Good news on DADT?

[construct]

I think DADT may reduce the pool of potential recruits more than a little bit. One of the reasons I think that is because of the response among gays who wanted to join in the early 90s when we thought Clinton was going to open the military to gays.

Could be.

I'm pretty sure you're not but it seems like you're equating being out of the closet with being a loudmouth or with being unable to conform to military dicipline. I think that's not even a little bit true. I don't think most out gays are loudmouths or incapable of subverting to authority when appropriate.

I chose my rhetoric to concede as much ground as possible. If you're not loudmouth enough that people will know you're gay, then DADT doesn't affect you at all. And if you intend to have sex with anyone other than your opposite-sex spouse, then you are not conforming to the UCMJ, i.e. military discipline. I believe that this analysis is altogether true, and it was all I meant to imply by using the epithet "loudmouth."

Both you and I are loudmouths, Nick, and we might as well admit it.

 

[NickCole]

I chose my rhetoric to concede as much ground as possible. If you're not loudmouth enough that people will know you're gay, then DADT doesn't affect you at all. And if you intend to have sex with anyone other than your opposite-sex spouse, then you are not conforming to the UCMJ, i.e. military discipline. I believe that this analysis is altogether true, and it was all I meant to imply by using the epithet "loudmouth."

You think straight unmarried guys in the military don't refer, in conversation, to dating with women? Um, I think you might be mistaken about that!

I wouldn't categorize straight men who talk about their dating or sexual encounters as necessarily loudmouths, and I think the same goes for gay men.

When I came out of the closet in my professional life, about the only reason it mattered was because I could talk openly about my personal life. It's a burden keeping our personal life a total secret or saying "she" instead of "he" when we're talking about our plans for the weekend or what we did last weekend or who we're spending New Year's with or whatever. Benefits like health care are a part of being out at work for many, but just bonding in a normal way with co-workers can be a very different experience in or out of the closet. And of course in the military conditions are even more intimate than most civilian working relationships.

Bottom line, a gay guy who's social and bonds with people he lives and works with doesn't have to be a loudmouth for people to know he's gay.

 

[construct]

You think straight unmarried guys in the military don't refer, in conversation, to dating with women? Um, I think you might be mistaken about that!

I wouldn't categorize straight men who talk about their dating or sexual encounters as necessarily loudmouths, and I think the same goes for gay men.

When I came out of the closet in my professional life, about the only reason it mattered was because I could talk openly about my personal life. It's a burden keeping our personal life a total secret or saying "she" instead of "he" when we're talking about our plans for the weekend or what we did last weekend or who we're spending New Year's with or whatever. Benefits like health care are a part of being out at work for many, but just bonding in a normal way with co-workers can be a very different experience in or out of the closet. And of course in the military conditions are even more intimate than most civilian working relationships.

Bottom line, a gay guy who's social and bonds with people he lives and works with doesn't have to be a loudmouth for people to know he's gay.

Thanks for explaining why you misunderstood me.

 

[JayHawk]

Bottom line, a gay guy who's social and bonds with people he lives and works with doesn't have to be a loudmouth for people to know he's gay.

No in fact a gay man in the military doesnt have to say a thing. The fact that the social relationship is so close and every coworker knows your daily business it usually becomes a known issue after about 6 months in a new place. Ya see the majority of male military members actually date women and talk about it. Most gay men don't. So they figure it out and leave you alone about that issue. At least that has been my experience.

 

[NickCole]

No in fact a gay man in the military doesnt have to say a thing. The fact that the social relationship is so close and every coworker knows your daily business it usually becomes a known issue after about 6 months in a new place. Ya see the majority of male military members actually date women and talk about it. Most gay men don't. So they figure it out and leave you alone about that issue. At least that has been my experience.

If that's the case, which sounds right to me, then it seems to me the primary issue is self-respect and vulnerability; the difference between being "left alone," or "tolerated," and being a participant on equal footing.

Homosexuals have served in the military forever, just as we were (and many still are) closeted in civilian jobs. Obviously, some homosexuals are able to compartmentalize it and aren't fazed by the discrimination but I think for many who would be assets to our military it's diminishing and distracting in a way that serving openly would provide the opportunity to cast aside. The question isn't whether or not gays are allowed in and tolerated as long as we keep it to ourselves but at what level of self-respect and security we function. And even apart from the fairness factor of equal rights, being "tolerated" is fundamentally less secure than sanctioned equal footing, and can impact the quality of everything from decision making to bonding to productivity.

 

[JayHawk]

Oh I don't argue that equality is not desired or due. I am simply saying that while many may squeal for effect when it changes the military wont really bat an eye.

 

[Kulindahr]

Bottom line, a gay guy who's social and bonds with people he lives and works with doesn't have to be a loudmouth for people to know he's gay.

That covers a subset of all the conditions. Extending it to apply to all gays is fallacious.

