# Gates to unveil plan to abandon 'don't ask, don't tell'



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 2, 2010)

*Gates to unveil plan to abandon 'don't ask, don't tell'*


*STORY HIGHLIGHTS*


 Plan to abandon  policy will go before the Senate Armed Services Committee
  'Don't ask, don't tell' was implemented 15 years ago under the Clinton  administration
 Plan to repeal policy regarding gays in the  military has met mixed reviews



> During last week's State of the Union address, President Obama made  clear he wanted a change.
> "This year, I will work with Congress  and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the  right to serve the country they love because of who they are," he said,  to a healthy round of partisan applause.
> The Joint Chiefs of Staff sat stone-faced as the  president made the announcement and have been quiet on the matter since  the State of the Union speech.
> A senior Pentagon official told  CNN the military leaders are expected to support the president, but also  will tell him to what extent they think allowing gays to openly serve  will hurt the morale and readiness of the force.
> "All they want  is a little bit of time" to come up with ideas on how to implement a  change in the policy, if it's approved by Congress, the official said of  the Joint Chiefs.





> "'Don't ask, don't tell' to many people, including myself, seemed so  reasonable," Alex Nicholson, a former Army intelligence officer  discharged for being gay, told CNN's "American Morning."
> "I knew I  was gay going in, and I knew about 'don't ask, don't tell,' but you  know, 'don't ask, don't tell' as a sound bite sounds very reasonable. It  sounds like nobody will inquire as to your sexual orientation -- as  long as you don't throw it in anyone's face, you won't have a problem.
> "But after I got in, I realized that 'don't ask, don't tell' was  much more all-inclusive and all-encompassing," said Nicholson, who now  is the executive director of Servicemembers United, an advocacy group  that opposes the policy. "It was more like 'don't ask, don't tell, don't  happen to be found out any time, any place, in any way.'





> Since the policy was implemented, more than 13,500 service members  have been discharged, according to Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia. In 2009,  there were 428 discharges under the policy -- the lowest rate of  discharge since implementation of the policy, he said. The highest year  was 2001, with 1,227 discharges, he said.
> "This shows that during  wartime, DADT is not being pursued aggressively because one's  orientation has nothing to do with their ability to fight," Moran said  in a written statement Monday.
> Defense officials have said  privately that the will to enforce the law is declining.





> Nicholson predicted the matter will become a "non-issue," saying his  organization knows of gays serving openly in the military now.
> Asked  whether he would return to the military if the policy is repealed,  Nicholson said he would not hesitate and that he has wanted to return  since his discharge in 2002.
> "I speak five  languages, including Arabic," he said. "There's nothing more that I'd  love than to go back right now."




Won't work.  The average person in the military will most likely stop shooting at the enemy and start shooting our own troops. After all, only backwards redneck prudes become marines, and only unthinking robots become regular army. The navy will of course be surprised to find as expected they're almost entirely gay and will start putting cute little curtains up on all the destroyers and a doily under each round in the ammo locker.  Also, the Air Force will finally not feel goofy wearing that goofy long scarf and waxed mustaches.

*/sarcasm


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 2, 2010)

> The Joint Chiefs of Staff sat stone-faced as the president made the announcement and have been quiet on the matter since the State of the Union speech.



<Meddling Canadian Alert on!>

Bob's tongue-in-cheek comments above notwithstanding, apart from some grumbling in the ranks, I don't think the President's biggest opposition will be from the military itself. I suspect his plan will embolden the religious right into action. Like Clinton, he will face the criticism that as someone who as not served in the military, he is not qualified to command it (apart from being elected to do so, and all). Then there will be the discussion about how this is the wrong time to do it.

I also think he will back down or submit to some compromise that renders the effort meaningless.

 <Meddling Canadian Alert off!>


----------



## geezer (Feb 2, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> Bob's tongue-in-cheek comments above notwithstanding, apart from some grumbling in the ranks, I don't think the President's biggest opposition will be from the military itself. I suspect his plan will embolden the religious right into action...


 
You're probably right about the religious right, but I don't think Obama will drop this one. He may just move along a bit more slowly than I'd like. From what I've seen as a high school teacher, Young Americans have come a long way on this issue from the Clinton days. I really think it's time to take this step. Or we could just go on discriminating and kicking perfectly qualified people out of the military while we show the rest of the world how much we respect "liberty and justice for all". Ha.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 2, 2010)

With an all-volunteer military whose enlisted ranks consist primarily of conservative males from the lower end of the economic scale, I think that there are two questions they need to contend with.  First, will a change to the policy result in a substantial decrease in the number of voluntary enlistments?  This is the readiness question.  Second, will a change to the policy result in an increase of violence or alienation among service members?  This is the morale question.  Actual assaults aside (and FYI incidences of off-duty racial assaults are still fairly common despite the overall success of integration in the services), there's the disturbing possibility that one may find oneself in a firefight surrounded by a team who doesn't care whether one lives or dies.  

If it can be found that these concerns are unfounded, we will see a change in policy.  If a change is made without consideration to these issues then measures will have to be taken to deal with the fallout.  A draft would handle the first issue.  I think the assault issue could be handled easily enough through the military justice system provided that the chain of command enforces it.  The thing is that you can pass any rule or law that you want, but you can't always factor in the myriad ways that people will respond to it.


----------



## Brian King (Feb 2, 2010)

I am of a more cynical American point of view. I am wondering at the bringing up of an issue that is not apparently much of an issue at this time. The timing of the announcement is meant in my opinion to reenergize the extreme left of the Democratic party and bolster their flagging support for President Obama after all the recent losses and setbacks he has suffered. I think he is hoping to get the right to help him re-ignite the passions of those supporters and is willing further split the country to satisfy his political need. 

Brian


----------



## Carol (Feb 2, 2010)

I am also suspicious of the timing, although I strongly support abandoning Don't Ask Don't Tell.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2010)

It's been legal in our armed forces to be gay for quite a while now, nobody seems really bothered. We have same sex couples who have a civil partnership living together in married quarters and most of our  accomodation now is single bedsit type rooms so it doesn't impinge on anyone what your sexual orientation is and frankly it has been known that squaddies will shag most things with a pulse even sometimes without lol! I think our guys and girls are secure enough in their own sexuality that they don't feel threatened by gays at all. It's old news now, training for deployment and equipment needs are far more pressing matters.

It may be too that the working class in this country is far more likely to be socialist ie vote Labour than be conservative.


----------



## David43515 (Feb 2, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> With an all-volunteer military whose enlisted ranks consist primarily of conservative males from the lower end of the economic scale, I think that there are two questions they need to contend with. First, will a change to the policy result in a substantial decrease in the number of voluntary enlistments? This is the readiness question. Second, will a change to the policy result in an increase of violence or alienation among service members? This is the morale question. Actual assaults aside (and FYI incidences of off-duty racial assaults are still fairly common despite the overall success of integration in the services), there's the disturbing possibility that one may find oneself in a firefight surrounded by a team who doesn't care whether one lives or dies.
> 
> If it can be found that these concerns are unfounded, we will see a change in policy. If a change is made without consideration to these issues then measures will have to be taken to deal with the fallout. A draft would handle the first issue. I think the assault issue could be handled easily enough through the military justice system provided that the chain of command enforces it. The thing is that you can pass any rule or law that you want, but you can't always factor in the myriad ways that people will respond to it.


 
I guess I`m a member of what many would call the religious right, but frankly speaking I could care less about anyone else`s sexual orientation. I have enough weaknesses of my own that I don`t need to waste time hypocritcally pointing out weaknesses in others. 

