Don't Ask, Don't Tell is Over

The good news is that just like the bigots who didn't think blacks could serve, or the chauvinists who didn't think women could serve these cavemen will also be left in the dustbin of history. Yes, they'll continue to make crude comments and jokes, but they will be sneered at by the rest of society that has moved on and shaken off this kind of narrow thinking. The way life works is you either evolve or be left behind.

ckm8 wrote: The good news is that just like the bigots who didn't think blacks could serve, or the chauvinists who didn't think women could serve these cavemen will also be left in the dustbin of history. Yes, they'll continue to make crude comments and jokes, but they will be sneered at by the rest of society that has moved on and shaken off this kind of narrow thinking. The way life works is you either evolve or be left behind.

The only thing crude is discriminating against a fat person. They want to serve the country too.

Tiny Bubbles wrote: My brother in law says he is investing in a compny that is developing camouflage KY jelly cause of this law. Maybe there are more positives than being said here.

OK, just saw this post. rofllol :rofl rofllol

Science Chic wrote: Blacks, or any other group for that matter, aren't a genetically separate race, just a culturally-created one.

Yes, PS, it does make more sense to let those who have their own personal issues with this to leave immediately.

That not only does not make sense, it is still insane. In the late 70's the Navy had a large percentage of dopers. It was against reg. but was rampant. If you did not get caught in the fan room or fantail with a joint in your hand you generally got away with it. When random urinalysis started, if all the dopers were allowed to get out at once we would not have had a single ship that could put to sea, never mind combat ready.

PS, you are correct this is not a minor regulation change, but it is a slippery slope, where do you draw the line? When I enlisted beards were authorized after boot camp. In my first 36 month I spent about half of that time in advanced training in ASW, at that time Russian subs were a huge concern.
Around that time regs changed and we all had to be clean shaven. Should I have been allowed to say that as an Orthodox Jew that if I can not have a beard you must discharge me now. I would have gone to work at GE or another contractor for huge $. The Navy's investment in me would have been down the toilet. Even if I would have had to pay it back, there would have been a hole in the manning requirements of the war ship to which I was eventually assigned with an 18 month gap.

archer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: Is there actually a law that says you can't be gay in the military...or is it you can't act gay in the military?

It is an actual law -
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

I read what you cited....it speaks to homosexual conduct.....or engaging in homosexual acts.....or proclaiming yourself to be a homosexual. It does not clearly say that a homosexual cannot serve in the military, only that they cannot show any signs of homosexuality.....or state that they are homosexual. I guess that is what the repeal of DADT is supposed to remedy.

DADT was a presidential executive order. Repealing that executive order would simply allow the military to start asking about sexual orientation again. What was needed to allow homosexuals to openly serve was a change by Congress of the statute that governs military conduct. Not a repeal of DADT, a new statute which repeals the one that made it impossible for homosexuals to serve in the military , which is what Congress just passed. The bill that is on its way to the president for his signature is a repeal of 10 USC 654, the law I provided you the link to. Should you wish to read the text of the bill, it is available here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111h ... 965eah.pdf

Now then, if you look closely at the language of the existing law, which you say you have, then you will have noticed subsection (b)(1)(E) under Policy, which says that "That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—the member does not have a propensity to engage in homosexual acts.

Propensity is defined as an innate inclination, a tendency. Innate is defined as existing in one from birth, inborn, native. Inclination means a characteristic disposition to do, prefer, or favor one thing rather than another.

Now, you might not think a homosexual has an innate inclination to engage in sexual activity with a member of their same sex, but I think you would be in error in your thinking there archer as that is precisely what determines whether one is a homosexual or not. One who does not have an innate inclination to engage in sexual activity with a member of their same sex is not a homosexual. If they have an innate inclination to engage in sexual activity with a member of the opposite sex, they are heterosexual not homosexual.

Thus, to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, it is necessary to amend or repeal 10 USC 654 such that a member that has an innate inclination to engage in sexual activity with a person of the same sex is not required to be separated from the armed forces. Under 10 USC 654 it states that a member shall be separated, which means there is no other option other than separation from the armed services available in any instance.

I hope I have helped you to clear up any misunderstandings that your politics or the media may have led you to regarding why homosexuals were not allowed to serve in the military once it became known that they were a homosexual, why repealing the presidential executive order commonly known as DADT would have had no affect on the existing situation and why it literally took an act of Congress to allow homosexuals to serve in the military.

LadyJazzer wrote: You're wasting your time, archer... They don't understand the difference between an innate, immutable personal characteristic...and an ACTION. And I don't think there's any way that you can dumb it down enough that they WILL understand it.

This is where you are wrong, in this case he(archer) asked a question and I gave him the article that would closely answer his question. Nothing more nothing less.

Archer's a "She"....

Now we can move on to 10-12 more pages about the so-called "slippery slope"... (I believe that was used both when the services were integrated, and again when women were integrated...) Good luck with that...

Science Chic wrote:

neptunechimney wrote:

Science Chic wrote: Blacks, or any other group for that matter, aren't a genetically separate race, just a culturally-created one.

Yes, PS, it does make more sense to let those who have their own personal issues with this to leave immediately.

That not only does not make sense, it is still insane. In the late 70's the Navy had a large percentage of dopers. It was against reg. but was rampant. If you did not get caught in the fan room or fantail with a joint in your hand you generally got away with it. When random urinalysis started, if all the dopers were allowed to get out at once we would not have had a single ship that could put to sea, never mind combat ready.

PS, you are correct this is not a minor regulation change, but it is a slippery slope, where do you draw the line? When I enlisted beards were authorized after boot camp. In my first 36 month I spent about half of that time in advanced training in ASW, at that time Russian subs were a huge concern.
Around that time regs changed and we all had to be clean shaven. Should I have been allowed to say that as an Orthodox Jew that if I can not have a beard you must discharge me now. I would have gone to work at GE or another contractor for huge $. The Navy's investment in me would have been down the toilet. Even if I would have had to pay it back, there would have been a hole in the manning requirements of the war ship to which I was eventually assigned with an 18 month gap.

What doesn't make sense about it? Genetically speaking, the number of base pair differences between so-called "races" is so insignificant as to now throw population geneticists into a quandry as to explain what had previously been described as racially-based phenotypic differences in things like heart disease and cancer. The concept of "race" and "ethnicity" are purely cultural creations - they were born and raised in a different country, speak a different language but one that can still be produced by the same organs as everyone else, and are not significantly different at the genetic level.

Do you really think that that many people would leave the service if given the choice of serving with openly gay versus non-openly gay servicemen and women? Dopers should have been kicked out - they aren't functioning at the peak of their abilities, which is the reason why overweight people aren't allowed to join. Any ship that had a majority of people like that weren't combat ready.

My mistake, I did not mean to include your first sentence in my quote. Nothing in my comment was directed at genetics.

We eventually did kick out the dopers but it was an exodus that was controlled by the Navy not the dopers. I knew many who never got caught and did get out at the end of their enlistments.

As to DADT we will have to wait and see what happens to retention levels. I think the implementation will be protracted in order to minimize any negative effects.