What's new
By:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officially history!!

KatieMCR said:
Heterosexual people constantly flaunt their sexuality. Why should gay people have to hide who they are? With DADT, a gay person was not able to talk about their partner they left back home. If they did, they risked being outed and kicked out.
Click to expand...


If anyone is flaunting their sexuality in a military situation, that raises concern for the effectiveness of any operation, it could be administratively disciplined along general rules. In a personal conversation about "life/folks back home" I don't see that as compromising effectiveness, and should be protected free speech.

I can see how some folks will object to "flaunting" their sexual orientation inappropriately and causing disruption or distraction. The way some activists do this is a real concern when the basic job at hand, in a military situation, is thereby impaired. That's why I think some activists are hurting the cause of general "rights" for all being sustained on practical terms. On the other hand, sex is not particularly the government's , or the military's business. Personal matters are one thing, but it does take some practical common sense to carry on any purposeful activity, and maybe you could see where some rules might be constructed in such a way it isn't just slamming a particular sort of person.

DADT was one way of trying to take the subject out of action and prevent it from being a distraction. If that was all it was, perhaps it is less offensive than "It's my right to make you focus your attention on my personal issues instead of doing our job here", which is what a lot of folks think the forced acceptance of GLBT viewpoints can be in military situations.

I just think we could do better with minding our own business and doing our jobs without being so "my issues in your face" contentious, whatever your issues are. I thought it was just stupid to formally have a DADT rule about personal issues. If you can't deal with people respectfully even when they are "different" for the sake of our national security, just when will you ever be able to put the most important issues at the top of your list?

smart people hopefully will see the sense of just not bringing things up at a bad time when it will cause some others to react and be distracted from what is important at the moment.
 
Millsapa said:
I don't see what right is being violated with the DADT policy to begin with. Unless flaunting your sexuality is somehow a basic human right?
Click to expand...

It was essentially an effort to just not make it an issue in the military. It might have been better to just administratively ignore it when someone "told", and in effect tell those who might be offended/repulsed/intimidated to man up and ignore it too. The brass saying personal business that detracts from the military effort is out of place would be an even-handed way to handle it. If you're a minority, say a gay, in a situation where the straight majority is indulging in small talk about their girls, you wouldn 't be the first smart person to just let something pass and understand that that is just the way it is.

making a rule called DADT specifically applied to gays is one way of dividing people and starting an argument, and applying the power of government unequally. The campaign to eliminate it seems to further divide people, and call for even more government power being called into play to make everybody "do the right thing".

The real "right thing" is for the government to insist it's none of their business, and could soldiers please focus on the soldiering?
 
babe said:
It was essentially an effort to just not make it an issue in the military. It might have been better to just administratively ignore it when someone "told", and in effect tell those who might be offended/repulsed/intimidated to man up and ignore it too. The brass saying personal business that detracts from the military effort is out of place would be an even-handed way to handle it. If you're a minority, say a gay, in a situation where the straight majority is indulging in small talk about their girls, you wouldn 't be the first smart person to just let something pass and understand that that is just the way it is.

making a rule called DADT specifically applied to gays is one way of dividing people and starting an argument, and applying the power of government unequally. The campaign to eliminate it seems to further divide people, and call for even more government power being called into play to make everybody "do the right thing".

The real "right thing" is for the government to insist it's none of their business, and could soldiers please focus on the soldiering?
Click to expand...

The policy was a compromise. They just wanted to ban homosexuals altogether instead the policy became homosexuals could stay as long as they didn't make a deal about it.
I think the military should be able to make their own policies without the "public servants" in Washington butting in. General Washington himself had strict moral rules for his army.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top