But Cory brings up some good questions to consider. Namely will it make any practical differences good or bad? (I`ve no idea, but I would hope the situation would be like Tez described it in the UK...everyone getting on with thier job and not really caring one way or another.) The military is the one place in life that practical concerns have to always take president. Cory`S questions reminded me of an old saying among engineers. "What`s the difference between theory and practice? Well, in theory, there is no difference."


----------



## The Last Legionary (Feb 2, 2010)

Sgt Rico, I want you and your men to take that hill. Can you do it Rico?

Sorry Captain, but I got 4 turd burglars in my unit and it's just broken us. Pvt. Harkins, the one with the muscles, he's a a salad tosser Sir. Spent last week putting curtains up in the barracks and missed the mission briefing. 

Damn it, it was so much better when we didn't know and the general population thought we were too stupid to figure it out. For ****s sake Jenkins, will you stop painting flowers and smilie faces on the MX and listen to me!


Why do I think that most of the fears will go away once they bring back or can keep thousands of in demand specialists and can better kick the *** of our enemies?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2010)

Brian said:


> I am of a more cynical American point of view. I am wondering at the bringing up of an issue that is not apparently much of an issue at this time. The timing of the announcement is meant in my opinion to reenergize the extreme left of the Democratic party and bolster their flagging support for President Obama after all the recent losses and setbacks he has suffered. I think he is hoping to get the right to help him re-ignite the passions of those supporters and is willing further split the country to satisfy his political need.
> 
> Brian



Correct.  Obama has been trying to assure the GBLT community that he has not forgotten his promises to them that earned him their support in the election, while they have been becoming louder and angrier, especially as recent state bans on homosexual marriage were enacted.  In the meantime, his approval numbers are dropping like a stone, and the deficit looks like a moon rocket; the kind we no longer will have in the case of NASA.  The recent debacle with health care reform, which ended with a thud the day the Democrats lost their super-majority in the Senate, has led directly to Democratic politicians announcing their retirements or to their suddenly backing away from the President, as their poll numbers have shown them to be about one step away from public tarring and feathering.

He had to do something bold to get some of his supporters back under the tent, or he risked open rebellion.

It is is, as the man recently said, a 'red herring'.  It is meant to distract, nothing more.  A grand gesture, a loud noise, symbolizing nothing.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2010)

Why is there the assumption that gay men are also effiminate? The gay men I know in the military aren't in the least and as the service accomodation comes with really good furnishings including double beds and en suite bathrooms there isn't the slightest need for anyone to go doolally about curtains and such like. Even trainees have their own bed space, cupboards etc in a four man room. 
The days of spartan (yes I use that word advisedly) accomodation, 12 men to a room, basic facilties and 'you're in the army now' attitude should have well and truly gone. Todays service personnel are professional and have the right to expect decnt living accomodation, decent leisure facilites and a standard of life on par with civilians. They can still maintain  high standards of discipline, professionalism and integrity if they are treated as intelligent human beings, in fact they perform better. The question of who is gay doesn't arise when everyone is expected to be professional. Its just a matter of respect. It's taught in basic training, servicepeople know what is expected of them and they know the standards they are expected to reach, these standards they often exceed, not because they are pushed to it but because they have self respect and self worth. Frankly whinging about gays in the forces is soft and namby pamby, it's like the bleating of sheep rather than the roaring of lions. The attitude here is bacically 'who gives a flying ****, we're all in this together' and that is exactly how it should be. 
Oh and we have very few assaults, rapes or sexual harrassment of female service personnel either for all the same reasons. Again it comes down to professional training and standards.

why not watch this and see if you can tell who is gay? 
http://www.army.mod.uk/training_education/training/18145.aspx

Training is exactly how you see it here, quiet professionalism.


(It also shows something that was brought up on another thread...bayonet training.)

I think perhaps British soldiers are trained to be more independant perhaps than most armies, they keep a lot of their individuality, this is also something that comes from the regimental system where regiments have traditions dating back hundreds of years and each is different with it's own character. the corps too have thier traditions and individual ways of working. regiments and Corps are like families where it's easier perhaps to 'be yourself' whatever that is.


The Beharry Centre seen in video named after Johnson Beharry VC, the proof the training works.
http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/bbbeharr.htm


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 2, 2010)

"the assumption that gay men are also effiminate? "
It's a commentary on the stereotype. Most of the gays I know are as "normal" as anyone else.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> "the assumption that gay men are also effiminate? "
> It's a commentary on the* stereotype*. Most of the gays I know are as "normal" as anyone else.


 

Sadly true but people need to get over it.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 2, 2010)

When yoou're lying in the dirt, ans the s**t has hit the fan, there's only one question I'd ask the guy next to me. Can you kill the SOBs bearing down on us?

Everything else is immaterial.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is is, as the man recently said, a 'red herring'.  It is meant to distract, nothing more.  A grand gesture, a loud noise, symbolizing nothing.



To you, perhaps.
To the thousands of gays / bis / lesbians in the military, this is a monumental issue.
If someone is good enough to kill or die for his or her country, it would probably be a decent thing to allow those who wish to to come out of the closet without risking instant dismissal.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> To you, perhaps.
> To the thousands of gays / bis / lesbians in the military, this is a monumental issue.
> If someone is good enough to kill or die for his or her country, it would probably be a decent thing to allow those who wish to to come out of the closet without risking instant dismissal.


 

Especially when a lot of those criticising gays aren't willing to go that far for their country!


----------



## xJOHNx (Feb 3, 2010)

Tez, that clip is amazing.
A high level of professionalism in the British Army. Makes me regret I didn't join.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2010)

Thanks John! Its probably not fair to compare the British and the Amercian armies, ours is a small force which probably makes it easier to train and give the recruits the attention they need such to turn out high standard soldiers. Education is a big part of their training and often the recruits will have gone to an army college when they were sixteen to brush up on all their academic skills. 
From day one it's understood that people comes from various ethinic backgrounds and have different sexual orientations but the important thing is that they get stuck into their training. the general attitude outside the forces is one of not bothering an awful lot about peoples sexual orientation, there are many who don't agree or like gays but it's something you keep to yourself like other subjects such as religion, nudity, sex and abortion all things that seem to work Americans up to a frothy mouthed state! for somewhere that has a Constitution and is keen on all this independance etc you get really concerned about what other peoples beliefs and activities are whereas us 'socialist' countries don't really care lol!


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Especially when a lot of those criticising gays aren't willing to go that far for their country!


 
Interesting point, Tez. 

Caught this in the news yesterday... The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has come out (so to speak) in favour of abolishing "Don't ask..."



> February 3, 2010
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
As well, former Joint Chief Colin Powell has changed his thinking on the matter...



> In 1993, Powell called the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy a "healthy compromise." But in December 2008, Powell said that the ban on gays serving openly should be reviewed.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2010)

Remember when they said women shouldn't be out on the frontline etc?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-leg-Captain-Kate-Philp-talks-to-The-Sun.html


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Remember when they said women shouldn't be out on the frontline etc?
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-leg-Captain-Kate-Philp-talks-to-The-Sun.html


 
When I joined up some years ago, during the selection phase out in Gagetown, I was in the section with the first women being considered for frontline combat duty. (There were 8 of us in the section, 4 women and 4 men) 

We went through hell together. Near the end they interviewed us all like crazy to get a feel for what we thought about the women. All of us said the samething, "as long as they can do the job, gender doesn't matter."

Two of the four women never made it to basic, one made it to armour school, and I have no idea what happened to the other one.

Really? Gay, female, straight male, even if you like ABBA, you should be allowed to serve your country in the military.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm a hockey fan and there are also no openly gay people in the NHL playing. People say 'i wont change with a gay person' Its as if people think gays are all promiscuous and wanting to cop a feel at any opportunity or something. There's that common belief too.

