@ the bold - I think a lot of people forget that homosexuals (like every other group) have people on each end of the spectrum. If someone is on the non-flamboyant side, DADT's repeal isn't going to automatically make him/her shift to the other end.

One thing I don't get -- people say having closeted service members keeps everything on the up-and-up. If (general) you are a bigot, how does not knowing make you feel better? Wouldn't you want to know who is and who isn't so you can stay clear of them?

I also wonder how having closeted homosexuals around you at all times doesn't make you gay (since there have been arguments that being around gays/lesbians somehow makes it "rub off" on you), but gay marriage would. I really wish people would think before coming up with ridiculous ideas. That's neither here nor there.

Again, good job to the Senate for getting something right.

It's about damn time!

That's all I have to say.

Lol I have a few more VHPM gifs just waiting for the right threads.

That's totally not what I meant. I didnt know how else to describe that we knew who they were, even though it was "dont ask dont tell" everybody "knew" even if it was just speculation. I did not mean to imply that they were all showy about it.

I'm glad it was repealed, but I still worry about their safety. I worked with some real asshats while I was in the military, and I dont know if the military is ready to step up and take action against bigots if they act like a doofus. THAT is my biggest concern. I have friends who agree that gays should be able to serve but only under DADT, where as prior to DADT, they were asked, and if they said yes, then they werent allowed to serve at all. If the military is going to be hard core about other "rules" being broken, they'd better be ready to punish homophobes who resort to violence.

Sooo you're saying that people would stop trusting someone because of their sexual orientation? Really? What does that have to do with anything? (serious question, i'm not trying to be snarky).

I guess it's like the discussion I had with my kids (which I kinda got in trouble for :o) and one of my kids brought up the idea of gay soldiers not shooting @ the enemy b/c of the attractiveness of the enemy....thus risking the lives of everyone in their company. :rolleyes:

You kind of answered your own question with that example. I don't know the age of your student, but I'm willing to bet there are current armed service members who share that same belief.

If people really believe that, it doesn't say much for our military in general that soldiers would defy their training and mission for something so outrageously ridiculous.

I have nothing but the highest respect for our military, but some of the individuals who serve are complete nut jobs. Yes, I can think of at least a handful of folks that I worked with personally, completely immature, closed-minded wackos, who are probably pitching a hissy fit about this repeal right now. "Oh my god - that guy likes other guys, and i have to sleep in a berthing with him?" nevermind the fact that he's already been doing that for months and months already and nothing has happened. Just because they are allowed to serve openly doesn't mean he's going to hit on you!

Another thing is that as a female in the military - my modesty went out the window....after having a wide open shower area in boot camp, you kind of lose all sense of modesty. In fact, when I got to college and went to the gym on campus, I would be in the gym just changing like it was no big deal, and as I looked around I realized other ladies were going into the bathroom stalls to change, rather than by the lockers, which I thought was weird.

Again, I dont know why, they've already been serving with gay personnel for however many years now, but somehow, the knowledge of it changes the dynamics....I mean, if it didn't, there would have never been a DADT, right? It's the knowledge of knowing they are there - not the fact that they actually are. Because if that were the case, DADT would have never been enacted - anybody who was gay would just not be allowed to serve at all.

That's exactly why DADT was pointless from the moment it was enacted.

That assumes a lot about the reasons DADT was passed. It was seen as a compromise but in reality it was just another lie. Gays served in every war this nation has fought in both before, during, and soon to be after DADT, and there are stories of soldiers who fought along side who knew that their comrade was gay and didn't care before DADT. DADT served primarily the bigots in the legislature and the command structure. The number of soldiers who have been unwillingly outed by DADT makes it clear that someone else was telling.

The people who don't belong are the bigots who are so freaked out by the presence of a gay or lesbian or bisexual person that they lose all ability to hold a gun or follow orders. And if DADT's repeal (and the amending of the UCMJ that will have to follow) causes us to lose those people from service. Good. They're the ones who can't be trusted to watch their fellows' backs.

In essence, the knowledge doesn't make a difference to someone who isn't a bigoted moron. And even bigoted morons can learn better. So, stubborn bigoted morons are the only ones DADT protected, and we can do without them.

^^ I agree. I just hope the military actually punishes those people who deserve to be punished.

I'm fairly confident they will. Maybe not for harassment, which has been a pretty consistent problem, but definitely for physical violence. Ultimately I don't think the command structure will tolerate someone who attacks another soldier for orientation anymore than they will for attacking someone based on race. Particularly since the command structure is as on board with this as the the combat troops are if not more so.

Now, if they could handle sexual assaults better, I'd be ready to stop complaining about them entirely.

Just checked but the new senator from Illinois voted for repeal so I can give him some modicum of credit. I haven't really forgiven him for lying, badly, about his service among other things but he has chipped a tiny hole in that wall.
NYtimes article

I think you're getting the poll results confused. Around 60% of combat troops believe that the repeal of DADT would hurt troop morale and hinder operations. The support troops ( medical, services, logistics, civil engineering, communications) are the ones who think that the repeal would have little to no repercussions.

ETA- I wouldn't necessarily say that the "Command Structure" is on board with this. Yeah, Gates and the Joint Chiefs may be on board but for the average troop the only chain of command that really matters/affects them is their own unit/brigade/squadron/wing Commander who could be a total homophobe.

That number ranges from 40-60% of "Marine corps and various combat specialties" troops depending on what branch you're talking about so only quoting the high number, which is from the Marines I believe, is misleading. But reread again, I said the command staff is at least as on board with it as the combat troops, if not more so.

And they are more so. If individual commander A is a complete homophobe, he better follow the orders of his superior who isn't. Seriously how is this different from racially integrating the military. If they'd taken a poll then what kind of answer do you think they would have gotten? And it was incredibly successful, even if sometimes an individual is a complete racist.

Although if you want the details here's the complete report:
266 pages, pdf

But that doesn't change the fact that if any member of our military cannot follow orders - for any reason really but particularly- because the thought of a gay service member existing in his unit so enrages her or scares him, they shouldn't be serving.