Followers

Facebook Badge

Athena Smith's Facebook profile

Sunday, March 21

Don't Ask, Don't Tell.


One of the most controversial topics has been the move to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy regarding the military service of gays and bisexual persons. Adoption of the DADT followed a long history of banning gays from the military. For a good part of the 20th century gays were discharged as “undesirables” once their orientation became known. However if they had committed homosexual acts while in service the discharge usually became “dishonorable.”


Then we had the brutal murder of the gay U.S. Navy petty officer Allen R. Schindler, Jr. Schindler had often reported anti-gay harassment to his chain of command citing comments from shipmates such as "There's a faggot on this ship and he should die". While en route to Japan, Schindler made a personal prank announcement "2-Q-T-2-B-S-T-R-8” (too cute to be straight) on secured lines and was put on restrictive leave. Once in Nagasaki, Terry M. Helvey, a member of the ship's weather department, stomped Schindler to death in a toilet, crushing his head, breaking his ribs and cutting off his penis. The brutality of the murder prompted President Clinton to adopt “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” under which a gay person may serve as long as he does not reveal his sexual orientation. What happens however if others find out? You were still discharged. The bottom line was that gays were undesirable in the US military. Since 1994, 13,500 service members have been fired under the DADT policy.

Fast-forward to 2009, in the midst of the war on terror. Stephen Benjamin wrote a column in the NYT reporting on the lack of qualified translators (from Arabic to English) in the Armed Forces. He stated that cables went untranslated on Sept. 10, 2001, a crucial date in our history. And in 2007, the American Embassy in Baghdad had nearly 1,000 personnel, but only a handful of fluent Arabic speakers. In March of that year, Benjamin, who had graduated in the top 10% of the Defense Language Institute, was let go after his sexual orientation was revealed. He was not the first. In 2006, a decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist was also dismissed from the U.S. Army under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Although the number of those competent gay translators who were fired is not fully disclosed, one thing remains indisputable. The military is spending millions in training new translators, hoping that they will all turn out to be heterosexual.

Recently the DADT policy has come under attack. The arguments from both sides are interesting. Those supporting the DADT policy say that the situation is not that black or white. They point to certain elements of significant risk. When you are called to defend your country while living and rooming in close quarters with others, overall effectiveness depends on mutual trust and uncomplicated camaraderie that should not be disturbed. Moreover, allowing gays in the military, -the pro DADT side asserts- may encourage enlistment of gays that hope to find partners easier, something that might provoke even higher levels of homophobia among heterosexuals. Furthermore, when people are sent into combat, we make sure that men and women do not fight next to each other in order to avoid complicating emotional situations. When we allow gays to serve, we endanger the overall effectiveness, if indeed there is a sexual/emotional bond between the soldiers.

Those who support the repeal of DADT counter-assert that many emergency occupations require their members to live in close proximity (emergency services, oil rig workers) and gays are not barred from those. They also add that opposition to gays in the military is based on the problems caused by homophobia, which is perpetuated by the ban. Once gays are allowed to serve and demonstrate their effectiveness, the homophobia will diminish. Finally, they claim, emotional bonds (both heterosexual and homosexual) may strengthen moral and not weaken it.

Both sides continue to exchange heated arguments as we speak. Needless to say no argument from either side can be upheld or dismissed by scientific research on the matter. The Congress is called to make a decision to repeal DADT or maintain it. The verdict is still out.

How would you advise them on the matter?

86 comments:

jtannebe said...

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy is a slippery slope. I understand that some people want to impose the policy because they are ignorant, but I also think alot of it has to do with the safety and protection of gays. I think that we should let gays have all the rights that anyone else has. As much as I wish that hate crimes and homophobia was a thing of the past, some people are still uncomfortable with gays in the military. Serving our country is a brave duty and an honorable one. I think that anyone who wants to fight for our country's freedom should have the right to and we should support them and be thankful that they step up regardless of their sex. I do not think they should be discharged when they have done nothing wrong.

Kriena Lang said...

I feel like anyone should be able to serve in the military no matter what your sexuality is. The “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy should not even be around. There shouldn’t have to be rules and regulations if you are gay, someone is risking there life to fight for our country and when it all comes down to it, it doesn’t matter what there sexuality is. Also I understand that they do need this because there will be a lot of hate crimes and people getting very hurt, and also murdered if they do not have this. In my opinion being gay should not stop you from doing something you want to do with your life.

Atro said...

I believe the DADT policy should remain in effect in the military. It's a matter of all of the soldiers feeling comfortable while serving. If a soldier is a homophobe or an anti-gay person it causes them to feel very uncomfortable knowing that a fellow soldier is a homosexual. Which could lead to hateful feelings toward someone your supposed to help protect. It could get in the way of doing their job properly. Also if a homosexual begins to be attracted to a fellow soldier it could cause some tension and possible violence to occur. This is not something you want in a dangerous situation like war.

Mudbeaver said...

I don't think people are discriminating amongst gays when they give their opinion that homosexuals should not be in combat. Most of our soldiers today are coming straight out of high school and are not mature enough or feel comfortable around gays. I completeley agree that soldiers in battle need to trust one another have the comrodity on the front line when defending our country. Most young heterosexuals in the service are insecure with their sexuality because other young soldiers around them will assume they are gay when bonding with them even though they are not. It seems to me that would cause too much drama, too much conflict, not enough trust, and not enough confidence in the soldier fighting next to you. I don't think they should be able to serve on the front line. Maybe there are other positions in the service where bonding is limited and would be more suitable for them to serve.

LaurenW said...

It’s hard for me to give an unbiased opinion on this subject, seeing that I do not condone homosexuality for religious reasons. I try to clear my mind of my beliefs for topics like this but then I feel if I did it wouldn’t be my opinion anymore and mine happens to be that I think it the DADT should stay. Not because I hate gays (I have a few gay friends that I love dearly) but rather because I don’t understand them, if we are honest no one really does. We don’t know what “causes” homosexuality if anything does at all outside of making a personal choice. It’s a known fact that most people become uncomfortable and even fearful of things they don’t understand. Fear is a powerful thing in people, it can cause them to do things they normally wouldn’t. Things like beat a respected man to death in a bathroom than disfigure him. The policy should stay if for nothing else but the protection of gays that are already in the military. Lifting the policy won’t stop confused and malicious people from hurting gays. Bottom line is certain people in our government are trying to force the rest of society into accepting something they aren’t ready to accept. How many people do you think would be hurt in the process of pushing that agenda?

