Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Next up: DOMA.

Quote :

"President Obama signed into law the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' What does it say about us that we think gay men can handle armed combat, but can't handle marriage?" –Jay Leno

I know this is a 'funny*', but it's also true.

*Scare quotes because this is Jay Leno.

Jay/Cris wrote:

You can't really 'counter' this in any way if you don't know what the other variety of reasons are, can you?

Needing a job, a roof, clothing? Health care? Patriotic zeal?

Quote :

Nevertheless, perhaps the problem is that 'being gay' doesn't at all affect your capability to serve in the military?

Neither do several other disqualifiers, like a blanket ban on personality disorders regardless of type and severity.

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

Nevertheless, perhaps the problem is that 'being gay' doesn't at all affect your capability to serve in the military?

Neither do several other disqualifiers, like a blanket ban on personality disorders regardless of type and severity.

...And that particular blanket ban existing makes it somehow... less wrong the Don't Ask, Don't Tell-clause existed? It makes it... less notable that DADT has disappeared? I'm not entirely sure what point you're making here. Two wrongs balance each other out?

No. My point was that it's not a right, which was apparently taken as a justification for DADT. It was a response to the whole "yay equal rights" non-sequitur.

Sorry to be a stickler here, but does this bill just repeal DADT, or does it also repeal the fact that homosexuality is seen by the military as a mental illness that is grounds for discharge? Because if it only repeals DADT, then wouldn't it just go back to the way things were before where they could ASK and deny you outright if you admitted that you were homosexual?

Knight wrote:

Sorry to be a stickler here, but does this bill just repeal DADT, or does it also repeal the fact that homosexuality is seen by the military as a mental illness that is grounds for discharge? Because if it only repeals DADT, then wouldn't it just go back to the way things were before where they could ASK and deny you outright if you admitted that you were homosexual?

It will mean, once the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the President certify the military is ready for change, that homosexuals will be able to serve openly in the U.S. military. It will also allow any servicemember who was discharged solely because of DADT to re-enlist.

And since homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV in the 70s, I really find it difficult to believe that they could make the case that homosexuality is a mental illness when the leading medical opinions say it isn't.

Spotts1701 wrote:

And since homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV in the 70s, I really find it difficult to believe that they could make the case that homosexuality is a mental illness when the leading medical opinions say it isn't.

Right, and the Lawrence v. Texas decision will have an impact, too.

Knight wrote:

Sorry to be a stickler here, but does this bill just repeal DADT, or does it also repeal the fact that homosexuality is seen by the military as a mental illness that is grounds for discharge?

You're confused on the issue. Mental illness never had anything to do with it. Sodomy is still banned under Article 125 of the UCMJ.

Quote :

Because if it only repeals DADT, then wouldn't it just go back to the way things were before where they could ASK and deny you outright if you admitted that you were homosexual?

Yeah, pretty much. However, given the way the change is being implemented, it seems that the military is going to preempt any repeal of Article 125 by pretending it doesn't exist. Simplifies things.

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

Because if it only repeals DADT, then wouldn't it just go back to the way things were before where they could ASK and deny you outright if you admitted that you were homosexual?

Yeah, pretty much. However, given the way the change is being implemented, it seems that the military is going to preempt any repeal of Article 125 by pretending it doesn't exist. Simplifies things.

They already pretend it doesn't - I remember reading somewhere that the Court of Military Appeals has heard cases and stated that Article 125 doesn't apply in matters of consensual sex due to the Lawrence v, Texas decision. That and most of Article 125 has been absorbed into Article 120 when it was amended in 2007.

Penguin wrote:

Neither do several other disqualifiers, like a blanket ban on personality disorders regardless of type and severity.

I would argue that the blanket ban on certain personality and medical disorders does make sense, even if it is very mild and controllable. There is always a chance that the stressors that one may encounter wile serving in the military can aggravate a disorder, resulting in a later problem.

It's highly unlikely that the stressors of serving will suddenly make anyone more of a flaming individual than they are already inclined to be.

Penguin wrote:

Knight wrote:

Sorry to be a stickler here, but does this bill just repeal DADT, or does it also repeal the fact that homosexuality is seen by the military as a mental illness that is grounds for discharge?

You're confused on the issue. Mental illness never had anything to do with it. Sodomy is still banned under Article 125 of the UCMJ.

Sorry, but this looks a lot like you're saying that homosexuality = sodomy. Article 125 makes it forbidden for gay men in the military to have penetrative sex. It doesn't prevent them serving, unless I'm missing something important in the text. Also, I'm pretty sure that lesbians can have sex without violating the article.

Anon wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Knight wrote:

Sorry to be a stickler here, but does this bill just repeal DADT, or does it also repeal the fact that homosexuality is seen by the military as a mental illness that is grounds for discharge?

You're confused on the issue. Mental illness never had anything to do with it. Sodomy is still banned under Article 125 of the UCMJ.

