Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Post Reply New Topic

Hello, I am Minh, and I want to know what is your stance on "Dont Ask, Don't Tell". As a homosexual, liberal, and Aspie, I believe that it is completely discriminatory and wrong.

First of all I think you put this in the wrong forum.

Oh my, can someone please move this. I would really appreciated it, thanks

i would say a bad policy based on a poorly constructed philosophy demanded by outdated religion would definitely be a topic for PPR.

if jb doesn't want to talk about it, that's his own decision. i don't see why we'd avoid such a topic.


allowing homosexuals to serve openly isn't ruining anyone else's military.

it's not like there aren't already homosexual soldiers in our own military. they're just not allowed to get caught being who they are.


DADT won't be gone soon enough, but it will be gone soon.

i think that's a good thing.

Yes it is wrong. and who cares about jb. I am an open-minded, left wing, liberal, socialist. I believe in big government, cloning of people, animals, and embryonic stem cell research. guns should not be in anyone's hands but the hands of our brave handsome troops. marijuana should be legal everywhere. we should have free healthcare even for people who dont work. money should be poured into education. gays, straights, blacks, whites, transgenders, bisexual, and anything else should serve in our military. gay marriage should be everywhere.

I believe anything should be. I love acceptance, and hate ignorance

For land-based units I would suggest starting at first by putting them in segregated units or units where the rank and file are most open to accepting gays, and then leave the military to loosen up that policy at their discretion. For the close proximity of ships it would be best to treat it on an experimental basis first. I also think regular testing for bloodborne diseases would be in order- especially for combat troops and medical personnel.

Oh, and no flamboyant or prima donna behavior from combat troops and they must have a strong enough wrist to shoot a handgun without it jamming on them.

This topic definately belongs here. I would say DADT is the definition of bad policy. I recall being in complete disbelief when it originally passed. I had to double check to make sure I wasn't watching some comedy version of the news. Either say homosexuals can be in the military, or they can't. Why on earth we thought it would be a good idea to expect people to keep it all secret, as an official policy, is completely beyond me.

I see no logical reason to specifically exclude homosexuals from our military. One's sexuality has absolutely nothing to do their capability to serve our country. DADT's days are indeed numbered, thankfully.

Exactly. It's like saying just because someone likes pizza, means that they cannot read.

I've already said this in another thread about the topic, but it bears repeating. The truth is, there are already gays in the military, serving honorably in all sorts of ranks and positions, including in combat roles. The only thing DADT really does is make it impossible for them to be honest with their fellow soldiers-- and really, when you're talking about a job where establishing trust between coworkers is essential, and literally a matter of life and death, forcing a certain group to be dishonest is the definition of bad policy. It flies in the face of military honor codes, and it places an unnecessary stigma on people who already have an incredibly important and stressful task to accomplish. Even worse, the men and women who are outed are significant resources, who then, because of a puritanical policy, are no longer at their country's service. In wartime, who are we to discharge able-bodied people who could lend their talents to the service of the military, just based on an irrational attitude toward an aspect of their personalities that really means nothing in the context of the battlefield? I can't think of any reason that open gays and lesbians shouldn't have the right to defend their country if that is their prerogative.

The day we repeal DADT for good is the day we can finally take pride in knowing that our military truly encourages forging honest bonds between brothers and sisters, regardless of who they are.

Having been in the military, I can tell you that they are already there, it's just a matter of they can't admit it.


The navy has had integrated male/female crews on surface ships for a couple of decades. They have just begun working on integrated submarine crews, as well. That sounds like a successful experiment to me.


They already do testing on a regular basis for everyone in the military.



This made me think of several Monty Python skits....

("Stop it, stop it! This is getting silly...")



Do you really think they'd be dumb enough not to make sure of something like this already?

I've never understood how someone's sexuality is relevant to their eligibility for military service. Surely they aren't expected to have sex on the battlefield, so why does it matter whether they like men or women?

Hunh, this topic reminded me of a book on Plagues I recently read claiming that AIDS coming about was likely was a result of homosexual bath-houses and the loose sexual practices of homosexuals. What are your thoughts, Orwell?

People really underestimate the professionalism of the troops. I think the problems would be few and far enough between that they could be resolved on a case by case basis.

well, that probably may lead to these questions, are there sexual tensions between men and women in the military? I mean, is mere sexual attraction to the opossite sex, a psychological problem or obstacle regarding both sexes serving in the same battlefield? Would men and women take showers together without any problem at all?

Whoever wrote that book didn't bother with fact-checking. HIV/AIDS originated in Africa when SIV crossed over from chimpanzees into humans, most likely via the blood from contaminated bushmeat.

Sexual promiscuity (both heterosexual and homosexual) had a role to play in spreading AIDS, but not in its origin.

Was it written in the 1970's? :/

DADT seems silly especially, as others have said, gay people are already in the military. They should be allowed to be who they are. I heard that if a soldier sees another soldier out on a date with a member of the same sex, they can report them and get them discharged. Is this true? If so, the law definitely has to go.

I suppose people are afraid that gay people might be watching them in the shower, etc. But once again they're already showering with the rest of the soldiers, just no one knows who they are. Also, just because someone is gay does not make them a pervert, so I highly doubt they will be gawking at you in the shower.