Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
75% of Americans Agree: Don't Ask Don't Tell is Wrong
openleft.com — "Do you think homosexuals who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?" 75% agree, up from 44% in 1993 and 62% in 2001.
nelsonjs- 235 diggs
- digg it
- nelsonjs, on 07/22/2008, -2/+14It is hard to believe that the Department of Defense still institutionalizes discrimination. Shamefully, really.
- Bluehen, on 07/22/2008, -1/+13I am retired from the Air Force with 22 years of service. I am glad to see that we are finally accepting the person. Now, they must be treated right when in the service.
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/23/2008, -5/+1"Now, they must be treated right when in the service."
Exactly, so don't ask and don't tell.
Let's not pretend the service is a club for intellectuals and pacifists. There's a lot of discrimination in the military, between soldiers of different sex and ethnicities.
There's also an actual rape epidemic.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-marshal ...
If the army was a tolerance club, I'd be against don't ask don't tell, but it's not. It's filled with biggots with guns.
I think it's a great compromise, if you want to serve, please do: just don't involve something that has absolutely nothing to do with the job, your sexual orientation, in your work.
I think it protects homosexuals, allows them to serve and doesn't require a huge compromise. Just don't tell anyone about how you're going to suck dick after a day's work and you get to do what you want.
If you want to serve that bad, it shouldn't be a hard sacrifice to make.- V3n0M, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5"Just don't tell anyone about how you're going to suck dick after a day's work and you get to do what you want."
These details are inappropriate in a work atmosphere anyway. The heterosexuals shouldn't be talking about the details of their bedroom either, but they don't kick you out of the forces when they do.
If someone (heterosexual or not) is behaving in a way that is damaging the force's effectiveness, deal with those damaging actions.. If someone is doing something with their personal time that is not damaging the force, leave them alone. - AchaIemoipas, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1"If someone (heterosexual or not) is behaving in a way that is damaging the force's effectiveness, deal with those damaging actions.."
They have: don't ask don't tell policy.
Biggotry being rampant in the military and the military not being a moral class: the quickest and most effective solution is to just shut up about your sexual orientation. - anticom, on 07/23/2008, -2/+0"I think it's a great compromise ... I think it protects homosexuals"
You're absolutely right. I don't like living in a society where they exist, but there's not much I can do about that without setting up camps and sending them all there for "re-education." It is a good compromise from those of us who find them abhorrent and those who think it's acceptable.
It also protects them because they are relieved from having to out themselves and not being forced to be subjected to harassment, because you know people like me would do just that. - V3n0M, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1@Achalemoipas - telling someone you have a same-sex partner waiting for you to get home is not equal to damaging a unit's effectiveness. If some bigot has a problem with that and starts a fight, the bigot is the one who needs the disciplinary action. (not because they are a bigot, but the action of starting the fight which does damage a unit's effectiveness)
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1"If some bigot has a problem with that and starts a fight"
don't tell = no fight and gays in the military anyway. - V3n0M, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Fine, then give the homosexual the choice whether to tell or not, if they decide they don't want to say something that may influence someone else to start a fight - that's their choice. With the legislation the way it is, that choice is made for them, and they have lost their rights.
Or.. legislate the same rules for heterosexuals - nobody's allowed to talk about their home lives.
It's when you single one group of people out for special treatment that it is discrimination. - AchaIemoipas, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1It's not discrimination, it's censorship.
And they all sign their rights away when they enlist.
The problems caused by allowing a tiny minority of homosexuals in the military far outweigh the problems caused by the don't ask don't tell policy.
Problems caused by the don't ask don't tell policy:
Hurt feelings. That is all.
- V3n0M, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5"Just don't tell anyone about how you're going to suck dick after a day's work and you get to do what you want."
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/23/2008, -5/+1"Now, they must be treated right when in the service."
- qdkk, on 07/22/2008, -2/+16Alternate headline: 25% of Americans Bigoted: Don't Ask Don't Learn Stay Ignorant
- poprocksandsoda, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7In 20 years we'll look at this policy instituted during the Clinton Presidency (despite his campaign promise which was counter to what was enacted) the same way we look at all forms of discrimination.
- nelsonjs, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Some of us already do.
- anticom, on 07/23/2008, -2/+0But it's NOT discrimination. It's about upholding moral decency. It's about keeping the common denominator as high as possibly. Allowing sexual degenerates to run rampant flaunting themselves everywhere damages the integrity of the whole of society.
- UltramegaOK, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Whenever I see statistics involving public opinion in America I can't help but facepalm.
- minnymoo, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2"Please consider Digging this story."
-alright. - Mewchu11, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1Don't ask don't tell is gay!
- shoopdawoop, on 07/23/2008, -4/+0Let's do a MAKEOVER!!!!
