"Dont Ask Dont Tell" Repealed

[Brekkie]

I for one welcome our new fabulous overlords.

The little-known fact about the DADT repeal is that non-vaginal intercourse is still explicitly banned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This means no oral or anal sex, the only options available to same-sex partners. While they are free to openly express their homosexuality – without fear of retribution, they ...must still conform to the UCMJ and not engage in sexual activity, or be subject to prosecution.

[Melathys]

Thing is, no one cares.

I had an openly gay guy (well, open to us, not necessarily to those in charge) and no one cared. The general consensus would be "as long as he doesn't try to kiss me or fondle my junk, we're cool". There seems to be this notion that homosexuals can't control their desires and actions. Men and women work together just fine (most of the time), and the sexual tension, if there is any, is more likely to go both ways. With, say, two men and one is gay, any attraction or tension is only on one side. So i'd almost say that you can get a better working relationship between two same sex, one gay, people than from two opposite sex straight people.

About the no oral or anal sex...that's against the law in north carolina as well. I'm sure its on the books in other states too.

[Brekkie]

I just think the whole thing is silly.

[Passionario]

"Homosexuals have been among the best warriors in our history, the berserkers of last resort."
- God Emperor of Dune

[Skye1013]

I'm actually glad it's repealed, and while having sex "non-missionary" (sodomy) is against the UCMJ... it pretty much falls under "prove I had sex with him/her." What goes on behind closed doors should stay there... I have no interest in your sex life regardless if you're gay/straight/bi/etc. And actually... that could potentially help address an issue I've heard come up... "Will there be separate showers?" Probably not, because if they try to have sex there... they get an article under the UCMJ. So it's still somewhat of a check/balance.

Just in case it's not clear, I have no issues with people based on their sexual orientation... have a good number of gay/bi friends, and am glad they can serve (if they choose) without fear of getting booted because they're "different."

[Nikachelle]

It's a step in the right direction. Sure, it sounds like all the details aren't really thought out, but like others have said... go ahead and prove I had sex with him or her, etc. You don't see straights getting prosecuted for having oral sex do you?

I'm very happy to hear this though.

[Lightbeard]

I'm sure most soldiers really don't care who the hell is gay considering they're too busy sweating their balls off in a desert wondering if the guy next to them is going to have their back in a fight, gay or not. I've always thought of DADT as basically Minding Your Own Business. It being repealed is a step in the right direction, although I'm sure there have been gay (and straight soldiers) who used it to get a trip back home.

[Dantriges]

The whole issue is still a bit silly.

I think most soldiers are more concerned if their comrade in arms can pull the trigger and doesn´t run away in fear or does something stupid but well, never served in the military.

It´s probably a result of our society changing rapidly and people have problems adjusting.

[Brekkie]

It will be interesting to see whether they incorporate same-sex couples into the present system of "give free extra money to married people for no reason".
If so, I will not be surprised if all of a sudden there's a ton of contract "marriages".

[Fridmarr]

Well it's always been illegal for all the sexual type of stuff, they only enforce it though when you are in trouble for something else. It really doesn't matter because the UCMJ has a catch all provision anyhow where they can prosecute you for anything they want.

However, I know at least a dozen people who used the "don't ask don't tell" rule to get "kicked out" of the air force on purpose. They'll have to come up with another provision for that purpose now. But yeah, this whole event is a much bigger story in the eyes of the media than the public at large.

I'm interested if some of the anti-military universities will allow recruiters on campus now, as the presence of don't ask don't tell was their typical hollow excuse.

[Arnock]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I very well may be) but aren't relationships between members of the same unit prohibited (or at least strongly discouraged) to prevent conflict of interest that might disrupt a unit's cohesion.

I was under the impression that don't ask don't tell was mainly implemented because separate male/female barracks helped prevent straight relationships, but it was a bit more of an issue bunking homosexuals.


But, again, I might be wrong about the relationship issue, so feel free to ignore this statement if I am.

[Fridmarr]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I very well may be) but aren't relationships between members of the same unit prohibited (or at least strongly discouraged) to prevent conflict of interest that might disrupt a unit's cohesion.

I was under the impression that don't ask don't tell was mainly implemented because separate male/female barracks helped prevent straight relationships, but it was a bit more of an issue bunking homosexuals.


But, again, I might be wrong about the relationship issue, so feel free to ignore this statement if I am.

Yeah, you are wrong. As long as it doesn't affect the chain of command, it's not only allowed but it's extremely common. Also, I don't think separate barracks at permanent duty locations are common, I certainly never saw them in my time in the Air Force.

[Skye1013]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I very well may be) but aren't relationships between members of the same unit prohibited (or at least strongly discouraged) to prevent conflict of interest that might disrupt a unit's cohesion.

I was under the impression that don't ask don't tell was mainly implemented because separate male/female barracks helped prevent straight relationships, but it was a bit more of an issue bunking homosexuals.


But, again, I might be wrong about the relationship issue, so feel free to ignore this statement if I am.

Yeah, you are wrong. As long as it doesn't affect the chain of command, it's not only allowed but it's extremely common. Also, I don't think separate barracks at permanent duty locations are common, I certainly never saw them in my time in the Air Force.

This. There are some issues when it comes to Officer/Enlisted relationships, and rater/ratee relationships, but as a whole, you can date/marry whoever you want.

If so, I will not be surprised if all of a sudden there's a ton of contract "marriages".

This already happens amongst the straight community... so I don't see where it would be an issue in the gay community. But I believe you have to bring the marriage certificate to be added to your file before they'll authorize any pay adjustments. I'm not sure how that will work with "civil unions" since they aren't recognized federally, only on a state by state basis. Once it becomes recognized by the Federal Government, I'm sure same-sex marriages will get all the benefits/drawbacks of m/f marriages.

[Fivelives]

And the About Fucking Time Award™ goes to:

The Obama administration, for repealing DADT.

[Skye1013]

And the About Fucking Time Award™ goes to:

The Obama administration, for repealing DADT.

I'd have to say 17 years has to be a speed record...