NHamilton said...

I feel that if you are a citizen of the United States and you respect your country and want to fight for it, you should be allowed to no matter what your sexuality is. The hate crimes, harassment, and murders involved with the gays that are in the military are completely uncalled for. "Homophobia", in my opinion, is made up by social aspects between men. Most men feel that they will be looked at by other men as gay if they associate with a gay guy. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy just provokes this train of thought. Just because a man is gay doesn't mean that he should not be allowed to fight for his own country.

Erin Walsh said...

There has been much controversy revolving around whether the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding military service of gays and bisexuals should be repealed. Military incidents have occurred targeting homosexuals such as the brutal murder of Allen R. Schindler Jr.,and the dismissal of Stephen Benjamin from the military all together. On the other hand, the adoption of such a policy helps to promote effectiveness within the military and prevent complicated emotional situations. When taking both sides into consideration, I immediately support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by keeping in mind the discharge of courageous soliders based on sexual orientation alone.
Considering homosexual soldiers "undesirables" based on sexual orientation seems to be an insult in the way that it is a form of discrimination that so many are seeking to evade, and implementing a policy to exacerbate the problem is considerably worse. In my opinion, discharging soldiers based on sexual orientation is essentially on the same plane as discharging soldiers for ethnicity or religious standing, which are issues that our country has been considered to be making positive strides toward eliminating with every bit of time passing. Arguments claiming that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is strictly for the protection of soldiers, to me, seem to be sweeping the real issue under the rug. It is argued that mutual trust and camaraderie is apparently compromised when homosexuals are forced into close quarters with heterosexuals. I personally find this argument negatively presumptuous in assuming that homosexuals, due to sexual orientation, would do something to disrupt mutual understanding among soldiers, even when this could result in a dishonorable discharge anyway. Such a thing cannot be assumed of homosexual soldiers alone when heterosexual soldiers have also had instances of anti-gay harassment. Homosexual soldiers, just like heterosexual soldiers, are there to serve their country, and I find it appalling that those courageous enough to serve their country are put under a microscope to determine supposed desirability. Promoting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is essentially promoting ignorance regarding equal treatment of all individuals, and only adds fuel to a fire that has been burning for years.

Julia said...

Oh boy, this is a tough one. I really don't want to offend anyone, but I must say that-to an extent, at least-I do support DADT.

My reasoning basically mirrors the arguments mentioned in the article coming from the pro-DADT side of the debate. Basically, having gays in the military confuses things to a pretty great degree. Do I feel like those confusions are justified, or correct? Not necessarily. I have many homosexual friends that I love (regardless of the fact that I disagree with their life choices), and I have nothing against them at all whatsoever... but having gay men serve in the military alongside other men is essentially the same as having women serve next to men... there is too much emotional strain and confusion in that situation.

I don't know what a better idea would look like, but until we find one, I do support DADT.

moneyhoney said...

Feeling uncomfortable and brutally murdering someone are two completely different things. Hate is hate no matter how you analyze the situation whether it be toward someone's sexual orientation or the color of their skin. A person's sexuality doesn't define their capabilities, how skilled or how smart they are so I don't believe it should be a reason to discharge them from their duties. I believe safety comes first and as much as we would like to persuade everyone to be nice and get along its not how the world works. There are people out there who will stand strongly behind their opinions and the best we can do is create guidelines and precautions so that there wouldn't be another Schindler situation. I don't know how it works in the military but I would suggest keeping them separately like they do the men and women to avoid conflict amongst themselves.

moneyhoney said...

Feeling uncomfortable and brutally murdering someone are two completely different things. Hate is hate no matter how you analyze the situation whether it be toward someone's sexual orientation or the color of their skin. A person's sexuality doesn't define their capabilities, how skilled or how smart they are so I don't believe it should be a reason to discharge them from their duties. I believe safety comes first and as much as we would like to persuade everyone to be nice and get along its not how the world works. There are people out there who will stand strongly behind their opinions and the best we can do is create guidelines and precautions so that there wouldn't be another Schindler situation. I don't know how it works in the military but I would suggest keeping them separately like they do the men and women to avoid conflict amongst themselves.

Athena Smith said...

Guys you do not offend anyone by expressing your opinions.. this is a forum that encourages opposing views.. if not we would be dead boring!

Dawn Shepperson said...

I think that the DADT policy should be repealed. The only reason this policy is in effect is to make people comfortable. In fact, that's exactly what they are saying....as long as we don't know, you are a great soldier....but if we find out, we will see you in another light. The problem isn't whether or not someone is gay. The problem is the homophobe and how they view the homosexual. The opinion that the bonds and trust among the men is jeopardized by having homosexuals next to heterosexuals is a bunch of bull as far as I can see. Men who fight or work together in stressful life or death situations feel bonds with each other, even if the people involved are all hetero.
I think the problem is how gays are perceived and that is perpetuated by the policies the military has. If a person has made it through boot camp and all of the rigors of becoming ready for battle, why should they be thought of as less competent just because of the people they are attracted to? I think that the underlying problem is that many people in the military think that homosexuals are weak, like women. And as far as men's discomfort with being in close quarters to homosexuals...well, now they will just understand how women feel all the time in the military; you never know who's looking at you with lust in their eyes. But you hope that the person has enough couth to keep it professional. They are the ones that don't want to serve with women as well. Some people may also feel uncomfortable thinking that having a homosexual in their midst means that they need to be on high alert for sexual advances. Well, now you know how the women feel all the time.
We should be looking more at the homophobes rather than the homosexuals. That's where the problem lies. Unfortunately, repealing DADT without groundwork would be an issue. They need to put other laws into place first, which would help protect anyone against harassment. Homosexuals don't provoke someone into violence, they are used as punching bag for people that have no control. Why can't we make it so that violence against another person gets you kicked out of the military, rather than your sexual preference?
In closing....it wasn't that long ago that men didn't want to fight alongside Blacks in the military. Ignorance should not be allowed to continue just because people are comfortable with their level of prejudice.

lbrown said...

