PDA

View Full Version : concerning homosexuality in the armed forces



Odysseus
11-07-2010, 01:36 PM
The following are the findings from the current laws governing gays in the military. They were the result of the previous panel that was convened to examine the policies excluding gays in the military.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654

§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

Anyone care to explain what has changed since the law was passed, besides poll numbers?

Phillygirl
11-07-2010, 01:42 PM
The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

My guess would be that the above may have changed due to changing attitudes towards gays. My personal belief is that once that attitude changes within the armed services, then the prohibition should change.

hampshirebrit
11-07-2010, 02:01 PM
Anyone care to explain what has changed since the law was passed, besides poll numbers?

Nothing. Nothing has changed. The law should stand as it was written.

Odysseus
11-07-2010, 02:58 PM
My guess would be that the above may have changed due to changing attitudes towards gays. My personal belief is that once that attitude changes within the armed services, then the prohibition should change.

Okay, so if the attitude changes back, we should go back to DADT? Then we don't need regulations or punitive articles, we can just poll the troops to determine policy. That's so much easier than leading troops, since we'd just do what they wanted. :rolleyes:

Phillygirl
11-07-2010, 03:21 PM
Okay, so if the attitude changes back, we should go back to DADT? Then we don't need regulations or punitive articles, we can just poll the troops to determine policy. That's so much easier than leading troops, since we'd just do what they wanted. :rolleyes:

Isn't the primary reason for DADT due to unit cohesiveness? Isn't unit cohesiveness threatened due to the attitudes of troops regarding their comfort level working that closely with homosexuals? If their comfort level changed what would the problem with unit cohesiveness at that point?

Odysseus
11-07-2010, 04:22 PM
Isn't the primary reason for DADT due to unit cohesiveness? Isn't unit cohesiveness threatened due to the attitudes of troops regarding their comfort level working that closely with homosexuals? If their comfort level changed what would the problem with unit cohesiveness at that point?

No, because the comfort level isn't a constant. Let's say that the comfort level increases to the point where polling shows that a majority of troops favor repeal. Then, once the law is repealed, it turns out that openly gay troops have a significant negative impact on unit cohesion, and the troops decide that it wasn't such a great idea to repeal it in the first place.

During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Israelis were outnumbered and had to use women as combat troops, believing that a nation of hardy Sabras and Holocaust survivors would be tough enough to deal with any issues that might crop up. They weren't. The Israelis discovered that the sight of female casualties was horribly disturbing to male Soldiers, so much so that they would take greater risks to prevent them, or assume too great a caution, at the expense of the mission. They also discovered that Arab troops wanted to capture females, for obvious reasons, and that Arabs found surrender to a woman dishonorable, and for both reasons, they fought harder when they knew that they were fighting against women. Between those two factors, the result was higher casualties on both sides wherever women fought. After the war, the IDF had to restrict the roles of women to support and instruction, which did not sit well with many of the women who had fought heroically in 1948. However, it had to be done.

My point is that it isn't the troops current opinion that concerns me, it's what happens when the theory collides with reality and we have to react to situations that were foreseen, but dismissed by the ideologues. At that point, we will have incurred real world consequences, including lost lives, violent disruption of the culture and ruined careers, all to satisfy a constituency that has no regard for our mission. No thanks.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-07-2010, 05:58 PM
Has this law been brought to the courts?

Odysseus
11-07-2010, 07:12 PM
Has this law been brought to the courts?

Guess you haven't been paying much attention, have you?

Phillygirl
11-07-2010, 07:26 PM
No, because the comfort level isn't a constant. Let's say that the comfort level increases to the point where polling shows that a majority of troops favor repeal. Then, once the law is repealed, it turns out that openly gay troops have a significant negative impact on unit cohesion, and the troops decide that it wasn't such a great idea to repeal it in the first place.

During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Israelis were outnumbered and had to use women as combat troops, believing that a nation of hardy Sabras and Holocaust survivors would be tough enough to deal with any issues that might crop up. They weren't. The Israelis discovered that the sight of female casualties was horribly disturbing to male Soldiers, so much so that they would take greater risks to prevent them, or assume too great a caution, at the expense of the mission. They also discovered that Arab troops wanted to capture females, for obvious reasons, and that Arabs found surrender to a woman dishonorable, and for both reasons, they fought harder when they knew that they were fighting against women. Between those two factors, the result was higher casualties on both sides wherever women fought. After the war, the IDF had to restrict the roles of women to support and instruction, which did not sit well with many of the women who had fought heroically in 1948. However, it had to be done.

My point is that it isn't the troops current opinion that concerns me, it's what happens when the theory collides with reality and we have to react to situations that were foreseen, but dismissed by the ideologues. At that point, we will have incurred real world consequences, including lost lives, violent disruption of the culture and ruined careers, all to satisfy a constituency that has no regard for our mission. No thanks.

I agree that the idealogues shouldn't set policy. I disagree that the same issues with women would be present with respect to homosexuals, although I concede the point that if it goes horribly wrong it should be stepped back. My point is more that as attitudes change, so should DADT. I don't believe it should be something simply put to a vote (especially not by the civilian populace) but instead should be enacted from within. When the military is ready for it they will know it. At that point, DADT should be abolished, not a moment sooner.

Kay
11-07-2010, 08:18 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/07/gates-urges-congress-repeal-gay-ban/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/07/gates-urges-congress-repeal-gay-ban/)


Gates Urges Congress to Repeal Gay Ban Now

Published November 07, 2010
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is encouraging Congress to act before year's end to repeal the ban on gays serving openly in the military. It's a position shared by his boss, the president.

