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."

45 of 828 comments (clear)

  1. Yea America! by Silpher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now get rid of torture and death sentence and you'll upgrade from stone age to bronze age!

    1. Re:Yea America! by assertation · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, we still have the Christian fundamentalists and the far right to help us catch up to radical Islam in the race back the middle ages.

    2. Re:Yea America! by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 4, Informative

      I left Clinton out because DADT was a proposed rule to protect Gays in the military. It reversed the policies under Reagan and Bush that persecuted Gays and Lesbians by "protecting their private lives from scrutiny". It was not an Anti-gay measure, even though it failed miserably and allowed persecution to continue, but now codified it and tied the executive branch's hands from being able to do anything about it.

      But go on living in your bizzaro world where stoopid is smart.

    3. Re:Yea America! by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but now there is a real ability to protect Gays and Lesbian's and unless we make a huge step backwards, I doubt we will have another president who is homophobic like Reagan or Bush Sr. was.

      "Don't ask, don't tell" is what's being repealed here. I'll mention that this policy came from the Clinton administration. If it is an inherently homophobic policy then Clinton would be the homophobe in question.

      Now, there are a lot of childish people on this site. Childish people don't understand the concept that one can criticize a Democrat without also supporting a Republican. I think understanding that would be against their religion and they are quite devout. Anyway, in the hopes that they'll control their urge to knee-jerk, I'll roll my eyes and explain for their benefit that I'm no defender of Reagan and I am especially no defender of Bush.

      Having said that, I'd like you to help me understand your viewpoint if you would. What is homophobic about "don't ask, don't tell"? Do you believe it is inherently homophobic and no amount of reform could fix that, or do you believe it is inherently neutral but has been implemented in a homophobic manner?

      I never liked Clinton, not just because I have philosophical disagreements with him but also because he is a masterful politician. He always gave me the impression of a master salesman who could talk you into buying things you don't need and cannot afford and make you think that doing it was your own idea. That's a skill that honest people don't need. Yet I am thankful that I don't suffer from the popular need to demonize anything or anyone I don't like, so when I think something he did was a good idea I can say so.

      It seemed to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was a way to reinforce the professionalism of the military. It made it easier for the soldiers to focus on their difficult and dangerous work instead of being distracted by concerns like what consenting adults do behind closed doors. I believe concerns like that have no place on the battlefield. I believe that's true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. If you believe I am wrong or misguided, can you tell me why?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:Yea America! by lessthan · · Score: 5, Informative

      The simple answer is that the military isn't always on the battlefield and people's lives in the military are significantly more entwined than co-workers at a civilian job. You live with the people you work with. You go to bars with them and get roaring drunk with them. They invite you to their parties and weddings. The bosses make sure everybody has a place to go on Thanksgiving and Christmas. A lot of the time, your co-workers are the only people who speak the same language as you.

      "Don't ask, don't tell" full name is "Don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue." Until it was passed, someone could make a complaint to the relevant authority that you were a homosexual and the authority, such as NCIS, was obliged to investigate and determine if, in fact, you were a homosexual. If they believed(not proved) that you were a homosexual, you were then dishonorable discharged, under a special code. The code would show up when your prospective employer checked and would tell them that you were a homosexual. How would an employer react to finding out you were a homosexual pre-nineties?

      "Don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise. It put an end to the proactive investigations, military police searching your room for proof on someone else's word. It did not end the discrimination, for if you were caught doing something homosexual, for example, holding hands or kissing or hanging out in a gay bar (which they, to this day, raid) that person was obligated to testify against you to have you discharged. That is just the legalese version. Have you every talked about your significant other while at work? Can you imagine being forbidden from doing so? Can you imagine meeting everybody's girlfriends and wives, but if you even have the courage to bring yours (which most of the time you don't) you can only introduce yours as "a good friend?" That is what "Don't ask, don't tell" is. It let us homos serve, so long as we act sexless. I'm not saying that we should be allowed to have gay sex on a table in the chow hall during lunch, but it would have been nice to go on a date to a nice restaurant without taking a group of friends as "cover."

      "Don't ask, don't tell" forces gays and lesbians to separate their lives in a way that straights don't worry about. That is why it was homophobic. It averted some persecution, but it gave no freedom.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    5. Re:Yea America! by potat0man · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seemed to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was a way to reinforce the professionalism of the military. It made it easier for the soldiers to focus on their difficult and dangerous work instead of being distracted by concerns like what consenting adults do behind closed doors.

      Wrong. It was a way to ostracize and degrade homosexuals because they're disliked.