This comes down to people thinking that if you’re gay, you want to have sex with everyone who is a member of your same sex. I hate to burst bubbles, but that fact is that gay men are not attracted to ALL men and lesbians are not attracted to all women. To the men serving with a gay man, it doesn’t mean he wants to have sex with you. There is also a difference between a gay man and a rapist. This is where the issue of trust comes in. If a gay man shares your barracks, it doesn’t mean he will wake up in the middle of the night and have sex with you. This is ultimately what the guys are afraid of, right? Or are they afraid they will catch homosexuality? I can’t really be sure. But if a man is that insecure about his sexuality, he has more problems than having a gay man serve his country with him.

The facts are simple. Homosexuals have been in the military since the beginning of time. They have put their lives on the line for their fellow Americans for the love of their country. I parallel this with the enlistment issues we had with Black Americans. Blacks and whites used to serve separately because blacks weren’t valued in the same way whites where. DADT is saying the same to homosexuals if they make them continue to lie about their identity. Homosexuals go into the Armed Forces for the same reasons straight people do. It is not pushing an agenda when you allow people to manifest their innate selves. Homosexuality has been shown to have genetic cause. We don’t make light skinned black people pass as white. Why make a homosexual pass as straight? They don’t go in to have promiscuous sex or get a date. I say let them serve their country. If you accept their services, which we have forever, then allow them to be who they are!

As for the argument that homosexual beliefs will make waves and upset others, I contend that racists and bigots make waves and bother me. They too should not be allowed in the military if we where to follow that train of thought.

Nadia said...

The military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy is the subject of much controversial debate. Today, as the policy is being reconsidered, there are many factors to reflect on. The “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy is not just a matter of military. It is a matter of discrimination. At one point, women were not allowed to own land or do certain jobs. Today, women have these rights because it is now considered discrimination if women are denied access to things based on gender. This also happened to blacks, who were not allowed to even drink from the same water fountains as whites. Today, similar discriminations are faced by gays. No one should be denied any job or privilege based on gender, orientation, color, religion, etc. When the Congress mulls over the issue of the DADT policy, I would suggest they consider civil rights in their decision. No person should be discriminated against. Not allowing gays into the military if they are openly gay is discrimination.

IslandRain said...

I think they should keep the "don't ask, don't tell" policy but be more strict about the cruelty that these gay and bi-sexual men face. I've heard both sides of the arguments and they both make preety good points but if these men are faced with so much cruelty, it's not going to lessen because they legalized it now. It might even be worse, at least with the policy now, they don't know and it doesn't cause any disruptions. But honestly, with men in the army associated with the "macho man" look, they are not going to be okay with this. Some will but a lot of them won't. The world is not yet ready to accept this, they will but for now, they're not ready. I vote they keep this because it'll lessen the violence. However, I do think that something needs to be done about the cruelty these men face. I think any men who poses any kind of threat to these men should be discharged as well. Even if it's just word.
-Manouchka Silgnena

Garrett said...

I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military with no discrimination at all. America was founded on freedom and equal rights to all of its residents but it’s obviously not how America is. Everyone should have equal rights whether they are straight, homosexual, or bisexual. Gays would not be in trouble if ignorant people did not have the same negative views as their parents. The world is changing as more and more things are becoming acceptable so people need to let go of their prejudice views of homosexuals. If congress needed advice I would tell them to reject the DADT policy so that people’s homophobia would overtime melt away as gays would legally be accepted as equals.

Lauren Plunk said...

I feel that this is outragouse. Whoever wants to fight for their country should be able to, this keeps from young men being drafted into duty. If we accept gays around the United States, they should be aloud to fght for the country they love. The conflict of emotional disdurbance is stupid too. Women cannot fight with the men because they may emotionally distract the soliders but the vast majority of the army is not gay therefore it should not be a problem. I belive that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy" should be implied. If soilders are uncomfortale with certain men being around because of thier sexualality, then the have as much freedom to avoid the gay men. Either way, gays have a choice to be gay and should also have a choice wether to serve their country or not, discrimination should be removed from the entire militay.

ycampos said...

"The don't ask don't tell" policy is a bit unrealistic. I don't understand why you must be heterosexual in order to defend your country. Why are heterosexuals more qualified than someone who is gay. It is absurd to believe that just because somone Is of a certain sexual orientation they will automatically be discharged from their positions, even if they have not done anything to deserve being discharged. We as a society need to open our eyes and get rid of our ridiculous and unfound prejudices.

lexd said...

I believe if you are gay and you want to join the military. you should. you shouldn't have to hide your sexuality from others because they don't "agree" with it. Honestly, it isn't any of there business. That's like saying you don't want African American people to be in the army. It's being ignorant. the don't ask don't tell policy is a bunch of bull shit. If a person is not mature enough to deal with being around a homosexual then you shouldn't even be in the army. America is about being diverse, and some people just need to grow up.

KP said...

This is a hard subject for me, seeming how i think peoples oppionions are going to be based on their own personal values. i try to keep an open mind on both sides. If someone wants to be in the military and volunteers for it, it is rediculious to let them in based on the decision of their sexuality. i think they are being very discriminant. Yes, it might cause some issues with sexuality in their groups but at the end of the day they are not there for eachother they are there to fight for their country together. you have to be strong minded to go into the military if you cant handle someones sexuality you should consider something else.

Gary Upton said...

Don’t ask don’t tell, is a policy that should have never been put into place. The sexual preference of an individual has no indication of whether or not he or she will be qualified to be a soldier. Men and women work together all the time, yes attraction occurs, but it depends on the each individual’s values and morals that guide them to be respectful of the working relationship. Gay men and women have values and morals to the same proportion as heterosexuals; therefore, have the same abilities to make proper decisions as any other person. While one may not agree with another’s lifestyle, however, that does not give him or her right to discriminate. The policy don’t ask don’t tell, is very much a bias against homosexuals; that tells individuals to hide who they are, and for the military not to ask if a person is gay. And that is offensive. Being Gay is not a choice a person makes in life, Gay people are born gay. Gay people have been in the military since its inception they have just hid themselves, so apparently it does not cause the problems that the military officials fear.

hondasi2007 said...

I think they need to abolish this rule it is just childish. If someone is qualified for the job their is no reason that they should not be allowed to do it just because they are gay. And for them saying that the guys are going to be coming in to all of the other service men. You can make it just like you do for guys and girls have it so that if they step over th line you can punish them. I think that their are some guys that just want to serve our country and their orientation should have nothing to do with them serving our country.

dream1990 said...

