If you are in the military or have been how do you feel about Don't Ask Don't Tell?

A

AcaciaG

New Member
I am writing a paper about it (10 pages ugh lol) and I figured what would be better than to get the opinion of our troops in my paper, anyone who has anything to say about DADT whether good or bad please please please tell me (if possible I might message you and try to do an interview) I would greatly appreciate your comments about it. I have not formed an opinion about it I think it is more up to the troops, since I personally am not serving I cannot decide how troops feel.

Thanks so much :))

Also I would LOVE to use some of your quotes in my paper if that is ok with you. If it is not just let me know and I won't. If you could possibly include your rank (to use in my paper). Thanks so much
 
DADT should never have been implemented .....

I served 20+ years (Army and Navy), and it has always been my opinion that DADT should never been put in place in the first place. Those subject to DADT have served in armies down through the ages (some exhibiting extreme heroism).

I don't know about others, but, I was aware at several posts (or onboard ship), of a few gays who quietly went about their business with never a bit of trouble over them being gay.

Beyond the fact that I believe it violates a very basic freedom (the right that the rest of us straights enjoy), as far as I am concerned, it was absolutely unnecessary and should never have been implemented.

I NEVER SAW A PROBLEM THAT WAS CAUSED BECAUSE ONE OF THE SOLDIERS OR SAILORS I WAS SERVING WITH WAS GAY.
 
The subject has been done to death elsewhere on this Forum.

Other than a few PC fadists, most "men" just don't feel comfortable around homosexuals, they are fast becoming protected animals.
 
My question has always been, what if I happen to severely dislike someone because they're annoying but they also happen to be gay?
Am I not allowed to dislike them because of their sexual orientation?
Will I be dishonorably discharged or jailed because I was being a "douche bag" to one?
 
I don't want them, nobody I serve with wants them.
Where are these main stream media sources getting these polls that say we don't care?
 
SGT Long said:
I don't want them, nobody I serve with wants them.
Where are these main stream media sources getting these polls that say we don't care?
Click to expand...
The Homosexual Press of course. Like all unpopular movements, they know that proactive media representation is vital as it will always convince rhose who are either, anxious to be seen as Politically Correct, or not prepared to think for themselves.
 
SGT Long said:
I don't want them, nobody I serve with wants them.
Where are these main stream media sources getting these polls that say we don't care?
Click to expand...

But why do you dislike them so much? Do you really feel so threatened by them? What do you think will happen once the shooting starts?
 
I really don't care what people do to themselves or each other (consenting age of course) in the privacy of their own homes. You want to do that kind of thing, fine. Don't tell me about it, don't shove it in my face and say that I have to accept it. It is a private, adult matter.
While I am against homosexuality, male AND female, I don't think being gay effects your work ethic. I resent the media telling me that I HAVE to accept the lifestyle of someone when they come out of the closet.
As to DADT. I think the current policy of DADT is better than either the one before it or allowing gays to serve openly. If gays are allowed to serve openly they will become targets. I say let them serve but keep it to yourself.
 
SGT Long said:
I don't want them, nobody I serve with wants them.
Where are these main stream media sources getting these polls that say we don't care?
Click to expand...

Officers.

:lol:

HokieMSG said:
I really don't care what people do to themselves or each other (consenting age of course) in the privacy of their own homes. You want to do that kind of thing, fine. Don't tell me about it, don't shove it in my face and say that I have to accept it. It is a private, adult matter.
While I am against homosexuality, male AND female, I don't think being gay effects your work ethic. I resent the media telling me that I HAVE to accept the lifestyle of someone when they come out of the closet.
As to DADT. I think the current policy of DADT is better than either the one before it or allowing gays to serve openly. If gays are allowed to serve openly they will become targets. I say let them serve but keep it to yourself.
Click to expand...

They always have and always will. That's really the core of the issue for me.
 
Don't tell me about it, don't shove it in my face and say that I have to accept it
Click to expand...

I think gays will stop doing this once they are accepted. If I had to continuously fight against prejudice I would do it too. If I could be whom I wanted to be i.e. a soldier doing his job and a boy friend at home, and there would be no fuss... Well, I think it would stop as well. But reading some of the remarks, acceptance is a long way off. So I reckon they would want to shove it in all faces.
It is a chicken - egg situation, which will come first?
 
Ted said:
But why do you dislike them so much? Do you really feel so threatened by them? What do you think will happen once the shooting starts?
Click to expand...
I didn't read where he said he "disliked" them, he merely said that there is no place for them in the military alongside normal personel.

They are a "Special Needs" group, people around whom normal persons cannot truthfully speak their mind, something supposedly guaranteed under the Constitution.

If someone accuses me of being a "damned heterosexual" I'm not going to sue him or have him punished or dismissed, whereas if I say similar to a homosexual, there is a very real risk that i will be made to suffer for it. The very fact that they have to have special "protection" from the truth is an indication that even they know that they are misfits. e.g. The word "Gay" was adopted by them, as even they realised that their proper description, "homosexual" had undesireable conotations.

Life can be hard enough in the services, without imposing petty and un-needed restrictions on the majority of those who serve.
 
Unbelievable that you can continue to denigrate your own citizens in this way. What problems are you are afraid of in relation to letting homosexuals wear uniforms?

It smells a bit of homophobia.
 
Seehund said:
Unbelievable that you can continue to denigrate your own citizens in this way. What problems are you are afraid of in relation to letting homosexuals wear uniforms?

