The main arguments against DADT focus on the stupidity of barring or dismissing troops because of sexual orientation. The less-frequently-heard argument against the policy concerns troops now serving who are subject to harassment and abuse because they can't "tell" without exposing their orientation.
Meghan McCain's assertion that "every soldier in our armed forces is serving his or her country in the most admirable way an American can..." ignores those who humiliate and physically abuse fellow soldiers because of their sexual orientation. DADT is a free pass for bullies and bigots and needs to be ended immediately.
I can't speak for everyone, but in my personal military experience "don't ask, don't tell" has been seen as a joke. Seriously, nobody I know in the military really gives a shit if you're gay. If someone in my unit came out I don't think we'd bat an eye. As long as you come prepared to do your work and aren't an asshole it's all good.
Of course there are homophobes in the military, but honestly- those people are far more of a threat to unit cohesion than someone being gay. The Air Force is constantly making us sit through "diversity training" and has made it pretty clear that "don't ask, don't tell" is beyond obsolete.
People like to say that gay people would disrupt the unit by constantly hitting on coworkers, but it's the straight people who are always doing that. People like to say that there might be more rapes if we let gays be open, but rape isn't about sexual desire.
All in all, nothing disrupts unit cohesion like having to be afraid of being yourself. "Don't ask, don't tell" does more harm than good. Why should we turn away good people who want to fight?
Now... if only we could get rid of the military's legal and sexist policy of not allowing women to serve to their full potentials... but one step at a time I suppose.
@spooki: so I've met several Army guys who definitely wanted to keep don't ask, don't tell. They said they just didn't want to know. I feel like these guys don't hate the gays per se but are allowed to be prejudiced because of the policy. If they actually had to deal with openly gay people, I think it would be really beneficial and help them to more fully accept other orientations. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is encouraging prejudice when even many of the holdouts of our generation have a milder attitude towards homosexuality.
"Don't ask, don't tell" lets the military live a comfortable fiction where every person has an innate common ground other then their desire to be a solider. But having a diverse force makes it so much more reflective of what America actually is. And if these men, women, mos, hispanic, japanese, mothers, fathers, working class, doctors, criminals, conservatives, liberals, atheists and christian, *people* are allowed to bring their whole identities with them and incorporate "solider"- instead of denying some of themselves to be a "solider"- then the military would be a stronger institution.
I think the pro-"DADT" crowd are worried they will have to address fundamental problems in personnel policy *within* first, before they can focus on *without*. Keep your own house in order and all that. But that is a very good thing and can only strengthen an institution- especially with the myriad of non-combat missions the military has taken on and the varied jobs that ex-vets hold. They will take the values they learned with them, along with the government sponsored job training, and I'd like to see part of that be a healthy respect for diversity.
If people are reasoning that DADT exists because of security issues, I have to ask how secure it makes us when we're firing translators who speak Arabic on the basis of their personal lives. Um, right now, wouldn't we kind of need the vast majority of our translators to be able to speak Arabic, since we're sort of claiming to be fighting a war against terrorism and much of that terrorism is being born in the Middle East?
Or when our recruiting for said war against terrorism is way down and we're turning to people with criminal records to make up the shortfall, doesn't it also make us a wee bit less secure to fire people who have served honorably and whose only offense is that of sexual orientation?
I so do not get the "gays make us less secure!" argument.
"Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I suspect it could be said that there is no homophobia in foxholes either."
Oh, Meghan, if only that were true. I got in a FB argument with a "friend" of a friend who told me that, when in the foxhole, he didn't want to be thinking "about how some faggot next to him wanted to fuck him."
Delightfully, he also told me that the reason he didn't want women on the front lines was because "i'd feel like I had to save them if they went down, cause they can have babies and stuff."
He was a charmer!
My uncle (career Naval Intelligence) and I often argue about this. He feels like the military should not be the litmus for social change - that it should instead reflect the changes made by the gov't/society. But doesn't that just leave us all in an endless loop?
