# So is this the end of the US military ?



## young guy

Admiral Mike Mullen and sec of Defense Robert Gates yesterday both said the end of dont ask dont tell is the right thing to do 

lots of exmilitary guys here - what do you think - have any of you served with any gays - did it make a difference?


----------



## eagle2250

Talking the politically correct talk is both convenient and relatively easy. Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates want to keep their jobs and both in the past have proven themselves more than willing to 'tell the Boss what he wants to hear! As a former unit commander, I will tell you, walking the talk is going to prove much more problematic and you won't see Mullins and Gates down there working the problems. I guess that's why their subordinates get paid those "big bucks!" Is it the right course to follow...probably(?). Is it going to be easy...absolutely not!

PS: No it is not going to be the end of the US military. H*ll, we survived integrating women on our combat crews, didn't we?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

eagle2250 said:


> PS: No it is not going to be the end of the US military. H*ll, we survived integrating women on our combat crews, didn't we?


That was/is an awful failure.

DADT is a law, not a military regulation.

What additional laws will the Administration and now the JCOS ignore??

Is having the Executive and military disobeying civil authority the right thing to do??

I think not.


----------



## Peak and Pine

eagle2250 said:


> Is it the right course to follow...*probably(?*). Is it going to be easy...absolutely not!





WouldaShoulda said:


> Is having the Executive and military disobeying civil authority the right thing to do??*I think not*.


I'm confused here; so you hate the gays or what, you're not sure if you hate them?
​


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Peak and Pine said:


> I'm confused here; so you hate the gays or what, you're not sure if you hate them?
> ​


Don't be an ass.

If you can't participate have a meaningful discussion, go away.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
I share WouldaShoulda's reaction to your thinly veiled insult, Peak and Pine. There is nothing in either of the posts you quote to indicate that anyone "hates the gays or is not sure if they hate them!" Unlike some, who saw fit to have never climbed off their "high horse and gotten into the game, I am speaking/typing from experience. I know how difficult it can be, attending to the seemingly never ending details of running outfits comprised of 600 to well over 1000 individuals. That equates to a whole lot of personalities and individual prejudices (yes P & P, every one harbors such within themselves!) to manage, as we attend to virtually every aspect of those peoples lives. You may not know this but, in a military unit, we live together, work together and play together and sadly, sometimes die together...or are left wondering (for the remainder of our lives), why him and not me(!)? Hence, I really resent your implication and I do wish you would try to be a bit more responsible in your postings!


----------



## young guy

eagle2250 said:


> Is it the right course to follow...probably(?). Is it going to be easy...absolutely not!


i understand it took five years to fully integrate black soldiers into the military. i dont think anyone is saying its going to be easy, being difficult doesnt make it wrong


----------



## Quay

The "end of the US military"? How apocalyptic and sensationalist. Of course not.



eagle2250 said:


> Talking the politically correct talk is both convenient and relatively easy. Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates want to keep their jobs and both in the past have proven themselves more than willing to 'tell the Boss what he wants to hear!....


oooh. :crazy: How insulting! Do you really think Admiral Mullen's testimony was all about kissing ass, protecting his job, and talking in some socially acceptable language? Was he then simply lying about his own experience and opinions? Do you really hold such a low opinion of the motives of the highest ranking man in uniform?

(Or are we seeing one of those "prejudices" everyone harbors, such as the love the Air Force has for the Navy? )


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

When I served in the RAF Regiment, early 80s, it was still illegal to be homosexual in the British armed forces.


----------



## young guy

Quay said:


> The "end of the US military"? How apocalyptic and sensationalist. Of course not.


actually i was thinking along the lines of Rush limbaugh or keith olberman - LOL....its the end of civilization as we know it!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Peak and Pine

WouldaShoulda said:


> *Don't be an ass*. If you can't participate have a meaningful discussion,* go away*.


I'm surprised at this. You've often followed my postings with something clever. Not this time though. Nor is your slam at the President and Admiral Mullin as meaningful as you've led yourself to believe. Nor am I asking you to go way. Just the opposite; I've always liked your stuff. Pls stay.​


----------



## Peak and Pine

Earl of Ormonde said:


> When I served in the RAF Regiment, early 80s, *it was still illegal to be homosexual in the British armed forces*.


Unless you're Lawrence of Arabia.
​


----------



## JAGMAJ

I don't think that it would be the end of the military, but it will have a great impact on combat arms units in particular. Given the fact that infantry guys often spend long periods of time in close proximity to each other--eating, sleeping, and even showering together-- and the fact that most infantry types (I used to be one) tend to be conservative and from a rural background, the potential for conflict is significant. I have always thought that DADT was a wise policy. The problem isn't with gays serving in the military, as they can serve as well as anybody; the problem is when you have an openly gay individual serving in a unit in close quarters. It's not right that many soldiers are hostile to gays, but that's just the way it is. Until society becomes more accepting of gays, it's just too disruptive, in my opinion, to have openly gay soldiers in the military.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Peak and Pine said:


> Unless you're Lawrence of Arabia.
> ​


 :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: Well, I'm sure there were plenty then and during my day.

But as a young lad, I know I wouldn't have been able to identify them. And anyway it wasn't even something I thought about or considered. My mind was on more important things like, how to jump out of that helo without breaking an ankle, and how will I recognise a suspect carbomb in Northern Ireland, and will I get malaria in the jungles of Belize. Add to that the subject of WOMEN! and I had enough on my plate without worrying about suspected gays serving alongside me.


----------



## Peak and Pine

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I share WouldaShoulda's reaction to your thinly veiled insult, Peak and Pine. There is nothing in either of the posts you quote to indicate that anyone "hates the gays or is not sure if they hate them!" Unlike some, who saw fit to have never climbed off their "high horse and gotten into the game, I am speaking/typing from experience. I know how difficult it can be, attending to the seemingly never ending details of running outfits comprised of 600 to well over 1000 individuals. That equates to a whole lot of personalities and individual prejudices (yes P & P, every one harbors such within themselves!) to manage, as we attend to virtually every aspect of those peoples lives. You may not know this but, in a military unit, we live together, work together and play together and sadly, sometimes die together...or are left wondering (for the remainder of our lives), why him and not me(!)? Hence, I really resent your implication and I do wish you would try to be a bit more responsible in your postings!