- ZurMacht, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3Homosexuals fighting intolerant religious extremists? I say yes.
- dave11980, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3We derive our rights as individuals, continuing to push the issue of civil rights into groups forces us to remove the main issue, an individuals right to serve. The problem is you can legislate policy all you want, getting 20 men being trained to kill the enemy to get along with something that may offend them is another story and one that can't be legislated. I don't think a law stating "Straight soldiers have to accept homosexual soldiers for who they are and welcome them into the platoon/squad/whatever" is going to be very successful but regardless of that fact the policy should reflect and protect the individuals right to serve not the heterosexual right to serve or the homosexual right to serve.
- falloutsyndrome, on 07/23/2008, -9/+3I agree with don't ask don't tell. Why should your sexuality matter in the military? Honestly, the policy doesn't say "No gays in the military" it says "don't tell anyone you're gay, don't ask someone if they're gay". It shouldn't matter, and it doesn't. If you're gay, cool, but do you need to shout it out?
- bigbee79, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7I doubt they would be trying to have a gay pride parade. But straight soldiers can talk about the girlfriend or wife they have waiting for them at home, why should gay soldiers be able to mention the person they love that is waiting for them? With the current policy, they can't even do that.
- scientician, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5They're not merely asked to not discuss it. They have to keep it secret. So they can't bring a partner to a dance, or talk about their spouses to any military friends. Or worse, they might have to lie and deceive and bring opposite sex dates to functions. So DADT can even promote dishonesty.
Think about if this applied also to straight members of the military: They'd have to keep their wives and children secret, they couldn't go out picking up women together on leave. It would be absurd.
Our sexuality is too big a part of our lives to really be kept secret with any ease. DADT is a huge burden on gay members of the military. And for what? Whose benefit? The people who are uncomfortable with gays. Well I'm uncomfortable with fundamentalist Christians but I don't expect them to hide their religion. I'm uncomfortable with fat people but I don't think there should be laws preventing them wearing revealing clothing.
No one really has the right to require someone else to pretend to be someone else just because they disapprove of the person's lifestyle.
/ex-military and straight.
- amc1709, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Dugg not only for comon sense, but also for using "lovely little wedgie" in a sentence.
- u8muhrice, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0Grrrrreeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaat policy, and look where that got us....
- Coolkid11, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2Why not have gay regiments? They would certainly have a high morale because while they weren't fighting or patrolling, they'd be buttpounding and making love.
- Hetman, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I agree. And it would be devastiting on countries that are against gays, and like Iran says they do not exist there. Can you imagine there faces when a platoon of thousands of gays sweep through there town blowing ***** up.
- anticom, on 07/23/2008, -4/+0What exactly is wrong with the "don't ask don't tell" policy? It's a good compromise because homosexuals can still be homosexuals but not offend anyone at the same time. If they like to practice sodomy, fine, but I don't want nor do I need to know about it. Enforcing ones belief system on others is more in line with tyranny then keeping perverts in the closet.
I'm also quite sure that this survey is heavily biased. They always use these surveys as a way of shaping public opinion. Those with weak convictions will see this opinion poll and then think that that is their own opinion. Those of us who can think independently will know that 75% is ridiculously off center and couldn't possibly be scientifically accurate. And to all you liberals, if this was a Fox news poll claiming the opposite opinion (75% think don't ask don't tell is right) you would all be claiming how the poll was biased and you know that to be true.- Hetman, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4That is fine with me. But then heterosexuals have to keep your sexuality to yourself if you are in the army also. I do not want to hear about how Billy meet his high school sweet heart, got married had some kids. Because that is disgusting and you do not need to be enforcing ones belief system on others. Because that is like tyranny as you said above.
- anticom, on 07/23/2008, -4/+0No, it's not tyranny because nobody is offended or disgusted by normal people. You're just being facetious.
- schroeder, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3The problem is that it shouldn't matter. Everyone is there for a single cause. It shouldn't matter about one's beliefs and ideals. It's about citizens of a country serving and defending everyone in the country they live. Because the majority are heterosexual Christians doesn't mean that if you're not you shouldn't tell anyone so the majority isn't "offended". They are out there protecting your lifestyle and the freedoms you enjoy in the country where you live. It is not unreasonable for others to do the same. If you defend freedom, let those you defend and fight with you be free as well.
- anticom, on 07/26/2008, -0/+0What are you talking about? Freedom? We're talking about MEN WHO ***** EACH OTHER IN THE ASS!? What if I really love my pet donkey? Would it be perfectly ok with you if I sodomized it?
- Hetman, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4That is fine with me. But then heterosexuals have to keep your sexuality to yourself if you are in the army also. I do not want to hear about how Billy meet his high school sweet heart, got married had some kids. Because that is disgusting and you do not need to be enforcing ones belief system on others. Because that is like tyranny as you said above.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by