Judge Bans Enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell

#2
#2
I don't have a problem with it. The only time I would think it would be an issue is if they are flaunting their gheyness in uniform and lose their military bearing. Jmo
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
No real problem with anyone wanting to serve in the military doing so, unless it somehow affects the military in a bad way. I don't think this should really be a huge issue, so I'm okay with it. If problems do arise, I hope the military is able to take care of the issue without too much backlash from either side of this debate.
 
#5
#5
I haven't served so I don't know if it would make a material difference or not. I'm all for getting the best in the military. Seems like DADT worked pretty well.

I assume military men and women sleep in separate quarters - would the same hold true for openly gay and straight? Just curious where the line is drawn on the potential for "attraction".
 
#6
#6
sooner or later we'll have openly gay men and women in the military. might as well get used to it.
 
#7
#7
volinbham said:
I haven't served so I don't know if it would make a material difference or not. I'm all for getting the best in the military. Seems like DADT worked pretty well.

I assume military men and women sleep in separate quarters - would the same hold true for openly gay and straight? Just curious where the line is drawn on the potential for "attraction".
Click to expand...

Good question on the gay and non-gay separation. I don't think they would or should which could be a problem for some. Not sure how it would all be implemented and enforced. All very important details and the last thing they want is to cause separation. These guys and gals have to fight together.
 
#8
#8
This is the 'out' (no pun intended) Obama has been looking for. He made the promise during the campaign but knows it could cause him a great deal of strife like it did for Clinton. Now he can get what he wants but put the issue in the lap of the courts.

I've heard some concerns within DoD about the surveys they sent out on gays serving in the military. Not a decent return on them but rumors are the numbers are not favorable for retention and reason for concern. Same rumors say the whole repeal of DADT has deep reservations among even the ones wanting it repealed within the military. Hyams is not the source of those rumors either.
 
#9
#9
If you really want to blow the Taliban's mind ship a whole battalion of openly gay soldiers into Afghanistan. Their heads would explode.
 
#13
#13
I think this is an issue that has been played out too much in public (i.e. largely public opinion) which doesn't really impact the public, ftmp. IMO the decision should be left up to those who have chosen to serve in the military. If they are in favor of DADT fine... if they are against DADT also fine.They're the ones serving so leave the decision up to them.
 
#14
#14
This whole debate brings out the idiocy in the general public. The criteria should be if it negatively affects unit cohesiveness, just like with opposite sex fraternization and otherwise. It shouldn't matter if a soldier is gay, but all PDA and fraternization should be nixxed immediately.
 
#15
#15
People need to realize that Constitutional rights are not equally applied to those in uniform. As I've said before, this issue has broad implications with the future of the military. Essentially this comes down to a due process and other freedoms issue. If this and other judges say that the rights all Americans have are equally applicable to the military, you will have issues with disabilities, religious and political views, etc. all into question. This is not just about gays being able to serve. But some people who do not understand the appellate and Constitutional hearing process do not understand that.
 
#16
#16
rjd970 said:
This whole debate brings out the idiocy in the general public. The criteria should be if it negatively affects unit cohesiveness, just like with opposite sex fraternization and otherwise. It shouldn't matter if a soldier is gay, but all PDA and fraternization should be nixxed immediately.
Click to expand...

this is where I'm at - clearly male/female fraternization is discouraged through a series of polices and procedures. Wouldn't the same be required for gay personnel?

Maybe the male gay personnel should bunk with the straight female personnel and vice versa. :p
 
#17
#17
It will require an entire revamping of policies and procedures. Housing and other considerations have to be taken into account. Rules and enforcement have to be taken into consideration.

A chaplain friend of mine said they were asked to review a set of policies they would have to change. He could not give specifics but from a counseling standpoint alone, they get into legal issues. What if the chaplain is from a denomination that considers homosexuality a sin? Is the chaplain forced to keep THAT aspect of his faith silent?

The whole issue is huge and few realize what all is involved.
 
#18
#18
CSpindizzy said:
It will require an entire revamping of policies and procedures. Housing and other considerations have to be taken into account. Rules and enforcement have to be taken into consideration.

A chaplain friend of mine said they were asked to review a set of policies they would have to change. He could not give specifics but from a counseling standpoint alone, they get into legal issues. What if the chaplain is from a denomination that considers homosexuality a sin? Is the chaplain forced to keep THAT aspect of his faith silent?

The whole issue is huge and few realize what all is involved.
Click to expand...
That's one reason why I'd be more comfortable with letting the military make their own decisions with respect to who can serve. I always hear leftist teens crying about inequality as if they know what's best for the military.
 
#19
#19
I wish we had a don't ask don't tell policy for the fulmersexuals on VN.
 
#25
#25
rjd970 said:
This whole debate brings out the idiocy in the general public. The criteria should be if it negatively affects unit cohesiveness, just like with opposite sex fraternization and otherwise. It shouldn't matter if a soldier is gay, but all PDA and fraternization should be nixxed immediately.
Click to expand...


Worry would be that it would be used as a pretext for other things that should not result in reassignment.

Seems like most on here are at the point of being fatigued by the effort to institutionalize some form of discrimination against homosexuals. Not that DADT was as bad as outright ban on service, etc. But it was a step in the process of going from complete intolerance to complete tolerance.

Probably time to just move on, IMO. The world has bigger problems.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top