Slashdot Mirror
Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
An anonymous reader writes "The Senate and House have now acted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, [a decision] which President Obama will soon sign into law. While this does not permit homosexuals to openly serve, it does return control of the policy to military leaders after nearly two decades."
Now get rid of torture and death sentence and you'll upgrade from stone age to bronze age!
A protocol with an ask request without a tell response could be considered an early form of udp.
My brigade is more fabulous than yours.
Here's a thought: How about just removing any sexuality based stuff from the books and then it's not an issue? Win/Win/Win/Win
Burma?
Um... http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-27/politics/obama.gays.military_1_repeal-policy-that-bars-gays-servicemembers-legal-defense-network?_s=PM:POLITICS
I agree that he did not physically vote for this and he could have done far more but to say this is "no thanks to Obama" is just plain wrong.
where have you been? He has been achieving his goals since day one.
Its not much of a thought. DADT was implemented because nothing was in the books, so it became an issue when individuals had (for lack of better terms) issues.
Now that all you do is remove the policy, the same problems will come back, because now there is no policy to say that you cant discriminate.
You can find similiar problems with the US constitution; historically, we have had to specifically state that women or black people also count. Sadly, there are plenty of places in the US where if those ammendments were not made, they wouldn't.
Given the scale of the US political system I am amazed anything gets done at all. I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities. It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
If you're going to fight in the jungle, clash!
Obama and Gates will make sure they have a policy. They will just need to rewrite a few regulations to exclude homosexual behavior from being applied. If they catch two soldiers engaging in Homosexual behavior, then they will just use the fraternization section of the UCMJ.
Let's see. Does the name Alan Turing ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).
The military owes a lot to the gays and lesbians, both civilian and military, who put up with the intolerance and ignorance to serve their country. The military is also the single biggest spender on technology. Any change in military hiring and staffing of this nature is relevant.
The summary is a bit inaccurate - the military is in fact required to implement the repeal; the actual timetable is set out in the bill, based on certain milestones. So DADT is pretty much dead.
I'd rather have the gays in the military than the homophobes. At least then they'd all believe in the freedom they're fighting for.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
If anyone's worried about that, they can continue to choose to hide their own sexuality as long as they please. And I'm pretty sure they're more qualified to make that decision than some random blowhard on the Internet.
Let me start off by saying I often agree with the Republicans, but I have been saying DADT was a bad policy since it first came about and it has nothing to do with gays serving in the military. This policy was a side step, it was like the solution of cutting the kid in half for joint custody, no one liked it. The reality of this policy after all was not "Don't Ask Don't Tell", but was instead "If we don't find out it is ok", just look at the number of gays in the military that were outed through no action of their own, who then had to face the punishment. At least now we can move on to something that is A POLICY.
I think you need to pay closer attention. The Democratic congress has worked almost every work day of each month, with some time off during the traditional times taken off. The Republicans are the ones who are never in session. during the Bush years, they worked 10 days a month... and the new house leadership has already scheduled next years session and they are back to 10 days a month.
Other countries have gays and lesbians serving openly without problems. Maybe you need better leaders?
Its not much of a thought. DADT was implemented because nothing was in the books, so it became an issue when individuals had (for lack of better terms) issues.
No. DADT came about because Clinton wanted to repeal the ban, (Homosexuals were considered security threat because they could be blackmailed into spying. How openly homosexual soldiers could be blackmailed on being gay, was never clear.) and there was push back because of fear that "sodomites" would try to rape straight soldiers while taking refuge from artillery barages in fox holes and whatnot. And really, what red blooded straight American boy with bulging muscles can resist the sailor from the Village People?
It was a compromise because bigots wanted to stay bigots. Clinton should have just pulled a Truman and ordered it.
From personal experience in the military, and from being in a war, I can tell you that you feel close to your buddies and that sexuality is almost non-existent in the sense most people thing about it, when you are in combat. After a few days under fire you just comfort each other however you can, and nobody is self conscious about showing affection to each other, man or women. You just want to do a good job and take care of each other.