@likepenguins: I don't see how getting rid of DADT would be a "litmus for social change" - isn't it illegal to discriminate due to sexual preference when hiring/firing in civilian jobs?
@SarahMC: Right? Damn, I wonder what it's like to walk around thinking everyone in the world wants my lunch. I can't figure out when people are attracted to me unless they rent a sky-writing airplane and spell it out in the sky, all "Surrender Dorothy"-like.
@likepenguins: Pretty sure it's projection. The men who are predatory towards women freak out when they're put in the position of being "wanted" by men.
@cate3710: Oh, I don't agree with him. I should have made that clear. Although I think what he's saying is more - don't rely on the military to be anything more than drones, because that is their job. Their job (and he makes a point, but I would prefer it to not be this way) is that the military is not made up of people, that it should not be looked to as a reflection of society, but merely a unit of soldiers who do not bring to it political, personal or social values (other than, I presume, a willingness to die/kill for the good of the country). That sexuality, itself, has no place in the military, whether that be heterosexual or homosexual affiliation.
of course, that's a pretty heteronormative outlook on life, so . . .
@SarahMC: This is 100% correct. The assumption is that all men are "on the prowl," as it were, because they themselves are. I also find it interesting how these men (so secure in their heterosexuality, of course) are concerned that the gays might . . . infect them? Force them to do something? Coerce them against their will? Because that's how you find yourself a girl, clearly.
The short-sightedness of some people makes me want to beat my brain against a wall.
The funny thing is how little of this seems to be known to the average American. I was talking to a friend of mine last night who was against DADT, but didn't know that people were actually dismissed when found out. Congress needs to do away with this foolishness, and the media needs to do a better job of giving accurate information.
If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is in place to preserve unity in the armed forces, then it should apply to every potential controversial topic. Republican? Sorry, don't ask, don't tell. You really hate chocolate? Sorry, we have a don't ask, don't tell policy around controversial statements. You think that if Osama bin Ladin shaved and cleaned himself up that he could be a kind of handsome guy? Oops, don't ask, don't tell. Team cake? Sorry, we don't discuss cake and pie in the military; it could undermine unity. You're from the midwest? Sorry, some people don't like those accents. Let's not ask or tell about geographic origins. Or sports team affiliation. Or religion. Troop unity.
Henceforth the only acceptable topics of discussion is how much America rocks and how most puppies are cute.
@morninggloria: Discussion of puppies will lead to a huge argument of whether or not tiny dogs are or are not cute. That topic should be nixed as well.
The fact that the Army lowered qualification standards while holding onto Don't Ask Don't Tell is so incredibly insulting. They would grant a "moral waiver" for arson, DUI, burglary but being a dude who likes dudes (or a lady who likes ladies) is somehow controversial? Seriously? Steve Green anyone? I do think it's a national security issue, but I feel a reluctance to use that argument as the primary reason to change it. The need to get rid of DADT predates the recruitment shortfall, it so clearly is a civil rights issue, and should be a no-brainer (for those who actually think) at that, and I think it shouldn't have to be couched in any other terms to bring about the desired outcome.
@chi-girl: Exactly. I didn't realize the military was so awash in potential recruits that it could turn away able-bodied and -minded people who were also willing.
I know many men and women in the armed services. They have vastly differing political and religious beliefs. They all believe that all who are willing and able to serve should be allowed.
Also, the "no atheists in foxholes" lines is very old, and isn't really about religious belief so much as unity, emotion and sense of purpose. I completely understand when taken literally it seems inapt here, but I've heard that idiom my whole life and I take it to mean just that in extreme situations, we're all human.
@sportz.star: I think that originally the phrase was meant literally. And I've heard it used in military funerals and sermons. But it has taken on a different, less religious meaning. I think it's the origin of phrases like, "There are no libertarians in a recession" etc. Still, Meghan McCain should have avoided it-- it really wasn't relevant and didn't help her statement.