I would be as resentful of what you just said as you apparently are of me if I were the kind who got resentful but I gave that up at about the same time I dodged (legally;2-S) the draft so that I wouldn't have to kill Vietnamese, particularly perhaps the granddfather of the Vietnamese kid who maybe made the shirt I'm now wearing if you get my drift and I'm really really tired of exMilitary types (you) telliing me that I don't know jack about this or that because I've not been one of you. I don't consider _getting into the game _as a prerecquisite to holding a belief about gays in the military, that they deserve full rights as human beings and if you don't believe that then, military or not, it follows that you think that gays are something less. I withdraw the word hate, but it's obvious from your writing that you don't much like them, else, in discussions like this, of which you don't have to participate, but choosing to do so, you choose not to champion their cause which, to me, spells your distain for a very large group of humankind. Don't hide behind unit cohesion, you were a commander of sorts apparently, it would be up to you to see that a gay could serve openly and safely under your command. So what is it, are you for them or against them?​


----------



## Peak and Pine

Earl of Ormonde said:


> :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: Well, I'm sure there were plenty then and during my day.
> 
> But as a young lad, I know I wouldn't have been able to identify them. And anyway it wasn't even something I thought about or considered. My mind was on more important things like, how to jump out of that helo without breaking an ankle, and how will I recognise a suspect carbomb in Northern Ireland, and will I get malaria in the jungles of Belize. Add to that the subject of WOMEN! and I had enough on my plate without worrying about suspected gays serving alongside me.


This is the guy you want to listen to. Thank you. ​


----------



## Peak and Pine

JAGMAJ said:


> It's not right that many soldiers are hostile to gays, but that's just the way it is. Until society becomes more accepting of gays, it's just too disruptive, in my opinion, to have openly gay soldiers in the military.


I just came back from Orlando. Outside the Mummy ride at Universal is a sign warning that if you are subject to motion sickness, stay away. Put that sign up at recruiting stations; change it to this: _we have gays in the military. If this is distasteful to you, don't sign up_.
​


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JAGMAJ said:


> I don't think that it would be the end of the military, but it will have a great impact on combat arms units in particular.


Young, single heterosexual men have distinct and unique qualities that make them more suitable for combat specifically, but for participation in our armed services in general.

1) They are more prone toward and accepting of violence.

2) They tend to not contemplate their own mortality.

3) They are more maliable and trainable in areas that are potentially leathal.

Woman, older, married men and homosexuals are less inclined in these areas as a percentile of their subset.

Despite all this, if one wants to change DADT as a policy, Congress should override the law.

The President and the JCOS should not circumvent the law.


----------



## JohnRov

Peak and Pine said:


> I'm confused here; so you hate the gays or what, you're not sure if you hate them?​


Attributing false positions to people in order to attack them isn't exactly a sign of intelligence.


----------



## Peak and Pine

JohnRov said:


> Attributing false positions to people in order to attack them isn't exactly a sign of intelligence.


Didja bother to read any of the posts between the one you quoted and the one you posted? That's your homework assignment for tonight.
​


----------



## Peak and Pine

WouldaShoulda said:


> Young, single heterosexual men have distinct and unique qualities that make them more suitable for combat specifically, but for participation in our armed services in general.
> 
> 1) They are more prone toward and accepting of violence.
> 
> 2) They tend to not contemplate their own mortality.
> 
> 3) They are more maliable and trainable in areas that are potentially leathal.


How long did it take you to make those three things up?​


----------



## CuffDaddy

JAGMAJ said:


> I don't think that it would be the end of the military, but it will have a great impact on combat arms units in particular. Given the fact that infantry guys often spend long periods of time in close proximity to each other--eating, sleeping, and even showering together-- and the fact that most infantry types (I used to be one) tend to be conservative and from a rural background, the potential for conflict is significant. I have always thought that DADT was a wise policy. The problem isn't with gays serving in the military, as they can serve as well as anybody; the problem is when you have an openly gay individual serving in a unit in close quarters. It's not right that many soldiers are hostile to gays, but that's just the way it is. Until society becomes more accepting of gays, it's just too disruptive, in my opinion, to have openly gay soldiers in the military.


All of those things were true in the 1940's and 50's of the issue of integration. Most of the enlisted men were from rural and relatively uneducated backgrounds. Most came from areas with either legal or _de facto_ segregation.

The professionalism and discipline of the military can overcome all sorts of prejudices that new soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen bring into the service with them.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> Young, single heterosexual men have distinct and unique qualities that make them more suitable for combat specifically, but for participation in our armed services in general.
> 
> 1) They are more prone toward and accepting of violence.
> 
> 2) They tend to not contemplate their own mortality.
> 
> 3) They are more maliable and trainable in areas that are potentially leathal.


What is your basis for these statements?

And what, exactly, do you mean? Do you contend that every young heterosexual male has these qualities? Or that no female has them? Or that no homosexual male has them? Or are you talking about the qualities of the "average" member of those groups?


----------



## ksinc

I'm non-military. So, my opinion is probably not important. However, I wonder about things like this story linked below as they do away with DADT and seek new policies. Are there going to be special "exercise" spaces or "zones" for all special groups? This is not about gay people, but about slicing up the military into anything else or other labels; whether that be color, religion, or any other identity. Isn't their strength in being "Airborne!" or "Brown Boot Infantry!" or "A Marine!" and nothing and nobody else? That's my outside-observer perception...



I can't wait for the first Drill Sgt. to scream "Who are you?" and the responses are a symphony of: "I'm Pagan." "I'm Gay." "I'm a Christian Fundamentalist." 

How does that work out for our National Defense; exactly? Hasn't the military respected different religions historically by letting people denote their faith on their papers/tags and/or see a priest or a rabbi or whatever their choice is? Why does there need to be a "designated space?"


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> Or are you talking about the qualities of the "average" member of those groups?


Yes, that's it.

If you want to cull from a population of several millions, a subset capable of seeking out, engaging and destroying an enemy, I am suggesting that it would be wise to recruit from a pool of young, unmarried, heterosexual men.

Even then, greater than 10% may not be suitable for the task.


----------



## JDC

"Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993).

Comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments show that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness (Belkin & McNichol, 2000-2001; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Koegel, 1996).

When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces (Cammermeyer v. Aspin, 1994; Watkins v. United States Army, 1989/1990), there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness.

The U.S. military is capable of integrating members of groups historically excluded from its ranks, as demonstrated by its success in reducing both racial and gender discrimination (Binkin & Bach, 1977; Binkin, Eitelberg, Schexnider, & Smith, 1982; Kauth & Landis, 1996; Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984; Thomas & Thomas, 1996).