The thing is DADT was not an anti-discrimination policy, it was an anti-investigate policy, if knowledge of someone being gay came to the powers that be in the military, then the person was treated the same as before this policy came about (no gays allowed). The thing is it did not have to be the gay told, it could be an angry ex-spouse with a video tape, a police raid on a motel room, any number of other sources and then it was court martial time.
Let me change one word in your first sentence (in italics):
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate blacks.
Which was very true when the army was first integrated, and it's still true today. Many of those people were in the army then, and some of them still are.
The army survived integration, though, and it's fine. It'll survive the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and it'll still be fine
Well, I wouldn't follow your elbow into battle, so your comment is worthless to me :)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
as a soldier. I would file for a discharge at the first possible opportunity and choose not to renew any enlistment. You should not have to cover your ass as well as your ass..
Nice homophobic rant. You might look at the rules about fraternization among soldiers. They will still apply. So your virgin butt hole is safe.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate gays. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy wasn't about discrimination by their superiors, it was about discrimination by their peers. You're not allowed to ask someone if they're gay, and you're not allowed to tell someone if you're gay, and if you do either you will be met with disciplinary action. That was to prevent being discriminated against by the people you work with in the potentially-life-endangering industry of violence and death that is the military.
There are also people in the military that hate females serving in the military. The military tells them to shut up and learn to be more accepting and caring while killing the rest of us with POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) and EO (Equal Opportunity) training sessions. The people that violate this are subject to UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) action. In the case of hatred of homosexuals, the guidelines established in EO and POSH can apply just as well, so there is no real reason for Don't Ask Don't Tell to exist.
Try again. Enlisted > Enlisted as well. There is almost always a rank difference because even in a room full of corporals, there are different enlistment dates.
This is what has been told to me both my brothers, one is a Staff Sargent in the Marines, the other is a Staff Sargent in the Air Force.
You must never have served. There have always been gays in the service, usually left alone if they do their jobs.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Whether you agree with DADT or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. Shut down Guantanamo Bay, get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and do something about the economy and deficit. Then I won't view this debate as an utter waste of congress' time. In the meantime, this is just a wedge issue that Republicans can use to gain midwestern support, much like gay marriage was for Bush in '04. I doubt Obama even personally cares about this issue -- he just cares about the money he gets from the homosexual interest groups. This hardly changes anything. Now gay service members can talk about being gay. Whoop-di-do. I'd rather they be safe at home and not be allowed to talk about their sexuality than serving in hostile territory allowed to talk about it. It just doesn't matter if DADT is right or wrong, it's nowhere near as wrong as putting these soldiers in harm's way unnecessarily. Obama pretended to be outraged by these wars and Guantanamo Bay on the campaign trail, what happened to that?
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Fraternization, as defined by the Manual for Courts-martial, is a personal relationship between an officer and an enlisted member that violates the customary bounds of acceptable behavior in the Air Force and prejudices good order and discipline, discredits the armed services, or operates to the personal disgrace or dishonor of the officer involved.
Enlisted and Enlisted is referred to as "Unprofessional Relationship". Read AFI 36-2909 for more specifics.
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
It really would be good for California to form it's own country. We would be much better off socially, financially, etc. California's economy as a nation would be about 9th in the world.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Any votes on how long the policy lasts after someone 'transgendered' files a lawsuit requesting permission to live in the opposite-sex barracks and wear the opposite-sex uniform?
The military as a whole would be better off, and you'd be free to explore your insecurities. Win-Win!
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Out with "An Army of One" and in with "We're Fabulous!"
Conservative, mod down for violating
The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is a disaster from a military standpoint. Just when we finally developed the ability to make our planes invisible to radar, our enemies will be able to track them using gaydar.