So basically if your homosexual you can't be respected for serving your country . I do not understand why people are so scared of homosexuals like if they were a thing out of this world. I personally do not support the gays to be kicked out of the military and hiding it isn't good for them either. I do not believe that one gay person can make another person become gay . That is a decision that each person makes . We cannot change people preferences . Whats the point of them getting discharged if they are being as brave as the non homosexuals because they are willing to fight for our country ? I think that it is ignorant and selfish.

Thaer said...

I believe that I can't pick a side to the DADT policy. I feel if you want to fight for your country you could, no matter if ur gay or straight. I also feel they shouldn't allow gays in the army because it some soliders will feel uncomfortable with a gay man sleeping next to them or fighting with them. It won't show how mascline the soldiers are and how strong they arewhen they see a gay man fighting for their country. So that's why I can't really pick a side in this matter. You can be straight or gay and fight for your country or you can't be gay due to the other soldiers not comfortable.

yaya07 said...

I believe that we should keep around the DADT policy. I feel that some people would prefer this policy versus completely abolishing it. This policy is a right for homosexuals and something that they can use to protect them while enlisting or being in the military. I think that this policy can become useful for the fact that ones sexual orientation should not matter while going into war. If a person wants to fight for their country why should their sexual orientation come to play? It does not matter at all. I think that the DADT is a good idea and should stay in effect.

Kristi said...

This is the U.S. Military; they should welcome any person who is willing to fight for this country. If they do not want to make the homophobic people uncomfortable they should offer sensitivity training or something along those lines. Do not punish the gay community because some ignorant people can’t comprehend that someone might actually be different than the majority. Would you keep a person who is Catholic out or the military because it makes a Christian feel awkward? No, because that would violate the individuals rights just like you can not ask them their religion when applying. The sexual orientation of an individual should not be in question for any person who wants to serve in the military.

Lost said...

This is a very touchie subject "Don't ask don't tell". In my personal thoughts why should it matter what the next persons' sexually orentation matter. I servied in the Army and there was a ton of gays and bisexuals left and right but it doesn't effect them in defending their country just as well as a heterosexuall,if not better. To discharge them because they are different is completely wrong , a big part of this is because people are to scared of the unknown but thet are people just like you and I. So why kill someone dreams because there different from the rest of the world.

JWarner said...

I think that the DADT policy should stay in affect. Lets face it: Men love sex. It's that simple, gay or not, their will be more gays joining the military for that reason alone. I do believe that men who do not really want to serve the country will enter for the wrong reasons. It will also deter the unaccepting heterosexuals. We already have the problem that there are not enough men in the military. The recruiters are constantly looking for eligible young men to serve our country.

Jwarner said...

I don't believe that you have to be a heterosexual to serve our country I just believe that in order for everyone safety and for the fact of the matter some things are just better left unsaid.

antaysia said...

.

sean1391 said...

DADT is a smaller issue inside of a much larger one in this country. The larger issue is how homosexuality is viewed and which rights are entitled to homosexuals as US citizens. If people would stop and look at homosexuals as people, instead of freaks or defying someone’s own religious beliefs, they would see that they are people just like themselves. They have hopes, dreams and pride in their country and want to serve just like their heterosexual counterparts. They are even willing to fight to protect everyone’s rights, even though all of those rights are not extended to them. I feel that the US just needs to deal with the issue itself instead of skating around it with things like DADT. If the issue itself is dealt with, then all the rest will work itself out.

precious said...

The brutal murder of Schindler, in my opinion was uncalled for, and shows that DADT doesn’t work. DADT is definitely not working it is only a temporary situation and eventually sexual origin will come out and they will either be let go or lose their life. What makes any one think that homosexuals can’t or won’t fight just as hard as a heterosexual person. I don’t know how we can protect these brave men and women who chose to serve their country but may have a different (feared) sexual preference than most. Reading the article the only way that this affects the cohesion of the unit is in the fear of those who don’t understand something that is different or unknown. So I think that training about what people don’t know might help but it would have to be mandatory. We always say that education is the key to unlocking the unknown.

Marguerita said...

I do not agree with the "don't ask don't tell" policy, but then again i don't really see any other alternative. i could see how it would help because It is meant for safety reasons. If this were fairy tale land it wouldnt matter, but we have to face the truth and homosexuality will always be an issue as long as we still have ignorance in the world. I dont think anyone should be kicked out because of stating that they are gay unless there is an altercation then they should deal with that using other measures. Maybe they could set rules for people who have an issue with homosexuality. because if you think about it im sure there are many prejudices in the military which include race, ethnicity, and sex. If a few people have issues with blacks or Hispanics we cannot kick the blacks and Hispanics out because they make people uncomfortable. People should just realize that everyone is different and i would not want ignorant soldiers fighting for this country who worry about insignificant things such as this.

Alex Logsdon said...

I am in the military and believe this is wrong. I knew of a pilot with a stelar record. He had many hard to get medals, thousands of hours of flight time and a high ranking officer. After it was found out he was gay he was fired. What I don't understand is even if you knew he was gay but he was still performing his duties above and beyond the call, DO NOT kick out and experienced officer for sexual orientation. Some people worry about gays "flaunting" their sexuality or beliefs, if they do then they should be punished, just as everyone else. You cannot be a gangster, a preppy boy or any stereotype when you put on the uniform, so why can you be looked down upon for being gay? If sexual orientation starts to interfere with work then they should be reprimanded, just as anyone else would. This idea seems a little barbaric, I mean really, what are the reasons? The military is just homophobic at the moment but I believe when our generation or even before then, when were in the high ranking seats and making policy we'll look back and ask why that was ever in place.

Antaysia :) said...

Someone's sexual orientation does not necessarily influence their work ethic. Both arguments are logical to their respected views. However, I’m no seeing a desire to understand each other. I believe disputing sides should consider each other. These men that “go the other way” still have talent and a desire to pursue a career a few in a military position. Yet, their position poses a threat to the military in both defense and moral. There is no “everyone wins” in this situation. Both sides need to come to some mutual agreement because no doubt that these men have the skill and training to get the job done it’s just their sexual preference that separates them from the rest.

Moonbeam said...

