I found this an interesting article and thought I would see what you guys think.


Is the US ready to join Britain, Israel, most NATO nations, and other countries in allowing gay men and lesbians to openly serve in the armed forces?

Most likely not any time soon. But the US military's longstanding aversion to having such service members among the ranks seems to be shifting, reflecting public opinion.

A group of 28 retired generals and admirals issued a letter calling on Congress to repeal the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" act. The controversial law was passed early in the Clinton administration, prohibiting anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from military service because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."


LINK

Is the US ready to join Britain, Israel, most NATO nations, and other countries in allowing gay men and lesbians to openly serve in the armed forces

What do they mean "openly serve" Do they have a special unit or a unique uniform? I favor the don't ask, dont tell policy.

Tumbleweed wrote:

Is the US ready to join Britain, Israel, most NATO nations, and other countries in allowing gay men and lesbians to openly serve in the armed forces

What do they mean "openly serve" Do they have a special unit or a unique uniform? I favor the don't ask, dont tell policy.

Tumbleweed, by "openly serve" they mean the person doesn't have to hide who they are or live a lie while serving. If a fellow soldier asks if a gay soldier if they "have someone at home" they can say, "Yes, I have a wonderful partner at home." Just like a straight soldier can say, "Yes, I have a wife and baby at home." The current system wants gay people to lie about or hide who they are. That's not fair.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that you favor such a prejudicial policy. Why do you favor it? Just curious....

Maybe it's because I don't see it from the same point of view as the gay community. To me" openly serve" means soldiers want to make a point about their choice.

I don't have any problems what so ever with gay people so that has nothing to do with what I support or don't support. "Openly" can mean a lot of different things. It for that reason I don't support it.

Tumbleweed wrote:Maybe it's because I don't see it from the same point of view as the gay community. To me" openly serve" means soldiers want to make a point about their choice.

First of all, being gay isn't a choice. That said, the issue most gay people have with DADT is the fact that they're forced to literally live a lie about something that has nothing to do with their job. Imagine straight soldiers being thrown out of the military because they mentioned they had a wife or girlfriend at home. Same applies with gay people.

I don't have any problems what so ever with gay people so that has nothing to do with what I support or don't support.

That's a good thing.

"Openly" can mean a lot of different things. It for that reason I don't support it.

"Openly" should apply in the same way it does in any workplace environment. In other words, all soldiers should be able to mention their significant others, regardless of whether they're male or female. However, sexual advances and inappropriate comments/behavior directed at their fellow soldiers should be grounds for disciplinary action.

I'm not going to split hairs on the "choice" issue. Gay people are gay, and I could care less how they got that way.

I'm against discrimination of any kind. At the same time I'm not comfortable with the "openly gay" concept either. As sure as I'm setting here that will lead to even more problems than the don't ask, don't tell policy. IMO.

They can make up any damn policy they want , but you aren't going to shove acceptance down any body's throat. To those of us out there that don't judge people for being gay, an openly gay policy might work. I don't think there are enough people in the military that will accept an openly gay policy right now. If you force it on them there will be a lot of resentment and you'll lose more people leaving the military than you would gain by letting gay people openly serve.

Eh. I think it might go better than you think. There's a new generation out there who have grown up with openly gay kids in their school. I think the reaction out of most of the soldiers in the field would be a big yawn. Sure, there might be some fear and loathing from some who were raised that way, but I bet their squad mates would set them "straight", so to speak

Coyote wrote:Eh. I think it might go better than you think. There's a new generation out there who have grown up with openly gay kids in their school. I think the reaction out of most of the soldiers in the field would be a big yawn. Sure, there might be some fear and loathing from some who were raised that way, but I bet their squad mates would set them "straight", so to speak

I totally agree, Coyote. Policies like "Don't ask, don't tell" perpetuate prejudice and, I believe, are counterproductive to the constitutional ideal of "equal treatment under the law." An interesting article:

Under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” any servicemember who acknowledges his or her homosexuality by word or deed is discharged. Between 1994 and the end of 2001, more than 7,800 servicemembers were forced out of the military because of the policy.

America prides itself on being a nation of liberty and tolerance,” said Jamie Fellner, director of the U.S. Program of Human Rights Watch. “Yet it permits its military to remain a bastion of discrimination against gays and lesbians.”

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/us012303.htm


This paragraph says it best (from the same HRW article):

“‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ panders to prejudice,” said Fellner. “Gay and lesbian servicemembers are discharged without regard to their skills, training, commitment or courage — victims of the irrational fears and stereotypes some heterosexuals have about them.”

Interestingly, as many of you probably know, DADT was implemented as a compromise to try to end the brutality and unnecessary 'witch hunts' that were currently going on the military regarding GLBT soldiers. Under DADT, at least if you hid who you were you could stay in your job. However, like civil unions, this isn't adequate. Equality means just that.

Gays have openly served in the UK military for several years. Seems to be no problems about it. There are more problems between the sexes.

I don't get how it would cause major problems either. Quite frankly, if there are people in the military that are THAT prejudice that they'd leave if gays were allowed, then good riddance. We don't need crap like that representing our country.