      If it is about the professionalism of not talking about sexuality, why not make the policy apply to heterosexuals too? If a man was witnessed on a date or courting a woman on or off duty, on or off base, by another soldier, that soldier would be obligated to report it to his superior and the soldier would be summarily dishonorably discharged.

      Other grounds for dismissal: wearing a wedding ring, mentioning a wife/gf, using gender-specific pronouns when talking about a spouse/gf or ex-gf, mentioning your biological children, even by accident, keeping a photo of you with another person that suggests intimate heterosexuality, bringing a date/wife/gf to any work-related event, having books/movies with overtly heterosexual story-lines or themes on display, mentioning a gender pronoun when applying for benefits for a spouse.

      It irks me when heterosexuals say they don't like when homosexuals are 'overt' about their sexuality. What you don't realize is heterosexuals are overt about their sexuality ALL THE TIME. You just don't notice it.

    6. Re:Yea America! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lame?

      Or maybe the fact that nearly anything of substance(and a lot of things that aren't) are getting filibustered regularly in a political atmosphere that's ever more hostile to reason and rational thinking in the name of short term political gains?

      I can't even begin to comprehend the political calculus if the healthcare reform bill would've been possible if the democrats started from a stronger point of view.

      There was posted a long list of accomplishments by Barack Obama in the last two years.

      Don't give me this bullpucky that Democrats can run on their accomplishments, because it's not that simple. Russ Feingold? He ran on those accomplishments. and lost.

      On the other hand though, Blanche Lincoln? Ran away from those accomplishments and still lost.

      The political arena these days is a place where common wisdom goes to die. It's going to be a very weird few years.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    7. Re:Yea America! by potat0man · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if there's a guy who can speak a half dozen languages, bench press a buick, and shoot a dime from a mile away, we should kick him out because someone saw him off-base on his off-time holding hands with a guy, and make room for some moron who barely meets the minimum standards but is still preferable because he's heterosexual?

      How does that make for a stronger military?

      How about we keep the over-achieving homosexuals and just ask the immature redneck with no coping skills to get out of the way so that a real man take his place?

  2. The reason this is slashdot worthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A protocol with an ask request without a tell response could be considered an early form of udp.

  3. Re:In other (more accurate) words, by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Funny

    My brigade is more fabulous than yours.

  4. Re:Obama achieved something by AmaDaden · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:In other (more accurate) words, by kramerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Obama achieved something by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Pointless Article by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Nothing to do with technology?

    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.

  8. Re:Stupid by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Stupid by ayvee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Obama achieved something by Isaac-1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Stupid by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Other countries have gays and lesbians serving openly without problems. Maybe you need better leaders?

  13. Re:In other (more accurate) words, by coaxial · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  14. It's what you do in a foxhole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It's what you do in a foxhole by lessthan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You used a lot of big words and I was worried that I might have missed something. Now that I am assured of my understanding, I am free to say that I disagree with your assertion that this repeal is not meaningful. It may mean nothing to you, but it means a lot to those affected by DADT. Civil rights are not a binary bit, civil rights or no civil rights. The fight for civil rights is like fighting a forest fire. You have to stamp out what you can, when you can. Also, I find it saddening that you think so little of those who work for equal rights, that you believe that they can be distracted from the ultimate goal of equality for all, with what you feel is a little sop. I understand your disaffection for the government and their manipulation of the people. It makes me angry too, but I sense at the end of your sentiment the belief that we can do without government and a military is immoral. That may be me putting words in your mouth though. All life is based on struggle. We as humans are in a nearly unique position to transcend that struggle, but we must acknowledge that we are nowhere near that position yet. Sometimes I feel like we are falling further from that goal. Until we get there, we will need mediation for conflict. The government is needed for peaceful disagreement, the military when that disagreement gets not-so peaceful. We need a government, we need a military. However, there may be imperfections that need fixed.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    2. Re:It's what you do in a foxhole by lessthan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, I get that. So your civil rights are forest fires, while the civil rights of gays in the military are private swimming pools? You want equal rights, but their choices aren't right choices and should be disregarded as not part of the movement?

      A man's beliefs are fundamental in forming his opinions. That is why I brought it up. I deduced that you were at least a libertarian and/or a pacifist because of your dismissal of this repeal. A man who disagrees with his government's actions wouldn't have decided that it means nothing. He may have considered it a small step, but not nothing or, as you seem to see it, a setback. Who we are and what we believe has everything to do with how and what we argue.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    3. Re:It's what you do in a foxhole by omfgnosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The word imperial was not coined to describe the US.