Most experts believe that military effectiveness is related to military service members' shared commitment to a common goal that motivates them to work together to achieve the goal (MacCoun, Kier, & Belkin, 2006; MacCoun, 1996). Leadership of the group is also considered crucial. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to task cohesion, the only type of cohesion that critically predicts the team's military readiness and success (c.f. Herek & Belkin, 2005).

The DADT policy, works against effective mental health access for gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel for at least three reasons. First, workplaces that are not supportive of non-heterosexual orientations are strongly correlated with stress and depression (Smith & Ingram, 2004). Second, since disclosure of sexual orientation is officially prohibited, gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members are liable to avoid accessing mental health services when they need them (Johnson & Buhrke, 2006). Third, it is reasonable to assume that forced secrecy and the fear of being exposed as gay, lesbian or bisexual are likely to disproportionally increase anxiety and disrupt optimal performance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> Yes, that's it.
> 
> If you want to cull from a population of several millions, a subset capable of seeking out, engaging and destroying an enemy, I am suggesting that it would be wise to recruit from a pool of young, unmarried, heterosexual men.
> 
> Even then, greater than 10% may not be suitable for the task.


Interesting. So you would concede, then, the vast majority of young heterosexual men lack the requisite traits, and that at least some women and gay men have them?

Would you agree with me that the military has processes - such as the self-selection of volunteers and basic training - that are designed to, and capable of, identifying the individuals that have the requisite characterisitcs?

Also, would you agree that, all else being equal, the larger the pool of talent from which an collective endeavor can draw, the better the final result? (E.g., larger school districts tend to have stronger sports teams.) After all, the best 5% of a population of 100,000 is going to be better than the best 10% of a population of 50,000, right?

Finally, I assume that your silence as to identifying a basis for your assertions means that you *have *no basis for them, other than your subjective individual perceptions (which are yours to have, but not persuasive).


----------



## ksinc

FrankDC said:


> "Leadership of the group is also considered crucial. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to task cohesion, the only type of cohesion that critically predicts the team's military readiness and success (c.f. Herek & Belkin, 2005).
> 
> it is reasonable to assume that forced secrecy and the fear of being exposed as gay, lesbian or bisexual are likely to disproportionally *increase anxiety and disrupt optimal performance."*
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell


The 2nd point seems very important. To my point; these two points need to work together. Splitting people into groups is PC, but would seem to breakdown cohesion. I hope they can achieve both.


----------



## CuffDaddy

FrankDC, how _dare_ you bring well-documented empirical research into this debate?!? Don't you know that the best decisions are those informed by gut-level biases, rather than meaningful research? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## flatline

Fact: there are homosexuals serving in all branches of the armed forces right now. I know some of them. If anything, most of them are model soldiers/marines/seamen (yeah i did). Their performance, despite the secrecy they must maintain, does not suffer nor waver.

Here is what one of my eminently more eloquent acquaintances had to say on the matter:


> It takes a strong sense of honor and duty to make the kind of social sacrifices that serving in the military requires. I believe that goes double for homosexuals, who have to serve in silence. They can give their country 20 years, give up being able to date who they want, marry who they want, even be seen in public with who they want. They can pull wounded men from burning vehicles and carry them to safety, they can fight, bleed, die, and have the American flag draped on their coffin, but they can't even look their fellow servicemen in the eye and tell them they're gay because they would be shown the door.
> 
> As for the supposed morale problem, I think it's plainly on the shoulders of the straight servicemen. If you can't stow your personal opinions and insecurities in favor of doing your duty, then the civilian world can give you all the freedom you want.


This is absolutely the same issue as allowing African men into the Services. We all know that the road to integration and true acceptance is a long and difficult one, but it must start somewhere. Now is the time.



> Forgive me sir, but to me, the Navy isn't a business. It's an organization of people who represent the finest aspects of our nation. We have many traditions. In my career, I have encountered most of them. Some are good, some not so good. I would, however not be here today were it not for our greatest tradition of all.
> _And what would that be, Chief Brashear?" _
> Honor, sir


----------



## mrkleen

Complete NON ISSUE. There have been gays there all along, whether you want to admit it or not.

Here is an interesting article: https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8493888.stm

_When the UK took the step of allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the armed forces 10 years ago, public opinion was in favor but the armed forces themselves were not. The situation is very similar in the US today.

An NOP poll in September 1999 found seven out of 10 Britons believed lesbians and gay men should be allowed to serve in the military._ _At the same time General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley, a leading opponent of the change, told the BBC: "Two surveys have disclosed that the overwhelming majority of those in military service today find homosexuality abhorrent."_ _

In the US, a Gallup poll of 1,015 US citizens in May 2009 found 69% in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces - an increase of 6% over five years. Support among "conservatives" had jumped 12% over the same period, from 46% to 58%._ _

But a Military Times poll in December 2008 found a majority of active-duty respondents - 58% - were against the idea of repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell law. __There was this expectation that there would be problems, but it just didn't happen_ _- Dave Small, ex-Royal Navy Stonewall associate_ _

Large-scale resignations from the UK armed forces were widely expected in some quarters, when the ban on gays was lifted - but in practice they did not materialize. __"There was this expectation that there would be problems, but it just didn't happen. People just got on with their work," said Dave Small, who was in the Royal Navy at the time, but now works for the Stonewall Diversity Champions Program helping the three armed services to adopt best practice in the area of sexual diversity._ _

Fears that allowing openly gay soldiers to serve on the front line would lead to a breakdown of discipline and cohesion within units also proved unfounded._ _
I don't believe it's got anything to do with how efficient or capable their forces will be - it's to do with prejudices, I'm afraid Lord Alan West, UK Security Minister_ _

"For countries that don't do that - I don't believe it's got anything to do with how efficient or capable their forces will be. It's to do with prejudices, I'm afraid," he said._


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> Also, would you agree that, all else being equal, the larger the pool of talent from which an collective endeavor can draw, the better the final result? (E.g., larger school districts tend to have stronger sports teams.) After all, the best 5% of a population of 100,000 is going to be better than the best 10% of a population of 50,000, right?
> 
> Finally, I assume that your silence as to identifying a basis for your assertions means that you *have *no basis for them, other than your subjective individual perceptions (which are yours to have, but not persuasive).


1) If the sports team is a womans volleyball team, I would recommend not having men to try out as it would cease to be a womans team. So no, once an objective has been clearly defined, it is necessary to effectively limit that number to acheive the desired result.

