Talk:Don't ask, don't tell

I didn't know there were cases of readmittance then RE-discharge. sad and even more wrong. -- 21:11, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I thought of putting a /fact/ on that. Assuming it's true, it's horrid. Got any citations? 21:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Ugh, I don't remember now. I'm thinking I read about it in the New Republic, but I'm not sure off hand.  Give me an hour or so, and see if I can find it. Researcher 21:16, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm pulling the thing for now--I can find ONE gay man re-activated for duty after telling the Navy he was gay, and that's it. My bad. Researcher 21:26, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is a great little article. Should the title really be all-capped, though? I don't think I've ever seen it written that way.  ħ uman  17:12, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Misuse of DADT?
I've heard that a lot of people who were serving in peacetime (I.E. pre-9/11) exploited the DADT policy afterwards by 'coming out' (even though most of them were straight people faking their coming out) to get a discharge and avoid front-line service in Afganistan. But I can't find out anything about this on the net. Can somebody tell me if this is true or just a myth, before I add it to the repercussions sections.  w easeLOId ~ 17:36, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I dunno about that, never heard of it. Don't you get a dishon. discharge if you do that?  Might not be that bright of a career move, although staying alive is, I guess.  Anyway, I do remember seeing figures for how many servicemen were "evicted" for being teh ghey, running a few thousand a year - but dropping almost to zero during major wars.  I guess I should dig up the data on that... ;) And, yeah, Weaselish Oid, don't add it unless we can grub up a source.  ħ uman  20:14, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Fine. I can't remember who I heard it from or when, but I can't find anything out about it through Wikiepedia or Google.  So it probably isn't true, & can't be much of an urban myth either.  Probably just some random misconception that somebody told me years ago & I forgot about til now.   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 20:41, 3 October 2008 (EDT)


 * The repeal of DADT was a bigger deal to civilians than it was in the military. Sure, you had a few reactionary scumbags who thought the sky would fall, (keep in mind the military is a microcosm of US society as a whole, every kind person you can find on the outside, you can find on the inside too, perhaps with the exception of hardcore drug addicts) but for the most part is was a what I believe you all refer to as a teacup tempest. DADT was pretty much useless, because you already know, without having to ask. You can't live in close quarters with people for years on end without being aware of little things like that. In practice, nobody except for rampant homophobes (i.e. closet homosexuals) gave a flying *&^#. A persons personal life, especially their sexuality has almost *zero* impact on the mission. The only time personal problems affect work, is when people can't separate their personal from their professional, and this was and is a much larger problem with gambling and alcohol abuse than it ever was with sexual orientation. Also, since bringing your sex life to work is equally problematic for heteros, who are the vast majority of people in the military, one could say this problem was almost non-existent for serving homosexuals. Insofar as being discharged for being gay, I am sure it had to have happened a few times, but I personally had never seen it happen. The "abuse" of DADT to get discharged was widely regarded for what is was, a cheap ploy to get out of your contractual obligations. When people faked coming out to seek discharge it was normally met with "Oh so you're gay? Get back to work." or some not so nice variations thereof, the lack of nicety generally being directed at character of the slacker in question rather than at the professed orientation. B4Xiphos (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"In a fight between politicians and the military, the military always wins"
I should have thought this fundamental part of the US constitutional setup was obvious but apparently not. Some examples, Truman sacking McCarthur, Obama sacking McChrystal. The first of these examples is more relevant here perhaps as this was a disagreement on the correct policy. Truman was condemned all over the country and the military for his action, and yet in the end he won. In other countries, most notably in South American countries and in Fiji, the opposite result would have occured, the president would have been overthrown. Not so in the US. --DamoHi 04:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree with and respect your examples, I think they miss the point being made in the article (maybe not as well as it should be?). The thing is, in matters political/financial, the brass always get what they ask for.  Just like the police always get what they want in local budgets.  No one can say "no" to them, since they have the blue lights, if you see what I mean.  05:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I give you the American military-industrial complex and the fact that the American military budget is larger than the military budgets of the rest of the world combined as the 2 greatest examples of the fact that in the fight between the military and American politicians, the military will always win. 05:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's utter bullshit, but it's true. Not many people would have pushed for repeal of DADT if the military (especially those venerable generals) were even remotely close to being opposed. That's not how it should be&mdash;Damo has a very good point: one of the central virtues of the Constitution was that it put civilians in charge of the military. If the military can give itself orders and funding over the wishes of the civilian government... that, not "big government," is the biggest threat of "tyranny" we face. 21:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, the US military was also the first major chunk of the country to desegregate, and they did it for a simple, practical reason - not excluding anyone qualified from getting the job done. 01:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Confused as usual
The local tv news keeps reporting this as "Dont ask-dont tell" policy was struck down by the courts. That should make the current law a ban on gays in the military, unless they are combining the two as one thing. (law and presidential directive) Hamster (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The glorious fierce hand of progressivism tightens its grip upon this world. Mwahahaha
Actually, what I meant to say is. Now that Obama signed the thing, shouldn't the "Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) is shorthand for the current policy of allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the United States military..." be changed to "Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) was a shorthand for an ancient policy..."? Or is there something more that needs to be done? Sen (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say it needs quite a bit of tense-changing and updating.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)