      Well, duh. That doesn't mean the US isn't an imperialist, just that it isn't alone (especially in history).

      overall, the US is a force for good in the world.

      I would never say the US has done no good in the world. But I can't agree that it has done more good than harm. The US began its empire, immediately after leaving the British empire, by conquering an entire continent, dispensing with hundreds of nations and millions of people in the process. It then conquered and annexed half of a neighboring country (Mexico). Much of the receding Spanish imperial territories (Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico), then the Philippines where hundreds of thousands were murdered. Then Hawaii. Overthrown governments include: Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq. It's intervened on behalf of the Phalange movement in Lebanon, death squads in Colombia (and really all over Latin America), brutal dictators like Pinochet, Suharto, Hussein, Zia-ul-Haq, and on and on. It's the only country on earth to have dropped nuclear bombs on civilian populations (twice!). Following WWII, it reinstated fascist governors throughout contested areas of Italy and Greece. It's supported genocide in East Timor and Kurdistan, committed genocide in Indochina, and been the primary source of support for Israel's ongoing colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine for over 40 years (with a lesser degree of support going all the way back to the Nakba in 1948). It is currently engaged in two military occupations which have taken hundreds of thousands of lives. In Iraq, it has displaced about 20% of the population. In Afghanistan, it continues to escalate against the wishes of the population, and the consequences—already pretty bad—will only grow worse.

      And that's the short list. The one I could do off the top of my head, insofar as I could keep it roughly chronological. But here I want to take a step back and point back that imperialism is a precise term, and the moral and emotional qualities we're attaching to it are not part of its definition, but rather our reaction to it. Imperialism is the imposition of a state upon other populations. It is absolutely precise to describe the US' role as imperial. What you or I think about that is another matter.

      ascribe bad motives to the US to the exclusion of everything else

      I never said the US is unique. I don't know where you got that idea.

      After fighting and defeating the Axis in the 20th century

      Not alone, and not consistently. The US leadership was enamored with Franco and Mussolini, and had high regard for Hitler. Had the alliances played out differently, it's not inconceivable that the US would have entered the war on their side, particularly as a bulwark against the "real" threat (the Soviet Union), but really its immediate quarrel was with Japan, which is where it placed its focus. Germany was defeated primarily by the Soviet Union.

      and helping to put things back together

      In part by constructing a post-war economy that helped to stall European recovery at the advantage of the US.

      and not completely taking away the sovereignty of the vanquished should tell anyone that the US wants a dominant position, but not an empire.

      This is how *all* successful empires are run. The British had their Rajas, the Ottomans provincial autonomy, and so on. Few empires maintain absolute control over their entire sphere of influence, but instead shape the politics of the dominated places to be subservient to the central power.

    4. Re:It's what you do in a foxhole by bledri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... and that the internal oppression is used as a means of social control in order to divide people who might otherwise unite to stop the broader system of oppression.

      All of which is to say, speaking as a queer personally, I do not see a meaningful improvement in the cause of justice by allowing queers to go kill and die for US imperialism.

      A meaningful queer civil rights struggle would be anti-imperialist and anti-militarist by default, and the extent to which it disregards those values it is actively undermining the fundamental moral principle of equal rights.

      As a straight man, I supported the repeal of DADT for the same reasons that I support gay marriage. First, I believe that it's none of the government's business. Second, I believe that these "issues," along with many others, are intentionally used to split the population and keep them from uniting on issues that are really in there best interests. So in a way, I agree with you. But there are gays that want to serve in the military, and there are gays that want to get married and the fact they can't is discrimination. As long as this issue is unresolved, it will be an effective wedge. That and I guess I'm just a bleeding heart.

      Now, in my opinion, focusing on the imperialism and militarism of the US is still focusing on a symptom. The cause is that over the last 150 or so years corporations have been acquiring all the rights of individual humans (and shedding the responsibilities). Therefore we do not have a government of the people, by the people. The "American interests" we spend billions (oops, trillions) to promote and defend are rarely in the best interest of most actual Americans.

      P.S. Now that the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that freedom of speech is a corporation's "right" and furthermore money is speech, it's only going to get worse.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  15. Re:Stupid by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  16. Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!
  17. New army moto by m0s3m8n · · Score: 4, Funny

    Out with "An Army of One" and in with "We're Fabulous!"

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
  18. Re:In other (more accurate) words, by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  19. Re:This is why the Dems lost the House by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is Guantanamo a priority and DADT isn't?