I change all the time with a lesbian Brown Belt at my dojo. There's a bunch of us girls - brown belts, one black belt, and a white belt who's almost yellow belt (me) One of the brown belts is gay. and we never worry 'is she looking at me' whats she thinking' We're all mature young women and she isnt interested in any of us anyway. We're all good friends, we train together and that is that. why should it be different in the military? Honestly I think people who think 'i wont change with a gay person' 'i wont work with them if i knew they were gay' seriously need to grow up and get over themselves.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Remember when they said women shouldn't be out on the frontline etc?
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-leg-Captain-Kate-Philp-talks-to-The-Sun.html


 
I read somewhere, and I can't find the article, that there were two main concerns with women on the front line.  The first concern would be the treatment they would receive if captured by the enemy, since there are obvious abuses that men would not normally receive.  The second concern was more interesting, and tbh it's something I would not have considered.  Apparently there's some evidence that having women on the front line leads to an increase in the number of combat atrocities.  The hypothesis is that if the males see a female teammate killed, it provokes anger and personalization of the fight to a degree that seeing another male killed doesn't.  Obviously there isn't a lot of data for them to use, though they did use Israel as a source since they by necessity have a fully integrated force.  I wish I could find that article.


----------



## geezer (Feb 3, 2010)

Brian said:


> I am of a more cynical American point of view. I am wondering at the bringing up of an issue that is not apparently much of an issue at this time. The timing of the announcement is meant in my opinion to reenergize the extreme left of the Democratic party and bolster their flagging support for President Obama after all the recent losses and setbacks he has suffered. I think he is hoping to get the right to help him re-ignite the passions of those supporters and is willing further split the country to satisfy his political need. Brian


 
In general, I'd say your perspective is more _realistic_ than cynical. Successful politicians need to take all these factors into consideration. In other words, _of course_ there are political reasons why the President is broaching this hot-button issue at this particular time. But regardless of timing, getting rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" was one of his campaign promises, and it is high time this inequitable and unworkable policy was thrown out. If that re-energizes Obama's base, all the better for him. 

As far as "splitting the country", I think we can find a lot of blame to pass around there. I'd start by looking at the sensationalist talk-jocks in the media! With the Senate's "super majority" gone, Obama needs to unify the country a bit more. If he can't build a little more bi-partisanship in Congress, his administration is dead in the water. Now that may please some on the far right, but it's not good for the nation.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> I read somewhere, and I can't find the article, that there were two main concerns with women on the front line. The first concern would be the treatment they would receive if captured by the enemy, since there are obvious abuses that men would not normally receive. The second concern was more interesting, and tbh it's something I would not have considered. Apparently there's some evidence that having women on the front line leads to an increase in the number of combat atrocities. The hypothesis is that if the males see a female teammate killed, it provokes anger and personalization of the fight to a degree that seeing another male killed doesn't. Obviously there isn't a lot of data for them to use, though they did use Israel as a source since they by necessity have a fully integrated force. I wish I could find that article.


 

Israel doesn't have a fully integrated force and it's not a 'proper' army to judge others by. The IDF is basically the whole country having to fight for it's survival, there's no voluntary joining up, people shooting at you means you have to shoot back regardless of sex or sexual orientation.

The idea of women on the front line causing more atrocities is unlikely to be honest at least in the British army. As I mentioned before the regimental system here means that friends, brothers fathers, uncles etc etc are in the same regiment, many have grown up in the regiment and their ancestors were in it going back in some cases to the 17th century. daughters and sisters marry in the regiment too so you have a very close knit family community that fights together, you will be on the front line with your brother, unlce, brother in law etc which is far more likely to cause men to fighter harder etc than the fact a woman is on the front line. 
Properly trained and discplined troops aren't so stupid to go berserk just because the person killed is a woman, they could go berserk if a colleague, a fellow soldier regardless of sex is killed or they as is more likely will revert to their training and take out the enemy.

The answer as always is education and *good training*.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Israel doesn't have a fully integrated force and it's not a 'proper' army to judge others by. The IDF is basically the whole country having to fight for it's survival, there's no voluntary joining up, people shooting at you means you have to shoot back regardless of sex or sexual orientation.


 
I'm not going to debate your other points because what I wrote wasn't necessarily my viewpoint, but rather something I read that sounded interesting.  I'm just curious how you can describe the IDF as "the whole country having to fight for it's survival" while simultaneously disputing that it is fully integrated?


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 3, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> I'm not going to debate your other points because what I wrote wasn't necessarily my viewpoint, but rather something I read that sounded interesting. I'm just curious how you can describe the IDF as "the whole country having to fight for it's survival" while simultaneously disputing that it is fully integrated?


 

Because everybody does their tour and everybody remains in the reserves. 

It is not fully integrated because Israel has not had women in front line combat roles since after the 1948 war. 

The flip side is that having women available to fill in the support roles gives you more men available for combat roles.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Because everybody does their tour and everybody remains in the reserves.
> 
> It is not fully integrated because Israel has not had women in front line combat roles since after the 1948 war.
> 
> The flip side is that having women available to fill in the support roles gives you more men available for combat roles.


 

Cheers for that!
 It's often quoted, wrongly, that the Israelis had women in the tanks but took them out because the men were finding it impossible.Women have never been in the Israeli tank corps.

Some of my MA students are in a tank regiment, they have a couple of gay men in ther battalion and no one is bothered about being in the close confines of the tanks with them and it is close with the haed of one chap being almost in the groin of another so if they can ignore all that, which would be uncomfortable in all senses of the word with two straight men, when its a gay man the american forces I'm sure will manage fine. 

Cory I wasn't debating with you or being on the opposte side, just answering the post.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> To you, perhaps.
> To the thousands of gays / bis / lesbians in the military, this is a monumental issue.
> If someone is good enough to kill or die for his or her country, it would probably be a decent thing to allow those who wish to to come out of the closet without risking instant dismissal.



Yes, that's true.  I'm just saying that it is coming at this moment for reasons that have little to nothing to do with the issue, important though it is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Especially when a lot of those criticising gays aren't willing to go that far for their country!



Please.  I served six years in the Marines.  I have earned the right to criticize policy if anyone has.

And I'm not criticizing gays.  I'm not even criticizing the change in policy.  However, I do note that there are 'hot button' issues which one is not allowed to challenge by PC convention without being a 'homophobe' or a 'racist' or 'sexist'.

Am I allowed to hold an opinion that is contrary to the PC crowd without being anti-gay, or must I be a homophobe if I have an opinion that some gay people might not like?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 4, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Please. I served six years in the Marines. I have earned the right to criticize policy if anyone has.
> 
> And I'm not criticizing gays. I'm not even criticizing the change in policy. However, I do note that there are 'hot button' issues which one is not allowed to challenge by PC convention without being a 'homophobe' or a 'racist' or 'sexist'.
> 
> Am I allowed to hold an opinion that is contrary to the PC crowd without being anti-gay, or must I be a homophobe if I have an opinion that some gay people might not like?


 
Nobody was attacking you or even thinking about you when the posts were made. I don't know why you thought it was aimed at you.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 4, 2010)

I'm sure I've posted this before. It's a scene from The West Wing tv series in which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs questions a subordinate on his opinion of allowing gays to serve openly in the military.



> *"The West Wing: Let Bartlet Be Bartlet (#1.19)" (2000)*
> 
> _Major Tate_:   Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
> _Admiral Percy Fitzwallace_:   You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
> ...


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 4, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> I'm sure I've posted this before. It's a scene from The West Wing tv series in which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs questions a subordinate on his opinion of allowing gays to serve openly in the military.


 
It's a fair point but consider for a moment that the situation 50 years ago was quite a bit different than it is today.  First, there was a draft which meant that they didn't have to worry about white service members choosing not to enlist.  Second, the military pretty much had carte blanche to enforce discipline in any way it saw fit.  