But his new Marine commandant thinks otherwise and the Senate has not yet taken action, setting up yet another hurdle for gay activists who see their window quickly closing. After Tuesday's elections that saw Republicans chip away at Democrats' majority in the Senate and wrest the House from their control, their hopes for ending the 17-year-old law have dimmed.

"I would like to see the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' but I'm not sure what the prospects for that are and we'll just have to see," Gates told reporters traveling with him to Australia this weekend.

Gates said he would prefer Congress act after the Pentagon releases its study of how repeal would be implemented, which is due Dec. 1. That goal, though, lacks to backing of the Marine Corps commandant at a moment the country is fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness," Gen. James Amos said.

Kay
11-07-2010, 08:29 PM
although I concede the point that if it goes horribly wrong
it should be stepped back.

We don't need to be experimenting with something that has potential
to "go horribly wrong" while we have combat missions going. It's not
so easy to just step it back. It's a Pandora's box and it doesn't need to
be opened right at this time, not while we are fighting a war overseas.
Our guys are already stressed enough from a 10-yr war and multiple
deployments. This added controversy is the last thing they need to
be dealing with.

Phillygirl
11-07-2010, 08:32 PM
We don't need to be experimenting with something that has potential
to "go horribly wrong" while we have combat missions going. It's not
so easy to just step it back. It's a Pandora's box and it doesn't need to
be opened right at this time, not while we are fighting a war overseas.
Our guys are already stressed enough from a 10-yr war and multiple
deployments. This added controversy is the last thing they need to
be dealing with.

I don't disagree with that.

wilbur
11-08-2010, 10:52 AM
Anyone care to explain what has changed since the law was passed, besides poll numbers?

The problem is with your last item there:



(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.


What has changed? Empirical evidence has demonstrated that the above claim is not justified.


And BTW - Israel *does* allow openly homosexual soldiers in combat units, according to every source I have checked. Not sure where you're getting your information there.

FBIGuy
11-08-2010, 10:57 AM
The problem is with your last item there:



What has changed? Empirical evidence has demonstrated that the above claim is not justified.


And BTW - Israel *does* allow openly homosexual soldiers in combat units, according to every source I have checked. Not sure where you're getting your information there.

How is this? Are the fags less gay or something?

Odysseus
11-08-2010, 11:07 AM
We don't need to be experimenting with something that has potential
to "go horribly wrong" while we have combat missions going. It's not
so easy to just step it back. It's a Pandora's box and it doesn't need to
be opened right at this time, not while we are fighting a war overseas.
Our guys are already stressed enough from a 10-yr war and multiple
deployments. This added controversy is the last thing they need to
be dealing with.
It just demonstrates the lack of seriousness in this administration. We're engaged in two wars, with more on the horizon (Iran isn't going to go away, and Pakistan is a powder keg on its own, and don't get me started on the rest of the Middle East), and Obama is focused like a laser on a personnel action that might positively impact 2-5% of the population, but which will disrupt the entire force, with no benefits to our warfighting capabilities.

I agree that the idealogues shouldn't set policy. I disagree that the same issues with women would be present with respect to homosexuals, although I concede the point that if it goes horribly wrong it should be stepped back. My point is more that as attitudes change, so should DADT. I don't believe it should be something simply put to a vote (especially not by the civilian populace) but instead should be enacted from within. When the military is ready for it they will know it. At that point, DADT should be abolished, not a moment sooner.
I cited the Israeli issue because it demonstrated what happens when you force a change without analyzing all of the consequences, not because it was a parallel, but in fact, the integration of women into the force has created issues which will be repeated with the integration of gays, only more so. American Thinker had a great column on the subject two days ago:


Heterosexual behavior can be just as damaging to the military, and some evidence suggests that it is extremely common. Look at the U.S. Navy relieving commanding officers for "zipper problems." So far this year, the Navy has relieved thirteen commanding officers. Last week the Navy relieved a Command Master Chief for it. Even as the Navy shrinks, the rate is growing. This is a measure of the "Top of the Cream." Only the best officers reach command, and yet almost 5% get in trouble. Issues with heterosexual behavior surface frequently on military forums. There is undoubtedly more evidence, but it's not in the public domain.

No matter what orientation they take, any sexual relations within a command can be dangerous because of how they impact trust within the unit. Here's an example lacking any names or personal pronouns so that you can substitute male or female names and roles as you choose.

In Afghanistan, Sergeant "A" is known to have a physical relationship with Private "B." When the squad is ambushed, Sergeant A orders Privates "C", "D," and "E" to flank the attackers while Sergeant "A" and Private "B" lay down covering fire. "C", "D," and "E" might certainly wonder if Private "B" is getting a safe assignment while they are exposed to danger because of the relationship.

It is entirely possible that the Sergeant's decision is tactically sound -- but the questions will persist. How hard do you think "C", "D," and "E" will press their attack?

Private "B" is not safe, either. Suppose Private "B" breaks off the relationship and the sergeant is unhappy about it. Next time, Private "B's" family might get the terrible news that their relative won't be coming home. If that happens, how is Private "C" going to resist the attentions of the amorous Sergeant? Refusal could result in the same outcome. ...Of course, it could bounce back -- Sergeant "A" might get "fragged."

Combat may be a bit extreme, but remember that even in peacetime, the Armed Forces are an inherently dangerous place. There are dangerous aspects to the job since they must daily work with tools that are designed to break things and kill people. In 2009, 443 service members were killed in accidents while only 338 were killed by hostile action.