California's problems are in large part because of its absurd constitution which created one of the most worthless political systems in the democratic world.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
From a more realistic standpoint, relationships between enlisted personnel is not frowned upon for the most part, provided they are the same rank or at least both NCO's or non-NCO's (non-commissioned officer). Yes, there are different enlistment dates and more responsibilities are given to the soldier with the earliest enlistment date when they have the same rank, but that doesn't really apply to relationships from what I've seen. The big no-no amongst enlisted is if one is an NCO and one is not. If a Private and a Staff Sergeant hook up then the SSG can get in quite a bit of trouble for abusing the rank and higher authority. This is all assuming they are in the same Unit; soldiers with different MOS's and not in the same unit or company should be able to date whomever they want. It happens all the time and I know several NCO's married to non-NCO's and even officers.
People meet and fall in love in the military on a daily basis, regardless of rank or status.
Loading...
Are you kidding? What we need is better citizens.
You must admit that this is not about equal rights, but about about getting more bodies to help blow shit up.
America is headed toward a state of perpetual war, but still has an all-volunteer force. Nobody would support or comply with another draft.
No, a Confederate victory would have continued slavery for what, another decade or two, lead to more intervention the western hemisphere, and following slavery, how long would segregation have lasted?
Remember, southern states wanted Cuba and Haiti annexed, intervention and take over of Central America.
So you are arguing that because South Carolina wanted to keep blacks, and any whites who were even 1/32 black, as slaves or for a few third class citizens, and Maine and California thought those people should be free, that the country would have been better off with that "state's right" approach?
"States-rights" when talking about the United States from 1789 to 1865 means you support slavery of blacks.
And then the California agriculture industry would collapse.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This same bullshit happened twice already. Negroes in the Army..Oh Noes..its the end!! Women in the Army..our forces are doomed. Openly gay Gays in the Army. There will be a bit of friction and then the Army will adjust OK. Anyhow it's nice to see the bigots are now out and the gays are in.
Seriously, if somebody wants to pick up a rifle and go defend my cowardly ass, why on earth would I care who they sleep with when they're on leave.
if he's got a virgin butt hole, it won't be for long. The only people who rage against homosexuality are those who struggle with their own homosexuality.
it's sad, really. I hope he finds some peace before he hurts someone.
Prior to DADT, the rule was no gays in the military, period. If this were a repeal of the policy, it would mean returning to that. This new law goes further IN THE SAME DIRECTION as DADT.
The largest percentage of illegal immigrants (most of whom don't pay taxes)
That's bogus. They pay sales tax, they pay property tax via rents and the ones who work with fake papers pay income tax via withholding and fica and they don't get refunds or social security. The ones who work under the table make so little that they would probably qualify for the tax credits and other services given to the working poor if they were legit.
Gives everyone the ability to post and show how wonderfully open minded they are. Most people on Slashdot are really, really wonderful and enlightened humans and just need a forum to let the rest of us know it.
Oh finally. _I_ am enlightened enough that I don't mind the gays, in fact I'd have you know one of my best friends is gay. By George, we sure did codwallop those frightfully bigoted Republicans didn't we. Oh, I tend to think they are repressed homosexuals myself, I mean _I_ am just fine with gays!
If you let them, they'll carry on in that vain for hours.
The stupid is strong with you.
Alan Turing wasn't some random gay person "working with technology." He fucking invented it.
Douchebag.
--
BMO
Any votes on how long the policy lasts after someone 'transgendered' files a lawsuit requesting permission to live in the opposite-sex barracks and wear the opposite-sex uniform?
You realize that 'gay' and 'transgendered' are unrelated categories, don't you? Policy regarding gays is a separate issue from policy regarding transgendered people.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I can find nothing in the linked article that says that homosexuals can not openly serve. In fact, the very first sentence says:
So is TFS wrong?
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Why is it up to "the military leaders" to decide whether or not to treat people with the rights they're granted under the constitution? Here's what happens. We tell our leaders that we want people's rights supported, whether it's race or sex or religion or whatever else. They tell the military to obey those, as per the entire foundation of the country they keep bragging about fighting to protect. THEY tell the troops to obey this. The troops shut the fuck up and do as they're told, like they're trained from day one through boot camp.