@curiousgeorgiana: Even though I am a rabid atheist, I agree that she was using it in a non- (or less-) religious way.
Still, anti-atheist comments shouldn't get a pass. They're still considered un-American by many and face discrimination at school, work and, yes, in the military.
@HeatherNumber1: Oh yes, I was suspicious and the accusations that I was going to blow up my middle school (right after Columbine) were taken much more seriously because I was a known atheist. GASP! They even called me "Atheist Alys" in middle school. They weren't all that creative.
@LaComtesse: I have never heard it used in a non-literal manner. And it seems foolish to do so when so many people actually believe that and accept the literal interpretation.
@SarahMC: It's just so patronizing, literal or no. Like "Oh you silly atheist! You don't know what you're talking about. Fear for your life and then you will know the awesome majesty of the Lord."
@Acefreakly: No doubt! Smart, multi-lingual, brave? Oh Mr Choi I am so sorry but I'm afraid I have to objectify you now. Look, if you don't like it, don't walk around with your courage hanging out all over the place like that.
I used to volunteer at the D-Day Museum in New Orleans. If you haven't been (go!) they staff the museum with WWII veterans, male and female. They are stationed throughout the museum and are more than willing to tell their stories. One of the gentleman I worked with was really funny and a highlight of the tours. I once asked him before our shift what he thought about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
He said, "Men who sign up under false pretenses and want to live a lie shouldn't be allowed to serve alongside honorable, courageous men." I tried hard to remember that this man at age 18 had stormed up a beach in Normandy and was awarded the Bronze Star for his bravery on that day. We have to stop making excuses-- there is never a good reason to deny or delay equality.
@curiousgeorgiana: So wait, was he for it or against it? Because if that's his reasoning for DADT...logic fail. They wouldn't be signing up under false pretenses and living a lie if there wasn't DADT!
@egg cream is here, is second tier, get used to it: He was against gays serving in the military and against DADT (I know the logic is hard to follow). He was saying that DADT was promoting the idea that it's okay to lie. He thought homosexuals should be forbidden from serving outright.
That this is even a discussion is laughable. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face, conservatives. I wonder if they would feel this way about accepting a kidney from a gay donor.
As for "there are no atheists in foxholes," I've always felt that phrase said a lot more about the person saying it and how they deal with fear than the person they're saying it about.
@LaComtesse: Yeah, the "no atheists in the foxholes" phrase annoys me. It's also not really relevant in this discussion. Will someone's homophobia be an issue while soldiers are actively engaged in fighting insurgents? Hopefully/probably not. Will it be an issue in the barracks? Possibly. The incidents of sexual harassment, assault, and rape of female soldiers display that personal prejudices and hateful behavior don't disappear just because you're on the same side. But that's no reason to let Don't Ask, Don't Tell stand, because if we don't fight for change we'll never see it.
@cate3710: I can't imagine any other instance where it would be acceptable for the army, nowadays, to say "We have to keep you out because of who you are, because you'll be a distraction." Sexual preference is so completely irrelevant: may as well just kick out all the guys who like to paint, or gamers.
Even the most conservative, bigoted Americans should have called to abolish this policy the second it became public knowledge that much-needed Arabic translators were fired based on their sex lives.
@HeatherNumber1: This. The arguments I always end up turning to when talking to conservatives are the fiscal & security issues. It takes a ridiculous amount of money to train these people and some, like Arabic translators, have skill sets that are not easily replicated. And we're kicking them out for something that has no bearing on their ability to do the job? It's stupid and irresponsible, and America should can do better.
@HeatherNumber1: seriously. Considering that Arabic is an incredibly difficult language to pick up as an adult, you'd think they'd hang on to everyone who could speak it and wanted to put it to use in service of national security.
But then again, I remember we are dealing with religiously-motivated neo-conservatives, a population not exactly renowned for its grasp of logic.