The fact is that when people are free to make their own choices, you have to take their opinions seriously even if you don't agree with them.  The Mass. election is a clear example of that.  Try to force something that people don't agree with, and they will exercise their choice not to participate.  Now, it may be that these concerns are misplaced.  That's why they need to have a study, to gauge what the likely response will be.


----------



## geezer (Feb 5, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Try to force something that people don't agree with, and they will exercise their choice not to participate. Now, it may be that these concerns are misplaced. That's why they need to have a study, to gauge what the likely response will be.


 
OK, do a study, get good data and come up with a sensible plan to move forward. Then do the right thing. If fewer homophobes enter the military, and we come up a bit short... then sweeten the deal and attract a better grade of soldiers. Do what it takes. People will adjust.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 5, 2010)

As long as you are devoted to serving your country, I could care less about what you find attractive. The whole thing was dumb at its inception.


----------



## K831 (Feb 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> As long as you are devoted to serving your country, I could care less about what you find attractive. The whole thing was dumb at its inception.



I don't think it was ever about who was attracted to who. It was about culture and "esprit de corps" which is a massive aspect of what makes an organization such as the Marines, Army etc work and remain strong. 

The issue was more about inclusion and synergy amongst troops, unity and morale than anything else. Most guys fight for the other guys in their unit more than anything else. They create bonds withing units that are uncommon outside of such a culture. A rift in that dynamic could be catastrophic to the organization accomplishing its task, and that is what the concern was. 

I'm not advocating either side, however, from an organizational behavior point of view, I can absolutely understand the concern. Looking at it objectively, the questions isn't "is it right" but much more "is it effective, what is the cost, what is best for the organization and its ability to accomplish its given tasks".

Not to mention the whole "contrary to good order and discipline" aspect.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 7, 2010)

I think many are estimating the service people when they say they are fearful of change etc, I think sometimes its actually downright insulting. Do you really think that people don't know who is gay in their units and that in reality it doesn't make any difference that they are? I'm betting that most unsits have gay people in them and that if being gay is made lagel it doesn't change the dynamic at all. You don't go on deployments, into wars, get shot at etc etc without knowing whats going on with your colleagues. Trust me, make being gay legal and in a year or two you will wonder what all the fuss is about.


----------



## geezer (Feb 7, 2010)

K831 said:


> Most guys fight for the other guys in their unit more than anything else. They create bonds withing units that are uncommon outside of such a culture. A rift in that dynamic could be *catastrophic* to the organization accomplishing its task, and that is what the concern was.


 
Yeah, Jason you have a point, but I think people really do underestimate the "common" soldier... as Tez pointed out. I don't believe that we Americans are really that backward compared to the Brits and Canadians, and they've moved beyond this issue.

Another thing. To a large degree, military "effectiveness" is linked to "what's right". Who wants to fight in an army that enforces "what's wrong"? Having the sense that you represent what is right, good, and just is a tremendous moral booster.

Finally, my dad was in the service back when it was racially segregated and first became integrated. He said that some people did have a hard time adjusting. But eventually they adjusted. I personally had a student who came from an Aryan Brotherhood background. He was majorly bigoted, and it caused some issues in the classroom. Well, he went on to join the Marines and served in Iraq. I saw him again a couple of years ago. A changed man. He told me about how one of his black Marine "brothers" saved his **** under fire. Yes, the guy still likes off-color jokes, but he's not a bigot anymore. In fact, I was really proud of him. In time, the same thing will happen after they dump "Don't ask don't tell".


----------



## K831 (Feb 7, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Trust me, make being gay legal and in a year or two you will wonder what all the fuss is about.



Being gay is illegal? 

This is part of the problem that I think many are missing. Steve Chapman, in a piece for the Chicago Tribune begins his piece with disingenuous framing. That the issue is about "allowing gays in the military" &#8230;.

There are homosexual men and women in the military now. The issue is the extent to which it needs to be discussed. 


I can see both sides of that coin, I just wish they would frame the argument around the actual issue.


geezer said:


> Yeah, Jason you have a point, but I think people really do underestimate the "common" soldier...
> I don't believe that we Americans are really that backward...



I understand where both you and tez are coming from, but I think the way you both are stating it is a bit loaded. 

From a completely objective point of view, words like "underestimate" and "backwards" are clearly working from the position that the inherent or absolute truth is that there is nothing morally or psychologically wrong with homosexual acts and that as such, there is no reason people who participate in those acts should keep quite about that. 

The problem is, not everyone believes that, and, so far as I can tell, the majority of our military servicemen believe otherwise (as well as many of our general population). 






geezer said:


> Another thing. To a large degree, military "effectiveness" is linked to "what's right". Who wants to fight in an army that enforces "what's wrong"? Having the sense that you represent what is right, good, and just is a tremendous moral booster.



This is absoulutely correct. So, given this, how are we to expect all of the military men and women who feel that homosexuality is sinful (religiously or morally) or "deviant" in terms of mental health or biological evolution? 

In that situation, we are asking them to fight in an army that allows what is "wrong".

The military concern lies in the fact that studies show the majority of the members feel that way, and as such cohesion, morale, unity etc would suffer. 

If that is that case, why should the desires of outside politicians trump the military's choice to keep the "Don't ask, don't tell policy" in effect when it is in line with the majority of its members? It allows gays to serve if they want to , it disallows them to talk about it. 




geezer said:


> Finally, my dad was in the service back when it was racially segregated and first became integrated. He said that some people did have a hard time adjusting. But eventually they adjusted.



Again, this line of thinking operates from the default position that being gay is just as biological as being born black. (I'm not trying to argue for or against this point, rather, frame the argument as both sides see it).

Many people don't believe that, but rather, that it is a choice, a behavior you indulge in or a sin, etc etc. 

There is no choice regarding race, and no "behavior" resulting from ones race that may be viewed as "illicit" or "immoral" "deviant" or "sinful".  

  I think it is important to look at the issue from both sides. 

  I can&#8217;t answer the effect that this would have on the military, so I simply try to get a clear picture of both sides of the argument. 
  My biggest issue with the whole thing is timing. It seems to be a non-issue for most, and I can&#8217;t help but think that Obama simply brought up an issue he thought would energize his disenchanted base, and to deflect attention from the many things he promised us and has gone back on. I don't like disingenuous mentions of such issues.


----------



## K831 (Feb 7, 2010)

Some of you may find the comments under this piece interesting:

http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/read/1/564886.html

A fair amount military personnel sharing their thoughts.


----------



## Scott T (Feb 8, 2010)

As long as there are countries out there like Canada and the UK that have gays serving openly in the military without having a negative impact on unit cohesion or morale, the whole argument that the pro-DADT crowd beaks off on completely falls apart, revealing it for the shallow bull**** that it is. Is the ( male) American soldier really that insecure in his masculinity compared to the soldiers of those other nations that fighting alongside a gay guy will throw him off his game?

I doubt it. 

I think it's more the fear of geriatric fat-fart politicians who have their own fudge-packing relationship with the religious right that's more determined to keep DADT on the books.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 8, 2010)

How about a couple of simple facts:

1) many armed forces in the world make no bones about being gay or not. And they're operating just fine.
2) it is etimated that about 10% of the people are homosexual, though some repress their feelings for the sake of fitting in, and some stay in the closet. Given that,  gays and lesbians are already fighting in the US armed forces, and have proven their valor. 

So what is the fuss all about? Gays are fighting in the military already. Acknowledging that fact will not tear up existing units, since most will already have a fair idea of who is gay and who isn't.

It seems to me that the people outside make far more of an issue out of it than the people on the inside. In which case I would say: if you care so much, why don't you pick up a gun and fight? Because otherwise, you are depending on them to fight for you. Beggars can't be choosers. Gift horse and so on...