Petty Officer 1st Class "Z" has several well-trained 3rd Class Petty Officers who work for "Z." Initially, all three are a natural team. But a sexual relationship develops between PO1 "Z" and PO3 "W." The other two soon resent the special attention that "W" is getting. Suddenly, an accidental fire erupts in a main engineering space. All three Petty Officers are involved in fighting it, but tragically, "W" is killed.

Even if it was totally an accident, the result could be dangerous for the other two because of "Z's" likely reaction towards them.

Before you say "That could never happen!," understand that emotional stress can grow for service members in ways that civilians simply don't understand.

Service members can't quit or even leave. They almost never have any say where they work or whom they work with. In a worst-case situation, civilians can always quit their jobs. Service members cannot do that without committing a federal crime -- the choice is typically Article 86 - "Absent without Leave." They can't even argue about it -- at least one of Articles 89, 90, 91, and 92 will be relevant.

Service members have few options to "de-stress." Even in paramilitary organizations, such as police or fire services, civilians get privacy when off-duty. At the very least, they can go home, wherever that is, to relax. By contrast, try to "de-stress" in a thirty-man berthing compartment on a deployed warship. How can you do that in a platoon whose "home" is a remote outpost in Afghanistan? Even stateside barracks frequently lack any privacy.

So the stress caused by any kind of military sexual relationship can grow to lethal levels.

wilbur
11-08-2010, 11:16 AM
How is this? Are the fags less gay or something?


Uh, well ignoring for a second the inflammatory prejudicial tone of your remarks.... in other militaries around the world, yes, we do see homosexuals act "less gay", in a manner of speaking.

Their homosexuality becomes peripheral to their identity as they adapt to military life. The core of their identity, just like other heterosexual military personal, tends to be focused on their characteristics as soldiers and as members of their respective units.

wilbur
11-08-2010, 11:51 AM
One belief that seems to be motivating those against DADT repeal, is the belief that once the ban is lifted, gay soldiers are going to be chomping at the bits to reveal their sexual orientation to all their fellow servicemen, and that gay pride parades will break out en masse in military bases around the country, destroying morale and unit cohesion in the process.

But some of the studies I have read show just the opposite. Homosexuals tend to reveal their orientation only if they feel it is safe to do so in their environment. If they are immersed in a climate of homophobia, they will remain in the closet, no matter the policy. If they are in a climate where they would be accepted by their peers, they will tend to be open about their orientation, no matter the policy. This seems to hold true in foreign militaries like the IDF, and even in domestic civil services here, like fire and police departments. So it doesn't seem likely that the behavior of homosexuals serving in US military units will change much, based on policy changes.

This just further moves us to the conclusion that DADT regulations just arent worth the paper they are printed on, and so there should be little fuss over throwing them out the window.

FBIGuy
11-08-2010, 01:15 PM
Uh, well ignoring for a second the inflammatory prejudicial tone of your remarks.... in other militaries around the world, yes, we do see homosexuals act "less gay", in a manner of speaking.

Their homosexuality becomes peripheral to their identity as they adapt to military life. The core of their identity, just like other heterosexual military personal, tends to be focused on their characteristics as soldiers and as members of their respective units.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that blacks commit more crimes than other races. Perhaps we should use this fact to justify discharging all backs from the military and law enforcement. We sure don't want organizations deciding for themselves who is and who isn't fit to serve. Empirical evidence out weighs human reason doesn't it? :rolleyes:

wilbur
11-08-2010, 01:27 PM
Empirical evidence demonstrates that blacks commit more crimes than other races. Perhaps we should use this fact to justify discharging all backs from the military and law enforcement. We sure don't want organizations deciding for themselves who is and who isn't fit to serve. Empirical evidence out weighs human reason doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Wow, so your reply is to attack the legitimacy of empirical evidence? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. History is littered with mistakes of reason that have been corrected by empirical evidence, so no... I don't think reason alone is better. Making use of both is always better.

Odysseus
11-08-2010, 01:40 PM
Uh, well ignoring for a second the inflammatory prejudicial tone of your remarks.... in other militaries around the world, yes, we do see homosexuals act "less gay", in a manner of speaking.

Their homosexuality becomes peripheral to their identity as they adapt to military life. The core of their identity, just like other heterosexual military personal, tends to be focused on their characteristics as soldiers and as members of their respective units.


One belief that seems to be motivating those against DADT repeal, is the belief that once the ban is lifted, gay soldiers are going to be chomping at the bits to reveal their sexual orientation to all their fellow servicemen, and that gay pride parades will break out en masse in military bases around the country, destroying morale and unit cohesion in the process.

But some of the studies I have read show just the opposite. Homosexuals tend to reveal their orientation only if they feel it is safe to do so in their environment. If they are immersed in a climate of homophobia, they will remain in the closet, no matter the policy. If they are in a climate where they would be accepted by their peers, they will tend to be open about their orientation, no matter the policy. This seems to hold true in foreign militaries like the IDF, and even in domestic civil services here, like fire and police departments. So it doesn't seem likely that the behavior of homosexuals serving in US military units will change much, based on policy changes.

This just further moves us to the conclusion that DADT regulations just arent worth the paper they are printed on, and so there should be little fuss over throwing them out the window.

How is it that you read every study on the subject, but cannot get the gist of our arguments without mischaracterizing them (oh, right, you don't want to understand the opposing arguments, do you? Much easier to claim that we're just unenlightened bigots)? In the post above, the differences between fire and police departments and the military are made clear. In fact, that's one of the critcal differences between the US military and every one of the militaries that you claim have made the change work.