2) I don't find my assersions any less compelling than conclusions culled from Wikipedia. But if there is evidence that shows that old married men, women or homosexuals are more violent than single young heterosexual men I'd be happy to peruse it.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) If the sports team is a womans volleyball team, I would recommend not having men to try out as it would cease to be a womans team. So no, once an objective has been clearly defined, it is necessary to effectively limit that number to acheive the desired result.
> 
> 2) I don't find my assersions any less compelling than conclusions culled from Wikipedia. But if there is evidence that shows that old married men, women or homosexuals are more violent than single young heterosexual men I'd be happy to peruse it.


Come on, WouldaShoulda, you're smarter than this.

1) The _raison detre_ of a woman's volleyball team is to have a *woman's* volleyball team. Are you suggesting that the point of the Army is to have a place where straight, single men can go to be together?

2) Please answer the questions in my prior post. I think the answers, if you bother to formulate them, with show you the complete fallacy of your reasoning in #2.


----------



## TMMKC

Don't ask. Don't tell. Don't care. As long as they do the the jobs we (the taxpayers) and their superior officers ask them to do, what's the problem?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> Come on, WouldaShoulda, you're smarter than this.
> 
> 1) The _raison detre_ of a woman's volleyball team is to have a *woman's* volleyball team. Are you suggesting that the point of the Army is to have a place where straight, single men can go to be together?
> 
> 2) Please answer the questions in my prior post. I think the answers, if you bother to formulate them, with show you the complete fallacy of your reasoning in #2.


1) No, at the risk of stating the obvious, I'm trying to say that the point of an Army should be to engage with and destroy enemy forces as effectively as possible. To do so effectively requires a sub-population that is more violent, and less likely to dwell on the consequences of their actions.

2) I'll concede that my assertions are based on evidence that is either prima facie, anecdotal or both. Perhaps it could be refuted with something besides conclusions culled from Wki??


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) No, at the risk of stating the obvious, I'm trying to say that the point of an Army should be to engage with and destroy enemy forces as effectively as possible. To do so effectively requires a sub-population that is more violent, and less likely to dwell on the consequences of their actions.
> 
> 2) I'll concede that my assertions are based on evidence that is either prima facie, anecdotal or both. Perhaps it could be refuted with something besides conclusions culled from Wki??


1) I agree that's the point. Since that's the point, why shouldn't we recruit and retain the _individuals_ that are best suited to that? Since you've already conceded that many straight men lack the needed characteristics, and since it's obvious that at least some gay men (and women) have those characteristics, who gives a f*** what the "average" member of those populations is like?

Who cares if 10% of straight men but only 5% of gay men make good soldiers? Go recruit that 10% and that 5%. Doing otherwise is like saying: 10% of jewish Americans are qualified to be college professors, but only 8% of anglo-Americans are so qualified, therefore our college will be better if we only hire jewish profesors. That's idiotic.

Make decisions about _individuals,_ not groups. Duh.

2) The conclusions aren't "from" Wikipedia. Wikipedia is citing peer-reviewed research. But even in the absence of that research, *you're* the one urging discrimination as a public policy. I think the person who *wants* discrimination is the one who bears the burden of proof.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> 1)
> 
> Make decisions about _individuals,_ not groups. Duh.
> 
> I think the person who *wants* discrimination is the one who bears the burden of proof.


1) That is actually counter to building an effective fighting force. But I see how that line of reasoning is perfectly suitable in other areas.

2) I'm defending the status quo. The burden of proof belongs to those who wish the change the status quo.

BTW~Why do you suppose that the Executive and DOD are attempting to circumvent the law?? Do you feel that is good precedence??


----------



## CuffDaddy

My personal view is that the existing "law" is unconstitutional, and as such invalid and _must_ be disregarded.

I assume you were similarly in favor of strict observance of Congressional laws and limits on executive power in the national security/military arena when Bush and Cheney were arguing the "unitary executive" theory a few years ago, right?


----------



## Laxplayer

A friend of mine is a Sgt in the Army and he has no problem with someone being openly gay in the military. Since he leads the way as a Ranger and has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll side with him on this issue.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Can you please explain to me how recruiting the best individuals is counter to building an effective fighting force? Especially if we make teamwork one of the traits that we look for?

It seems to me that those soldiers who say they would not serve with a fellow soldier who is gay are the ones who are the threat to a cohesive fighting force. Just like the racist soldiers who said, prior to Truman's executive de-segregation of the armed forces, that they would not serve in the same unit with black soldiers. Once the change went through, those soldiers worth a [email protected] quickly learned to put their prejudices aside. As for those who could not, the military was well rid of them.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Laxplayer said:


> A friend of mine is a Sgt in the Army and he has no problem with someone being openly gay in the military. Since he leads the way as a Ranger and has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll side with him on this issue.


And I know a whole ready room that would be quite opposed to it. Anecdotal evidence isn't relevant here.

One argument I don't understand is when some here say that the burden is on the straight men/women who currently serve. How is this possible? The small majority of enlisted are conservative and the vast majority of the officer corps is conservative. To me it seems that the burden is on the minority (in this case, gays) to adopt to the prevalent culture. This of course assumes that the existing culture works.

Lumping the openly gay issue with that of women and blacks is disingenuous. Being gay is expressed through action (whether or not one feels that it's a genetic trait) whereas being black or a woman is purely a genetic trait. There is choice involved with the former but not the latter. Of course, if you feel that being a woman is a choice, then should we not include transgenders for serving openly as well?


----------



## CuffDaddy

IlliniFlyer said:


> One argument I don't understand is when some here say that the burden is on the straight men/women who currently serve. How is this possible? The small majority of enlisted are conservative and the vast majority of the officer corps is conservative. To me it seems that the burden is on the minority (in this case, gays) to adopt to the prevalent culture. This of course assumes that the existing culture works.


Of course gay servicemen, like all soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen, must adapt to the military culture. Nobody is challenging that. What is being challenged is the right to call personal prejudices "military culture" and thereby make it not only acceptable, but public policy.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

CuffDaddy said:


> Of course gay servicemen, like all soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen, must adapt to the military culture. Nobody is challenging that. What is being challenged is the right to call personal prejudices "military culture" and thereby make it not only acceptable, but public policy.


You responded before I was finished editing my post (you're just too quick!). I think that people are judged for their actions and therefore it is incorrect to assume that prejudices are the reason for not wanting gays to serve openly. On the other hand, prejudices are not acceptable for things that people cannot control (such as skin color).