Sorry, but this looks a lot like you're saying that homosexuality = sodomy. Article 125 makes it forbidden for gay men in the military to have penetrative sex. It doesn't prevent them serving, unless I'm missing something important in the text. Also, I'm pretty sure that lesbians can have sex without violating the article.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (PDF)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Penguin wrote:

Anon wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Knight wrote:

Sorry to be a stickler here, but does this bill just repeal DADT, or does it also repeal the fact that homosexuality is seen by the military as a mental illness that is grounds for discharge?

You're confused on the issue. Mental illness never had anything to do with it. Sodomy is still banned under Article 125 of the UCMJ.

Sorry, but this looks a lot like you're saying that homosexuality = sodomy. Article 125 makes it forbidden for gay men in the military to have penetrative sex. It doesn't prevent them serving, unless I'm missing something important in the text. Also, I'm pretty sure that lesbians can have sex without violating the article.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (PDF)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...I admit it. I'm confused. I did read the links - to my understanding, they're all sex-act-or-sexual-conduct related. So, okay, I understand you're saying sexual acts between homosexuals can still be punished...but how does that prevent them from serving, if they don't commit said acts? Not everyone needs to get laid or wants a relationship all the time, after all. So if they aren't engaging in these acts, then what problems can there be if they serve?


tl;dr: The links appear to be based around sex acts, not orientation.

Sparrow wrote:

tl;dr: The links appear to be based around sex acts, not orientation.

Basically how DADT works. It didn't ban homosexuals, you just had to agree not to have any homosexual sex while enlisted.

Penguin wrote:

Sparrow wrote:

tl;dr: The links appear to be based around sex acts, not orientation.

Basically how DADT works. It didn't ban homosexuals, you just had to agree not to have any homosexual sex while enlisted.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, simply because that argument makes no sense whatsoever. Especially considering that individuals who didn't have homosexual sex were discharged anyway because their orientation was either discovered inadvertently or maliciously by third-parties and then reported, and those whose orientation was well-known to their commanders were allowed to continue serving because they were in a much-needed specialty.

Penguin wrote:

Anon wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Knight wrote:

Sorry to be a stickler here, but does this bill just repeal DADT, or does it also repeal the fact that homosexuality is seen by the military as a mental illness that is grounds for discharge?

You're confused on the issue. Mental illness never had anything to do with it. Sodomy is still banned under Article 125 of the UCMJ.

Sorry, but this looks a lot like you're saying that homosexuality = sodomy. Article 125 makes it forbidden for gay men in the military to have penetrative sex. It doesn't prevent them serving, unless I'm missing something important in the text. Also, I'm pretty sure that lesbians can have sex without violating the article.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (PDF)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sorry, but I don't see your point here. Nothing in those links does anything to change my interpretation of Article 125, nor do they have anything to do with sexual orientation.

Quote :

Basically how DADT works. It didn't ban homosexuals, you just had to agree not to have any homosexual sex while enlisted.

Reports about the way it was implemented suggest otherwise.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Sparrow wrote:

tl;dr: The links appear to be based around sex acts, not orientation.

Basically how DADT works. It didn't ban homosexuals, you just had to agree not to have any homosexual sex while enlisted.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, simply because that argument makes no sense whatsoever.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Probably because it's not an argument.

All this is to forget the other pressing ( ) issue about gays in the military: The everpresent fear of suprise buttsecks

Quote :

The Republican delegate Bob Marshall says openly gay soldiers would distract straight troops. He said, "It's a distraction when I'm on the battlefield and have to concentrate on the enemy 600 yards away and I'm worried about this guy whose got eyes on me."

Take your attention of the gay in the platoon for one second and

(-.-)>-

*BAM*

(^^(>o.O)>-

WD40 wrote:

All this is to forget the other pressing ( ) issue about gays in the military: The everpresent fear of suprise buttsecks

"Surprise!" yelled Army as he boned Navy up the ass.

Lady Anne wrote:

WD40 wrote:

All this is to forget the other pressing ( ) issue about gays in the military: The everpresent fear of suprise buttsecks

"Surprise!" yelled Army as he boned Navy up the ass.

From that saying about the Navy* ("rum, sodomy and the lash"), more likely the other way around.


*OK, it was the British Navy.

Penguin wrote:

Sparrow wrote:

tl;dr: The links appear to be based around sex acts, not orientation.

Basically how DADT works. It didn't ban homosexuals, you just had to agree not to have any homosexual sex while enlisted.

Thanks for playing, please try again. DADT did not ban homosexuals per se, but it did forbid anyone to admit they were homosexual on pain of discharge. Which meant that if ever you were outed, you were gone. Probably there were a number of commanding officers and NCOICs who were okay with people being gay, or who (as I believe was mentioned upthread) would look the other way if the person in question was in a particularly rare or essential specialty. But the fact remains that if you were gay and serving, you were forced to perpetually lie about who you were in order to continue to serve. If you believe that this is in any way, shape or form a good thing, or the ideal solution to a sticky problem, then I pity you.