We deploy. Overseas. For years at at time.

The IDF is a primarily defensive force. Even when they are mobilized, they are close to home. When was the last time that the IDF deployed for an extended operation outside of Israel's borders? Most of the militaries that you cite as examples couldnt project power beyond their borders, and have no intention of doing so.

And in order to accomodate gays, Israel has had to give them special privileges, like being able to shower alone (nice, if you have the time to keep an entire company out of the showers in order to accomodate one Soldier).

But, feel free to keep telling me that you know more about unit cohesion and morale than I do. After all, I'm going into my 23rd year of military service, while you've read a study. :rolleyes:

Phillygirl
11-08-2010, 01:57 PM
I understand the issue of sexual relations and how they can affect unit cohesiveness. Do you think the military is better off, worse off, or the same, after the introduction of women in service?

Phillygirl
11-08-2010, 01:58 PM
It just demonstrates the lack of seriousness in this administration. We're engaged in two wars, with more on the horizon (Iran isn't going to go away, and Pakistan is a powder keg on its own, and don't get me started on the rest of the Middle East), and Obama is focused like a laser on a personnel action that might positively impact 2-5% of the population, but which will disrupt the entire force, with no benefits to our warfighting capabilities.

I cited the Israeli issue because it demonstrated what happens when you force a change without analyzing all of the consequences, not because it was a parallel, but in fact, the integration of women into the force has created issues which will be repeated with the integration of gays, only more so. American Thinker had a great column on the subject two days ago:

Interesting article, thank you.

wilbur
11-08-2010, 02:21 PM
How is it that you read every study on the subject, but cannot get the gist of our arguments without mischaracterizing them (oh, right, you don't want to understand the opposing arguments, do you? Much easier to claim that we're just unenlightened bigots)?


Well, in your case, its interesting how you consistently come down on the same side of *every* single gay issue, no matter what. From the outlandish lengths you will go in concocting scenarios to justify denial of gay marriage (remember you're amazingly ludicrous path from gay marriage to child/man marriage?), to the revealing posts where it appears that, in your mind, you see all homosexuals males as little more than militant Perez Hilton wannabes who are on the verge of sexually assaulting any man they happen to see, we're supposed to conclude you have no prejudices here?

It just so happens that allowing gays to have their way on any single issue, will have consequences will that will destroy our country, right?

But sure.. you're the victim here, being insulted and viciously attacked! The humanity!



In the post above, the differences between fire and police departments and the military are made clear. In fact, that's one of the critcal differences between the US military and every one of the militaries that you claim have made the change work.


Well, I recognize those differences. But, as I said, the behavior also held true for the IDF. Homosexuals generally exercise tact and are selective in revealing their orientation, even under open policies. And under closed policies, they do the same - and reveal their orientation to those with whom they feel safe doing so.

And in the military situations, their identities as soldiers seem to peripheralize their identities as homosexuals.



We deploy. Overseas. For years at at time.

The IDF is a primarily defensive force. Even when they are mobilized, they are close to home. When was the last time that the IDF deployed for an extended operation outside of Israel's borders? Most of the militaries that you cite as examples couldnt project power beyond their borders, and have no intention of doing so.

And in order to accomodate gays, Israel has had to give them special privileges, like being able to shower alone (nice, if you have the time to keep an entire company out of the showers in order to accomodate one Soldier).


Well, if you're that concerned about all these things, you should be trying to screen for and ban gays from the military. DADT doesn't address any of the core problems you seem to have with homosexual service in the military. For the millionth time, you have homosexuals deployed, overseas, for years at a time right fucking now.

To avoid the going down that road, you try to raise the point that DADT policy alters the behavior of homosexuals in the military, in such a way as to limit promiscuity and their affect on military culture. Again, these claims are basically pulled straight out of your ass and, from what I can tell, are based on little more than your prejudiced assumptions about homosexual behavior. Those who study these issues have found out that your claims seem to be bogus, and that your doomsday scenarios play out exactly *nowhere* in the rest of the world.

PoliCon
11-08-2010, 02:28 PM
derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp
http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/funny-dog-pictures-stupid-magnitude.jpg

FBIGuy
11-08-2010, 02:43 PM
Wow, so your reply is to attack the legitimacy of empirical evidence? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. History is littered with mistakes of reason that have been corrected by empirical evidence, so no... I don't think reason alone is better. Making use of both is always better.

What are you doing that is any better? You are using "empirical evidence" as the end all to this issue. You did not use reason in your stupid assertion that homosexuality is ok in the military. You relied on "empirical evidence" and ignored the knowledgeable opinions of those in uniform who know much more than you and I ever will about what is and isn't good for the mililitary.

Have you ever served in the military?

Phillygirl
11-08-2010, 03:58 PM
What are you doing that is any better? You are using "empirical evidence" as the end all to this issue. You did not use reason in your stupid assertion that homosexuality is ok in the military. You relied on "empirical evidence" and ignored the knowledgeable opinions of those in uniform who know much more than you and I ever will about what is and isn't good for the mililitary.

Have you ever served in the military?

Odysseus' opinion certainly counts, as he is currently serving. However, I know many others who serve, have served, in the recent past who have no objection to gays in the military and have indicated that they served with gays, knowing they were gay, without any issue.

Molon Labe
11-08-2010, 04:13 PM
Odysseus' opinion certainly counts, as he is currently serving. However, I know many others who serve, have served, in the recent past who have no objection to gays in the military and have indicated that they served with gays, knowing they were gay, without any issue.


