Thread: Liberal me and the military vet agree on DADT

For vastly different reasons, I and a co-worker in my office who's an ex-military guy are in agreement on wanting to see "Don't Ask Don't Tell" eliminated.

I think it's discriminatory and violative of the Constitution's Equal Protection clause; he couldn't care less about the discrimination aspect, but doesn't want to serve alongside anyone in an active combat setting who, if severely wounded and bleeding, might pass along HIV. IOW-he'd prefer to know if the wounded guy was gay, so he'd know not to get too close.

No comment on the humanity of my co-worker's reason for agreeing with me...

Being HIV-positive has not much to do with sexual faction. Here is no restrictions to serve in the military for those who are sexual minorities.

It sounds to me like you and your friend are expecting vastly different outcomes from the repeal of "Don't ask" policies.

I've always found it ironic when politicians and military brass make changes to policy, particularly since most of those changes are influenced in some way by the military being in combat.

We have a large percentage of our troops on their 3rd, 4th and 5th combat tours. Lots of guys with their legs blown off or suffering from PTSD. I suppose it's time to start thinking about increasing the recruitment pool in some way.

It saddens me, having been a military veteran, and having served in combat, that we are focusing on this issue now.

But, back to the specific argument. What policy is being touted as the solution?

I have never seen a reason to have the dadt policy in the first place. we had a guy in my unit that everybody knew was gay, and it didn't change a dang thing. He was a solid guy who humped the same gear, ate the same food and treated the job the same as we all did. The Brits have completely open enlistment and they seemed to have no problems.

It might just be me, but I never saw any decreased cohesion - of course the branch that is most opposed to it is the Marines, so what do I know? At any rate, I agree with the above that this issue has been way overblown. It's good to discuss it though.

Your friend has a logic problem.

Gay =/= HIV Positive
Hetero =/= HIV Negative

If that's his concern, perhaps he'd be happier with mandatory HIV testing, and some means of marking soldiers that are HIV positive so they can be left to die on the battlefield.

You are aware that straight people get HIV too, i myself am straight but find it very wrong that people have this idea that gay people are more likely to have aids.

I'm british and did training for RAF through ATC at a young age, although i dont have any plans on joining the RAF or army.

We had a Gay person in our squadron and he did get high ranked, he was not treated differently, but remember the policy was introduced in 1993 when there were alot of people who were homephobic, the policy was (from what i understand) brought in, to stop soldiers and high ranking officers from treating a person differently as in i combat situation this could result in daanger for the person if they are disliked.

In an ideal world all people would be treated equally, its sad that we dont live in this world.

Just my 2p worth

Regards
Stocky

Hmmmm...

Believe it or not, I agree with you too BJ2, must be cold in hell today

DADT was a stopgap measure, it is past it's time...

However I think what you do on your own time is your business, but you better respect the uniform of the US while your are in it, Gay or Straight...

On the HIV issue I would fall to the side of, yes there should be mandatory testing for any dangerous communicable disease in the Military...

I think the issue most people have with DADT is this. If you allow gays to serve in the military, then that opens the floodgates to other gay rights. I think it's obvious that gays should have the same rights as everyone else, and 50 years from now people will look back on this issue the same way I look back on segregation in the south. A sort of "What the hell were they thinking?"

video relevant

YouTube - 'Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat'