Cowardice and hypocrisy surround DADT

“Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” raises a more complex legal issue
http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/dont-ask-dont-tell-a-more-complex-legal-issue/

All the opponents talk about is showering. They never look at or think about all the other things that GLBT soldiers are prevented from doing that heterosexual soldiers don't even think about.

They cannot have a picture of their significanmt other in their locker or on their desks (without lying).

They cannot talk about what they did on their vacation (without lying).

They cannot have the possibly most important people in lives visible at departures, homecommings or ceremonies(without lying)including if they were to come home in a coffin.

They cannot have their true family listed for notification of their death.

All of these things are taken for granted by straight soldiers and are fully denied to GLBT soldiers.

Also third party outings happen as retaliation for various things. Female soldier won't submit to male soldier advances- he could out her as a lesbian.

Don't like you boss, you can try to get rid of him/her that way too.

Sexual harassment reportby a female soldier-she is really a lesbian and a man hater, etc.

I personally know individuals who have been investigated, a lengthy and overly publicizing of private lives, for these very supposed offenses. All were cleared, but not until they were demoralized, demonized and basically put under a microscope. Not able to do their work and all on the tax payer's dollar. Talk about a waste of money.

blasmaic,

"OK, you win."

Really?

Just like that?

"Leave things exactly as they are today. Keep DADT in place, and discharge anyone who discloses their GLBT identity."

DADT will be eventually overturned; it's only a question of when.

"I was trying to assure that the repeal of DADT would not infringe on the right of each soldier to privacy while allowing for GLBTs to have their identity."

If that's what you've been trying to do, you've been doing it quite badly.

"You've persuaded me it may be unworkable to permit GLBT identity in the military under any circumstances."

Are you sure that you hadn't already persuade yourself of that?

By the way, you are aware that you have no control over what happens to DADT, don't you?

"We just can't have GLBTs sleeping, bathing, and dressing in the same areas as heterosexuals,..."

Why not?

That is exactly what we have today, and exactly what we have had from the beginning of the military.

What has changed?

OK, you win.

Leave things exactly as they are today. Keep DADT in place, and discharge anyone who discloses their GLBT identity.

I was trying to assure that the repeal of DADT would not infringe on the right of each soldier to privacy while allowing for GLBTs to have their identity. You've persuaded me it may be unworkable to permit GLBT identity in the military under any circumstances.

blasmaic,

"We just can't have GLBTs sleeping, bathing, and dressing in the same areas as heterosexuals,..."

Why not?

That is exactly what we have today, and exactly what we have had from the beginning of the military.

What has changed?

"...or we need to billet everyone in the same space without regard to sexual orientation."

Which is exactly as we have done, and continue to do today.

Where's the problem?

"Let me ask you a different way. If the United States military provided the equivelant of a private hotel room to each new recruit and soldier, would that be okay with you?"

Sure, why not?

"However, you think that 'we' can take away the identity rights of gays and lesbians to accommodate the privacy rights of heterosexuals?"

No.

We just can't have GLBTs sleeping, bathing, and dressing in the same areas as heterosexuals, or we need to billet everyone in the same space without regard to sexual orientation.

Let me ask you a different way. If the United States military provided the equivelant of a private hotel room to each new recruit and soldier, would that be okay with you?

blasmaic,

"Do you believe that all males and all females should sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas? If not, why not?"

What I personally don't believe is irrelevant.

That said, I have no problem with inter-sex sleeping, bathing, and dressing, having engaged in a fair amount of that myself.

"Do you believe it is legal to force a person to appear naked at work in front of a person or people who could become sexually or romantically attracted to him or her?"

Again, what I personally don't believe is irrelevant.

That said, I have no problem with it.

"Why do you believe that no one, heterosexual or GLBT, should have their sexual orientation considered as a positive or negative factor when entering the military?"

Again, what I personally don't believe is irrelevant.

Bear in mind that there is no military need for a soldier to have heterosexual sex with someone in order to perform his or her duty (well, at least not that I am aware of; the military may have changed since I was involved).

"I believe in equality for everyone, -- a black general should not have to open the door for a white general, and a female colonel should not have to cook breakfast for a male colonel. Blacks and women (and white men) are also free to hold the door for whomever they choose and cook breakfast for whomever they choose as well. My view of equality also extends to new minority indentity groups, like Hispanics, Muslims, Asians, GLBTs and many others."

What you believe is irrelevant; nothing that you write about above (opening doors or cooking) has anything to with DADT.

"Likewise, each new recruit and each soldier has a right to privacy -- at least a right to sleep, bathe, and dress in areas restricted to people who might become attracted to him or her."

Are you not aware that a person's rights in the military are different from a person's rights in civilian life?

For example, in civilian life, your boss generally cannot tell to shoot someone.

"America has options!
We can keep DADT,
We can billet all men and all women together without regard to their sexual orientation, or
We can billet each soldier in his own or her own private sleeping, bathing, and dressing area."

Did you have a particularly bad showering experience as a child?

"We cannot take away the privacy rights of heterosexuals in order to accommodate the identity rights of gays and lesbians."

