Don't Ask, Don't Tell

The title should tell you everything you need to know about this topic, if you're American. If you're not and haven't heard of this, meet a real life American widget, in terms of social policy.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is (was?) a mechanism for homosexuals to serve in the United States Military without fear of being dishonorably (I believe, anyhow) discharged for violation of the codes of conduct, which include, apparently, prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Last I knew, it was repealed, but the status of that, and what will happen now, is in question.

It's Exactly What It Says on the Tin: the military could not ask you what your sexual preference was, and (I would presume) could not attempt to dig said information up, while if you were a homosexual, you were strongly encouraged to keep this to yourself—effectively forcing them all into hiding as Straight Gay people—and if you did not, you were ejected, as per standard rules.

Now, shockingly enough, this was actually a step-up from the old regulations, under which the military could investigate soldiers on its own whim for homosexual tendencies of any kind, and eject them for it.

So, I ask you, tropers: what do you think of gays (and, since it's somewhat related, in terms of reasoning, women) serving in the military? Other nations' policies on the matter would be welcome, and debate is encouraged.

Argue away!

edited 26th Aug '11 2:14:59 PM by USAF713

No, don't "argue". Arguing will get the thread shut down.

I take it that sheer bigotry is the ultimate reason for this, yeah?

More or less, but not always on part of the politicians. If I naturally distrusted homosexuals (I don't, but some people do), the last person I would want covering my back in a combat zone would be a homosexual. It's stupid, but trusting your squadmates is very important on a battlefield.

I meant it more in the pedantic, "people on opposite sides attempt to prove each other wrong," way...

From the civilian population. The military's justification is that it will cause unit cohesion and morale issues due to fraternization...

edited 26th Aug '11 2:54:22 PM by USAF713

Self-thump, accidental double-post.

edited 26th Aug '11 2:54:07 PM by USAF713

I think this all originated in the cold war, when homosexuals were seen as a security risk because they were more susceptible to blackmail? Or something like that.

Which of course is just a cover for bigotry, so yeah.

Ugly relic of the past...and if it still exists, that just tells you about the kind of people in the military or politics, whichever decides this policy stays or goes. Make all the excuses they want, it's not easy to cover up blatant bigotry.

But what I'm genuinely interested in is HOW they..."inspect you to find homosexual tendencies". It sounds more like something from a gay comedy movie.

edited 26th Aug '11 2:57:45 PM by Signed

@Earth Sheep: Thats what I heard. Opposition from the higher ups in the military seems less based on their own prejudices and more based on worries about how certain soldiers lower down the chain will react. Worries about a rise in tensions between bigots and openly gay servicemen leading to a drop in unit cohesivness in combat.

Still, the fact that that even holds water as an argument at all, if it does, is a pretty damning testament against the current attitudes held within the US army towards gay servicemen.

Well, for sure the most homophobic people in America are 16-25 year old males, so it does have a certain amount of logic.

They go through your life and see if you had any boyfriends. It's not that interesting.

edited 26th Aug '11 2:58:48 PM by TheEarthSheep

Oh, I thought they'd invade your privacy in a more...slap sticky way.

Wait, what about bisexuals? They're only half-gay. They're only allowed to talk about their flings with girls?

edited 26th Aug '11 3:00:42 PM by Signed

Supposedly.

But if they had homosexual relations, even in addition to heterosexual ones, under this rule they would be booted.

edited 26th Aug '11 3:03:20 PM by TheEarthSheep

If we were to just look at it in terms of wanting to maximize the potential recruitment tool, you'd have to measure the number of potential dropouts/failures to join due to fear of the "queers" vs. the number of people who are gay but would not be comfortable hiding their homosexuality.

My first impression is that the latter group would almost certainly outweigh the former by a wide margin, particularly in the "needed skills" department. Arabic translators, anyone?

So they think that All Gays are Promiscuous?

Seriously, is that the argument people in support of this nonsense put foreward? They're really that ignorant?

No, they're not. Kindly read the rest of the arguments on the page, and then you can rage.

I thought this thread was talking about the repeal of DADT.

And that a pretty wide majority of civilian and military people thought it was a good thing.

edited 26th Aug '11 3:16:12 PM by Leradny

Uhh... except that the younger generation is less homophobic by the year, though young people are more likely to be open and loud about their prejudices compared, while older people are just quietly dissaproving.

Anyway, while I could never be a veteran, there are people with the vocation to be a fighter, and that vocation is not limited to heterosexual men. In a decade or two, this like segregation, might be a non-issue. Right now, the men and women in service still have prejudices that make open homosexuality problematic, but the point of law isn't to cater to prejudices to avoid problems.

In my experience, once people turn 30 they stop caring what anyone else does. And also in my experience (having been to high school), I can tell you with a surety that they average 16 year old guy is at least slightly homophobic, at least where I come from (American Midwest).

Personal anecdotes it is.

I've basically had the diametric opposite experiences, so there's a self-selection bias going on. Though, the youth does still tend to words like "fag" and "queer" derogatorily.

There isn't necessarily bias, we used different samples.

Self-Selection Bias isn't really about "bias" per say, it's about how the groups that you personally observe and are a part of are not necessarily standard random samples of the population as a whole.

For instance, if I stage an event asking people to come and tell me what they think about DADT, then I am not performing a standard random sample, so much as I am getting a snapshot of the people who are most passionate about the topic. Ergo, my sample selects itself based on its existing biases.

edited 26th Aug '11 3:40:52 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

My opinion on women and people of homosexual persuasion in the military. Same as everyone else. If they can do their job and are not cramming their way of living down others throats I don't care. If women want in combat I don't care as long as they keep up with the men and meet the exact same standards. Same for homosexuals.

The policy allowed them to investigate and eject anyone believed to have homosexual tendencies if they were reported. If someone accidentally found out and told the military you could be ejected etc.

This will be official policy next month. DADT will be fully dead. The regs that have that listing need to really be rewritten. There are plenty of straight service members who could discharged under the regs.

Oldie but goodie.

@Tomu, I honestly didn't know that, thanks for enlightening me. Knowing is half the battle, etc.

We are a product of our time—the transition to gays being ok, and racism being decidedly not ok. As such, you'd be astonished how many gay and racist jokes people my age (guilty as charged) make on an hourly basis.

The beautiful thing, though, is that they're exactly that: just jokes. Bring up the idea of real homophobia or racism in the presence of me and the vast majority of people at my school (a Catholic private school, no less, in relation to the homophobia) and prepare for nothing but cold stares and a complete lack of people trying to talk to you from then on.

This. I say the military should account for gays in the military exactly like it does for women: fraternization rules. The military is all about rules. People who can't follow the simple rule of "no on-duty romance" get booted. Everyone else—which should be the general majority—gets to do their civic duty and serve.