When my husband joined the Army in 1990, recruiters would ask if you were gay. If the answer was yes, you were automatically disqualified for service. A few years later, President Clinton enacted the DADT. At that time, my husband was stationed at Fort Bragg, NC, home of the Airborne. The overall sentiment from the military guys at that time, was "no way". Now, after a few years and research pointing out that homosexuality may not be a choice, pre-programmed into a persons genetics, the stance has softened. The main problem with open gays in the military is the small number of those who would flaunt their sexuality. As the nation is at war, we have Soldiers who are amped up due to the tense situations they face. An over the top, in your face homosexual may lead to violence. In reality, there are many gays in the military now. They hide their orientation, but still serve. It does not necessarily create violence. The big problem with dropping the DADT will be housing and training areas. Individuals normally share rather small rooms. If a "straight" and a "gay" are housed together, this may create the unwanted issues of violence or worse. Overall, the policy could be safely lifted with little issues to be worked out.

Kimberly said...

I would have to say, that I think the DADT policy has its reasons that it still in effect, and I support it. I think that it has its pros for both homo and heterosexuals. The post pointed out that you will be living with close quarters with others when you are called for duty, and if some men aren’t comfortable with living with gays, it might make them act out in two ways, One: it might mate them want to personally hurt the homosexuals in the Army, because they might be Anti-Gay, and reason number, Two: It may hurt their physical combat when they are fighting for our country. So I definitely think that the DADT policy should still be maintained.

Anderson11 said...

I agree with the "Dont Ask, Don't Tell" policy because it will not discriminate against gays getting a job in the military and it will allow them to serve our country, which is a brave feat. There will always be homophobia because of social discomfort when they reside among eachother. When there is a demand for such persons with special qualifications, I don't think it should matter if they're gay or not because they are needed by our country. Yes, two males could be attracted to eachother and unfortunately one could die in battle. That would cause the same problem as if it were a man and a woman in love and one so happens to die. It's horrible that we have to face such situations like this. Everyone should be happy that they are who they are and not discriminate against others.

Nani2801 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nani2801 said...

I think that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy is crap! Really, I do. Why should it even matter if people know or not? I think that the military should be happy that even "gays" are stepping up to the plate and wanting to fight for their country no matter what their sexual orientation is. Just be glad that some one wants to do it. There are plenty of "straight men" out there who wouldn't even dream of signing up for the military yet the one's who do they are discriminating by not letting them. We are living in a time where a good population of men and women are either straight, bi-sexual or fully gay. GET OVER IT PEOPLE! I mean really? Why does Homophobia still exist? Then again, why does racism still exist among people we will never know but regardless of what color you are, race, sexual orientation any of that, we should honor those who fight for our country. The one's who made such a big choice to put their lives on the line for us and for our country.

hrayy09 said...

I think that someone's sexual orientation should not be an issue in the service, period. I do understand that people are against gays and may feel uncomfortable around them however, for their job and country, they should dismiss their fear. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy makes no sense to me because they are still going to be discharged if their orientation gets out. With the policy, nobody knows who's gay or not and even if someone does find out someone is gay, they should still be aloud to serve our country. With this issue, it eliminates job opportunities for people and the bravery and courageous charisma of someone to defend our country.

Mariana Yarleque said...

Along with my fellow classmates, I'm not sure about picking aside. Although I agree that the DADT policy should be kept because its' purpose is being fulfilled quite well, I'm not sure about keeping homosexuals from ALL areas of the military. I do agree on keeping them from going overseas or in combat, however as previously mentioned in this article about the translators, I do not see how someone's sexual orientation would affect them when driving to base for an average day job of translating. I do think we should keep the DADT policy as it is though, it has been working quite well for its time being.

AMRI said...

I DO NOT understand why this is such a big deal. Geez! If a man or a woman, gay or straight, is willing to serve this country, then by all means, let them. The word "GAY" does not mean not physically capable, does not mean not mentally capable, does not mean "a threat" to others (they want to get in their pants). The article says, "when you are called to defend your country while living and rooming in close quarters with others, overall effectiveness depends on mutual trust and uncomplicated camaraderie that should not be disturbed". Okay! I understand! But come on now, homosexuals are HUMAN BEINGS just like heterosexuals...not aliens. Times are changing and I feel society needs to keep up. Homosexuality is becoming more acceptable. I know it will never be fully acceptable to everyone. But that is okay. Nothing in this world has full acceptance from everyone.

Bumble Bee87 said...

This whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is just a little silly to me. We live in a time when most of us all work with someone of a different sexual orientation. Whats to say that the military is much different. If the person is capable of doing the job or even do it better then who's to say that they have to be discharge because of their sexual orientation. Not all gay people are "flaming" and if they are most of them probably wont be going to the military to do a life threaten/ dirty job for their country. So there's no reason for anyone to feel uncomfortable around them, they are still people just like everyone else just a different sexual orientation.

JustaGirl said...

I feel that the DADT policy should be maintained. Its nobody business what a persons sexual orientation is and whatever their sexual preference is Im sure it doesnt affect the quality of their work. I also don't believe that a person should go around announcing their sexual preference that is a private matter that should not be the topic of any subject in the workplace(military).
I belive DADT shoul be maintained, they should keep it how it is.

yolkia said...

I think that the policy “Don’t ask don’t tell” should remain. I think that the same way soldiers’ males and women are not allowed to be together while serving for emotional reasons neither gay. Serving on the military is something serious. You are going to serve for our country not to find a partner. Moreover, military has like their rules “like their the men, the machos” and I know is discrimination and I am not saying that what happened with that soldier that got killed over his sexual preferences is right but the military is not for gay people. I respect everybody’s decision but I think that all the money that the government invests on every soldier is not one to be waste for sexual disorientation. It brings grater problems not just in the war but in society.

trampus said...

This is a tough decision to have to make. When you listen to both sides, they both make good points. If I had to make the decision I would send out a survey to every active solider asking yes or no to gays being allowed into the military. I would then base my decision on the results of that. I would do it this way because it would give me a better idea on how gays would be treated if allowed to join. For example, if the results were around 60/40 (60 being the no side) I believe the gays would catch a lot more hell from the other soldiers even death as mentioned in the blog. On the other hand if the yes side was 50% or higher the gays would have more people standing up for them and possible lowering the chances of brutal beatings or death among the gays. However I don't believe, at least not in our lifetime, that gays will be 100% safe from all of their fellow soldiers.

rrodriguez30 said...

