Video: Lying is the DADT behavior that's really up for debate!
Standards regarding sexual behavior are in place in the armed forces. Neither a female nor a male soldier can schtoop anyone, anywhere they please. Is this going to change once Don't Ask Don't Tell is repealed? Sir, no, sir.
But forget about this reality for a second, as the far-right needs to co-opt the concept of sexual behavior so that they can justify their resistance to openly LGBT people themselves:
"The issue is about conduct, period"? Well yea, if we're talking about the conduct of a male soldier simply saying, "Oh yea, I'm married -- his name's Jon." Because it's not really our sex lives, generally speaking, that are the major point of contention even under DADT. Our essential truth is what is makes us liable to dicharge!
But of course making everything about our "behavior" is what the folks are all about. Because while these "pro-family" players might be heterosexual, the thing they really want to screw is LGBT equality.
**NOTE: Yes, "homosexual conduct" is banned. The point this post was trying to make (perhaps clumsily) is that under DADT's compromise, the essential being of a person is, in fact, what can and usually does get someone discharged. Sexual behavior is something that the military can and does limit, regardless of gender/orientation. So typically it's a comment or a spotting at a certain establishment or a tip or a note or something related to a gay person's existence that gets them in trouble under DADT, not a certain "behavior."
If you watch any of their vids (if you can stomach it) you'll find that they lie pretty much about everything. At least they're consistent.
Posted by: ZnSD | Mar 12, 2010 12:54:25 PM
As if they have any place to talk with how frequently our female soldiers get raped by other members of their squads.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Mar 12, 2010 2:32:49 PM
Lying is an art.
Posted by: Dale | Mar 12, 2010 3:57:13 PM
The only way that they win this argument is if they can twist "Serve Openly" into "Rampant, State Sponsored, Homo Orgies in the Barracks". The truth doesn't benefit their agenda, so their mantra becomes, "Fuck the TRUTH!"
Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 12, 2010 4:48:28 PM
Sorry, Jeremy, but you are incorrect. This is a frequent misunderstanding of DADT. Homosexual conduct is illegal in the military. DADT just puts limits on how it may be investigated; command can't conduct dragnets and can't initiate investigations without a certain level of evidence.
Posted by: Mike | Mar 12, 2010 5:51:57 PM
Mike: I think we just have a miscommunication from my end. Yes, "conduct" is banned It's not a misunderstanding on this end -- I'm well aware of it.
What I was trying to say is that it's not really sexual conduct that's up for discussion here in the general sense, since there are limits placed on sexual behavior as a whole among service members. Meaning: With or without lifting the explicit ban on gays, behavior is still something that the military can limit and control in various ways. But as of now, where we have gay soldiers who are somewhat free to be gay as long as they are silent, the most direct focus is not on "behavior," as Rabe suggests: It is on the person him or herself on the basis of who they are, not what they do. A simple slip of the tongue or witch hunt into a person's life or even head can lead to a discharge. No behavior needed.
I think I was just clumsy in making my intended point.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 12, 2010 6:21:40 PM
"Homosexual conduct is illegal in the military. DADT just puts limits on how it may be investigated"
Mike, merely being homosexual is also illegal in the military regardless of conduct. That is why a repeal of DADT by itself isn't sufficient. Gay servicemembers need to be free to be homosexual and in the military, exactly the same way that straight personnel are free to be heterosexual.
There currently are limits on how straights may behave as well but nothing that disqualifies them from serving because they are straight. When DADT is repealed, the UCMJ will need to treat gays in every way exactly like straights. Otherwise this is pointless (worse than pointless, it would be more detrimental than DADT), and I doubt that anyone involved in overturning DADT is unaware of that.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 12, 2010 10:34:12 PM
Got it, I understand what you are saying now. That's why the DADT compromise was so stupid.
Posted by: Mike | Mar 13, 2010 12:00:45 AMcomments powered by Disqus