End of Don't ask, Don't tell

Homosexuals can now serve in the U.S. Armed Forces and be open about their sexuality. What are your opinions on this? I have no problem with it, as Britain lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

Homosexuals can now serve in the U.S. Armed Forces and be open about their sexuality. What are your opinions on this? I have no problem with it, as Britain lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

I have no problem with it, as Canada lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

Berny
Don't be so smug H, Canada allowed them in 8 years before England did...
(opens up those other countries who beat Canada)

The bigots will be angry about this one.

The republicans bigots are angry about this one.

Fixed.

Meh, the terms generally go hand in hand. Also, that is great.

Good! Wonder how many will actually be open about it now though.

Slightly related, does anyone know an openly gay soccer player?

Homosexuals can now serve in the U.S. Armed Forces and be open about their sexuality.  

Umm... That's not quite true.  At least not yet.  Yes, don't ask, don't tell has been repealed, but the new policies have yet to be finalized and implemented.

It's not quite done. The law gives the Pentagon time to implement the policy, which Obama has said could take months. He said he spoke to his service commanders Tuesday ? including Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, who previously opposed the repeal.

"I have spoken to every one of the service chiefs, and they are all committed to implementing this change swiftly and efficiently," Obama said. "We are not going to be dragging our feet to get this done."

In the meantime, gay rights advocates are warning active-duty personnel against declaring their sexual orientation too soon. "The sooner the law is implemented, the sooner our gay and lesbian service members can begin serving their country with honesty and dignity," said Laura Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union.

I respected "don't ask don't tell" because it was a nice compromise.  That being said, I'm glad we've moved on, with open gays in the military maybe we can finally conduct a war with some style.

Finally!  Hated this law so much.  I celebrated when it was repealed.

I respected "don't ask don't tell" because it was a nice compromise.  That being said, I'm glad we've moved on, with open gays in the military maybe we can finally conduct a war with some style.

A compromise how?

There was effectively no difference between before and after DADT was implemented.  

Quote from: Hazbollah on December 22, 2010, 04:13:39 PM

Homosexuals can now serve in the U.S. Armed Forces and be open about their sexuality. What are your opinions on this? I have no problem with it, as Britain lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

I have no problem with it, as Canada lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

Berny
Don't be so smug H, Canada allowed them in 8 years before England did...
(opens up those other countries who beat Canada)

Look at Canada's military though...

Homosexuals can now serve in the U.S. Armed Forces and be open about their sexuality. What are your opinions on this? I have no problem with it, as Britain lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

Don't drop the soap.

Quote from: berny_74 on December 22, 2010, 04:24:20 PM

Quote from: Hazbollah on December 22, 2010, 04:13:39 PM

Homosexuals can now serve in the U.S. Armed Forces and be open about their sexuality. What are your opinions on this? I have no problem with it, as Britain lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

I have no problem with it, as Canada lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

Berny
Don't be so smug H, Canada allowed them in 8 years before England did...
(opens up those other countries who beat Canada)

Look at Canada's military though...

What about it?

Quote from: Keldarion Typrax on December 22, 2010, 10:57:28 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on December 22, 2010, 04:24:20 PM

Quote from: Hazbollah on December 22, 2010, 04:13:39 PM

Homosexuals can now serve in the U.S. Armed Forces and be open about their sexuality. What are your opinions on this? I have no problem with it, as Britain lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

I have no problem with it, as Canada lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

Berny
Don't be so smug H, Canada allowed them in 8 years before England did...
(opens up those other countries who beat Canada)

Look at Canada's military though...

What about it?

It's not really much compared to the American military. I don't mean that as an insult, but you have to look at the facts.

It's not really much compared to the American military. I don't mean that as an insult, but you have to look at the facts.

Yes, but consider that the Pacific Ocean is larger than the Atlantic.

Quote from: Mykael on December 22, 2010, 11:47:14 PM

Quote from: Keldarion Typrax on December 22, 2010, 10:57:28 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on December 22, 2010, 04:24:20 PM

Quote from: Hazbollah on December 22, 2010, 04:13:39 PM

Homosexuals can now serve in the U.S. Armed Forces and be open about their sexuality. What are your opinions on this? I have no problem with it, as Britain lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

I have no problem with it, as Canada lets them serve and be open about their sexuality and there are no related issues.

Berny
Don't be so smug H, Canada allowed them in 8 years before England did...
(opens up those other countries who beat Canada)

Look at Canada's military though...

What about it?

It's not really much compared to the American military. I don't mean that as an insult, but you have to look at the facts.

Yeah. Oddly enough, a militaristic superpower nation of 330 million people does have a larger army than a peacekeeping nation of 34 million. Funny how that works.

Not just bigger, but it's more well equipped.