I can support, to the extent that such things are reasonable, regulations dictating whether or not you can have sex with another person (of either gender). The military is a place full of stresses you will find nowhere else in life, and I can well understand wanting to regulate people's behavior for the sake of unit cohesion. Physical intimacy often comes with considerable emotional entanglements for one or both parties involved; in a military environment, I imagine that would only be an added source of stress and distraction. But that isn't what Don't Ask Don't Tell was. DADT would get you discharged simply for identifying as homosexual, or for being revealed as such, while in service.

I suppose you could always make the argument that hiding your sexual orientation isn't a really big deal, and it probably seems that way to you because, being straight (or so I assume) you probably don't really think about your sexual orientation much, if at all. I imagine if you want to know what it's like, all you have to do is imagine that the shoe is on the other foot. Imagine that you had to hide all traces or tendencies of your natural heterosexual inclination for fear that anyone identifying you as straight would be able to get you kicked out. Can't talk about how that lady over in G3 is hot, can't comment on this month's Playboy cover, can't be seen dating a woman even off-post and in your own personal time, can't talk about your relationship problems with anyone... All for fear that someone will reveal you, probably some small-minded idiot who dislikes you for some reason or another, probably even something you didn't do. In short, you must either pretend that an entire facet of your personality doesn't exist, or else you must lie about it. Because you can't afford to take any risks, can't afford to have someone see incriminating pictures on your computer, can't afford to have someone spreading rumors about who you like to spend your time with--can't afford, in short, to have your life completely and totally derailed by being ejected from service early all because of who you'd prefer to sleep with.

I knew about three gay men when I was in the Army. I might have met more, but only three really stick out in my mind. And as I become a more open and tolerant person, I start to feel a little sad when I think about what it must have been like for them to live a lie.

So by all means, let's get this repealing show on the road already. I couldn't be happier that Don't Ask Don't Tell is about to be consigned to the dustbin of history, and I have very little patience with any measures or arguments that seek, at this late date when we all should know better, to sustain it.

Wolf wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Sparrow wrote:

tl;dr: The links appear to be based around sex acts, not orientation.

Basically how DADT works. It didn't ban homosexuals, you just had to agree not to have any homosexual sex while enlisted.

Thanks for playing, please try again. DADT did not ban homosexuals per se, but it did forbid anyone to admit they were homosexual on pain of discharge.

I think part of the problem here is that we're nitpicking not only on what DADT said, but how it was implemented and enforced. What I have said was essentially how it was explained to me in several briefings, and is more or less how it was spelled out in the agreement I signed when I enlisted.

Actually, even though I've said this already, let me make it absolutely clear: I am not arguing against repealing DADT. Hence the "it was not an argument" comment above. EDIT: Although admittedly that statement had been incomplete without the part about being forbidden from disclosing sexuality, that was the point they seemed intent on driving home: "We don't care if you did, you can't do it now, and we don't want to hear about it."

Penguin wrote:

I think part of the problem here is that we're nitpicking not only on what DADT said, but how it was implemented and enforced. What I have said was essentially how it was explained to me in several briefings, and is more or less how it was spelled out in the agreement I signed when I enlisted.

I disagree, and quite frankly, I care very little for how it was explained to you. Whatever understanding you were given does not change what it is.

Wikipedia's page on Don't Ask, Don't Tell wrote:

The policy prohibits people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." (10 U.S.C. § 654(b)) The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specifies that service members who disclose they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct shall be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" (10 U.S.C. § 654(e)).

In short, you cannot be known to be gay and simultaneously be a servicemember. If you are gay, you must not do anything which reveals that you are gay, or else you are removed from service. The military is not allowed to ask about your orientation, but they are still allowed (more likely, required) to discharge you should your homosexuality come to light in some other way. The only exceptions to this rule are if you are in a much-needed specialty, or if you were engaged in homosexual activity for the sole purpose of being revealed and subsequently discharged because you just want out that badly.

The problem isn't that DADT prevents homosexuals from serving. It proposes that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to serve unless they are willing to lie (whether actively or merely by omission) about who they are.

At this point, it scarcely matters that it may have been misused. The presumably correct use is still an instrument of prejudice and bigotry.

Penguin wrote:

Actually, even though I've said this already, let me make it absolutely clear: I am not arguing against repealing DADT. Hence the "it was not an argument" comment above. EDIT: Although admittedly that statement had been incomplete without the part about being forbidden from disclosing sexuality, that was the point they seemed intent on driving home: "We don't care if you did, you can't do it now, and we don't want to hear about it."

Then perhaps one of us needs to learn to communicate more effectively. After having read this thread, your whole tone has seemed defensive, as though you were for some reason either displeased about the DADT repeal or else skeptical of its benefit.

I read that more of defensive of the military in general, not necessarily DADT.