Posted on Oct 21, 2014
What are the implications of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell?
6.3K
26
15
6
6
0
I know this is a controversial topic, but I wanted to get the community's input on the implications of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell (if any?). What changes have you noticed? Are they good or bad changes?
I support the repeal, but disagree with the some of the resulting implications. A few things I've noticed:
1. Barracks policies do not allow opposite-sex guests, I believe this should be changed to allowing guests (regardless of gender) or not allowing any quests (within reason). My friend in the air force is allowed to have family stay in his room for short lengths of time (no gender stipulations).
2. Barracks roommate policy is same-sex, in my previous unit you could request who you roomed with, does this policy need to be changed to prevent abuse or perceieved unfairness?
3. Same-sex sexual harassments/comments are generally disregarded or ignored. Ex: I witnessed a female soldier talking to a male soldier about <insert explicit things here> she would do to his wife.
I am of the opinion that gender barriers need to be removed, or policies changed accordingly. I am sure there are arguments that would reason differently, so I just wanted to know everyone's thoughts. No one really wants to talk about this topic, so I don't know if I'm alone in my opinions, and what affect this is having on other military members.
I support the repeal, but disagree with the some of the resulting implications. A few things I've noticed:
1. Barracks policies do not allow opposite-sex guests, I believe this should be changed to allowing guests (regardless of gender) or not allowing any quests (within reason). My friend in the air force is allowed to have family stay in his room for short lengths of time (no gender stipulations).
2. Barracks roommate policy is same-sex, in my previous unit you could request who you roomed with, does this policy need to be changed to prevent abuse or perceieved unfairness?
3. Same-sex sexual harassments/comments are generally disregarded or ignored. Ex: I witnessed a female soldier talking to a male soldier about <insert explicit things here> she would do to his wife.
I am of the opinion that gender barriers need to be removed, or policies changed accordingly. I am sure there are arguments that would reason differently, so I just wanted to know everyone's thoughts. No one really wants to talk about this topic, so I don't know if I'm alone in my opinions, and what affect this is having on other military members.
Gender
Policy
EO
Don't ask Don't tell (DADT)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
Simple answer: You can't have it both ways. If same sex significant others can be in your barracks room, then opposite sex should be able to....or as you said - neither. The problem with neither is that it would be nearly impossible to regulate.
Equality has to be absolute, or it isn't equality...it's just a shift in status quo.
Equality has to be absolute, or it isn't equality...it's just a shift in status quo.
(4)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
I agree. Same thing applies to Freedom, which often makes me question how free our nation still is when we insist on regulating everything.
(2)
(0)
SSG Jacey R.
SGT Richard H. I completely agree, it should be the same regardless or the person sexual orientation.
(1)
(0)
4
2
2
Cue the down votes. I am against the repeal for a number of reasons:
1) the military should not be used as a social experiment.
2) since the repeal, the number of same sex assaults has increased significantly!
3) it provides our Muslim enemies more reason to hate us and more than likely helps their recruiting efforts.
4) you give an inch; they take a mile. Next we'll have to have special accommodations for transgenders who simply say they feel like the opposite sex. It provides yet more opportunities for assault. Should we subject women to showering with men?
5) degrades morale. You can put two gays in the same hooch and they can sleep with each other. Meanwhile, everyone else is living under segregated abstinence. Is it fair to them?
1) the military should not be used as a social experiment.
2) since the repeal, the number of same sex assaults has increased significantly!
3) it provides our Muslim enemies more reason to hate us and more than likely helps their recruiting efforts.
4) you give an inch; they take a mile. Next we'll have to have special accommodations for transgenders who simply say they feel like the opposite sex. It provides yet more opportunities for assault. Should we subject women to showering with men?
5) degrades morale. You can put two gays in the same hooch and they can sleep with each other. Meanwhile, everyone else is living under segregated abstinence. Is it fair to them?
