Korean Job Discussion Forums

[ubermenzch]

[Ya-ta Boy]

Quibble: It's not only in an all-male barracks that males display their sexual orientation. In casual conversation, jokes, weekend escapades (true or not), men talk about sex directly or indirectly a great deal of the time; we display our sexual interest in body language as well--the pupils of our eyes expand and we turn to watch, we smile. Sports would be the only topic that even comes close to rivaling our talking about sex in one way or another.

As I see it, gays are not asking for the right to publicize their sexual preference; they are asking for the legal standing where preference cannot be used as a weapon. For years the 'logic' against allowing gays to serve was that they were vulnerable to blackmail if the Ruskies found out. Duh. You can't blackmail someone for doing something legal.

Anyway, another step has been taken (as reported by Andrew Sullivan):

"06 Jul 2009 06:03 pm

What Excuses Are Left?
Powell called for a review of DADT over the weekend:

Powell, as much as any congressional figure, played the foil in President Bill Clinton's efforts to follow through on a campaign promise that all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, should be able to serve openly in the military. In recent months, he and other key players from the first battle (notably, former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn) have argued that political realities have evolved to the extent that the armed forces should take a closer look at the policy's purpose and effectiveness. In December 2008, Powell told CNN that it was time to "definitely re-evaluate" "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

With even DADT's former supporters calling for a review, what is Obama waiting for?"

***
I think this is what Obama has been waiting for. Once a few more generals come onboard, there will be no reason to keep this out-dated policy. (Yes, I know 'review' does not automatically mean 'endorse'.)

[Xerapis]

I just have to address one final issue.

DADT. DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL. Only one-half of this policy is enforced. The DON'T TELL part.

By law and by military regulation, Mr Choi should have expected NO DISCRIMINATION upon entering the military. It is strictly forbidden. The service members discriminating against gays (real or suspected) are in direct violation of military regulation. But nothing happens to them.

The Policy Has Four Major Components:
Don�t Ask. Commanders or appointed inquiry officials shall not ask, and service members (or applicants) shall not be required to reveal, their sexual orientation.
Don�t Tell. A basis for discharge exists if . . . the service member �has said that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or made some other statement that indicates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts . . . .�
Don�t Pursue. As a general matter service members� sexuality may not be investigated. Their sexuality may be investigated, and such individuals discharged if they: 1) make a statement that they are lesbian, gay or bisexual; 2) engage in physical contact with someone of the same sex for the purposes of sexual gratification; or 3) marry, or attempt to marry, someone of the same sex.
Don�t Harass. �The Armed Forces do not tolerate harassment or violence against any service member, for any reason.�

Given that policy, how can you defend widespread discrimination? How can you say that people should just expect it, and just go along on a few trips to fit in? The policy strictly negates those possibilities.

Yes, 1LT Choi violated the policy by outing himself. But the other side of that policy is violated on a continual basis and absolutely nothing is done to the people who harass or ask.