I am appauled on what happen to that poor navy petty officer. Everyone must uphold a curtain conduct at any professional place. I find it discriminating. We tell our kids to be whatever it is you want to be, then a long the way, the child finds themself to be different then the rest of the group. People change all the time whether you are in the military or not. D.A.D.T. does nothing for anyone. I see no point behind it. It does not protect the person. It is just one of those things everyone must get along with others despite their differences.

GoGreen said...

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has its pros and cons regarding both sides. I feel that gays and bisexual should be allowed to served and protect our country. They should be able to serve due to their ability to do well at their jobs instead of being judged based on their sexual orientation. At the same time, I don't think they should get in trouble once they are found to be not straight. On the other hand, I do understand the fact that if two people form a gay relationship then that will come into conflict with their ability to do well. Maybe it will be better not to have gays and bisexual to serve in the military due to previous incidents where they were punished for being gay and bisexual by straight people. This policy to me can go both ways. It's a complicated matter. All I know is that I support the DADT to a certain extent and understand the other side that oppose to it also. Everyone has his or her own different view on this policy and it's not my place to judge their view.

bluntness said...

There are still a lot of things that I do not understand about homosexuality. I, personally, cannot see why a man would want to sleep with another man or a woman wanting to sleep with another woman. I would support the DADT to an extent because I can understand why people would feel uncomfortable. I would not like to be taking a shower and have a male or female checking me out. Gays have feelings just like me, but in a war there has to be togetherness. I would not say kick them out of the military completely, but find a way to use their input for the betterment of our country. Like kicking out the translator, that was foolishness. Both sides have strong and relevant arguments; I hope they can come to a mutual decision.

KeyKey said...

DADT
At the time the pot should don’t be stirred. I think DADT should not be appealed at this time; I think it should stay the same for now because with the fact we have two major wars going on plus the terrier situation, problems. There would be a lot of additional expense which we can’t afford at this time. In addition, there probably would have to be separate accommodations such as living and wash room quarters. There probably will be security issues as well. Personally, I don’t think sexuality preference should be openly announced whether they are gay, straight, etc…..

SkipperJ said...

I believe that the DADT policy is perfectly fine as it is. In the article there was a section about letting "gays" in because it might help them find someone. The military isn't a place to find a soul mate, leave that to eharmony. The point was also made that because of the emotional level of men and women they aren't allowed to fight side by side, so why put someone that is in touch with their femine side see something dramatic as someone dying. The last point being the living quarters are very close and I know I wouldn't like knowing that someone that is known to be "gay" to be sleeping next to me. I feel that it is a lot easier for the military to keep their police of DADT and let it be. It seems to me that there is just to many complications of having men or women in the military that aren't afraid to show their true side.

SkipperJ said...

I believe that the DADT policy is perfectly fine as it is. In the article there was a section about letting "gays" in because it might help them find someone. The military isn't a place to find a soul mate, leave that to eharmony. The point was also made that because of the emotional level of men and women they aren't allowed to fight side by side, so why put someone that is in touch with their femine side see something dramatic as someone dying. The last point being the living quarters are very close and I know I wouldn't like knowing that someone that is known to be "gay" to be sleeping next to me. I feel that it is a lot easier for the military to keep their police of DADT and let it be. It seems to me that there is just to many complications of having men or women in the military that aren't afraid to show their true side.

Lindzy22 said...

I feel that anyone can serve for there country no matter what there sexuality may be. I understand how there could be an issue because many people feel uncomfortable around homosexuals which could alter the way they act. But when it comes down to it, I don't think that when in combat the men are concentrated on if your gay, I think they would be more focused on surviving and fighting for a common cause. Homosexuals should be allowed to fight for there country.

pricethepig2002 said...

I believe the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy should be repealed. Instead of punishing people for being victims of someone else’s ignorance, stricter rules should be created and enforced against those who actively discriminate against others. Many supporters of this policy fear that homosexuals in the military will attempt to form emotional bonds with their fellow soldiers and that these bonds will cause the soldiers to not perform to the best of their ability. But these emotional bonds already exist. Many soldiers feel so close to others in their unit, that they call them brothers. A person should not be denied from defending their country just because of their sexual orientation.

Ashley Alexander said...

I think the DADT is dumb. It shouldn’t matter if a person is gay or not. If they want to be in the military then they should have every right to be. The homophobic ways of people in the military is childish and wrong on many levels. I believe if a person is doing their job and not bothering anyone then they shouldn’t be fired or discharged. If that person is risking their life then they should in no way not be allowed to do what they want. A person being gay doesn’t affect the way they work, and unless what they are doing is distracting or wrong then a punishment or reassignment should be made, not a discharge. So yes I think the DADT should be taken away .

jimayyee said...

This is very tough decision! I somewhat agree with both sides, but If I had to really choose between the two, my opinion would be that homosexuals should be able to serve in the military. For several reasons, I think that it should not matter about sexual orientation. We are all equal, we are all humans; why should it matter if you're gay or not? Their main job is to serve the country. Additionally, we are in need of more men to serve to country. As some men are randomly drafted, it would make it much easier if homosexuals were allowed in the military. There would be a higher percentage of men wanting to serve. Although, there are some people who are uncomfortable around gays, but if gays wanted to serve the country, then we should let them. They are human, aren't they? They aren't that much different.

beautiful unique said...

In my opinion, I dont think that it should matter one way or the other about another persons sexuality. I just feel as long as these people are not trying to impose their lifestyle on you then which sex they decide to be involved with should not concern anyone else as long as they are doing their duties as serving their country. Their are much greater offenses which deserves discharge but will not recieve action.

scrappy doo said...

The don’t ask don’t tell policy is a tricky situation. I believe every person should be treated equally. To be a homosexual is a person preference. By having homosexuals in the military should make no difference than having heterosexual. On the other hand, we do need people to be strong and confident to fight for our county and not allow emotional feelings get in the way of their jobs. But how can we say homosexuals are not strong and confident? If they weren’t they why were they chosen to be one of our protectors? Everyone is useful in the military; from my option I think their choices of being homosexual are their choice but at the same time they should not display their lifestyle to their co-workers.

itszmeweksos said...