    Unlike the Iraq war, practically speaking, Guantanamo doesn't make a big difference. There are only 174 people there. The biggest benefit to closing it is a "we care about people's rights" angle. Which is an excellent idea, but doesn't DADT fall into the exactly same category? It probably even affects many more people in the practical sense.

  20. Re:In other (more accurate) words, by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...
  21. Re:Stupid by vaxjo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you kidding? What we need is better citizens.

  22. Re:Obama achieved something by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  23. Happened Before by germansausage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  24. Re:This is why the Dems lost the House by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People don't necessarily have a right to discuss their sexuality at work.

    Why not? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to.

    Here's a simple test: would you rather not be allowed to talk about your sexuality at work or be tortured and held in a prison indefinitely without any hope for a trial, let alone a fair one?

    I'd prefer to have neither really.

    I think both DADT repeal and Guantanamo closing should have happened long ago. I just don't think that social progress should be stopped until all terrible injustices get resolved first. Otherwise we can get into a loop of:

    Let's repeal DADT? No, there's Guantanamo first
    How about now? No, there's the Iraq war first
    How about now? No, now we started another war somewhere else
    How about now? No, there's...

    And progress for millions gets stopped by something horrible happening to a few people somewhere. I'm not saying to reverse the order either, we could just do both things. There are millions of people in a country, it's possible to fix several issues at once.

  25. Re:Obama achieved something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  26. Re:Pointless Article by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The stupid is strong with you.

    Alan Turing wasn't some random gay person "working with technology." He fucking invented it.

    Douchebag.

    --
    BMO

  27. Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done by OakDragon · · Score: 4, Funny

    When Congress works hardest, the nation hurts most. Can I hear 8 days a month?

  28. Re:In other (more accurate) words, by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  29. Re:Stupid by lessthan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  30. Re:This is why the Dems lost the House by Eivind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I indirectly refer to my sexuality at work all the time, like every time I refer to my wife as in, "Yeah, no problem I can stay until 5 today, my wife is getting the kids today."

    Being required to keep your sexuality hidden, basically amounts to a ban on talking of, even indirectly, your private life.

    Are heterosexual soldiers required to completely refrain from making any statement that tags them as heterosexual ? Are they allowed mentioning the wife ?

    It's blatant discrimination to require silence from homosexuals, on topics heterosexuals are free to discuss.

  31. The Clouds is a satire / comedy play by fantomas · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:The Clouds is a satire / comedy play by Kirijini · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Wow, awesome find.

      First of all, there's a section titled "Mantaming Sparta."

      Second, there is this very interesting passage:

      Jonathan Shay calls attention to our culture's homophobia as inhibiting or preventing combat soldiers from expressing their full grief at the loss of close comrades - a process that he considers essential in preventing post-traumatic stress disorder and states that, ''Veterans need to voice their grief and love for their dead comrades if they are to heal. However, many have learned to keep quiet because of their culture's discomfort with love between men that is so deeply felt."

      That's an aspect of homophobia / "don't ask don't tell" that few think about.

  32. Re:This is why the Dems lost the House by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For DADT, there's a very very easy solution - the President is Commander in Chief of the army, he can literally say "this is bullshit guys, you must treat people of all sexual orientations equally"

    I might be missing something about the US chain of command, but my understanding was that DADT was passed as a law (wikipedia confirms this: federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654)). No officer, even the CinC, may give an order to violate a law without facing court martial. If he ordered the generals to ignore DADT, he would be telling them to ignore a law, which would be an illegal order and they would have no obligation to follow it.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  33. Re:This is why the Dems lost the House by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    You could make the same argument about any number of rights issues: "Whether or not you agree with civil rights, it's hard to argue that allowing blacks to vote and ending segregation is a priority when we have the Vietnam War and Soviet imperialism to worry about. Until we do something about that, civil rights is an utter waste of time" Or how about:"Whether or not you agree with the suffrage movement or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. After all we have the Great War to worry about. Until we win against Germany, debating about an amendment to give women the vote is an utter waste of time"

    How can we say that basic civil rights aren't a priority? How can we say that ending discrimination is a waste of time? That justice is just too inconvenient right now? Because that's exactly what you're arguing. Our society is fundamentally about rights and liberties. The right to speak and assemble, the right to worship as we choose, the right to privacy, the right to a just trial, the right to pursue happiness- to live your life. Those rights aren't an inconvenient afterthought, they're the entire point of the country. It's critical that gays and lesbians are allowed to serve in the military, because it's defending the rights of everybody, including and especially those who are different, that makes the country worth fighting for in the first place. If we aren't doing that, then everything else becomes just a waste of time.