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2010)

K831, being gay is your forces is illegal because a law was passed excluding gays from joining up, the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is a sop only. If someone is discovered to be gay they will still be disciplined and removed from service often 'dishonourably' losing all benefits.

America is just about the only country in NATO (probably the world too actually) now that doesn't allow gays into it's military ranks, it also has worrying figures for being anti female and from what an American officer has told me recently it has political and religious leanings not found in other NATO forces. That is probably a discussion best held among yourself about how desirable it is to have senior military officers so involved in political processes but it may have bearing on this subject in that being gay one wouldn't normally align yourself with far right wing Christian groups so perhaps they are afraid more of losing a source of support?


----------



## geezer (Feb 8, 2010)

K831 said:


> I understand where both you and tez are coming from, but I think *the way you both are stating it is a bit loaded.*
> 
> From a completely objective point of view, words like "underestimate" and "backwards" are clearly working from the position that *the inherent or absolute truth is that there is nothing morally or psychologically wrong with homosexual acts* and that as such, there is no reason people who participate in those acts should keep quite about that.
> 
> ...


 
Jason, you are quite right. I am coming from the point of view that we, as a diverse and pluralistic society, cannot assert a single, narrow-minded system of puritanical Christian morality on our citizens. We can choose to follow those beliefs ourselves, but we must tolerate the beliefs and legal actions of others. Otherwise we become no different from the taliban, and other intolerant extremist groups. So, while I cannot say that it is the "absolute truth" that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts, I can say that I believe we as a society must either choose to be tolerant and accept the principle of individual freedom, or drop the pretention of being inclusive and impose the cultural and religious beliefs of one group on all. 

I've heard social conservatives complain, _"Why should I have to accept gays and lesbians forcing their values on me?"_ The answer is they don't! It is one thing to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but to accept the rights of others to do as they choose, and another thing altogether to insist that all people live according to your own code. In the first case you are just accepting different points of view. It is the second perspective, _and only the second_, that imposes one point of view on everybody. And, that is what the current anti-gay policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" does.

Finally... why do I go on about this. Well, because at a deep level, I'm still a bit _homophobic_. I've carried that with me since I was a kid. And I work every day to get over it and see my friends, straight and gay, just as people. Hell, if a closet "Cracker" like me can get over it... so can other folks.


----------



## K831 (Feb 8, 2010)

You're post brings up some interesting questions. I wouldn't consider myself part of the "religious right" for many reasons. One, their approach drives me nuts, I often find it overzelous in the wrong areas and often disingenuous. However, my life is based around "Christian values" and even though I hate the broad titles, I consider myself "conservative"  (more fiscally than socially).

So, while I agree with much of what you are saying, it does present some problems for me;



geezer said:


> Jason, you are quite right. I am coming from the point of view that we, as a diverse and pluralistic society, cannot assert a single, narrow-minded system of puritanical Christian morality on our citizens.



This is a fine line for me. I am not over excited about the legislating of morality because my faith asserts that every man has the right to choose good or evil, and should not be forced either way, however, "legislating morality" is an inherent and integral part of any set of laws. 

Currently, we find the notion of taking something from another citizen by force or by fraud, simply because you can, to be "immoral" or "unethical". As such we have created laws against it. There are cultures (currently and throughout history) who do not feel that way. Many in our on country do not feel that way, yet we enforce one view of the morality of said actions...



geezer said:


> We can choose to follow those beliefs ourselves, but we must tolerate the beliefs and legal actions of others.



Can we? I'm not being argumentative here, as this is something I have often considered. How can you really adhere to a set of beliefs, and at the same time simply condone actions or behaviors you find to be wrong, hurtful etc?  

Tolerating is broadly defined. I think you can be kind, charitable and helpful to others without "tolerating" their behavior. 

I don't tolerate drug use. I find it to be a significant social ill that causes far more damage to society and individuals than any good it can cause. As such, I don't tolerate the behavior. I am out spoken against it. But that dosen't mean I am intolerant of the individual or unkind or unhelpful etc... I think we can separate the individual and the behavior.





geezer said:


> So, while I cannot say that it is the "absolute truth" that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts, I can say that I believe we as a society must either choose to be tolerant and accept the principle of individual freedom, or drop the pretention of being inclusive and impose the cultural and religious beliefs of one group on all.


 


Again a very fine line. I am in agreement that "we" should not force all our individual, religious or cultural views on others. 

But we do, many times, in most every law we make, in every agenda we push. We use different arguments  to do this. Utilitarianism/greatest good for the greatest number/individualism and so on.  

So the question is, where does it stop? 

All "ism's" do this; Environmentalism is a great example, and in my opinion, is really just a religion. The believers on the extreme end want to force their beliefs and values on others in the name of the "greater good of the planet" regardless of scientific data or the effectiveness of policy. 

Are they to be "tolerant" of culture and beliefs of the person who see's nothing wrong with driving a gas guzzling SUV or taking her quad into the mountains? They don't, do they? 



geezer said:


> I've heard social conservatives complain, _"Why should I have to accept gays and lesbians forcing their values on me?"_ The answer is they don't! It is one thing to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but to accept the rights of others to do as they choose, and another thing altogether to insist that all people live according to your own code.



No one on either side tows this line though. I have several homosexual friends and relatives. They push their agenda, they want it on TV, they want it taught in schools, they want everyone to think it is ok. They do not want to just be left alone to do as they please in their bedrooms. 

They are proactive, and as such, all those holding opposing views will be as well. 

My siblings, and children of friends, have come home from school having been taught that it is "okay" for Johnny to have two dad's an that it is just as normal and healthy as having a mom and dad. Where was the "tolerance" for the opinion of these families who feel the opposite? 

Why isn't creationism taught in school as an opposing view point? Why can't the religious kid sit down and bless his food at lunch time at school and be "tolerated"? So long as other kids are allowed to eat without saying prayers. That is fair right? 

I agree with, you in principle, but I don't think either side wants to tolerate the other. Every aspect of our society is forcing some opinion or belief set on another. 

I think it is about accepting individuals, I don't think you have to accept or condone their behavior. 





geezer said:


> Finally... why do I go on about this. Well, because at a deep level, I'm still a bit _homophobic_. I've carried that with me since I was a kid. And I work every day to get over it and see my friends, straight and gay, just as people. Hell, if a closet "Cracker" like me can get over it... so can other folks.



And I think you should see them just as people, because they are. I don't think that means you have to see their behavior "just as behavior". 

As I mentioned above, I have homosexual friends and relatives. I love them. They are wonderful, talented people in many ways. I do not condone their behavior. I think the two can be separated. 

I am curious as to your thoughts on this: my issue with the general notion of tolerance it that it seems to lead to the idea of "relative truth" wherein if it is "right for you" then it is right. Where do we draw the line of "tolerance". Surely there are some behaviors and beliefs we do not have to be tolerant of, right? Where does the line get drawn? And how do we draw the line, since every time we draw it, the exact argument you just made, can be applied, perpetually, until we tolerate everything?


----------



## blindsage (Feb 8, 2010)

K831, of course we legislate morality, as you said, that's what laws are.  And they are a continually evolving set of law based on some sort of consensus of our society (most fundamentally based on the Constitution).  The problem with your question is how one sided it is.  The only 'morality' that anyone is legislating in regards to homosexuality is to let individuals live how _they_ decide in their private lives.  Letting homosexuals serve in the military does not deny anyone with Christian values the right to disagree with them and to teach their children that it is unnacceptable to be that way.  What it does do is deny them the right to legislate away it's legal existence for others. 