However, you think that "we" can take away the identity rights of gays and lesbians to accommodate the privacy rights of heterosexuals?

The answer, I suggest it to rid the military of ALL Chaplins - and replace them with professionally trained counselors who are a-religious. There is NO PLACE for chaplins in the military... none.

"Second, as far as DADT is concerned, I don't think that sexual orientation should be a consideration, positive or negative, for enlistment in the armed forces, and I don't think that anyone, heterosexual or gay, should be required to hide their sexual orientation in order to serve in the armed forces.

"Any questions?"

Sure.

Do you believe that all males and all females should sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas? If not, why not?

Do you believe it is legal to force a person to appear naked at work in front of a person or people who could become sexually or romantically attracted to him or her?

Why do you believe that no one, heterosexual or GLBT, should have their sexual orientation considered as a positive or negative factor when entering the military?

I believe in equality for everyone, -- a black general should not have to open the door for a white general, and a female colonel should not have to cook breakfast for a male colonel. Blacks and women (and white men) are also free to hold the door for whomever they choose and cook breakfast for whomever they choose as well. My view of equality also extends to new minority indentity groups, like Hispanics, Muslims, Asians, GLBTs and many others.

Likewise, each new recruit and each soldier has a right to privacy -- at least a right to sleep, bathe, and dress in areas restricted to people who might become attracted to him or her.

America has options!

We can keep DADT,

We can billet all men and all women together without regard to their sexual orientation, or

We can billet each soldier in his own or her own private sleeping, bathing, and dressing area.

We cannot take away the privacy rights of heterosexuals in order to accommodate the identity rights of gays and lesbians.

blasmaic,

"Please articulate your points of disagreement."

OK.

"If you believe that treating people differently based on their sex, sexual orientation, race, religion or nationality is fair, then say so."

Here goes:

1. I don't believe that treating people differently based on their sex, sexual orientation, race, religion or nationality is fair or unfair.

2. I am aware, however, that treating people differently based on their sex, sexual orientation, race, religion or nationality is sometimes necessary.

"I believe that fairness is what is fair to all regardless of race, religion, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, disability, and maybe a few other characterisitics that don't come to mind right now."

I do not believe that; what is "fair" to one person can be perceived as "unfair" to another person.

"That's what America is all about, and what has made this country successful."

I disagree; America is about much more than that, and it was much more than that that made this country successful.

"Maybe you believe differently. Okay, share what you beleive."

First, I don't believe anything.

Second, as far as DADT is concerned, I don't think that sexual orientation should be a consideration, positive or negative, for enlistment in the armed forces, and I don't think that anyone, heterosexual or gay, should be required to hide their sexual orientation in order to serve in the armed forces.

Any questions?

PSolus,

Please articulate your points of disagreement. If you believe that treating people differently based on their sex, sexual orientation, race, religion or nationality is fair, then say so.

I believe that fairness is what is fair to all regardless of race, religion, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, disability, and maybe a few other characterisitics that don't come to mind right now. That's what America is all about, and what has made this country successful.

Maybe you believe differently. Okay, share what you beleive.

blasmaic"

"We don't require that a woman say or believe that all men are rapists to assert her right to privacy from all men."

I don't know what you are attempting to communicate with that sentence.

"Why do we call men homophobes and bigots when they assert a right to privacy from all gays?"

Who are "we"?

And, how, exactly, does one "assert a right to privacy from all gays"?

"Now this is about the point in the dialogue where someone makes a joke and says if I'm worried about gay men not being able to control themselves around me, then my estimation of my own handsome self is excessive. Imagine telling a woman she can shower with the men because she's too ugly for anyone to want! How many millions would that the army in lawsuits?"

You lost me again.

"DADT was a very generous compromise."

For whom?

"It did much to blunt discrimination and hatred against gays and lesbians by heterosexuals."

How, exactly, did it manage to do that?

"It seems to have done nothing to moderate the hatred of heterosexuals by gays and lesbians."

Hatred?

"Which of the legal options appears best to you?
1. We can have DADT,
2. We can have all men and women sleeping, bathing, and dressing in the same area regardless of orientation, or
3. We can have private sleeping, bathing, and dressing areas for each recruit and soldier."

You appear to still be confused about what exactly DADT is all about.

"Fair is what is fair to all."

Who told you that?

PSolus,

We don't require that a woman say or believe that all men are rapists to assert her right to privacy from all men.

Why do we call men homophobes and bigots when they assert a right to privacy from all gays?

Now this is about the point in the dialogue where someone makes a joke and says if I'm worried about gay men not being able to control themselves around me, then my estimation of my own handsome self is excessive. Imagine telling a woman she can shower with the men because she's too ugly for anyone to want! How many millions would that the army in lawsuits?

DADT was a very generous compromise. It did much to blunt discrimination and hatred against gays and lesbians by heterosexuals. It seems to have done nothing to moderate the hatred of heterosexuals by gays and lesbians.

Which of the legal options appears best to you?

