So, lying is not a problem for those who think "don't ask, don't tell" is a feasible option? Just curious since most of you who support this policy had real problems with our president's lies. Anyway, I get all the points here. The fact is that I've known a couple of gay men who served in the military and EVERYONE knew they were gay. It was no secret. However, while they were mostly left alone, there were others they knew that were "outed" and then either dishonorably discharged for LYING (how's that for irony) or had the holy hell beaten out of them by other soldiers. I know that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was intended as a way to bridge the gap, but it is unrealistic. It would be more effective just to open the whole thing up and, if someone's sexuality gets in the way of them performing their duty or if someone else's sexuality gets in the way of them performing their duty, deal with it like you would any other military disciplinary issue. ------------------ Mmmmmmm. Sacrelicious.
oeilpere, I think the problem was that in the past, someone could be blackmailed into giving them government secrets or else they'd "out them." Since "DADT" was implemented, that probably has become less of a possibility. Military personnel can still be blackmailed, but that's 1 less thing. ------------------
well i'm far from sex-crazed myself. what do you guys think of having designated gay-friendly bases where recruits can choose to go to or not to go to?
i think it's a good compromise. if such a policy existed, PFC Barry Winchell might not have been killed by a fellow soldier just for being gay. the army used to have seperate companies for black soldiers. this would be similar and solve TheFreak's concerns about community showers. I nominate Fort Dix in New Jersey to be the first official gay-friendly army base [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited December 08, 2000).]
outlaw, if I'm thinking about the same case, I read an article about the murder. The officer in charge of those soldiers, the murderer and the victim, said, and this is true, that he asked the victim if he was gay, and when he said no, he decided not to pursue it because of the don't ask don't tell policy. Kagy, how can lying in one situation be government sanctioned and against the law in the other? ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!
It isn't lying if they're not asked. A lie is a dishonest statement or reply. Let me ask you this: is it accurate to say you've lied to me because I don't know what kind of car you drive?
BK: You make a good point (you always do damn you! ), however, the difference in not talking about your car and hiding who you are as a person is quite substantial. For instance, what about religious beliefs? Recently a Wiccan group in Texas was harrassed and threatened on a military base because they requested freedom for their religious practices. The commander on the base wisely disciplined those who threatened them and gave them what they requested. Now, he could have told them that they could practice their religion in secrecy, but that is denying them their right to be who they are. In essence, he is asking them to live a lie. This is no different. Hiding who you are is living a lie and it is unfair to ask anyone to do that. ------------------ Mmmmmmm. Sacrelicious.
Outlaw, that's nuts. The Army's not run as a democracy. Jeff, President Clinton lying under oath is not the same thing as a gay man not telling anyone he's gay. That's the crux of don't-ask-don't-tell-- we're not going to ask you, so you're not lying, as long as you don't mention it. Is that a pretty damned weird arrangement? Sure. But we have to be pragmatic. Gays can't be banned from the military, but the morale of the overwhelmingly heterosexual majority has to be considered too. That combination is what gave us this policy.