I'm totally against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and I think that gays should have all the same rights that other people have. I wish that people being against gays would be something that was in the past, but I guess not. In all honesty, I don't have anything against gays and it doesn't bother me, maybe because I was raised that way, but still you should know not to discriminate. And yet, people still do. And if someone is brave enough to stay up and fight for our country then they should be able to have the same rights whether or not they're straight.

Sunny said...

I cannot, for many reasons, condone gays in the military. One being that combat is a condition of great stress, and the last thing that soldiers need to worry about is the presence of a homosexual, whether it be they are not comfortable around them, do not agree with them, or any number of different reasons. I agree that anyone who wants to serve our country should be allowed to, but homosexuals are the exception. Not that I hate gays, but simply because it causes a great distraction when soldiers in combat need to be solely focused on the mission at hand.

Sunny said...

I cannot, for many reasons, condone gays in the military. One being that combat is a condition of great stress, and the last thing that soldiers need to worry about is the presence of a homosexual, whether it be they are not comfortable around them, do not agree with them, or any number of different reasons. I agree that anyone who wants to serve our country should be allowed to, but homosexuals are the exception. Not that I hate gays, but simply because it causes a great distraction when soldiers in combat need to be solely focused on the mission at hand.

neither1 said...

I believe that the the DADT would be fine if it worked the way it was intended to. If you Don't Ask and Don't Tell there is someone who will either bug you until you say something or the gay persons actions will eventually come out. I work with gays some are "Flaming" and some you don't even know they are gay but they don't show it as much. To have them on the front line. Thats like having a women up there and we all know the military won't let women on the front line. So should we allow gays into the military? I say no.

coffeebean said...

I believe the Don't Ask Don't Tell would be fine if it was to be used as it is intended to be used. Its to protect the gays from homophobic people. If you put person next to a straight person and the out come is not the same or not even close the straight person is going to ask the question (whats wrong with you, you gay) then thats when the taunting begins. Most males have so much testosterone its rediculous. But thats what gays have to contend with. Gays should have the same freedom that straight people have because if they have the strength to enlist then they should have the same freedom to fight.

missjai23 said...

I feel that anyone that is of sound mind should be able to serve in the military whether they be black, white, gay or straight. I don't think that sexual orientation has anything to do with the overall safety of the troops. If you are a gay individual, I believe that you have just as many rights as any other individual has in this country. Ultimately the enemies that this country face doesn't care whether you are gay or straight, all they care about is defeating and winning the battle. The people that chose to serve our country should learn to respect other's position and learn to come together for the common bond of protecting our country.

Karly B. said...

If your qualifed to serve your country then your sexuality should not be an issue. If a soilder is uncomfortable and their performance is effected due to homophobia, then I question their maturity to even be in the military. The only thing I like about the "Don't Ask ,Don't Tell" is that it does protect those from hate filled people. Sadly we can't tell who these people are and we can't stop ignorance like that from being in the military in the first place.

Goodfella said...

It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. When i read the story it had good points from both sides. Some people in the military might not feel comfortable with the situation. Everyone doesn't react the same when it comes to gay people. It can cause a disturbance, but it shouldn't be looked at that that. A soldier in the military should just look at it as they're there for the same reason you are. Everybody in the military is there to support their country that's the purpose everything else shouldn't be a distraction.War is not a joke and everbody need to act as a team and needs to be comfortable around each other, it's a very confrentational topic.

silk said...

This is an interesting topic. These days more and more people are coming out the closet and homosexuality is becoming a norm to this day an age generation. Even though im not for homosexuality I feel like the army, navy, or military should except all the help they can get form anyone willing to join, because the more soldiers we could get the better. If they feel like it would be a problem for other soldiers causing homophobia they should have strict guidelines on that subject and when comes to battle if there are two soldiers who are involved with each other they should just separate them like they do the men and he woman.

monimar9302 said...

I think the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is a very sticky situation. I believe gays have every right to serve in the military. Any person willing to risk their lives for our country should have the right to choose their sexual partner. However, there are still hate crimes going on all over the world and a lot of people are not comfortable around gays. I think the DADT policy can possibly reduce the hate crime rates against gays in the military. Although I am not gay, I do believe everyone should be treated equally and who are we to judge? That should be left up to one person, god.

Nermin Mohamed said...

I believe the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy should be repealed. I also believe that gays should be given the same rights as everyone else. So if gay people wanted to serve their country, they should be allowed to. They should also be protected from any sort of discrimination that they might experience while serving.
People are afraid of the unknown, and most of those homophobic people don't actually have any sort of a real relationship with gay people except maybe a superficial one. So if the policy is abolished, and homophobic people lived in close quarters with gay people, they might change their mentality that gay people will rape them, sexually harass them, or that homosexuality is a disease that will infect them.

Engineer09 said...

I know there is always going to be a debate about the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, but there is a reason for it. I hope that some of these answers may be a little bit helpful in this decision. Yes, the reason for this policy is in order to protect the gays, but it is also to protect the unit. If a person is worrying about something besides the task at hand such as their comrade’s sexual orientation, their judgment will be compromised. For example if the person is homophobic, then they may try avoiding the person how was gay. Again you may say “I’m not like that, so it shouldn’t bother them”. Well let’s just say that you know the person is gay, can you say one hundred percent that you would not treat them differently than the rest of your troops, would you avoid them, or not really talk to them? If you answered yes for any one of these that means you have some doubt about whether or not the person may try something , like hitting on you, therefore you would also be considered homophobic. If you can truthfully say that it doesn’t bother me in the smallest bit then, you may say that the person should just get over it, but it would be like telling you to get over your hatred of broccoli or something that you wouldn’t like to eat. You sometimes may not like something or someone for a certain reason. You can’t force a person into changing their mind so easily. I have explained a little into how the unit may be compromised by the orientation of their comrade, but this is also to protect the person who is considered gay. In every place there are always extremists, these people may not only dislike the person but hate the idea of them being gay to the sense of plotting their deaths. Not only that, some of their comrades may play jokes on them because of their sexual orientation, which may cause the cadet or officer to want to strike back. By the end of this all you have far too much chaos in one’s unit that they are so preoccupied with stupid things that they end up dead. War is not a game and it should be taken very seriously. This is why the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy is helpful so that people don’t cause a small riot or war within our troops.

YEIRIA said...