Israel and Germany did this long ago to their military with little problem. Hasn't eroded their combat effectiveness..nor has it caused anything worse that could occur under UCMJ.

Personally, I don't really care what they decide. Just enforce the rules across the board.

noonwitch
11-08-2010, 04:23 PM
Israel and Germany did this long ago to their military with little problem. Hasn't eroded their combat effectiveness..nor has it caused anything worse that could occur under UCMJ.

Personally, I don't really care what they decide. Just enforce the rules across the board.


I don't think there will be too many problems, but this is the USA. We have people on both sides of the issue looking for a fight, and that is the worst part of it. I don't want to see a bunch of anti-gay acts by offended military personnel, but no one wants to see gay activists enlisting in order to push the limits of tolerance, either.

Phillygirl
11-08-2010, 04:43 PM
I don't think there will be too many problems, but this is the USA. We have people on both sides of the issue looking for a fight, and that is the worst part of it. I don't want to see a bunch of anti-gay acts by offended military personnel, but no one wants to see gay activists enlisting in order to push the limits of tolerance, either.

I'm more concerned with the latter than the former, quite frankly.

AmPat
11-08-2010, 04:53 PM
Why is this an issue at all? Who thinks there is ANY benefit to allowing this? We already have the best military in the world, what is the risk versus reward ratio? Why not maintain the status quo? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Phillygirl
11-08-2010, 05:32 PM
Why is this an issue at all? Who thinks there is ANY benefit to allowing this? We already have the best military in the world, what is the risk versus reward ratio? Why not maintain the status quo? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

The issue is the broken part. My understanding, from guys that were in intel part of the armed services, is that we have lost a high portion of otherwise qualified service members because they are gay. I also don't think we should settle for being good enough, but should strive to be the best we can be. If that means letting gays in, so be it. If that means keeping them out, so be it as well.

As a civilian I don't think it's proper that this be put to a vote, nor do I think discrimination laws should apply. I think the military was at the forefront of letting blacks in and did it in their time, in their way. The same for women, although I think we have pushed that envelope too much.

AmPat
11-08-2010, 05:49 PM
The issue is the broken part. My understanding, from guys that were in intel part of the armed services, is that we have lost a high portion of otherwise qualified service members because they are gay. I also don't think we should settle for being good enough, but should strive to be the best we can be. If that means letting gays in, so be it. If that means keeping them out, so be it as well.
As a civilian I don't think it's proper that this be put to a vote, nor do I think discrimination laws should apply. I think the military was at the forefront of letting blacks in and did it in their time, in their way. The same for women, although I think we have pushed that envelope too much.

Once the pansy panderers have their way, there is no reversing this. If we start to lose the next war because we weren't MTOE'd for Skippys. Then and only then do we conduct social experimentation on the military.:cool:

BadCat
11-08-2010, 07:45 PM
The military does not need people who are either genetically or socially defective (possibly both).

DADT goes too far...it should be...IF YOU"RE GAY....NO WAY.

wilbur
11-08-2010, 08:30 PM
The military does not need people who are either genetically or socially defective (possibly both).

DADT goes too far...it should be...IF YOU"RE GAY....NO WAY.

http://obvioustrollisobvious.com/images/tempfront.jpg

Rockntractor
11-08-2010, 08:39 PM
http://obvioustrollisobvious.com/images/tempfront.jpg

He isn't the one with a red square under his name!

wilbur
11-08-2010, 08:51 PM
He isn't the one with a red square under his name!

Meh, only through home field advantage - he's a troll by his own admission who just wants to insult and deride.

Phillygirl
11-08-2010, 09:29 PM
Once the pansy panderers have their way, there is no reversing this. If we start to lose the next war because we weren't MTOE'd for Skippys. Then and only then do we conduct social experimentation on the military.:cool:

I believe that you're right that there is no reversing it once it gets changed, which is why I wouldn't want it changed right now, as it doesn't seem to me that a significant enough percentage of the military population would be comfortable with it.

Odysseus
11-09-2010, 09:09 AM
I understand the issue of sexual relations and how they can affect unit cohesiveness. Do you think the military is better off, worse off, or the same, after the introduction of women in service?
It's certainly not the same. In some ways, it has improved. Women have demonstrated that they can do many (but not all) of the same jobs that men do, without eroding the force. However, there are aspects of the military that are worse. We spend far more time and resources on disciplinary issues arising from the interactions of men and women. In addition, we have had to accept lower physical standards from women, resulting in reclassification of certain tasks. For example, when medics were males, a stretcher carry was a two-man lift. With female medics on the team, it's now a four-person carry. This means that a medical support vehicle has to have two more medics on it in order to accomodate the new standard, which leaves less room for casualties.


Well, in your case, its interesting how you consistently come down on the same side of *every* single gay issue, no matter what. From the outlandish lengths you will go in concocting scenarios to justify denial of gay marriage (remember you're amazingly ludicrous path from gay marriage to child/man marriage?), to the revealing posts where it appears that, in your mind, you see all homosexuals males as little more than militant Perez Hilton wannabes who are on the verge of sexually assaulting any man they happen to see, we're supposed to conclude you have no prejudices here?

I remember how I explained that it would lead to it, yes. But you're the only one who found it ludicrous. As for my supposed prejudice, I can make the same claim about you. You invariably take the position that undermines or weakens the US, not just in gay issues, but on pretty much everything. My prejudice is towards stability and maintaining good order and discipline. Yours in subverting the culture and attacking it. Otherwise, why would you take the position that every initiative that the most militant gays endorse makes perfect sense, and only a bigot would oppose them? Why are you so hell-bent on turning our nation upside down? The outlandish lengths that you went to in order to avoid answering the questions on American exceptionalism and greatness gives me a few insights into your motivations. Suffice to say that I'm more invested in our remaining a great nation than you are, and it shows. Whenever somebody wants to weaken America, we can count on you to be on their side.