 

[archive]

No in fact a gay man in the military doesnt have to say a thing. The fact that the social relationship is so close and every coworker knows your daily business it usually becomes a known issue after about 6 months in a new place. Ya see the majority of male military members actually date women and talk about it. Most gay men don't. So they figure it out and leave you alone about that issue. At least that has been my experience.

Oh I don't argue that equality is not desired or due. I am simply saying that while many may squeal for effect when it changes the military wont really bat an eye.

this is not just true for you...

i usually get ..."bro y havent u been with any chick since youve been here" my response " "why ask me a question you already know the answer to"

its not as bad as people think...yes we need equality in all...but the military is not going to change much

i guess i put to much english on my argument

 

[Kulindahr]

this is not just true for you...

i usually get ..."bro y havent u been with any chick since youve been here" my response " "why ask me a question you already know the answer to"

its not as bad as people think...yes we need equality in all...but the military is not going to change much

i guess i put to much english on my argument

I'd say that the only real change in the military would be that the officers who enjoy shoving gays out of the ranks will squirm a little.

 

[archive]

I'd say that the only real change in the military would be that the officers who enjoy shoving gays out of the ranks will squirm a little.

this made me laugh a little.....i definitely believe what your saying is true.....

 

[NickCole]

That covers a subset of all the conditions. Extending it to apply to all gays is fallacious.

Of course it would be wrong to apply it to all gays. Nobody here did that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course it would be wrong to apply it to all gays. Nobody here did that.

After review...

conceded.

 

[NickCole]

I'd say that the only real change in the military would be that the officers who enjoy shoving gays out of the ranks will squirm a little.

And there will be out gays in the military.

The changes are greater than making homophobics uncomfortable.

 

[hotatlboi]

When, during the primaries, Obama finally answered Human Rights Campaign about DADT, he said, "America is ready to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. All that is required is leadership." Then last summer when The Military Times asked him about it, he said, "This is not something that I'm looking to shove down the military's throats."

And now it's clear he's putting off providing the leadership that he said is all that's required.

Even though polls today show very high public opinion support for allowing gays to serve openly in the military compared with 1993, and it would probably get through a Democratic-controlled Congress relatively easily, ultimately repeal will happen because of Obama's military needs, not because gay equality means squat to Obama. That's why it's being put off for a couple of years.

I think it's being put off exactly why he says.

Obama isn't fooling anyone, he is a far left leaning liberal. But he's apparently wise enough to know that he doesn't want to remind everyone of that every chance he gets. If he immediately moves to implement the entire left leaning Democratic agenda to the extreme, he's going to piss off a lot of moderates who voted for him and he probably won't get a second term.

Taking a measured response to some very needed reforms that remain controversial is probably the best approach. He will stay in office longer with a supporting Congress for longer and will ultimately be able to do more good.

 

[hotatlboi]

Why does the military want gayness not talked about? What do they think they are getting from DADT? Obviously they know there are gays serving as you have mentioned and don't care.
BTW congrats on your service!!

I would assume it is not talked about currently because of DADT (out of respect for that service member's need to keep it private). If that was not the policy, talking about it probably wouldn't be an issue for most.

 

[NickCole]

Obama isn't fooling anyone, he is a far left leaning liberal.

He's apparently fooled you.

Obama is not a far left leaning liberal. His actions, up to and including inviting Rick Warren to open the inauguration, show that.

 

[Kulindahr]

HaHa well yah ofcourse, but Im asking why the military wants DADT. And I know it isn't to protect the soldier as they may claim. The policy is useless. Look at sports. They can but many athletes choose not to discuss their gayness.

It's obviously not about the soldier, since there are thousands of officers who know they have gays under them, and practice the policy I recommend: "Don't Ask, Don't Care" -- and their units function quite well.

 

[Kulindahr]

He's apparently fooled you.

Obama is not a far left leaning liberal. His actions, up to and including inviting Rick Warren to open the inauguration, show that.

His record up till he started running for president says he's a far-left-leaning liberal.
The simpler conclusion, since he's a politician, is that at present he's being either:

1. Pragmatic, or
2. Deceptive.

Time will tell.

 

[hotatlboi]

His record up till he started running for president says he's a far-left-leaning liberal.
The simpler conclusion, since he's a politician, is that at present he's being either:

1. Pragmatic, or
2. Deceptive.

Time will tell.

Pragmatic is basically how I was describing his actions above so that would be my guess.

He knows he needs to move toward the center to govern effectively. Unfortunately that means he can't have everything he wants right away.

 

[NickCole]

His record up till he started running for president says he's a far-left-leaning liberal.

Far left leaning liberal?

What's his record that you think characterizes Obama as far left leaning liberal?

Now, his association with Bill Ayers would indicate far left leaning liberal, but his supporters always claimed that association said nothing about Obama.

1. Pragmatic, or
2. Deceptive.

He's both.