Canadian Military Changes Transgender Policy
"Under the new policy, Canadian soldiers are instructed to wear the uniform of their “target” gender, regardless of their biological sex. Military personnel are also instructed to give transgender soldier privacy and respect for their decision — for example, not asking reasons when a soldier changes his or her name on military records. "
Where's it going to go? It's going to go and price itself right out of the market. Thanks to the global market and technology shenanigans that have been played with food, food production for export/shipment just can't function without near-slavery wages on the fields. If you really want to end illegal immigration, you should be focusing on ending food export/shipment, dismantling NAFTA, and ending the War on Drugs.
When Congress works hardest, the nation hurts most. Can I hear 8 days a month?
Dark Reflection
While it's granted that people who admit to doing something that sounds unusual or strange can be distracting, where, exactly, do they get the idea that people who openly admit to being homosexual is going to be any more distracting than anyone else who openly admits to doing anything that other people around them might not necessarily understand?
For example...
"I really enjoy vampire larping"
"I often wake up in the middle of the night to find I've been sleep-masturbating."
"Twilight was a good movie"
I mean, the list is endless. Who would not find any of the above remarks so alien to their own experience that they might find simply being around a person who admitted to any of the above too distracting to usefully concentrate?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Why can you have "issues" with gays but you must not have "issues" with blacks, jews and women in your team?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sooooo... openly gay soldiers were a security risk and prone to blackmailing, but closed gay soldiers who risk being kicked out of the military should it become known are not...
I think you need military intelligence to understand that logic.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Men don't shower together in the military! This "shower together" meme is stupid, yet rich with homoerotic subtext. Is that what people think of the military? All day, a bunch of guys getting wet and soapy under a stream of hot water? I was in the Marines and the only time there was a group shower was the 3 months of boot camp, where you are so sick and exhausted, EVERY DAY, that you don't even wake up with a morning boner, much less have the energy to perv on guys in the shower. Everywhere else there are individual showers. I was on a tiny FOB in northern Iraq, living in tents and we built a shower stall, rather than some sort of group shower. Why are straight men afraid to shower with gay guys anyway? Women have good reason to be leery of showering with guys. Aren't 99% of rapist men? Combine that statistic with the physical shape a man is required to be in while in the military and women don't stand a huge chance of resisting, do they? I found on Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, that 15% of the women coming back from the current wars and going to the hospital have been doing so because of "sexual trauma." Sounds like women have a good reason to be afraid of straight men. What good reason do straight men have to be afraid of the gays?
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
The Federal government takes much more in taxes from California than it returns
While that may be true California would be in better shape if the government there hadn't increased spending as much as it did in the 1990's while the economy was booming. The state budget [pdf] in 1990-91 was $51,445.5 million, 2000-01 it was $96,381.5 million, and in 2010-11 it's $125,254.9 million.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I haven't heard a single resonant argument since gays in the military became an issue.
The opposition's arguments are the same arguments used to oppose desegregation in the military. The pro-segregation arguments have been trashed by sixty years experience.
When you think about it, the whole brouhaha is really stupid. Back in the sixties, during Vietnam, homosexuality was still a powerful taboo to almost all of male Americans (even the gay ones). Men went to Canada, when all they had to do to legally get out of going to war is express sexual orientation towards other men.
Time has passed this nonsense by. It would be seriously fucked if a young man could avoid the draft just by bringing a sex video of himself doing a sex act with another man. People would certainly avail themselves of that nowadays if the war was unpopular.
Those in power who want to send men into the meatgrinder of war surely have this on their mind. They don't want their manpower (cannon fodder) pool compromised by an easy way to avoid the draft.
There is no way around this if you want to have a fair draft that hits every man evenly. (And don't get me started on upper middle class deferments).
Men and women were pretty heroic in World War II and the Korean War, just to name two. DADT wasn't in effect back then. I bet that GLBT and everything else were serving in the military back then, too. Hard to believe, I know... But I guess we are somehow more professional because we don't allow gay people to serve?
Speaking of professional... You know what would happen if you did this in a business? You'd get your ass sued right off, and rightly so.
Love sees no species.