(4)
(2)
CPT Jack Durish
I don't see any reason to vote you down. Indeed, I voted you up for having the courage to speak your mind on a very touchy subject. That being said, I'll follow your example and respond in kind. 1) You wouldn't think that the military should be used as a social experiment but it has, many times. For example, integration of the races largely began in the military when Truman ordered them to integrate. It may be argued that it helped break down barriers in the civilian community. 2) I have not clue that sex assaults have increased significantly since the repeal of "don't ask..." It would seem plausible inasmuch as guys don't handle well exposure to homosexuals. 3) I don't think that our Muslim enemies need any more reasons to hate us and more than adding fuel in the tank of a car adds to its horsepower. 4) The slippery slope argument. Actually, there are slippery slopes and this may well be one of them. 5) Degrades morale? Maybe. Sounds plausible that providing an opportunity for homosexuals to engage in sex while segregating heterosexuals from prospective sex partners is not fair and might lead to controversy. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
(2)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
1) Is just your opinion, and one not shared by most people. Free your mind and take your pick of sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-armys-job-is-not-to-act-as-a-social-experiment/2013/06/26/9f738c72-dceb-11e2-a484-7b7f79cd66a1_story.html
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/06/mike-huckabee-us-military-not-social-experiment
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/08/our-military-is-not-a-social-experiment
Of course, you're not going to find too many liberal sources saying anything against the LGBT agenda because that goes against their progressive narrative!
2) Perhaps you just need to READ THIS with an open mind:
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/05/25/sharp-increase-in-man-on-man-sexual-assaults-in-us-military/
and if you don't want to read, give this a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbxQLX3_1Ro
and you can watch this debate at Air University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4s_kkmwEJY
FYI: Elaine Donnelly is one of two people considered to be foremost experts on homosexuality in the military (as described by the LtCol introducing her at the Air University Debate on DADT, which was held at Maxwell AFB). Elaine Donnelly's resume includes: President and Founder of The Center for Military Readiness, founded in 1993; She was appointed by Sec Def Casper Weinberger in 1984 to be a member of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services; Pres. George HW Bush, in 1992, appointed her to the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces; she has published numerous articles on military personnel issues and has appeared on most network and cable channel networks; In 1997 she became the first woman to receive the Admiral John Henry Tower Award from the NY Naval Aviation Commandery in recognition for her support for Naval Aviation. In 2002 she was the recipient of the American Conservative Union's Ronald Reagan Award.
3) Well... maybe you can begin here:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-islamic-states-views-on-homosexuality
Note: You have to READ the article to find the answer. It's in there, but it isn't spelled out word for word. It isn't hard to deduce from what is being said when taken in its entirety.
ISIS uses propaganda as a recruiting tool, and part of their propaganda is characterizing America as a haven of homosexuality that needs to be punished because of the evil it embraces.
"Even so, the Islamic State has taken such attitudes and precepts to a unique extreme, treating all aspects of LGBT culture as "actions of the people of Lot" and, therefore, as forms of sodomy and moral decay. ... Moreover, IS has taken pains to characterize America as the root cause of homosexuality. ... Besides using homosexuality as a foil for condemning the United States, IS uses its "punishment" of such "transgressions" as an expression of its commitment to reviving the supposedly neglected Islamic penal code. ... Such arguments about killing homosexuals appear throughout IS propaganda. This includes articles in the group's English and French-language magazines (Dabiq and Dar al-Islam) and videos that depict punishing homosexuals as a means of both exacting retribution against unbelievers and "maintaining virtue and deterring immorality."
4) I have no problem with Transgenders who were born with defects such as an extra chromosome XXY/XYY or hardware from both sexes, and whose sex had to be determined by a doctor. They can not help that. I do have a problem with people who are mentally ill and who claim to be a gender that does not match their XX or XY chromosomes. And actually I have no problem with them per se... just with them serving in the Armed Forces. We (as taxpayers) do not need our military having to deal with TG issues when we have plenty of better-qualified candidates not needing drugs or shrinks to help them with their mental health related gender and social issues. It simply isn't cost effective having to work around their special needs, such as separate bathrooms, separate accommodations, etc.
5) You seem to not know where to begin whenever you have no credible argument to support your position. If you take the time to read and watch the links (HINT HINT), the answer is contained in them... but if you were to take time to read the comments from others, you will find that I'm not the only one thinking #5 IS an issue:
SGT Kristin Wiley stated in her comment: "I mostly seeing #5 being an issue. So if you're homosexual you can live in the same barracks room, hooch, etc as your current bf/gf. Whereas as a heterosexual living in the barracks will be lucky if the barracks policy will even allow their bf/gf to enter the room. I can't agree with enforcing that standard, when the standard is so clearly unequal. If we want equal rights for homosexuals, transgenders, etc than they need to be equal for EVERYONE. The regulations put in place to protect these minority groups, is creating an unequal standard for the majority. I brought this up during the initial DADT repeal training and they just told me that yes it will be unequal, but there's nothing we can do to change that."