And you can call homosexuality a choice if you want too, but then you have deal with vast majority of Christians believing that it is immoral to be of any religion other than Christian.  According to that value, nobody of any religious background other than Christian should be allowed to serve.  The same for being Black.  No it isn't a choice, but if the majority of people who are in the military believe it is immoral for blacks and whites to serve together, then according to that standard you've proposed, why should blacks be allowed to serve?

As for believing homosexuality could be a mental condition, so what?  The military standard for these kinds of things is whether or not the individual can perform the duties required of them.  Until someone can prove homosexuals can't do that, it's an irrellevant point.

People haven't just been taught that homosexuality is immoral, they've been taught that because they believe it is immoral that it is justification for bigotry and inequality.  It is not.


----------



## K831 (Feb 8, 2010)

blindsage said:


> K831, of course we legislate morality, as you said, that's what laws are.  And they are a continually evolving set of law based on some sort of consensus of our society (most fundamentally based on the Constitution).



I agree with you here. Interesting question is, where does DADT stand with the "majority"? 

Do you think it is a valid argument that the "majority" that matters are active military personnel? 

Additionally, part of the point I was trying to make is that you are right, laws should be based on some consensus of our society, and yet, it is becoming more common that laws are pushed through despite the majority consensus. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum. The vocal minority, lobbyists etc. That's a problem, isn't it? 




blindsage said:


> The problem with your question is how one
> sided it is.



My question was a general one concerning both sides, so I am not entirely sure why you are reading it as one sided, since the notion can be applied to any political agenda. I tried to show that with examples, both of legislating sexual morality, religious freedom, and movements like environmentalism. 





blindsage said:


> The only 'morality' that anyone is legislating in regards to homosexuality is to let individuals live how _they_ decide in their private lives.  Letting homosexuals serve in the military does not deny anyone with Christian values the right to disagree with them and to teach their children that it is unnacceptable to be that way.  What it does do is deny them the right to legislate away it's legal existence for others.



I personally agree with this. However, I do find merit to the counter argument. Every step society takes towards a more permissive environment of certain behaviors is also a step towards that behavior leaving someones private life and invading the life of another. We see this all the time. 




blindsage said:


> And you can call homosexuality a choice if you want too, but then you have deal with vast majority of Christians believing that it is immoral to be of any religion other than Christian.



I don't know many Christians who actually believe this, so I don't agree with the language "vast majority" however I have met some who feel that way, and I think they are nuts.






blindsage said:


> According to that value, nobody of any religious background other than Christian should be allowed to serve.  The same for being Black.  No it isn't a choice, but if the majority of people who are in the military believe it is immoral for blacks and whites to serve together, then according to that standard you've proposed, why should blacks be allowed to serve?



This is exactly my point Blindsage. There is this battle cry, this mantra of "tolerance" and "acceptance"  but it isn't valid. Someone's view will always be treated with intolerance. That is why I find the notion fallacious. 

This line of tolerance has to be drawn somewhere. 

Take for example Heterosexual relationships with minors. We have state laws that differ on the subject. Many cultures have found this behavior to be completely acceptable. Many people in our culture find it acceptable. Yet we do not tolerate it. Where is the tolerance? Why don't they have every right we do? Just because they like 14 year old boys or girls? And who has the right to say that is too young to consent? Where do we draw the line?

When I went through the testing proccess to become a police officer, they asked me on the polygraph if I had ever had sex with animals. I have lived in areas of south America where this is not the taboo it is here. Where is the tolerance for people who sodomize animals? Where are their rights? There are cultures where death follows the disgrace of breaking marriage vows through adultery. We don't tolerate that viewpoint here in the sates because we deem it "uncivilized". As though it isn't uncivilized to lie to a spouse about sexual relations with another. 

I have copies of the DSMV where homosexuality was deemed as deviant as sexual activity with children and animals. 

So again, my question is, where do we draw the line? How permissive and tolerant are we to be of all behaviors? You would seem to be suggesting that it is solely decided by general consensus of the population. Perhaps so. Does that mean you believe all truth or morality is relative and there are no absolutes?

That is what I am driving at. 






blindsage said:


> As for believing homosexuality could be a mental condition, so what?  The military standard for these kinds of things is whether or not the individual can perform the duties required of them.



I agree, and personally, don't have any problem being in a fox hole with a gay guy, so long as he is good to go.

I would point out though that the military isn't just looking at the individuals ability to do his/her job, but also what effect it will have on the organizations ability. I don't have an answer for that, but I think we need to understand that as a consideration as well. 

I am curious, if given strong evidence that the removal of don' ask don't tell would hinder our military, would you still be in favor of it?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 9, 2010)

K831 said:


> I am curious, if given strong evidence that the removal of don' ask don't tell would hinder our military, would you still be in favor of it?



Depends on how strong the evidence was.
But given that homosexuality is accepted in other armed forces (last time I chacked we had gays in the para commandos) and those armed forced do no seem to have lost any battle effectiveness.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 9, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Why is there the assumption that gay men are also effiminate?



Come to the US and watch a few Gay Pride parades, and see if you don't walk away with the Image of "Pansy Boys and Butch Chicks"

Yes, it's just a stereotype, to be true, and no, it does not fit everyone in the G/L Community, but it is the one flamboyantly tossed around in _public_ most often here, and as such, its the one most people see and think of.  There are probably far more Gays or Lesbians who are just "normal" folks, but because of that, no one actually notices them: they are just people like everyone else.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Come to the US and watch a few Gay Pride parades, and see if you don't walk away with the Image of "Pansy Boys and Butch Chicks"
> 
> Yes, it's just a stereotype, to be true, and no, it does not fit everyone in the G/L Community, but it is the one flamboyantly tossed around in _public_ most often here, and as such, its the one most people see and think of. There are probably far more Gays or Lesbians who are just "normal" folks, but because of that, no one actually notices them: they are just people like everyone else.


 
We have Gay Pride parades here which service people are allowed to attend in uniform if they want, perhaps here we are more used to camp than you are, some of our best entertainers are very camp. The parades are considered great fun but the vast majority of the communities. Those that disapprove don't get nasty about it.
Apart from gays and lesbians our forces are also accepting of transexuals. 
This country was also very accepting of the black soldiers that came across in the last war much to the discomfort of the American High Command I believe.
Perhaps the truth is that America is not a tolerant country and the 'socialist' cultures it despises are in fact much more tolerant, free societies with far less government interference in private lives? Food for thought perhaps?


----------



## geezer (Feb 9, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps the truth is that America is not a tolerant country and the 'socialist' cultures it despises are in fact much more tolerant, free societies with far less government interference in private lives? *Food for thought* perhaps?


 
This may well be true. But we tolerate _other_ things that more "enlightened" societies don't. Some of the guys I work out with carry a concealed gun and a couple of  knives wherever they go... even during training. You'll be practicing a technique and hit something hard under the side of their shirt, and they'll say, "Sorry dude, that's my piece." So we are very tolerant about weapons. And, we certainly believe in the god-given right of every idiot to own a car and drive like a maniac (scares me way more than the guns!). I guess that's the libertarian streak in our national psyche, especially out here in the West. We also hate big government, and believe that people should be left alone to "sink or swim" as it were. ...unless they're gay. Too much _food for thought_ can make you fat-headed. Excuse me, I feel a bout of _brain-bloat_ coming on.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 9, 2010)

This whole thread confuses me.

I never saw combat but, my biggest fear sitting in a trench or on patrol was that I didnt want to get paired up with the stupid guy or the way too gung ho guy, because both will get you killed. The women? No problem, The gays? No problem. I wanted someone who knew their job, could think quick under pressure and would be there when I needed them. 

Animals do not have the ability to consent to sexual relations; children do not have the maturity to consent to sexual relations. 

A gay man trying to rape another man? As terrible as that is, most rapes are committed by heterosexual males, or are rapes against women not as notable as rapes against other men? 