----------



## Laxplayer

young guy said:


> Admiral Mike Mullen and sec of Defense Robert Gates yesterday both said the end of dont ask dont tell is the right thing to do
> 
> *lots of exmilitary guys here - what do you think - have any of you served with any gays - did it make a difference?*





IlliniFlyer said:


> And I know a whole ready room that would be quite opposed to it. Anecdotal evidence isn't relevant here.


Tell that to the OP. I have not served in the military so I cannot answer the OP's question. I offered the opinion of a close friend instead. I'll take his word for it. I have served as a firefighter/paramedic and yes, some I knew in the fire service or EMS were gay. They were still able to put water on the fire, cut holes for ventilation, run search and rescue and treat patients even though they were *gasp!* gay...crazy huh?


----------



## CuffDaddy

IlliniFlyer said:


> You responded before I was finished editing my post (you're just too quick!). I think that people are judged for their actions and therefore it is incorrect to assume that prejudices are the reason for not wanting gays to serve openly. On the other hand, prejudices are not acceptable for things that people cannot control (such as skin color).


If people are "judged by their actions," why would their sexual orientation matter? If the best pilot (or the second best, since you're probably the best) in your squardron suddenly announced that he was gay, and you had served with him for years, found him honorable, dutiful, exhibited leadership and followership, etc., why would his sexual orientation matter? For those who are opposed to gays in the military, what "actions" are they judging based upon?

As for "things that people cannot control," let's set aside the *OVERWHELMING* scientific evidence that homosexuality (esp. in men) is *not* something that is a matter of choice. Instead, consider this. One's religion is certainly something that one can control, right? As is whether one keeps it a secret, right? The majority of American servicemen are Christians, are they not? Would it be acceptable to have a policy that said: 
"Jewish men may serve in the armed forces, but _only_ if they keep their religion a secret. Christian servicemen may openly discuss their religious views, wear crucifix jewelry, etc. Although the service may not ask whether a serviceman is jewish, if he lets it become know that he _is_ jewish, then he will be discharged from the service, regardless of his record of service in the military, his performance reviews, prior commendations, importance to ongoing operations, and/or the feelings of those in his unit."
​What say you? Is that policy kosher?


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr.

*boy, the military is realllllly desparate*

What other mental illnesses will not exclude you from military service?


----------



## JAGMAJ

There's no doubt that servicemembers should be able to tolerate openly gay members, but the fact is that many heterosexual men are threatened by being in close proximity to gay men. Back when the Army was first integrated, a white soldier might have thought that the black soldier in the foxhole with him was inferior, but he wasn't worried that he might make sexual advances on him. Again, I think that most heterosexual soldiers in non-combat units would be able to put aside their feelings and work together, but I'm afraid that the typical American infantryman would have a hard time sharing a foxhole or a tent with an openly gay man.


----------



## Acct2000

That seems a bit odd. I've never seen a gay man or even heard of a gay man knowingly hitting on someone who is not gay. 

In conversation someone who is gay pointed out to me that there is no interest pursuing what will not lead to sex.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

CuffDaddy said:


> If people are "judged by their actions," why would their sexual orientation matter? If the best pilot (or the second best, since you're probably the best) in your squardron suddenly announced that he was gay, and you had served with him for years, found him honorable, dutiful, exhibited leadership and followership, etc., why would his sexual orientation matter? For those who are opposed to gays in the military, what "actions" are they judging based upon?


In a shore-based, non-deployable unit I'm sure it wouldn't matter much. But I would not want to share a stateroom or use the shower at the same time with said gay member. I wouldn't expect a woman to share a stateroom with me on the boat or to be in a shower adjacent to mine at the same time.



CuffDaddy said:


> As for "things that people cannot control," let's set aside the *OVERWHELMING* scientific evidence that homosexuality (esp. in men) is *not* something that is a matter of choice.


I'd like to see you quote credible research on this one. Furthermore, are you saying that who you choose to have sex with is not a choice?



CuffDaddy said:


> Instead, consider this. One's religion is certainly something that one can control, right? As is whether one keeps it a secret, right? The majority of American servicemen are Christians, are they not? Would it be acceptable to have a policy that said...


I do not know what most people's religion is. Perhaps this is a don't ask/don't tell policy? However, the differences between Christianity and Judaism are not relevant in this argument (other than both are opposed to homosexuality  ). I will agree that faith is personal; dignity is as well. In deployable units where the majority of privacy is eroded due to necessity, the last bit of dignity is lost when eliminating acceptable boundaries.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

forsbergacct2000 said:


> That seems a bit odd. I've never seen a gay man or even heard of a gay man knowingly hitting on someone who is not gay.
> 
> In conversation someone who is gay pointed out to me that there is no interest pursuing what will not lead to sex.


You can't be serious.


----------



## Peak and Pine

JAGMAJ said:


> *I'm afraid that the typical American infantryman would have a hard time sharing a foxhole or a tent with an openly gay man*.


Well then show your _typical American infantryman_ the door, if they have those things on foxholes. Throughout this you have tried to mask as an impartial observer citing only how you believe others would act. You're in the military apparently and I think that all that you're saying is what _*you*_ think, that _*you*_ are this typical American gay bashing infantry man, albeit with an oak leaf. I wasn't kidding when I said to you earlier, put a sign in front of the recruiting stations. Have it say _warning the Military openly accepts gays. Do not sign up if this is objectionable to you._ That should scare off the homophobes.
-------------------​Am enjoying the dust-up between C'Daddy and WouldaShoulda and I'm cheering for Daddy obviously, though he hardly needs backup.
​


----------



## Peak and Pine

IlliniFlyer said:


> The small majority of enlisted are conservative and the vast majority of the officer corps is conservative. To me it seems that the burden is on the minority (in this case, gays) to adopt to the prevalent culture. This of course assumes that the existing culture works.


Does this come with a study guide? A Cliff's Notes maybe?