Awesome use of scare quotes, but repealing DADT still leaves trans people in the dust. Ignoring the fact that (as someone mentioned below) trans people and gay people aren't the same thing (it's a Venn diagram with some overlap, just like straight and trans have some overlap) the US military will still be discriminating against trans people. Don't worry.
(How preventing a trans person like myself, with a tech background and a desire to serve her country, from entering military service helps keep our country safe is a whole different issue.),
PS - Is anyone else having trouble with the comment box? I wasn't able to paste properly,
California has had money problems no matter who has been running it. Idiots just have to get it through their heads that you can't collectively get something for nothing. Somebody has to pay the taxes somewhere. If not enough tax money comes in you get things like the internationally known joke which is the California electricity system.
Instead of actually doing something about it you get surprisingly well respected idiots blaming all the money problems on prison officers demanding higher wages. Unions are being blamed for destroying something which was broken before they got there. Actually taxing Hollywood would be a good start and there is nothing to lose because it's on the path to self-destruction anyway.
For the most part, gays are ignorable. If you don't like them, they mostly don't exist in your world at all. This can be done by locality, association, or mental blocks.
Women and black people by contrast are not ignorable really in any way. When you see them, you know (mostly) that they are black, or women, or black women.
This means that people who don't like gays in some relatively normal parental-taught or society-influenced way, they mostly don't think about them much at all. So more typically those who rage about it are those who are obsessed with it, they have a constant reminder of the issue: themselves.
Now, claiming this is a hard and fast rule is a bit silly. However, it proves true often enough for people to assume it in other cases.
-josh
Why can you have "issues" with gays but you must not have "issues" with blacks, jews and women in your team?
Because sadly, irrational "issues"/hate/bigotry never seems to disappear - it just gains a new target. And even more sadly, in some backwards ass hick cities and towns in this country, one target doesnt get replaced with another... it simply gets added to the list. Inotherwords, bigotry towards jews or blacks doesnt disappear to be replaced with bigotry towards gays... gays simply gets added to the list. So, in some places, hate actually increases as new groups get added to the bigot-list.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
All those apply to Texas and yet Texas is not bankrupt and is doing far better than California.
Wrong. Texas is also going belly-up. And since they have a smaller budget and a smaller economy to begin with, it's going to get really ugly in Texas really fast.
A budget shortfall as high as $25 billion is projected as lawmakers head into the 2011 legislative session, according to estimates from economists and the comptroller's office.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Evidently, Obama has done fuck-all for people who use NoScript.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
Aristophanes Clouds is a satire / theatre comedy. So some of the views shown by the characters will represent what Athenians thought was funny rather what was true so might not represent true views of the time. Don't take what's said as being the Athenian view of society. After all if you were to do that reading other Aristophanes you'd believe that all Greeks thought that rain was Zeus pissing through a sieve.
Other references from the time to cross references Aristophanes and strengthen your arguments?
Though of course there is always a grain of truth in comedy.
From my classical studies I remember reading that gay relationships were encouraged on the grounds that soldiers would fight harder for their lovers in the line next to them. This paper seems to cover some of that ground: "The Eros of Achilles: Homoerotic Bonding Among Combat Soldiers" by J Laskaris - Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 2000 - vol 10 p139 onwards.
Actually, that one seems to me like the easiest to fix. Just have a separate barrack for trans-guys and one for trans-gals.
And before the usual "OMG, but that'll make them build extra barracks and cost too much!!!!111eleventeen" idiocy pops up, let me remind you that a modern division in the USA is 17,000 to 21,000 people, not counting the civillian personnel on the base and whatnot. That'll be a lot of barracks or dorms or whatever. It's not like they have one huge hangar in which 20,000 soldiers sleep. Anyone pretending they absolutely, positively can't allocate a building or a floor, or really whatever kind of compartment they use, for a couple of trans people, is more full of shit than a sewer.
There we go. No more "OMG squick factor of someone with a penis sleeping in the women barracks" scare, is it?
That was easy, wasn't it? Just 30 seconds of using one's brains instead of mindlessly bleating canned scare quotes did it.