And that's what really matters.

...wait, we're talking about armies?

There probably is no correlation between army strength and gays being able to serve, but I just wanted to point it out. On topic, I think open gays (especially in the enlisted sections) might face some (a lot of) discrimination.

I know.  I was making an innuendo and I would like it to be recognized.  >:l

 

i'm curious, how many of you that are glad this was finally repealed were actually ever effected by DADT?  not that i have a problem with gays serving in the military, there are many gays in the military already.  i just dont see how this will make things any better.  if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

i'm curious, how many of you that are glad this was finally repealed were actually ever effected by DADT?  not that i have a problem with gays serving in the military, there are many gays in the military already.  i just dont see how this will make things any better.  if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

They gays were affected. What are you talking about? If you need to hide something about yourself in order to serve, either that thing is wrong or the system is wrong.

Quote from: soupnazi on December 23, 2010, 07:21:41 AM

i'm curious, how many of you that are glad this was finally repealed were actually ever effected by DADT?  not that i have a problem with gays serving in the military, there are many gays in the military already.  i just dont see how this will make things any better.  if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

They gays were affected. What are you talking about? If you need to hide something about yourself in order to serve, either that thing is wrong or the system is wrong.

i already know gay people serving openly, so it doesnt seem to affect them that much.  like i said i dont really care either way.  i was just curious about the people who were saying they were glad it got repealed, were they effected by DADT?  it just seems like congress is wasting time on this when it really wasnt a big problem to begin with.

Quote from: Pongo on December 22, 2010, 08:14:57 PM

I respected "don't ask don't tell" because it was a nice compromise.  That being said, I'm glad we've moved on, with open gays in the military maybe we can finally conduct a war with some style.

A compromise how?

There was effectively no difference between before and after DADT was implemented.  

Effectively I would agree.  However DADT was a compromise because before Clinton implemented it the U.S. military's policy was no gays were allowed to serve.  Clinton tried to get that repealed in congress but failed.  DADT was a compromise that forbid the military command from investigating soldiers or looking into their personal lives.  Unfortunately it never really worked as designed, effectively it was a failure.  It wasn't really DADT that was repealed as I understand it, it was the underlying policy of gays not being able to serve that was repealed.

Even if the policy worked as designed, I would be for the repeal.  As a citizen of this nation, everybody has a right to serve in the military, and they should not have to keep their identity a secret in order to do so.

'Anyone dumb enough to wanna be in the military should be allowed in.' - Bill Hicks.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on December 23, 2010, 07:26:24 AM

Quote from: soupnazi on December 23, 2010, 07:21:41 AM

i'm curious, how many of you that are glad this was finally repealed were actually ever effected by DADT?  not that i have a problem with gays serving in the military, there are many gays in the military already.  i just dont see how this will make things any better.  if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

They gays were affected. What are you talking about? If you need to hide something about yourself in order to serve, either that thing is wrong or the system is wrong.

i already know gay people serving openly, so it doesnt seem to affect them that much.  like i said i dont really care either way.  i was just curious about the people who were saying they were glad it got repealed, were they effected by DADT?  it just seems like congress is wasting time on this when it really wasnt a big problem to begin with.

I guess we shouldn't have abolished slavery, or given women the right to vote, or all that stupid crap with civil rights either... Just a huge waste of time when we have other problems to worry about, like when rich white people will get their tax cuts.

Quote from: soupnazi on December 23, 2010, 07:40:36 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on December 23, 2010, 07:26:24 AM

Quote from: soupnazi on December 23, 2010, 07:21:41 AM

i'm curious, how many of you that are glad this was finally repealed were actually ever effected by DADT?  not that i have a problem with gays serving in the military, there are many gays in the military already.  i just dont see how this will make things any better.  if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

They gays were affected. What are you talking about? If you need to hide something about yourself in order to serve, either that thing is wrong or the system is wrong.

i already know gay people serving openly, so it doesnt seem to affect them that much.  like i said i dont really care either way.  i was just curious about the people who were saying they were glad it got repealed, were they effected by DADT?  it just seems like congress is wasting time on this when it really wasnt a big problem to begin with.

I guess we shouldn't have abolished slavery, or given women the right to vote, or all that stupid crap with civil rights either... Just a huge waste of time when we have other problems to worry about, like when rich white people will get their tax cuts.

i dont think i would put DADT up there with slavery or women's rights, but if you do then i guess thats your opinion.  taxes are actually a little bit more important of an issue than DADT.

You're right, I guess upholding the ideals of freedom and equality upon which this country is based really isn't that big of a deal.

You're right, I guess upholding the ideals of freedom and equality upon which this country is based really isn't that big of a deal.

comparing gays being able to serve openly to slavery or women's rights is pretty ignorant.