What exactly is a _small majority?_ I wasn't aware there was a degree to majority because there isn't. And what do you mean by conservative (without the big C)? Are you saying that one who is conservative in thought and action and appearance and in most other aspects of life is most likely to be a gay basher? Amazing the things I learn here. And no, it is never incumbent on the minority to adopt the previlent culture in anything. Being, I assume, Concervative with a big C, you're supposed to be a champion of rugged individualism. Going with the flow simply because it's the flow does not become you.
​


----------



## JAGMAJ

Peak and Pine said:


> Well then show your _typical American infantryman_ the door, if they have those things on foxholes. Throughout this you have tried to mask as an impartial observer citing only how you believe others would act. You're in the military apparently and I think that all that you're saying is what _*you*_ think, that _*you*_ are this typical American gay bashing infantry man, albeit with an oak leaf. I wasn't kidding when I said to you earlier, put a sign in front of the recruiting stations. Have it say _warning the Military openly accepts gays. Do not sign up if this is objectionable to you._ That should scare off the homophobes.
> -------------------​Am enjoying the dust-up between C'Daddy and WouldaShoulda and I'm cheering for Daddy obviously, though he hardly needs backup.
> ​


My speculation about how others would act is based on my observations. I started off my career as an enlisted infantryman in the National Guard and then, I got commissioned as an infantry officer through ROTC before later going to law school to become a JA. Even as a JAG, I have deployed with an Armored Cavalry Regiment and a Special Forces Task Force. I think I have some sense of how members of these units behave. I'm not saying that these people are right for being homophobes; I'm just saying that the current DADT policy works because it allows gays to serve and avoids having to show heterosexual infantrymen the door because they're uncomfortable showering with openly gay men.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Peak and Pine said:


> Does this come with a study guide? A Cliff's Notes maybe? What exactly is a _small majority?_ I wasn't aware there was a degree to majority because there isn't.


Allow me to educate you. A small majority is when the majority is small. Put another way, most enlisted are conservative (as compared to liberal). However, the numbers are not overwhelming conservative when compared to liberal. Therefore, it is a small majority.



Peak and Pine said:


> And what do you mean by conservative (without the big C)? Are you saying that one who is conservative in thought and action and appearance and in most other aspects of life is most likely to be a gay basher? Amazing the things I learn here. And no, it is never incumbent on the minority to adopt the previlent culture in anything. Being, I assume, Concervative with a big C, you're supposed to be a champion of rugged individualism. Going with the flow simply because it's the flow does not become you.
> 
> [/INDENT]


Do you actually think like this? I'll listen to what CuffDaddy has to say simply because he puts rational thought into words. You, sir, are not worth the effort.


----------



## Peak and Pine

JAGMAJ said:


> My speculation about how others would act is based on my observations. I started off my career as an enlisted infantryman in the National Guard and then, I got commissioned as an infantry officer through ROTC before later going to law school to become a JA. Even as a JAG, I have deployed with an Armored Cavalry Regiment and a Special Forces Task Force. I think I have some sense of how members of these units behave. I'm not saying that these people are right for being homophobes; I'm just saying that the current DADT policy works because it allows gays to serve and avoids having to show heterosexual infantrymen the door because they're uncomfortable showering with openly gay men.


I have enormous respect for the resume just cited and based on that I certainly would and will defer to you in most matters military and legal...except this one. If DADT works so well, how come a thousand or more gay servicemen were discharged last year? Did they _tell?_ Then how about discharging those that_ asked_? And isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that infantrymen might be "...uncomfortable showering with gay men". Since when was comfort, in any area, a high priority in the ranks? O and can you have Catherine Bell sign a pair of panties for me; she does work with you, right?​


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Peak and Pine said:


> O and can you have Catherine Bell sign a pair of panties for me; she does work with you, right?​


I have nothing to add except that I have met Catherine Bell when they were filming an episode of JAG down in San Diego. She's still got it.


----------



## Peak and Pine

IlliniFlyer said:


> Do you actually think like this? I'll listen to what CuffDaddy has to say simply because he puts rational thought into words. *You, sir, are not worth the effort.*


That or you just can't come up with anything. Based on your earlier posts I incline toward the latter. Now, since you won't be responding because I'm not worth the effort (even tho you did respond and probably sweated a lot doing so thus your remark about the effort) allow me to give you a few things to _silently_ ponder. In your posts here you exhhibit unreasoned bigotry. And you make things up. And you write poorly. And you're sorta humorless. Outside of that I actually enjoy reading your anti-gay ramblings.​


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Peak and Pine said:


> That or you just can't come up with anything. Based on your earlier posts I incline toward the latter. Now, since you won't be responding because I'm not worth the effort (even tho you did respond and probably sweated a lot doing so thus your remark about the effort) allow me to give you a few things to _silently_ ponder. In your posts here you exhhibit unreasoned bigotry. And you make things up. And you write poorly. And you're sorta humorless. Outside of that I actually enjoy reading your anti-gay ramblings.​


Perhaps your arguments are so shallow that it's not worth my time to counter (aside from this post). I have to ask though... what have I written that is unreasoned bigotry?


----------



## Peak and Pine

IlliniFlyer said:


> Perhaps your arguments are so shallow that it's not worth my time to counter (aside from this post). I have to ask though... what have I written that is unreasoned bigotry?


Disclaimer: Illini and I have just had a PM cooling off moment. Dont'cha just love the internet; Texas to Maine at 2 a.m.

That you don't want gays openly in the military speaks to bigotry. And I shouldn't have used the word _unreasoned_ because it's superfluous when attatched to bigotry.​


----------



## beherethen

My family has had members fighting in every war since the revolution, I owe this info to my little brother has has a rich wife and too much time on his hands. When my Greeting form to go visit the wonderful fields of Viet Nam, I said no. I went on something of a hunger strike and got down to 87 lbs for my physical. When they gave us an IQ test, I 
drew a cartoon of LBJ engaged in obscene act, As I recall it the final action came when the doctor was attempting to draw a blood sample, and I grabbed the syringe and said I don't need you to hit a vein
Anyway I was listed as 4F. My father was a little embarrassed but years later, he cane to me and said given the way thing turned out he was proud of the way I'd handled it.
______________________________________________________________________
My point is that maybe I've given up the right to tell the US on how to run the military.But FI, never stopped me before. The Libs have control of the House Senate and White House. All they have to do is to change a few words in the EEOC laws and this kind of crap would cease to be a problem.. Simple-easy-just take a little guts-someone wake me up when they do it. BTW for you gays reading this-take at look how long the Dem's are taking to get your freedom
_________________________________________________________________________
As long as I;m ranting, the Libs see no problems morning over the spotted owl or the GD polar bear, I'm told that in the UK the cops have to remove their shoes when raiding a Muslim house whose residents are suspected of theft-drugs-terrorism-whatever. If we have to bend over backwards to avoid offending any non White subculture, maybe we should share a little of those sympathies, with the poor guys fighting in these Hell holes every day A little sensitivity maybe.to their subculture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and if the government could somehow stay the **** out of Waco, that would be nice:icon_smile:


----------



## Peak and Pine

^^ Wow. The stuff you get to read at 2 a.m. I've got to stay up this late more often. Well done, barkeep; I liked it all.​


----------



## beherethen

Peak you've just made my buddy lis. Ambein is kicking in so later-thanks


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

WouldaShoulda said:


> Young, single heterosexual men have distinct and unique qualities that make them more suitable for combat specifically, but for participation in our armed services in general.
> 
> 1) They are more prone toward and accepting of violence.
> 
> 2) They tend to not contemplate their own mortality.
> 
> 3) They are more maliable and trainable in areas that are potentially leathal.


