'Don't ask, don't tell' policy ruled unconstitutional

jillio said:
So it can be assumed that you don't understand the limitations placed on the individual through the policy of "don't ask, don't tell."
Click to expand...
I didn't say that.

Since you didn't answer my question there's no way I can respond to a non-answer post.

You can assume whatever you want but you would be wrong.
 
jillio said:
Re-read, please. Beowulf said they aren't there yet. However, dismissing as a result of sexual orientation without any evidence of sexual activity is pretty darned close.
Click to expand...
OK, I'll reword it.
 
Reba said:
I didn't say that.

Since you didn't answer my question there's no way I can respond to a non-answer post.

You can assume whatever you want but you would be wrong.
Click to expand...

You could respond to the question. You have chosen not to. I answered your question. You just choose not to recognize it.
 
Beowulf said:
The military isn't there yet in "thought policing" but it won't be long now. It has become too powerful.
Click to expand...
My error.

Please let me reword this.

How does this possible future thought policing relate to DADT? How would that be accomplished?
 
jillio said:
You do understand the limitations imposed by "Don't ask, don't tell" don't you?
Click to expand...
Yes.

OK, now please answer:

"What do you mean by 'the way one decides to communicate their personal sexual orientation?'"

Communication is not just about directly asking and telling, so I wanted to be sure I understood you clearly before I responded.
 
Reba said:
My error.

Please let me reword this.

How does this possible future thought policing relate to DADT? How would that be accomplished?
Click to expand...

It could be accomplished any way the military wants. That is what is so scary.
 
souggy said:
Rhetorical questions are still answers.

People don't like them; because they don't want to disgunish an actual question from an answer.
Click to expand...

And because they are designed to illicit information.:P
 
jillio said:
Re-read, please. Beowulf said they aren't there yet. However, dismissing as a result of sexual orientation without any evidence of sexual activity is pretty darned close.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the DADT regulation requires evidence of sexual activity but it's also not about "thoughts" only. If a person only "thought" about sexual orientation, and kept those thoughts to himself or herself, and no one was allowed to ask about them, then there would be nothing to charge against.
 
Reba said:
Yes.

OK, now please answer:

"What do you mean by 'the way one decides to communicate their personal sexual orientation?'"

Communication is not just about directly asking and telling, so I wanted to be sure I understood you clearly before I responded.
Click to expand...

Again, "don't ask don't tell" is designed to mandate the way in which one does, or does not, communicate their sexual orientation.

Any other situation would involve assumption based on observation. That is a whole nuther topic.
 
Reba said:
I don't believe the DADT regulation requires evidence of sexual activity but it's also not about "thoughts" only. If a person only "thought" about sexual orientation, and kept those thoughts to himself or herself, and no one was allowed to ask about them, then there would be nothing to charge against.
Click to expand...

DADT determines that by restriction. That is the whole point.
 
jillio said:
Agreed. Is anyone else reminded of the great contributions made by black soldiers that were not recognized based on race? Lot of similarity there.
Click to expand...
Segregation and racial inequality was definitely a serious long-term problem in the military.

However, what contributions by black soldiers (sailors, airmen, etc.) weren't recognized? Since we know about their contributions from every war since and including the Revolution, obviously someone recognized them and recorded their contributions for posterity.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "recognized." :dunno:

Either way, that's irrelevant to the DADT situation. Black military members were obviously black, and their identity wasn't a DADT situation.

Homosexuals aren't a different race, and those who are serving in the military aren't segregated into separate units. Their accomplishments as individuals are being recognized.

So I don't see any equivalency.
 
Reba said:
Segregation and racial inequality was definitely a serious long-term problem in the military.

However, what contributions by black soldiers (sailors, airmen, etc.) weren't recognized? Since we know about their contributions from every war since and including the Revolution, obviously someone recognized them and recorded their contributions for posterity.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "recognized." :dunno:

Either way, that's irrelevant to the DADT situation. Black military members were obviously black, and their identity wasn't a DADT situation.

Homosexuals aren't a different race, and those who are serving in the military aren't segregated into separate units. Their accomplishments as individuals are being recognized.

So I don't see any equivalency.
Click to expand...

Let me re-phrase. Recognized in retrospect.

It is obvious that you don't see the equivalency. However, discrimination based on any superficial characteristic, be it race or sexual orientation, is still discrimination.
 
Back
Top