I JUST WROTE AND IT DIDNT POST SO IM GOING TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I WROTE! i think dadt is a good idea for now until people feel gay is "normal". being gay can be a distraction and hate crimes in the military can happen if people tell their otientation. jeopardizing our country because we are not getting translators is stupid! for now dadt is good, until we can get past the discrimination part!

justfish247 said...

The issue of DADT is one that I don’t believe there is a correct answer for. On one hand there I would fear for a persons safety if information got out about their sexuality in a very close minded group. The other issue at hand is why someone can’t just be themselves. It just seems like a very frustrating situation.
If someone is outed in the military others begin to look down on them for being different. Everyone has the same goal in mind, has the same types of duties, and still works as a unit. Why is this a deciding factor to turn on someone? Did they do something to harm the group?
At the same time since there is an issue with people turning on someone that is outed I would have to say to keep the policy of DADT but with some changes. Even though it is not their fault, maybe they can be reassigned or stationed somewhere else. I understand that this is not the individuals fault but the issue is no longer right and wrong of being homosexual, it is that persons safety. Another thing that can be done is stricter punishments for hate crimes in the military.

Paul Ackbar said...

I believe that the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy should stay in affect. It should not matter if you are a gay or straight to do anything, even serve your own country. To me, it is considered discrimination. All citizens in this country deserve the same equal rights. If gays have limited rights just because it is wrong in the bible, the why dont limit athiests rights since it is also wrong in the bible? When it comes to defending one's country, we are all on the same side and same religion.

Dijabou said...

I think that the DADT policy is not doing any good either way. It does not help to solve the problem of maintaining a level of equality between the troops. I do believe that whoever wants to serve for their country is entitled to, but they should be aware of the fact that many people are homophobic. In addition to this, violence is part of the everyday life of a soldier, and some of them crack and take out their anger and frustration out on homosexuals, without plausible justification. This policy has not done any good since it was passed, but I do not see any other quick fix to the problem. It may take a while to compromise and come up with a better solution but for now, it may be the only way, like it or not.

carpe diem said...

I think it's ridiculous that some men in the military don't accept homosexuals to serve with them. If the military finally accepts women and there isn't many problems going wrong with that, then why not homosexuals? During an interview, an employer doesn't ask an applicant what their sexual orientation is. It doesn't matter. If you're suitable for the position, the job is yours. Same should go for the military. The "Don't ask don't tell" policy is something I thought was pretty clever. If that's necessary for homosexuals to be safe, then they should go by that. They should try their best to keep their secret to themselves. And if they don't maybe they should get discharged. If their life is at risk if "homophobes" find out, then it's just a precaution that needs to be taken. Unfortunately, there are still many ignorant people that can't accept individuals for who they are and recognize that they're similar in the fact that they're both there to serve their country. So it might be an issue for a while.

Yasmin C. said...

The idea that the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy is based around "homophobia" or making it okay to discharge a person, willing to fight for our country, because of their sexual preference is wrong in my opinion. Being gay is not a physical or mental illness, it should not affect being in combat. Hate is hate no matter how you analyze the situation and having this policy is just making it okay. I think the policy should be abolished.

fullbluemoon said...

Well considering that recently the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has just changed I much agree with the outcome. The new law has been stated that If the sexual orientation of a military member is reveled without them knowing or wanting it to be known then they will not receive dishonorable discharge. Of course there will always be men and even women who do not agree that homosexuals should even serve in the military but at the same time they are going to no matter what. I believe anyone who has the strength and mind set to enlist in the military should be treated with as much respect as they deserve regardless if they are gay or straight. Alot of people don't even realize how many gay soldiers actually agree with the DADT policy to some or all extent. Some people will be more ignorant while others are simply more accepting and when it comes to the military the main goal is for members to serve their country no matter what their sexual orientation is.

P-Walk3 said...

I dont think that they should be forced to tell their sexual orientation because if it is told then it was cause many of the soldiers to be uncomfortable. I think that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy is appropriate because it cover for both sides of the equation. Most of the problems are because of firmly entrenched traditions and values that dont really apply to today's world.

Latifah Aziz said...

I don't understand what someone's sexual preference has to with their ability to preform in the military.I feel like having the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is stupid. By someone being gay or bisexual that should not effect them from taking part in the military.If that person does get into the military they should be able to be comfortable with what they are as far as their sexual preference.The person maybe gay or bisexual but their skills can be very useful and helpful, so why would you turn down or discharge them because of that. Overall I feel like they should let go the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Vivianle said...

In my perspective, I believe gay people should have the same right as straight person. Therefore, the don’t ask, don’t tell policy should remain affective. It is inequity to not allow gay people serve their own country as they please. Being gay should not affect their work areas which mean gay men or women should be permitted to work with the same group of sex. Although, that group or person may have an issue with the homosexual, arrangements will probably be done. Homosexual should not be allowed to serve because of some being uncomfortable; their job is to serve. Our country needs more men to serve the country, gay or not.

riverchild said...

DADT is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it helps service men and women by allowing them to not be asked and subsequently punished for their sexual orientation. On the other hand, it forces gay soldiers to completely suppress an aspect of who they are. Some of you mentioned earlier that their sexuality shouldn’t be flaunted. It’s really not about that. Do you not think that heterosexual soldiers discuss aspects of their lives with the members of their battalions on a fairly regular basis? Say, for instance that an enlisted male says, “My wife and I saw that movie last night. It was great.” I suppose that’s just blatant heterosexuality right there. As for forcing heterosexuals to serve next to and share living areas with homosexuals, because they might be homophobic and become violent; how is this any different from forcing a white supremacist to share a barracks with a black soldier. Should we segregate everyone? Let’s also remember, that homophobia is not the fear of gay people; it’s actually the fear of being gay.

riverchild said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
riverchild said...

watch a video

Athena Smith said...

Did you hear the last paert?
Not teach public schools?
Wow!!!

On a more serious note, things are rapidly changing I believe.

GatorBoy said...

I think anyone that wants to fight for this country’s freedom has a right to serve, regardless of their sexual orientation. There will always be people that are against having homosexuals when you are on the frontlines. I personally, am for the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. This is the only way a homosexual can go into the military and have rights to be able to not reveal their sexual orientation. This policy helps the numbers of hate crimes, rapes, and murders come down. As for the translators being discharged for being gay, I think that is completely wrong too. What do they think is going to happen if a homosexual drives to work every day to translate? It is not hurting anything.