What a load of nonsense! But perhaps you could explain the historically acknowledged fact of the high number of homoesexual soldiers among successful Greek, Spartan and Roman units?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What a load of nonsense! But perhaps you could explain the historically acknowledged fact of the high number of homoesexual soldiers among successful Greek, Spartan and Roman units?


That was before my time!!

OK, seriously, where they homosexual or did they just have sex with camp following men while away from home??

Where old men and women excluded??

It was a different time and a different culture and even if all the questions are answered I don't think it is germane.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> My personal view is that the existing "law" is unconstitutional, and as such invalid and _must_ be disregarded.
> 
> I assume you were similarly in favor of strict observance of Congressional laws and limits on executive power in the national security/military arena when Bush and Cheney were arguing the "unitary executive" theory a few years ago, right?


1) That's not up to you. It is up to the Supreme Court or to Congress to overturn their law.

2) Some of what they considered executive privilege was overruled by the SC and Congress, as it should be.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JAGMAJ said:


> There's no doubt that servicemembers should be able to tolerate openly gay members, but the fact is that many heterosexual men are threatened by being in close proximity to gay men. Back when the Army was first integrated, a white soldier might have thought that the black soldier in the foxhole with him was inferior, but he wasn't worried that he might make sexual advances on him. Again, I think that most heterosexual soldiers in non-combat units would be able to put aside their feelings and work together, but I'm afraid that the typical American infantryman would have a hard time sharing a foxhole or a tent with an openly gay man.


There is much more to it than the "ick" factor and I don't think such an arguments help our side.

Like having women aboard warships and in close combat support roles, there is just the appearence of preferential treatment even when actual fraternization doesn't exist.

Having open homosexuals serve will exacerbate such situations further.

Now, if one treats the military like giant Federal jobs training program or Community College, that might be OK.

But it shouldn't be, so it isn't.


----------



## Chouan

beherethen;1052379 I'm told that in the UK the cops have to remove their shoes when raiding a Muslim house whose residents are suspected of theft-drugs-terrorism-whatever. If we have to bend over backwards to avoid offending any non White subculture said:


> Who, or what told you that? It isn't true, but its the kind of lie that is peddled by the right wing, anti-liberal press in Britain, and I suppose by the same kind of news media in the US, probably under a sub-heading of "PC gone mad!".
> 
> As far as gay people in the services are concerned, they've always been there! I sailed with some openly gay men in the 1970's, and there were no problems at all, even though such a procilivity was illegal.
> The problems trumpeted about allowing openly gay men to serve were mostly spread by those same right wing newspapers. As far as I could see from my limited perspective, there was no real objection in the RN or the MN. And, the evidence from Britain's forces hasd shown that there isn't an issue.
> Why is this evidence so unbeleived?


----------



## CuffDaddy

IlliniFlyer said:


> In a shore-based, non-deployable unit I'm sure it wouldn't matter much. But I would not want to share a stateroom or use the shower at the same time with said gay member. I wouldn't expect a woman to share a stateroom with me on the boat or to be in a shower adjacent to mine at the same time.
> 
> I'd like to see you quote credible research on this one. Furthermore, are you saying that who you choose to have sex with is not a choice?
> 
> I do not know what most people's religion is. Perhaps this is a don't ask/don't tell policy? However, the differences between Christianity and Judaism are not relevant in this argument (other than both are opposed to homosexuality  ). I will agree that faith is personal; dignity is as well. In deployable units where the majority of privacy is eroded due to necessity, the last bit of dignity is lost when eliminating acceptable boundaries.


Illini, the odds are overwhelming that you've shared a shower with a gay serviceman already. You just didn't know it. And if you've showered in a gym, you've showered with a gay guy - practically guaranteed. What are you worried about? Have you got gay men confused with rapists? They're not the same thing, you know.

Regarding the immutability of homosexuality, there is a world of information out there indicating that it is a biological issue. The hypothalamus of gay men is actually different, for instance. And there is good reason to think that the difference develops _in the womb, _with the number of older male sibblings increasing the likelihood of a gay male.

You seem to be confusing engaging in a homosexual act with being homosexual. They are not the same thing. I am straight. Even if my wife is PO'd and makes me sleep on the couch for a month, *I am still straight*. Nobody is suggesting that homosexuals in the military be given license to disregard anti-fraternization policies or otherwise violate the rules. What we're saying is that gay servicemen who, for instance, have a civilian same-sex partner should not be bounced from the service because they invite their squadronmates to a superbowl-watching party at their house and make no effort to conceal the fact of their partnership.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> Like having women aboard warships and in close combat support roles, there is just the appearence of preferential treatment even when actual fraternization doesn't exist.


Yes, it's a real shame that we let the woman who got her A-10 home with this damage into a close combat support role. I'm sure her effect on squadron morale was terrible.

The men look really PO'd about her preferential treatment by the enemy.


----------



## CuffDaddy

JAGMAJ said:


> There's no doubt that servicemembers should be able to tolerate openly gay members, but the fact is that many heterosexual men are threatened by being in close proximity to gay men. Back when the Army was first integrated, a white soldier might have thought that the black soldier in the foxhole with him was inferior, but he wasn't worried that he might make sexual advances on him.


Oh, there's a very easy solution to that. Let the straight soldier actually spend a day with a gay soldier. Using ignorance as its own justification (people are irrationally afraid of something, so we musn't expose them to that thing, which would quickly become not scary) is really, really weak.

I'm straight. I've got a number of gay friends. I had a gay older relative when I was a child, and was often in his care alone. None of them *ever* made an advance on me, *ever*. (Maybe I'm just ugly... :icon_smile_wink: ) People with this fear need to get the F over it.

Also, if any serviceman makes a sexual advance on another one that makes the approached one uncomfortable, discipline the first. If the behavior is repeated, dishonorably discharge them. That's not gay behavior, that's inappropriate behavior.


----------



## CuffDaddy

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> What other mental illnesses will not exclude you from military service?


All those that are positively corellated with education, affluence, and competence?

