilliant, as usual.

My further question on this is that when I asked DB about gays in the military he said that lesbians tend not to bug the guys as much. If they are open about their sexual orientation, then the guys in the platoon just say "meh. big deal" and continue on. He said that what tends to freak guys out is having a gay man look at you in close showering quarters or dressing areas...etc. That's where I see the "trust and confidence" issue come up.


In this scenario it is the straight people who freak out over gay men being in the military that are focusing on sexuality, not the gay people. So why should the gay people be the only ones who have consequences to deal with? KWIM?

In this scenario it is the straight people who freak out over gay men being in the military that are focusing on sexuality, not the gay people. So why should the gay people have to deal with the consequences of that? KWIM?

:tu
I get so tired of the complex of some straight men who think every gay man is out to "get with them" or checking them out.

:tu
I get so tired of the complex of some straight men who think every gay man is out to "get with them" or checking them out.

Me too. My cousin is gay and has gotten that attitude from SOOOOOO many straight men that, to be honest, he would never look twice at. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they want your wanker. :lol

a long time ago we had a rule though spoken i think and not actually an actual written rule that reminds me so much of the dadt rule that we have now.

i am going to copy and paste something from an article on this site http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01summer/moskos.htm

"the 1950s--a junior enlisted man informing a superior of his wish to marry would be admonished, "If the Army wanted you to have a wife, it would have issued you one." And, in fact, about nine out of ten draftees and first-term soldiers were single men. With the advent of the all- volunteer force, there is a striking increase in the proportion of married soldiers. Thus, for example, at the pay grade of E-4 (specialist or corporal in Army terms), only one in ten were married in the years of conscription compared to three in ten in the all-volunteer force. In a striking reversal of the draft pattern, soldiers in the all-volunteer force are more likely to be married than their civilian counterparts. In 1999, there were, proportionately, as many married E-4s as there were married first lieutenants. The presence of large numbers of married junior enlisted personnel has become an accepted reality, a trend with major budgetary implications with regard to housing and medical care. Yet in 1993, when the Commandant of the Marine Corps proposed that recruits be limited to single persons only, he was publicly rebuked."

my personal opinion is that asking a person to deny their love for someone else is wrong wether it is for the same sex or not. if i personally could sign up for deers, be recognized as a human being attached to someone legally in the military, attend balls, go to the commissary etc... as the spouse or love of someone then why can't someone who is homosexual be allowed to do all those same things or better yet. walking into the px food court and sharing a meal with my dh was something we did often we even held hands and window shopped in the hallway shops there. why shouldn't someone be allowed to do that as well.

i don't the whole gay phobia thing just gets on my nerves. if you have a problem and are worried someone is going to think you are hot and want to fuck you then it is really your problem and not the homosexuals. if they are willing to stand up and fight for our country i could really care less who they fall in love with and i cannot fathom how it could possibly effect the ability to do their jobs.

Ok so I'm just gonna post this for the sheer hypocracy of it.


I am a United States Sailor,

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me,

I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world,

I proudly serve my country's Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment,

I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all.

This is a great point.

My further question on this is that when I asked DB about gays in the military he said that lesbians tend not to bug the guys as much. If they are open about their sexual orientation, then the guys in the platoon just say "meh. big deal" and continue on. He said that what tends to freak guys out is having a gay man look at you in close showering quarters or dressing areas...etc. That's where I see the "trust and confidence" issue come up.
I also agree with Miss B'Havn though in that if they are willing to put on a uniform and fight for our country...go ahead! What do I care if you are gay or not?

Your husband (and others like him) need to stop obsessing on other men looking at them. Chances are, it's not really happening like that.

Gay males in the military are typically protective of their sexuality; they tend NOT to be whores looking for every last piece they can find. Gay military males, much more than hetero military males, are very unlikely to "make eyes" at someone with whom they'd like to hook up. They are much more likely to find out first if the other person is interested (there's all that gaydar and signaling and stuff).

They are not oogling anyone bits in the showers. That's absurd.

Realistically, gay males in the military most likely aren't looking to date other gay males in the military; there's too much chance of getting caught and having to face charges. Nope- they're probably going to hook up with a civilian.

So you can tell your husband to relax his tight ass (oooo wait, isn't that what makes him hawt to the fags?). :no

At least if they repeal it when hate crimes happen the victims can report it. As it stands now, if a gay person is harassed or assaulted they can't report the crime or they risk being investigated themselves and being discharged for being gay. Crimes go unreported and people get away with it because of the DADT policy. Repealing it would make that better, not worse. At least then the people who commit the crimes cn be held accountable and kicked out, not the victims.

:agree

It has always pissed me off that someone could get discharged from a branch of service because of their sexual preference. I won't even get started on that right now though. :vent

I dont think it should matter if they are doing what they are suppose to and gettin their job done. John works with a guy that is gay, everyone knows, no one cares.. I have friends who are as well.. They should be allowed to do things just like the rest of us.