===========================================================
More sources and articles of interest:
Center for Military Readiness (founded by Elaine Donnelly) << !!!
https://www.cmrlink.org/content/gays-in-the-militay
AmericanTraditions.Org articles:
http://www.americantraditions.org/articles.htm
http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Destroying%20Morale%20and%20Morality%20in%20Our%20Armed%20Forces%20and%20Exposing%20Our%20Troops%20to%20AIDS.htm
CNS News:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/straight-troops-must-shower-gays-says-dod-working-group-gay-men-have-learned-avoid
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-armys-job-is-not-to-act-as-a-social-experiment/2013/06/26/9f738c72-dceb-11e2-a484-7b7f79cd66a1_story.html
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/06/mike-huckabee-us-military-not-social-experiment
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/08/our-military-is-not-a-social-experiment
Of course, you're not going to find too many liberal sources saying anything against the LGBT agenda because that goes against their progressive narrative!
2) Perhaps you just need to READ THIS with an open mind:
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/05/25/sharp-increase-in-man-on-man-sexual-assaults-in-us-military/
and if you don't want to read, give this a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbxQLX3_1Ro
and you can watch this debate at Air University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4s_kkmwEJY
FYI: Elaine Donnelly is one of two people considered to be foremost experts on homosexuality in the military (as described by the LtCol introducing her at the Air University Debate on DADT, which was held at Maxwell AFB). Elaine Donnelly's resume includes: President and Founder of The Center for Military Readiness, founded in 1993; She was appointed by Sec Def Casper Weinberger in 1984 to be a member of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services; Pres. George HW Bush, in 1992, appointed her to the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces; she has published numerous articles on military personnel issues and has appeared on most network and cable channel networks; In 1997 she became the first woman to receive the Admiral John Henry Tower Award from the NY Naval Aviation Commandery in recognition for her support for Naval Aviation. In 2002 she was the recipient of the American Conservative Union's Ronald Reagan Award.
3) Well... maybe you can begin here:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-islamic-states-views-on-homosexuality
Note: You have to READ the article to find the answer. It's in there, but it isn't spelled out word for word. It isn't hard to deduce from what is being said when taken in its entirety.
ISIS uses propaganda as a recruiting tool, and part of their propaganda is characterizing America as a haven of homosexuality that needs to be punished because of the evil it embraces.
"Even so, the Islamic State has taken such attitudes and precepts to a unique extreme, treating all aspects of LGBT culture as "actions of the people of Lot" and, therefore, as forms of sodomy and moral decay. ... Moreover, IS has taken pains to characterize America as the root cause of homosexuality. ... Besides using homosexuality as a foil for condemning the United States, IS uses its "punishment" of such "transgressions" as an expression of its commitment to reviving the supposedly neglected Islamic penal code. ... Such arguments about killing homosexuals appear throughout IS propaganda. This includes articles in the group's English and French-language magazines (Dabiq and Dar al-Islam) and videos that depict punishing homosexuals as a means of both exacting retribution against unbelievers and "maintaining virtue and deterring immorality."
4) I have no problem with Transgenders who were born with defects such as an extra chromosome XXY/XYY or hardware from both sexes, and whose sex had to be determined by a doctor. They can not help that. I do have a problem with people who are mentally ill and who claim to be a gender that does not match their XX or XY chromosomes. And actually I have no problem with them per se... just with them serving in the Armed Forces. We (as taxpayers) do not need our military having to deal with TG issues when we have plenty of better-qualified candidates not needing drugs or shrinks to help them with their mental health related gender and social issues. It simply isn't cost effective having to work around their special needs, such as separate bathrooms, separate accommodations, etc.
5) You seem to not know where to begin whenever you have no credible argument to support your position. If you take the time to read and watch the links (HINT HINT), the answer is contained in them... but if you were to take time to read the comments from others, you will find that I'm not the only one thinking #5 IS an issue:
SGT Kristin Wiley stated in her comment: "I mostly seeing #5 being an issue. So if you're homosexual you can live in the same barracks room, hooch, etc as your current bf/gf. Whereas as a heterosexual living in the barracks will be lucky if the barracks policy will even allow their bf/gf to enter the room. I can't agree with enforcing that standard, when the standard is so clearly unequal. If we want equal rights for homosexuals, transgenders, etc than they need to be equal for EVERYONE. The regulations put in place to protect these minority groups, is creating an unequal standard for the majority. I brought this up during the initial DADT repeal training and they just told me that yes it will be unequal, but there's nothing we can do to change that."