But if that genuinely never occurred to you on your own, just ask and I'll gladly teach you more advanced stuff like counting to 20 without taking off your shoes. And I could even refer you to a good doctor who can get you walking without bruising your knuckles in no time too ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
And look at the exit polls for the election before that.
More educated people are more likely to vote Democratic in every election. Look at the exit polls forever. In fact, the trend is for more people with graduate degrees to vote Democratic.
Only if you include the government check each Alaskan gets every year because there's oil underneath them. And yet, Alaska gets much more money from the federal government. What does that tell you, genius?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I got the impression from watching the news that the repeal of DADT will allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.
The slashot introduction to this thread states:
And the Washington Post article linked to in the introduction states:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121801729.html?sid=ST2010121803394
What is the deal?
It is kind of silly to worry what will happen as a result of gays being in the military, since they have always been there. They just haven't been allowed to admit it.
+1 to parent. I lived for quite a while in a city next to a couple of large military bases. I met people, including some who were gay and still in the military, and some who'd been kicked out. They all volunteered. It was their job. So kicking out people who have made the choice to join and are doing a job because of their sexual orientation is wrong (regardless of what you think about the military and the uses to which it is put). Now, the next thing the Congress should do is repeal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), which effectively prevents all federal employees (not just military) from receiving benefits for same-sex partners. Another Clinton-era bad idea. Challenges to this are winding their way up the court system (it has already been ruled unconstitutional at the District level), but there is no telling what will happen there.
You then try again to imply that a policy specifically for military personnel will effect civilians.
Until the military clones their soldiers, they'll come from the civilian population. Think "job opportunities". Think "educational subsidies" for university students. Think "careers."
. Yes, the military spends vast amounts on research, but it's research performed by civilians. You haven't shown any connection between research or researchers and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Aside from the obvious ones I listed above - background security checks. When people feel the need to be "in the closet", either as civilians or in the military, security is already compromised. Everything being out in the open means no more opportunities for blackmail.
-- Barbie
Furthermore, is being uncomfortable around gays while naked really homophobic? Why don't men and women shower together in the military? The same reason most straight men would feel uncomfortable showering with another man they knew to be gay.
Men and women don't shower together because we live in a society literally built upon suppressed sexuality. I've showered in group showers with women on many occasions, from some I barely knew to some I wouldn't have minded taking to bed. If everyone is just a little bit relaxed out the naked human body, there are no issues whatsoever, even if two people who'd like to fuck are among the group, because there really is no objective difference compared to, say, standing around in clothes and having a drink.
Same reason for the gay situation. Sexual repression creates fear, uncertainty and doubt. Even though I'm not a nudist, I don't believe my dick will shrink if someone else gets a glimpse of it. And if it's a gay guy who likes what he sees - where's the damage to me? It's all in the repression and the stupid relationship we as a society have to our bodies and our sexuality.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
#3 The idea that the military is better off retaining the idiots who cannot process the implicit order "don't kill, assault, or sabotage your comrades in arms just because you don't like them" is somewhat ridiculous. The threat to good oder in the keep-the-fags-silent camp is that the good-old-real-men will just be forced to act against their cohort and we cannot live without those bad actors.
Disclaimer: I am one o them fags, I was denied entry to the service in the early eighties. They wanted me bad for some classified work, but I knew I wouldn't be able to get/hold the clearance if I lied in the intake. Nice choice that. When I fessed up, they sent me to a shrink. He asked me three questions totaling about 10 words. I gave him three answers totaling 15 words. He wrote like _three_ _pages_ of notes, and I was out. This transaction failed every test of common sense.
Then in the original DADT hearings even some senior general guy with a gay kid was all saying how he would fear for his son's safety, were he allowed to serve, because his well disciplined cadre couldn't be trusted to not turn on the boy. Yes, he knew he could not _trust_ his existing _straight_ contingent.
The gay people are not the threat to cohesion and good order, its the homophones that are the threat.
Might as well say "the men under my command are perfect soldiers as long as you don't give them any orders, or ask them to confront anything more hostile than the P.X." The argument against open service has always been stupid.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press