Being gay isnt a disease, its not contagious, you cant catch it. Get over it.


----------



## K831 (Feb 9, 2010)

geezer said:


> This may well be true. But we tolerate _other_ things that more "enlightened" societies don't. Some of the guys I work out with carry a concealed gun and a couple of  knives wherever they go... even during training. You'll be practicing a technique and hit something hard under the side of their shirt, and they'll say, "Sorry dude, that's my piece." So we are very tolerant about weapons. And, we certainly believe in the god-given right of every idiot to own a car and drive like a maniac (scares me way more than the guns!). I guess that's the libertarian streak in our national psyche, especially out here in the West. We also hate big government, and believe that people should be left alone to "sink or swim" as it were. ...unless they're gay. Too much _food for thought_ can make you fat-headed. Excuse me, I feel a bout of _brain-bloat_ coming on.



I'll leave my piece at home next time Steve lol! 

And I agree tez, there is a conflicting aspect within the two groups who want small, noninvasive government. Both conservative and libertarians deal with it differently and to varying degrees. That is what I keep driving at, where do we draw the line? What should government regulate. Even the most dedicated small government advocates agree that government does have a role in dictating certain laws, disallowing certain behaviors etc. To what degree should it hold a population to task in terms of the moral foundation it was built on? 

Unfortunately, most people want to simply reply with "get over it" rather than look at the long term issues presented.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 9, 2010)

geezer said:


> We also hate big government, *and believe that people should be left alone to "sink or swim" as it were*. ...unless they're gay. Too much _food for thought_ can make you fat-headed. Excuse me, I feel a bout of _brain-bloat_ coming on.



Unless, of course, they happen to be _forners_, in which case you gladly overthrow their government for your own purposes and nevermind the millions of deaths. All in the name of bringing 'freedom' to the people of course.

Also, since the military is an extension of the government, you should be happy that gays are no longer being discriminated against since that was a form of government discrimination.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 9, 2010)

K831 said:


> Unfortunately, most people want to simply reply with "get over it" rather than look at the long term issues presented.



In this instance, the issue is governmental discrinination against a group of people over their sexual preference. The libertarian in you should be GLAD that gays can finally be open about it. Rejoice!

So in this case I'd say this is a matter of 'get over it' just lke when segregation was done away with. A lot of people needed to 'get over it' and revolted at the idea of being paired up with n*****s.

I gues gays are the new n*****s.


----------



## blindsage (Feb 9, 2010)

K831 said:


> I agree with you here. Interesting question is, where does DADT stand with the "majority"?
> 
> Do you think it is a valid argument that the "majority" that matters are active military personnel?
> 
> Additionally, part of the point I was trying to make is that you are right, laws should be based on some consensus of our society, and yet, it is becoming more common that laws are pushed through despite the majority consensus. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum. The vocal minority, lobbyists etc. That's a problem, isn't it?


At times it can become a problem, but what is often missing is an understanding that the Constitution is the fundamental consensus law that we all agree to abide by while residing in this country.  If the majority want something contrary to the Constitution, then they are fighting against the definitional consensus foundation.  If, over time, established majority ideas and behaviors within the society are really found to be in opposition to the Constitution, then we don't throw out the Constitution, we throw out the established idea or behaviour because they violate the foundational consensus, or in very, very, very rare cases we test the 'majority' desires and change the Constitution.  But no, the U.S. is not strictly a whim of the majority society.  We have foundational laws that are meant to prevent just that, and for good reason.



> My question was a general one concerning both sides, so I am not entirely sure why you are reading it as one sided, since the notion can be applied to any political agenda. I tried to show that with examples, both of legislating sexual morality, religious freedom, and movements like environmentalism.


I agree that the issue can be applied to a lot of different groups, but the underlying foundation of your argument comes from the question of why do Christians have to accept homosexuality.  The answer is the don't, but they do have to accept that others disagree with them.



> I personally agree with this. However, I do find merit to the counter argument. Every step society takes towards a more permissive environment of certain behaviors is also a step towards that behavior leaving someones private life and invading the life of another. We see this all the time.[/qutoe]
> What is strange about this argument is that the private life of one group already pervasively invades the life of the other.  It's the group currently doing the invading that doesn't want that ability taken away.
> 
> 
> ...


In this case?  There a consensus in the society that this is unnacceptable because of the demonstrable harm that is done to the child, and the inablility of human being under a certain age to physiologically give informed consent as to the actions involved.  How does this relate to adult consensual relationships?



> When I went through the testing proccess to become a police officer, they asked me on the polygraph if I had ever had sex with animals. I have lived in areas of south America where this is not the taboo it is here. Where is the tolerance for people who sodomize animals? Where are their rights?


Again, consent.  These are not novel or new questions and have been asked and answered for decades to demonstrate their irrelevance to the question at hand.



> There are cultures where death follows the disgrace of breaking marriage vows through adultery. We don't tolerate that viewpoint here in the sates because we deem it "uncivilized". As though it isn't uncivilized to lie to a spouse about sexual relations with another.


Death for who?  Can you find me a report of the death penalty for a man accused of adultery?  We don't tolerate it here because it is a tool of oppression.  Kind of like how we treat homosexuals.



> I have copies of the DSMV where homosexuality was deemed as deviant as sexual activity with children and animals.


And?



> So again, my question is, where do we draw the line? How permissive and tolerant are we to be of all behaviors? You would seem to be suggesting that it is solely decided by general consensus of the population. Perhaps so. Does that mean you believe all truth or morality is relative and there are no absolutes?
> 
> That is what I am driving at.


I don't believe all truth and morality is relative, but there are many things that I believe to be absolute, but that I don't think should be legislated for others, because they are MY beliefs.  _I_ live by them to the best of my ability, and though I think others would be better off if they followed them, I don't need them to be mandated to others in order for me to believe they are absolutely correct.  Let them come to that understanding on their own through my example, if it is good enough.




> I agree, and personally, don't have any problem being in a fox hole with a gay guy, so long as he is good to go.
> 
> I would point out though that the military isn't just looking at the individuals ability to do his/her job, but also what effect it will have on the organizations ability. I don't have an answer for that, but I think we need to understand that as a consideration as well.


Theoretically that is supposed to be the case, and yet it has discharged a large number of highly qualified, and in some cases indispensible, soldiers because of don't ask, don't tell.  In practice this is apparently not the case.



> I am curious, if given strong evidence that the removal of don' ask don't tell would hinder our military, would you still be in favor of it?


If it could be genuine, unbiased, scientific evidence, sure why not?  Don't count on finding it.


----------



## chaos1551 (Feb 9, 2010)

I still don't understand how homosexuality hurts others enough to have to regulate it with law.  Homosexuality is our modern day civil rights issue.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 9, 2010)

_Viewed from Israel, the continuing witch hunt against gays and lesbians in the U.S. military makes little sense. I have studied and written about the experience of gay soldiers in elite combat units of the Israel Defense Forces, where restrictions on gay enlistment were lifted in 1993, the same year the United States introduced the "don't ask, don't tell" policy requiring gay and lesbian servicemembers to say in the closet or risk being discharged. There has never been any suggestion that the participation of these men has hindered the performance of Israeli combat units. _



_The United States and Turkey are now the only NATO military powers that do not allow gays to serve openly, but Israel and other countries have shown that the participation of gay soldiers in combat units presents no risk for military effectiveness. What's more, acknowledging their presence might even improve unite cohesion. _


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/03/theyre_here_theyre_queer_its_no_big_deal


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2010)

Most service people value their privacy whatever their sexual preferences and as the article rightly says gays don't go shouting about any more than anyone else, it isn't relevant to what they do in the services.
Looking online I have seen from a wide variety of sources that there seems to be a big problem with women being in the American army, a high incidence of sexual assaults and sexual harrassment by men on women, I think perhaps theres problems that need resolving, perhaps a whole rethink on the 'ethos' of a lot of young men serving?


