They way I see it, that's why DADT is in place. So they don't have to pretend. Why would it even come up in conversation?
Quite to the contrary, why would it not come up in conversation? You've mentioned elsewhere in this discussion that you don't boast about your conquests and whatnot, but is it so unusual in any situation, military or civilian, to mention that you took the wife/girlfriend/whatever to the museum when you were on leave last weekend? But a person who is gay will have to suddenly carefully choose their words to avoid terms like "companion" or "boy/girlfriend" just because it might hint that they're gay. That goes beyond reasonable expectations of professionalism and becomes a violation of their intrinsic right to be who they are.
Regarding that last bit, I don't know what to say. I will agree that having been a civilian all of my life most likely does color the way that I see the issue, but what do you think that sounds like to me? Your Special Forces friend is saying that he doesn't trust somebody simply because they're gay.
Ultimately, the problem with DADT is not that it keeps people from showing up for their shift in chartreuse fatigues. That person is not suited for the military, the same as any straight person who can't handle the military structure. The problem with DADT is that it is that perfectly good soldiers have to be constantly vigilant to keep themselves from saying something that might raise an eyebrow. If anything, it would cause them to fall short of their potential because of the need for constant secrecy about something that they shouldn't have to be secretive about in this day and age. I think kat_rowe is making this point much better than I.
no subject
Quite to the contrary, why would it not come up in conversation? You've mentioned elsewhere in this discussion that you don't boast about your conquests and whatnot, but is it so unusual in any situation, military or civilian, to mention that you took the wife/girlfriend/whatever to the museum when you were on leave last weekend? But a person who is gay will have to suddenly carefully choose their words to avoid terms like "companion" or "boy/girlfriend" just because it might hint that they're gay. That goes beyond reasonable expectations of professionalism and becomes a violation of their intrinsic right to be who they are.
Regarding that last bit, I don't know what to say. I will agree that having been a civilian all of my life most likely does color the way that I see the issue, but what do you think that sounds like to me? Your Special Forces friend is saying that he doesn't trust somebody simply because they're gay.
Ultimately, the problem with DADT is not that it keeps people from showing up for their shift in chartreuse fatigues. That person is not suited for the military, the same as any straight person who can't handle the military structure. The problem with DADT is that it is that perfectly good soldiers have to be constantly vigilant to keep themselves from saying something that might raise an eyebrow. If anything, it would cause them to fall short of their potential because of the need for constant secrecy about something that they shouldn't have to be secretive about in this day and age. I think