10/12/09
Meghan McCain's assertion that "every soldier in our armed forces is serving his or her country in the most admirable way an American can..." ignores those who humiliate and physically abuse fellow soldiers because of their sexual orientation. DADT is a free pass for bullies and bigots and needs to be ended immediately.
10/12/09
Of course there are homophobes in the military, but honestly- those people are far more of a threat to unit cohesion than someone being gay. The Air Force is constantly making us sit through "diversity training" and has made it pretty clear that "don't ask, don't tell" is beyond obsolete.
People like to say that gay people would disrupt the unit by constantly hitting on coworkers, but it's the straight people who are always doing that. People like to say that there might be more rapes if we let gays be open, but rape isn't about sexual desire.
All in all, nothing disrupts unit cohesion like having to be afraid of being yourself. "Don't ask, don't tell" does more harm than good. Why should we turn away good people who want to fight?
Now... if only we could get rid of the military's legal and sexist policy of not allowing women to serve to their full potentials... but one step at a time I suppose.
10/12/09
10/12/09
I think the pro-"DADT" crowd are worried they will have to address fundamental problems in personnel policy *within* first, before they can focus on *without*. Keep your own house in order and all that. But that is a very good thing and can only strengthen an institution- especially with the myriad of non-combat missions the military has taken on and the varied jobs that ex-vets hold. They will take the values they learned with them, along with the government sponsored job training, and I'd like to see part of that be a healthy respect for diversity.
10/12/09
Or when our recruiting for said war against terrorism is way down and we're turning to people with criminal records to make up the shortfall, doesn't it also make us a wee bit less secure to fire people who have served honorably and whose only offense is that of sexual orientation?
I so do not get the "gays make us less secure!" argument.
10/12/09
Oh, Meghan, if only that were true. I got in a FB argument with a "friend" of a friend who told me that, when in the foxhole, he didn't want to be thinking "about how some faggot next to him wanted to fuck him."
Delightfully, he also told me that the reason he didn't want women on the front lines was because "i'd feel like I had to save them if they went down, cause they can have babies and stuff."
He was a charmer!
My uncle (career Naval Intelligence) and I often argue about this. He feels like the military should not be the litmus for social change - that it should instead reflect the changes made by the gov't/society. But doesn't that just leave us all in an endless loop?
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
of course, that's a pretty heteronormative outlook on life, so . . .
10/12/09
The short-sightedness of some people makes me want to beat my brain against a wall.
10/12/09
10/12/09
Henceforth the only acceptable topics of discussion is how much America rocks and how most puppies are cute.
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
Also, the "no atheists in foxholes" lines is very old, and isn't really about religious belief so much as unity, emotion and sense of purpose. I completely understand when taken literally it seems inapt here, but I've heard that idiom my whole life and I take it to mean just that in extreme situations, we're all human.
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
Still, anti-atheist comments shouldn't get a pass. They're still considered un-American by many and face discrimination at school, work and, yes, in the military.
[www.cnn.com]
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
He said, "Men who sign up under false pretenses and want to live a lie shouldn't be allowed to serve alongside honorable, courageous men." I tried hard to remember that this man at age 18 had stormed up a beach in Normandy and was awarded the Bronze Star for his bravery on that day. We have to stop making excuses-- there is never a good reason to deny or delay equality.
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
As for "there are no atheists in foxholes," I've always felt that phrase said a lot more about the person saying it and how they deal with fear than the person they're saying it about.
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
But then again, I remember we are dealing with religiously-motivated neo-conservatives, a population not exactly renowned for its grasp of logic.
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
Where in the world is Governor Sanford?
06/24/09
I'm not great at modifying lyrics but this is my try:
Well he glides around the globe and he'll flimflam every nation,
He's a double-talking diva with no taste for local action,
His agenda's loaded up with presidential ambition,
Tell me where in the world is Governor Sanford?
06/24/09