It just so happens that allowing gays to have their way on any single issue, will have consequences will that will destroy our country, right?

If they didn't, would you still be in favor of them?


But sure.. you're the victim here, being insulted and viciously attacked! The humanity!

Humanity has nothing to do with your position. It's all about demonstrating your superiority to the rest of us. If that means that anyone who doesn't acknowledge your obvious supremacy as a regurgitator of destructive ideas is a hopeless bigot, then them's the breaks.


Well, I recognize those differences. But, as I said, the behavior also held true for the IDF. Homosexuals generally exercise tact and are selective in revealing their orientation, even under open policies. And under closed policies, they do the same - and reveal their orientation to those with whom they feel safe doing so.
Cite your studies. Links, please. Because my experience with gays is radically different from yours


And in the military situations, their identities as soldiers seem to peripheralize their identities as homosexuals.
Again, what is your source? I can speak from actual events. For example, a friend of mine is assigned to an infantry BN in NY. He had an openly gay 2LT that the command was doing everything in their power to accomodate. That ended when he chained himself to the White House gates, in uniform, as a protest. His military identity wasn't as important to him as making a statement. Another example? Early on in my career, a group of medical personnel who were known to their chain of command as being gay, but who were otherwise considered exemplary Soldiers, took over a GP Medium tent during an exercise and after a few days, had driven out the few straights there with their behavior. Their conduct alienated everyone around them, but according to you, that never happens. Another officer, a company commander, sexually harassed a number of subordinates of the same sex, even going so far as to schedule his showers so that he was around when they were. His unit, an elite airborne company, had a huge attrition rate as people requested (and got) transfers out. The subsequent commander had to rebuild the company from the ground up.


Well, if you're that concerned about all these things, you should be trying to screen for and ban gays from the military. DADT doesn't address any of the core problems you seem to have with homosexual service in the military. For the millionth time, you have homosexuals deployed, overseas, for years at a time right fucking now.

We used to do that, before the last Democratic administration decided to try to end the ban. The resulting furor resulted in DADT instead of an outright repeal or maintaining the status quo. Since then, we've actually discharged more gays than previously, and the incidence of sexual assaults and harassment has increased. But, once again, you know much more about the culture than I do, because you've read a couple of studies that just happened to support your position, but you ignore the findings of previous congressional inquiries which were initiated in order to determine the best policy. Go figure.

And for the millionth time, if those Soldiers aren't openly gay, then they are not acting on it, are they? It's the open acceptance of homosexual conduct in the ranks that the law bans, and you have as yet to explain what that will do to make us a more effective fighting force. Or do you even care?


To avoid the going down that road, you try to raise the point that DADT policy alters the behavior of homosexuals in the military, in such a way as to limit promiscuity and their affect on military culture. Again, these claims are basically pulled straight out of your ass and, from what I can tell, are based on little more than your prejudiced assumptions about homosexual behavior. Those who study these issues have found out that your claims seem to be bogus, and that your doomsday scenarios play out exactly *nowhere* in the rest of the world.

My "claims" are based on decades of experience in uniform. Yours are based on "reports" that support preconceived ideologically driven-positions that don't impress me.


Why is this an issue at all? Who thinks there is ANY benefit to allowing this? We already have the best military in the world, what is the risk versus reward ratio? Why not maintain the status quo? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

But then, they wouldn't get to purge the military of people like us, would they? That's the reward, a PC, neutered military that votes the way the rest of the government does. Maybe they'll unionize us next.

Zathras
11-09-2010, 11:53 AM
Wilbur is for gays in the military for one simple reason....he loves a man in a uniform and figures it's the only way he can get laid.

Odysseus
11-09-2010, 12:25 PM
Wilbur is for gays in the military for one simple reason....he loves a man in a uniform and figures it's the only way he can get laid.

No, Wilbur hates uniforms, symbols of authority or anything else that smacks of American triumphalism. He wants the nation neutered.

Phillygirl
11-09-2010, 03:04 PM
It's certainly not the same. In some ways, it has improved. Women have demonstrated that they can do many (but not all) of the same jobs that men do, without eroding the force. However, there are aspects of the military that are worse. We spend far more time and resources on disciplinary issues arising from the interactions of men and women. In addition, we have had to accept lower physical standards from women, resulting in reclassification of certain tasks. For example, when medics were males, a stretcher carry was a two-man lift. With female medics on the team, it's now a four-person carry. This means that a medical support vehicle has to have two more medics on it in order to accomodate the new standard, which leaves less room for casualties.


To me, it is unacceptable for the lowering of standards simply because of the gender. Overall, do you think the improvement with additional troops ready and available for duty has outweighed the disadvantages?

Odysseus
11-09-2010, 04:00 PM
To me, it is unacceptable for the lowering of standards simply because of the gender. Overall, do you think the improvement with additional troops ready and available for duty has outweighed the disadvantages?

It's hard to say. The integration of women has diverted a tremendous amount of resources to reigning in sexual behavior. Every unit down to company level has an EO (Equal Opportunity) program, POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harrassment) classes, UVA (Unit Victim Advocate, a Soldier who assists victims of sexual crimes) and a host of other programs and personnel in place. Mostly, these are additional duty assignments, or ADAs, but that just means that the detailed Soldier has less time to do their warfighting function. And the worst part of it is that every minute that the Soldiers spend on these functions is absolutely critical. We cannot function as a mixed force without them, so we have to deal with it.