1. We can have DADT,

2. We can have all men and women sleeping, bathing, and dressing in the same area regardless of orientation, or

3. We can have private sleeping, bathing, and dressing areas for each recruit and soldier.

Fair is what is fair to all.

blasmaic,

Here's what you need to know about DADT:

- Heterosexual soldiers were showering with gay soldiers before DADT.

- Heterosexual soldiers are currently showering with gay soldiers under DADT.

- Heterosexual soldiers will be showering with gay soldiers in the future irrespective of what happens with DADT.

You might as well wrap your head around that the best you can, or simply try not to think about it, because the whole "who showers with whom" thing is completely beyond your control.

"would shower in front of someone who 'could become sexually or romantically attracted' to you if that person were prevented from telling you that he or she 'could become sexually or romantically attracted' to you?"

Bingo.

That is exactly what DADT is all about.

Many heterosexuals are tolerant of what gay and lesbian do privately (why would I care?). But they, like me, do not surrender privacy rights. We can have DADT, we can have all men and women living together regardless of orientation, or we can have private sleeping, bathing, and dressing areas for each recruit and soldier.

No man or woman can surrender his or her right to privacy so that another American can enjoy a right to be who they are.

Fair is what is fair to each and all.

blasmaic,

"Gays and lesbians have served successfully in the military... as heterosexuals."

What MOS (Military Occupation Speciality) entails soldiers having heterosexual sex?

"DADT is all about respecting the privacy rights of heterosexuals."

How, exactly?

"Gays and lesbians can serve if they keep their orientation private."

Do go on...

"That's because it's illegal to force a person at work to be naked before anyone who could become sexually or romantically attracted to him or her."

But, it is legal "to force a person at work to be naked before" someone, if that someone who "could become sexually or romantically attracted" to that person is not allowed to disclose that he or she "could become sexually or romantically attracted" to that person?

Are you saying that you would not shower in front of someone if you knew that that person "could become sexually or romantically attracted" to you, but you would shower in front of someone who "could become sexually or romantically attracted" to you if that person were prevented from telling you that he or she "could become sexually or romantically attracted" to you?

Has senior pastor and Yale graduate Susan K. Smith ever showered naked each day with men or women who could become sexually attracted to her?

If she has not, then obviously the cowardice and hipocrisy rests with her.

Gays and lesbians have served successfully in the military... as heterosexuals. DADT is all about respecting the privacy rights of heterosexuals. Gays and lesbians can serve if they keep their orientation private. That's because it's illegal to force a person at work to be naked before anyone who could become sexually or romantically attracted to him or her.

Incidentally, the issue is actually lesbians in the military. Fourteen percent of all soldiers are female, but 50 percent of all DADT discharges are lesbians.

Shame on this stupid author for a wicked, despicable and incredibly ignorant post. How DARE the author throw around words "cowardice" in the same breath as the name of Sen. McCain, among this nation's greatest heroes, a man who for the love of this great country endured unspeakable suffering? Shame!

Sen. McCain is so disengaging when it comes to this subject.

Disengaging? What the devil does that mean?

Also, keep in mind, it's not DADT for *just *combat* troops or troops in these combat areas, whatever 'risks' they vaguely refer to, but even if they're doing clerical work or vital translation duties.

Who says that some burdens should be placed on *troops?* These 'burdens' have never been explained. The unacceptable and demonstrably harmful injustice of DADT is *well* known, and deprives the military of some vital personnel, ...To eject gays, they had to reduce the standards for security clearances for some of these jobs, and started taking more criminals, even neo-Nazis, than they otherwise had to.

The *real* additional burdens are on LGBT troops and their families, anyone accused of being so, and the unfair treatment in pay, service record, and having recourse to the chain of command when abuses happen, instead of having to *hide* from that chainof command.

What's *selfish* is expecting our troops to go over there so someone can entertain some obsolete but undefined notion of 'military culture.'

DADT instead of just equal and open service was put in place for a host of reasons, all of which have been shown by militaries all around the world to have been groundless, even as the Pentagon and religious conservatives still use them to smear not only LGBT soldiers, but all LGBT Americans.

I'm sorry if some think it's a 'burden' to be professional about their jobs, not to have their bigotries coddled so they can teach soldiers to hate LGBT Americans who may be their comrades or pay their wages.

I can attest that "cowardice" is NOT a word to describe our Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos. Madame, you ought to be ashamed to denegrate a man who has defended our freedoms for more than 38 years.

General Amos is on the record stating that DADT is not a social thing with him. He is concerned about changing the service culture when so many of our brave young men and women are serving in a dangerous war in Afghanistan.

This consideration is obviously lost on you and those who think like you - those who selfishly cast stones from the safety and comfort of home; and FAIL to consider how such a change - a significant change - may place additional burdens on military leaders in harms' way who are so singly focused on defeating a dangerous enemy and keeping their troops alive. Our military leaders don't need such distractions now.

""Cowardice and hypocrisy surround DADT""

Surround? Surround?

Madam, from day one, it's been a veritable caramel ripple of cowardice and hypocrisy, with extra flavor injections and extra MSG.