===========================================================
More sources and articles of interest:
Center for Military Readiness (founded by Elaine Donnelly) << !!!
https://www.cmrlink.org/content/gays-in-the-militay
AmericanTraditions.Org articles:
http://www.americantraditions.org/articles.htm
http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Destroying%20Morale%20and%20Morality%20in%20Our%20Armed%20Forces%20and%20Exposing%20Our%20Troops%20to%20AIDS.htm
CNS News:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/straight-troops-must-shower-gays-says-dod-working-group-gay-men-have-learned-avoid
The U.S. Army’s job is not to act as a social experiment
basement, taking exception...
(0)
(1)
Capt Jeff S.
This is the standard Liberal response to an argument they have lost. In fact, it is their FPF: "your sources are all propaganda based from bias organizations. We all know that if it's on YouTube or Fox News it has to be true (....sarcasm....)."
I don't like Fox News either and quit watching it after they blew the first GOP Debate and outed themselves for their Progressive Establishment bias. That doesn't mean I don't filter what they put out and still regard some of it as factual... just as I do for CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC (on those rare occasions when they actually tell the truth). I don't discredit the information just because it came from a source I don't like. I look at who they reference as the source of their reporting and do my best to filter out all their bias.
Never mind that the YouTube videos were of an actual military conference AND an interview with Elaine Donnelly, President and Founder of the Center for Military Readiness, whose credentials I listed -- just as she was introduced at the Air University DADT Debate. She is in both YouTube videos.
Not one link or line item was mentioned specifically by Lindsey in "his" response, which tells me that "he" never bothered to skim the articles past the first thing "he" could take exception to. Note to Lindsey: if it has a dominant Y chomosome and a penis, it's a he.
As for the links being old and irrelevant. Is 2013 going back too far? The military HAS been used as a testbed for social experimentation for quite some time. DADT came out during the Clinton Administration, back in 1993. The repeal of DADT came out when? How about Dec 2010 -- over 5 years ago!!!
"You have no ambition to become more knowledgeable outside of any source that does not fit the confines of your personal opinions. Ignorance is bliss in your case and a continued discussion would be irrelevant and pointless."
You know, I was thinking the same thing!
I don't like Fox News either and quit watching it after they blew the first GOP Debate and outed themselves for their Progressive Establishment bias. That doesn't mean I don't filter what they put out and still regard some of it as factual... just as I do for CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC (on those rare occasions when they actually tell the truth). I don't discredit the information just because it came from a source I don't like. I look at who they reference as the source of their reporting and do my best to filter out all their bias.
Never mind that the YouTube videos were of an actual military conference AND an interview with Elaine Donnelly, President and Founder of the Center for Military Readiness, whose credentials I listed -- just as she was introduced at the Air University DADT Debate. She is in both YouTube videos.
Not one link or line item was mentioned specifically by Lindsey in "his" response, which tells me that "he" never bothered to skim the articles past the first thing "he" could take exception to. Note to Lindsey: if it has a dominant Y chomosome and a penis, it's a he.
As for the links being old and irrelevant. Is 2013 going back too far? The military HAS been used as a testbed for social experimentation for quite some time. DADT came out during the Clinton Administration, back in 1993. The repeal of DADT came out when? How about Dec 2010 -- over 5 years ago!!!
"You have no ambition to become more knowledgeable outside of any source that does not fit the confines of your personal opinions. Ignorance is bliss in your case and a continued discussion would be irrelevant and pointless."
You know, I was thinking the same thing!
(0)
(1)
SFC (Join to see)
Very typical response from a homophobic, misogynists' person. Glad to see you are retired or if you still in, you probably be dead knowing about the tolerance in the Army...sex assaults increased?? lmao...stupid reasoning
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
When you open up Pandora's box, you have to live with all that it implies. You have just acquiesced to a lobby group that represents about 5% of the population. This group has decided same sex couples are the right thing, forced that agenda on the populace, and changed the definition of marriage from opposite sex to same sex. What moral imperative did they choose, to make that decision? They use the word love. You should be able to express love to whomever you want, be it a man or women. By that criteria, I could be loving two women or maybe four. There really is no end to this. Before, you were punished if you committed sodomy. Is it now welcomed? The military runs on policy produced by Congress, the DOD and the COC. What will be next? What else will be forced on the military?
(0)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
From a military standpoint, if we support same sex marriage, then we need to ensure they are held to the same sexual harassment policies and are processed equally for adultery. A female soldier I knew at my last unit explicitly told a male soldier what she wanted to do to his wife. That is strongly inappropriate in my opinion, as the female soldier is blatantly stating that she wants his wife to commit adultery for her own self-interests. If I knew sexual harassment reports could be made as a bystander, I would have filed one. That behavior is not tolerable from any perspective, but freshly after the repeal everyone was afraid to report this behavior for fear of 'discrimination'.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google