And, the culture has gotten much more PC than it used to be. I came up against it when I had my company command. I was an armor officer, coming into a logistics headquarters, and I quickly discovered that the language of the combat arms was too rough for the delicate sensibilities of some of our troopies, but it's more than just salty language or being too direct with someone who is screwing up. Remember that I cited the changes to the physical standards that were emplaced after the integration of women? Well, just pointing that out that there was a separate standard for women was considered the most common form of sexual harassment, according to a poll done a few years ago. Now, it's not like the standards aren't different, or that it's hidden. The APFT gives men and women in the same age groups different goals for push-ups, sit-ups and the run, and they are in writing on the PT card and in the FM, so, again, it's not like they aren't official policy, but just pointing out that the official policy demonstrates that women lack the same upper body strength as men, or can't run as fast, or that these physical differences might have an impact on the mission, is considered harassment. Think about what the effects of that are on a culture whose honor code is that we will not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.

And that, BTW, was my foremost objection to DADT. I expect honesty from my Soldiers, and I give it in return. A policy that encourages one group of Soldiers to lie about who they are and what they do is corrosive to trust. A policy that singles out Soldiers for special treatment because of their sexual behavior is toxic to good order and discipline, and a policy that tells Soldiers that they must not only ignore behavior that they find immoral or repellent, but actively embrace the Soldiers who indulge in it, is not a reform, but an attack on the culture of our institution. That's why the Wilburs of the world support it, not because they care about the gays who will have to cope with being outed, or the Soldiers who have to live with them, but because transgressing against our values is their only value. What shocks or apalls us must be good, and must be advanced. And if, not today, but somewhere down the line, our capacity to fight and win wars is eroded by the constant trickle of PC changes wrought by the likes of Obama, well, we lost Vietnam, and the world didn't end, right? They think that America can lose wars and the world will go on or, even more insidiously, be a better place for the collapse of the hyperpower. They're wrong, but they won't be around to see how wrong they are, and as long as it makes them feel good in the here and now, that's all that matters.

BadCat
11-09-2010, 04:25 PM
Meh, only through home field advantage - he's a troll by his own admission who just wants to insult and deride.

I insult people like you, whom I think are a waste of oxygen.

Phillygirl
11-09-2010, 07:16 PM
It's hard to say. The integration of women has diverted a tremendous amount of resources to reigning in sexual behavior. Every unit down to company level has an EO (Equal Opportunity) program, POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harrassment) classes, UVA (Unit Victim Advocate, a Soldier who assists victims of sexual crimes) and a host of other programs and personnel in place. Mostly, these are additional duty assignments, or ADAs, but that just means that the detailed Soldier has less time to do their warfighting function. And the worst part of it is that every minute that the Soldiers spend on these functions is absolutely critical. We cannot function as a mixed force without them, so we have to deal with it.

And, the culture has gotten much more PC than it used to be. I came up against it when I had my company command. I was an armor officer, coming into a logistics headquarters, and I quickly discovered that the language of the combat arms was too rough for the delicate sensibilities of some of our troopies, but it's more than just salty language or being too direct with someone who is screwing up. Remember that I cited the changes to the physical standards that were emplaced after the integration of women? Well, just pointing that out that there was a separate standard for women was considered the most common form of sexual harassment, according to a poll done a few years ago. Now, it's not like the standards aren't different, or that it's hidden. The APFT gives men and women in the same age groups different goals for push-ups, sit-ups and the run, and they are in writing on the PT card and in the FM, so, again, it's not like they aren't official policy, but just pointing out that the official policy demonstrates that women lack the same upper body strength as men, or can't run as fast, or that these physical differences might have an impact on the mission, is considered harassment. Think about what the effects of that are on a culture whose honor code is that we will not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.



First, thank you for your thoughtful responses to my questions. As you can probably tell, I'm on the fence on this issue. If it were to come to a vote, my vote would be no, simply because I don't believe the military is the place for social experimentation and I don't believe the civilian population can possibly know all the impacts of certain policies the military has, so I don't believe, as a civilian, I should be making military policy.

Having said that, I've seen and heard very different reactions on the issue from those whom I respect, who either are currently served, or have served, so I like to try to get opinions where I can. One very close friend is adamantly opposed to changing DADT (and isn't really thrilled with DADT), but he is a Vietnam Vet and I try to see if the attitude is different from younger generations. Mostly, I have found that it is, but clearly not always.

I personally don't have an objection to women in the military, but do have an objection to women in combat. That obviously raises a host of issues with regards to why bother to spend the time, money, and resources to train them if they are not ultimately going to go to war when we need them to. That causes me pause on my position. But I do see the issues involving the appearance of favoritism in a combat situation and you raise a very good point, in addition to the physical capabilities of women versus men. While I realize that most fighting is not hand to hand, that doesn't discount the necessity of certain levels of strength and fitness, including the mere mechanics of flying and landing a plane, especially under fire. Mixed quarters on an aircraft carrier or battleship are also troublesome. Yet I have also heard from many that have served side by side with women that they generally have found them to be competent and worthy, with the same overall statistical capabilities as are found in the male population.