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 10, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> In this instance, the issue is governmental discrinination against a group of people over their sexual preference. The libertarian in you should be GLAD that gays can finally be open about it. Rejoice!
> 
> So in this case I'd say this is a matter of 'get over it' just lke when segregation was done away with. A lot of people needed to 'get over it' and revolted at the idea of being paired up with n*****s.
> 
> I gues gays are the new n*****s.


 
Here's yet another example of what I like to call the Tourette's of Righteousness.  It's where a "correct-thinking" person feels justified in using offensive racial slurs to make a point because - hey, their heart was in the right place.

Please stop this.  Yes, I understand that you are trying to stuff these words into someone else's mouth.  But they're _your_ words.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 10, 2010)

No this has nothing to do with my righteousness or whatever. I was drawing an analogy.

In the 50s and 60s, black people were subject to the same sentiments that gays are subject to now.
And when their government sanctioned discrimination was lifted, the reactions in a certain subsection of the general public were the same that are now expressed by the people who think it is ok to discriminate against gays.

I mentioned the word n****s to draw attention to this parallel.
You will also notice that I didn't type it in full (don't know if that would get censored or not btw but I thought it would be). I could also have mentioned it as the 'N' word or whatever. The point was that the word was used to illustrate the parallels and the strength with which people react against people being gay.


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 10, 2010)

I think that it is a good move.  Political or not...and I really see little to no impact on military operations.  If you're gay and you're in, it probably isn't a secret.  The problem now is that those people live in constant fear that the wrong person will find out and decide to prosecute or they are caught in an action that compromises them.  I've known quite a few gay people in the military and they are just as good as anyone else.


----------



## geezer (Feb 10, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Unless, of course, they happen to be _forners.._.


 
Well... ain't that the truth too. I know it's off-topic, but you should check out our town sheriff, Joe Arpaio. He's made his reputation on going after undocumented workers...even to the point of exceeding his legal authority. No matter that he's constantly being accused of overstepping his authority, of racial profiling, and even of breaking laws himself in his zeal to get them illeagals... he's more popular than ever and gets re-elected by ever greater majorities, especially in this economy.

In short, it ain't just gays that get bashed where I come from. But then I guess everybody has their scapegoats. After all, we're only human (sigh).


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 10, 2010)

chaos1551 said:


> I still don't understand how homosexuality hurts others enough to have to regulate it with law. Homosexuality is our modern day civil rights issue.


 
i'd like to add that i also still dont understand how homosexuality can still be mentioned in the same breath as bestiality and pedophilia (as someone did earlier in this topic when trying to draw an 'analogy"

It is so NOT the same.


----------



## shihansmurf (Feb 10, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> I think that it is a good move. Political or not...and I really see little to no impact on military operations. If you're gay and you're in, it probably isn't a secret. The problem now is that those people live in constant fear that the wrong person will find out and decide to prosecute or they are caught in an action that compromises them. I've known quite a few gay people in the military and they are just as good as anyone else.


 
Its nice to see someone the is serving on active duty comment in this thread. I'll add my two cents as well.

I suport the repeal of DADT. I think that we'll have a period of adjustment that will include some unpleasantness, but in the end openly serving gays will not harm our combat effectiveness. I think if a person is willing to serve their country, which as noted upthread a lot of straight people who oppose gays in the military aren't, then I wlecome them as brothers and sisters in arms. At some point in our culture we need to understand that what consenting adults do with one another in private is only the business of those involved. I tend to think that as long as gays in the military conduct themselves with the same levels of professionalism, discipline, devotion to duty, and discression that is expected of straights, then there is no reason to exclude them for service.

Just my view
Mark


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 10, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> It is so NOT the same.



I would guess that would depend:  Do you believe that sexual preference is a choice or genetic?

If its a choice, then yes, it could be the same, and if it's genetic, then who is to say that predisposition to sex with women, or men, or children, or goats aren't ALL hardwired on some level?  

Just food for thought.  *I* am certainly not comparing being gay with wanting to shag a sheep.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 10, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> I would guess that would depend: Do you believe that sexual preference is a choice or genetic?


 
I dont believe its something people 'choose' to do. well first of all Who in their right mind would choose a life like that, where people get killed because of it. and live a life of holy terror. (anyone remember matthew sheppard? Or Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to public office. He was murdered.) 

Second. I know many gay people. Including my brown belt lesbian friend at my dojo. I dont believe she chose to be sexually attracted to girls and love her gf. Its just who she happens to be. No more than I 'chose' to be attracted to men. Its just different.



			
				cryozombie said:
			
		

> If its a choice, then yes, it could be the same,


 
I would disagree. Bestiality and pedophiles hurt others. Animals cant choose. Children arent mature enough to consent. Both would be hurt by it. It is an act of violence and abuse, not of love. But two consenting adults  who choose to be in a relationship with each other (and have the same private parts) is NOT an act of violence, terror, or abuse. 

Pedophiles may not necessarily control who they are attracted to. Nor does anybody, really. What their 'choice' is, however, is to choose to hurt others. It still is not the same.



			
				cryozombie said:
			
		

> and if it's genetic, then who is to say that predisposition to sex with women, or men, or children, or goats aren't ALL hardwired on some level?


 
could be. They still choose to hurt others though. That is the 'choice' they do, IMO.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 11, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Bestiality and pedophiles hurt others. Animals cant choose. Children arent mature enough to consent. Both would be hurt by it. It is an act of violence and abuse, not of love. But two consenting adults  who choose to be in a relationship with each other (and have the same private parts) is NOT an act of violence, terror, or abuse.
> 
> Pedophiles may not necessarily control who they are attracted to. Nor does anybody, really. What their 'choice' is, however, is to choose to hurt others. It still is not the same.



This is really the key of the argument. Noone is harmed in a consentual adult relationship.

For that matter, I can turn the argument around: suppose someone argues that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural or not the right moral choice... how is that any different from having oral sex, anal sex, S&M, or any of the other things that is done in heterosexual relationships in cases where such things take the fancy of the parties involved?

One could demand that everybody who ever got a blowjob or had anal sex be thrown out of the military as well. How many soldiers would there be left?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 11, 2010)

Well, remember oral sex is still a crime in some parts of the US regardless of who is doing it, where they are doing it, or when.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 11, 2010)

I just did some googling, and it seems this is indeed true. Crime against nature, it seems. Insane... why not make it illegal to skip church on sundays... 
In nature, of course, there are a vast amount of species where homosexuality and oral sex happen regularly, so I don't know hwo nature can be used as a justification.

But why stop at oral and anal sex? How about using contraception. That should be illegal by the same reasoning. Durex doesn't grow on trees, you know?
How about S&M? Perhaps it is ok to inflict pain on genitals (with consent of course) but not love and tenderness? Of course biting would be out of the question too since that would require mouth to genitals contact.

How about sex toys. Is there a list of what is allowed and banned? Perhaps dildos are ok, but not the kind with a vibrator because nature does not provide buzzing action either.
How about pulling out? Should that be illegal too? Kinda borderline I admit. Because the sex is as 'nature intended' and you simply stop at (hopefully) the right moment.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 11, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, remember oral sex is still a crime in some parts of the US regardless of who is doing it, where they are doing it, or when.


 
are you serious?! Wtf? First time i ever heard that......


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 11, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> "the assumption that gay men are also effiminate? "
> It's a commentary on the stereotype. Most of the gays I know are as "normal" as anyone else.


I'd say about half of them are a little more masculine that most straight men.
Sean


----------