It smells a bit of homophobia.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, the old "homophobia" name calling card. I hate to tell you this, but that stupidity does not work on those who do not recognise "Political Correctness" as anything other than a way for the "soft headed" to try and over rule common sense.

I denigrate many of "my own citizens",... lazy bastards, criminals, nit wits, and all manner of other anti social and disruptive or devisive elements. Maybe you should look at it a little more seriously too??
 
If you haven't finished that paper yet one thing you might want to consider is the report coming out today NOV 30th. The Pentagon is saying that the large percentage of Military does not have a problem with homosexuals serving openly. However, they do admit that it would create problems in unit cohesion for some unnamed duration. With units deployed around the world fighting wars unit cohesion being disrupted for the shortest amount of time is a problem that could result in unnecessary deaths. The question becomes how large of an effect will it have? You don't have to like the guy next to you in the fox hole but you still must be willing to work as a team. Will, unit cohesion suffer to the point that this team work breaks down? I'm not sure that is a question any of us can answer. Regardless of whether or not you agree with DADT I'm not sure this moment in history is a time to change it.

My opinion is I don't care about gay serving openly. I do care about people be killed because of a disruption in unit cohesion. So there are two ways to repeal it. Do it now and risk the consequences. Or do it later and don't risk it. My belief is that when lives need not be sacrificed don't risk it. And, if it is political reasons, why could congress not figure a way to write in that it will be repealed upon completion of active conflicts? If that is not satisfactory, how about phasing in open homosexuals to units where there is time to build the cohesion necessary stateside before deploying?
 
I am so happy to live in country where we don't give a sh*t whom you shag.... just as long as it is legal! We have a Gay Parade and everybody can have a good time there if you are into loud music, dancing on boats and aren't afraid of men in tight shorts.

My opinion is I don't care about gay serving openly. I do care about people be killed because of a disruption in unit cohesion
Click to expand...
I reckon all is okay as long as nobody gets killed in the field. It worked for the Greeke, Romans and many others fighting civilisations. Keep sex where it belongs and the fight where that belongs....
 
00000002.jpg


The Danish armed forces under the rainbow flag in 2010

"It's OK to be gay in the Danish armed forces. That is why we are participating in the Copenhagen Gay Pride parade "was Commander Peter Mols’ response when people attending the parade asked what on earth the armed forces were doing there. Peter Mols says that it was painless to get permission to join the parade of Copenhagen Pride. "The then Chief of Defense General Jesper Helsoe gave the authorization to participate in uniform for all three services, Army, Air Force and Navy. This made it easier for individuals to participate in the parade because he does not necessarily have to ask his boss directly. "

All are treated with respect.

Value Basis for the Danish armed forces says among other things: "All employees of the armed forces have the right to be treated with respect. ... This is ... regardless of gender, age, color, political and religious views, sexual orientation, national, social and ethnic origin.


@Ted. We are probably a bit more liberal here in europe.
 
Seehund said:
@Ted. We are probably a bit more liberal here in europe.
Click to expand...

Yes, Europeans often consider themselves more liberal. It is amazing that Liberals believe that being liberal equals being RIGHT. Of course the definition of liberal does not include being right or correct.:wink:

I have no problem with gays and lesbians in the military, it is the accommodations that seem to be creeping into their being allowed to serve. The media is bringing up things like separate living accommodations, federal benefits for their partners? Please spare me. They are either in the military as it is now or don't join. There is no draft!
 
D A D T (Thumbs down) It's time for repeal ...........

USRedLeg said:
................. consider ....... the report coming out today NOV 30th ............................... large percentage of the military does not have a problem with homosexuals serving openly .......................
Click to expand...

With a 9 month poll's results of 70% in favor of doing away with this policy and 30% against doing away with it, your comment is absolutely correct.

Considering a large portion of the 30% against could still live with doing away with the policy if it is repealed, it is only a matter of time that those dumbbells in Washington FINALLY do what should have been done a long time ago .. namely, tossing the DADT policy on the garbage pile where it should have been from the start. It is a civilian experiment that has NO place in the military world.

As far as how we accomplish the repeal ... it's easy, repeal the policy and then carry on as usual. What a person's sexual proclivity is, is up to them. As long as it DOESN'T rear it's head on base, in quarters or wherever the military lays down their heads ... WHO THE HECK CARES????? It's the same policy we enforce where heterosexuals are concerned.

Gays have served in every Army and military unit since the very first army was formed and to use a DADT policy is just plain dumb.
 
Last edited:
@ Chukpike
In America, unlike in Europe, the word liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism in contemporary politics. However, the very notion of "liberal" has a new significance in American public debate as the neo-conservatism has gained ground and the word is now used almost synonymously with "leftist". The reason is that the American right-left axis almost goes from conservative to liberal, i.e. "Across" Europe, which tends to move from socialist to conservative. Liberalism in the European sense is a political ideology, not based on any doctrine and therefore exists in different shapes. You can be right wing and liberal. Being liberal in Europe is more an expression of a worldview rather than a particular political ideology. When a European says that a person has a liberal attitude to something, we actually mean that he has a relaxed, non-judgmental attitude.

@ Chief Bones
I totally agree with you.

I wonder; what if this rule also applied to people with another ethnic or religious background. Would you accept that such a rule also applied to Italians and Jews? I don’t think that the majority of the American people would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top