And that, BTW, was my foremost objection to DADT. I expect honesty from my Soldiers, and I give it in return. A policy that encourages one group of Soldiers to lie about who they are and what they do is corrosive to trust. A policy that singles out Soldiers for special treatment because of their sexual behavior is toxic to good order and discipline, and a policy that tells Soldiers that they must not only ignore behavior that they find immoral or repellent, but actively embrace the Soldiers who indulge in it, is not a reform, but an attack on the culture of our institution. That's why the Wilburs of the world support it, not because they care about the gays who will have to cope with being outed, or the Soldiers who have to live with them, but because transgressing against our values is their only value. What shocks or apalls us must be good, and must be advanced. And if, not today, but somewhere down the line, our capacity to fight and win wars is eroded by the constant trickle of PC changes wrought by the likes of Obama, well, we lost Vietnam, and the world didn't end, right? They think that America can lose wars and the world will go on or, even more insidiously, be a better place for the collapse of the hyperpower. They're wrong, but they won't be around to see how wrong they are, and as long as it makes them feel good in the here and now, that's all that matters.
Your issue on honesty is an important one, that I see as an additional problem with DADT. Otherwise capable soldiers are forced into the position of lying about what should be a private issue simply because of the policy. To me, that becomes a circular argument. "Don't lie to me about your sexual preferences." "Why is it important to know my sexual preferences?" "Because if you're lying to me about it then you are eligible for a discharge."

Can you tell me how you believe that one group of soldiers (I presume you mean gays) is singled out with regards to special treatment? I can only assume that the acts that homosexuals are engaged in are not worthy of discipline if engaged in by heterosexual soldiers with a consensual, unmarried (or their spouse) adult partner, provided that no other laws or codes are broken. What is the special treatment?

AmPat
11-09-2010, 07:22 PM
I believe that you're right that there is no reversing it once it gets changed, which is why I wouldn't want it changed right now, as it doesn't seem to me that a significant enough percentage of the military population would be comfortable with it.

Dang it! I was trying to get a rise out of somebody for the "pansy-panderer" comment.:mad:

Rockntractor
11-09-2010, 07:25 PM
Dang it! I was trying to get a rise out of somebody for the "pansy-panderer" comment.:mad:

I'm sure Poli was offended!

Phillygirl
11-09-2010, 07:29 PM
Dang it! I was trying to get a rise out of somebody for the "pansy-panderer" comment.:mad:

The second sentence killed it...no proper subject, verb, object presentation./Lindanumbers.

Oh...and I had to idea what MTO'ed meant...I'll try to be more offended next time! :D

Rockntractor
11-09-2010, 07:33 PM
The second sentence killed it...no proper subject, verb, object presentation./Lindanumbers.

Oh...and I had to idea what MTO'ed meant...I'll try to be more offended next time! :D

I gave you a hard time twice in the past month and you didn't get offended, I guess when you have that whole lawyer thing going on you get calloused.:confused:

Phillygirl
11-09-2010, 07:37 PM
I gave you a hard time twice in the past month and you didn't get offended, I guess when you have that whole lawyer thing going on you get calloused.:confused:

Please, my secretary can throw more insults before she gets me coffee in the morning that you guys could possibly hurl...hey, wait...she never did get me that coffee today. Hmm...now I'm offended.

Rockntractor
11-09-2010, 07:42 PM
Please, my secretary can throw more insults before she gets me coffee in the morning that you guys could possibly hurl...hey, wait...she never did get me that coffee today. Hmm...now I'm offended.

Remember the filly hiding?
Hardly flattering I would say.:D
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/filly-stuck-in-tree-1.jpg?t=1289349672

Phillygirl
11-09-2010, 07:50 PM
Remember the filly hiding?
Hardly flattering I would say.:D
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/filly-stuck-in-tree-1.jpg?t=1289349672

Meh...I know you gotta have a tough skin around here. I try to stay out of the fights mostly.

Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 12:11 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111007381.html


A Pentagon study group has concluded that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two people familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1.


More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document. The survey results led the report's authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them.

Phillygirl
11-11-2010, 12:25 PM
The summary of the results of the survey certainly doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion posted.

Odysseus
11-11-2010, 12:27 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111007381.html

A few things that you left out of your excerpt. First, the photo that accompanied the article:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2010/05/25/PH2010052501443.jpg

Second, a bit more about the source of the leak:


One source, who has read the report in full, summarized its findings in a series of conversations this week. The source declined to state his position on whether to lift the ban, insisting it did not matter. (If it didn't matter, why not state it?) He said he felt compelled to share the information out of concern that groups opposed to ending the ban would mischaracterize (i.e., cite) the findings. The long, detailed and nuanced report will almost certainly be used by opponents and supporters of repeal legislation to bolster their positions in what is likely to be a heated and partisan congressional debate.

In other words, the leaker, who clearly supports lifting the ban, is afraid that the report isn't a slam dunk for his side and is trying to shape the debate in advance.

Nice try.

lacarnut
11-11-2010, 12:31 PM
Meh, only through home field advantage - he's a troll by his own admission who just wants to insult and deride.

And you have zero military experience. Correct. Having served for 2 years in the Army, I am impressed with your knowledge of the subject matter. Not.

FBIGuy
11-11-2010, 12:55 PM
And you have zero military experience. Correct. Having served for 2 years in the Army, I am impressed with your knowledge of the subject matter. Not.

He's an idiot who is running his mouth about things he knowns nothing about. Hell I can read a book about baseball but that doesn't mean I'm ready to pitch for the Yankees.

Odysseus
11-11-2010, 03:30 PM
He's an idiot who is running his mouth about things he knowns nothing about. Hell I can read a book about baseball but that doesn't mean I'm ready to pitch for the Yankees.

Isn't that the Obama standard of experience? Reading up on politics makes you ready to run the country?