Seriously, homosexuality is obviously not a mental illness, and no bona fide mental health authorities regard it as such. In fact, there are strong reasons to believe that homosexuality in a minority of the population is a positive phenomenon for the health of a society. For one thing, it is a natural brake on birth rates - this is quite likely the evolutionary reason for its existence and prevalence, particularly given that it correlates with mothers who have had multiple prior children (prior sons, especially).


----------



## Epaminondas

Quay said:


> oooh. :crazy: How insulting! Do you really think Admiral Mullen's testimony was all about kissing ass, protecting his job, and talking in some socially acceptable language? Was he then simply lying about his own experience and opinions? Do you really hold such a low opinion of the motives of the highest ranking man in uniform?


I absolutely do. It's laughable to call active duty generals/admirals before the Senate - the vary body that has to approve their promotions - and expect any of them to fall on their sword and tell the Senators anything but what they want to hear on these kinds of social issues. As a lifelong civilian who knows nothing about the military, I have to say the only generals I might be inclined to lend an hear to would be Marine generals as they seem to be othe only branch with any fire in their bellies. The shooting at Ft. Hood only confirms my suspicions that a PC bureaucrat mentality pervades the army. Lets face it - the modern army is producing Wesley Clarks, not George Pattons - modern generals/admirals seem more like administrators than warriors, to me, and I would think it an extreme rarity to not find those who are not careerists and looking to retire with as a high a rank/pension as possible (and, really, I don't blame them).

I think if you want truly honest opinions, you need to ask the retired officers who have nothing to lose. It's also interesting that this push isn't emanating from within the military, but from civilian ideaologues, the vast majoirty of whom have never served and never considered serving.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Epaminondas, what do you make of the >100 former generals and admirals who have called for gays to be allowed to serve openly? And now Gen. Powell?

And what's your beef with Gen. Clark?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> Yes, it's a real shame that we let the woman who got her A-10 home with this damage into a close combat support role. I'm sure her effect on squadron morale was terrible.
> 
> The men look really PO'd about her preferential treatment by the enemy.


That's obviously good for her.

How many women did we waste time on to find 1 as capable as this one??

We could have found a capable man much more quickly.

How much bickering and sniping goes on about who she sleeps with, looks at funny, or doesn't sleep with??

Overall, her participation in a combat role is un-necessary and detrimental.

Again, if you are running government funded flight training program, it propbably doesn't matter.

If you are running an efficient killing machine, not so much.


----------



## Epaminondas

CuffDaddy said:


> All those that are positively corellated with education, affluence, and competence?
> 
> Seriously, homosexuality is obviously not a mental illness, and no bona fide mental health authorities regard it as such.


Nonsense. Homosexuality was only removed from the DSM as a mental disorder in 1973 - so there is nothing "obvious" about it. And that vote, based on a popular vote, subject to policitcal, social, and popular pressure - not to mention lobbying throws any hint of scientifc objectivity out the window. Anyone who doesn't think that the DSM is as much a social/political tool as a scientific one.......well, probably has a mental disorder.

BTW, the lobbying efforts have commence to have transvestitism and certain sexual fetishisms removed from the DSM as well:

https://gidreform.org/

All this has very little to do with truth or science and everything to do with culture and agenda.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Epaminondas said:


> Homosexuality was only removed from the DSM as a mental disorder in 1973


LOL! Yes, *only* thirty-five years ago, or so! Too bad that we knew everything about psychology, neurology, etc., by the 1960's, and have just been eroding that solid, sound knowledge with PC-ness since then. If only we could go back to focusing on exorcisms, vapors, and humors, the quality of mental health care in this country would really improve.

You guys are really flailing.


----------



## JDC

Compare the lists of countries who allow and don't allow openly gay people to serve in their militaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service

Our current policy puts us in some extremely brutal company.

We like to brag to the rest of the world about our freedoms, but the reality is, we don't have much to be proud of on this subject: in addition to the movement to limit gay rights (even while most of the world moves to grant civil rights to gay people), our country now has more people in jail, both in total numbers and per capita, than any other country in the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

This is not meant as a "everything America does is bad" lecture. IMO we need to realize that if any country, even America, makes enough laws, eventually everyone becomes a criminal. And bashing gay people, whether it's done via military regulations, marriage laws etc, is silly, pointless and counterproductive.


----------



## Epaminondas

CuffDaddy said:


> Epaminondas, what do you make of the >100 former generals and admirals who have called for gays to be allowed to serve openly? And now Gen. Powell?
> 
> And what's your beef with Gen. Clark?


I already said - Clark strikes me as a bureacrat. He's already shown he was a political animal when he went in the running for the presidency. I'm sure he's extremely smart, competent, professional, etc., but I think he exemplifies the kind of modern general that is as much a political animal as a military one. I'd value Schwarzkopf's opinion over Powell's - Powell, again, has proved himself to be a political animal and almost always careful and mindful of political contingencies/opportunities. I'm no fan of his.

Mc Cain says he has a letter against with over 1,000 names.

Look, it's inevitable that openly gay people will be allowed in the military largely becasue our culture is enervated and lacks concepts of honor. We have relatively large numbers of women in the military to fill-in gaps left by men. We've never been much of a military culture and that has become more pronounced since Vietnam. If we ever were to have a draft and a large conflict, most men who didn't want to go would simply say that they're gay to get out of service - which is why I think the don't ask, don't tell policy will inevtiably die: in a large conflict too many men will use it as an excuse to get out of service.

Why don't we just ask the volunteers in our armed services what they think? I'll defer to their judgment.


----------



## Epaminondas

FrankDC said:


> Compare the lists of countries who allow and don't allow openly gay people to serve in their militaries:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service


With the exception of Israel and maybe the UK, all of those countries are a military joke.

Personally, in terms of military matters, I'd prefer we were in with the "brutal" countries, not the enlightened ones like Canada that has more generals than tanks (Canada's a lovely country with fine people, but it doesn't take military strength very seriously).


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Epaminondas said:


> Why don't we just ask the volunteers in our armed services what they think? I'll defer to their judgment.


Even though I agree with your position, this argument is as poor as the "ick" factor.

Enlistees neither set policy nor give orders.

Theirs not to reason why!!


----------



## JDC

Epaminondas said:


> Look, it's inevitable that openly gay people will be allowed in the military largely becasue our culture is enervated and lacks concepts of honor.


What in the world does one's sexual orientation have to do with their honorability? Is it more honorable to be gay, get married to someone of the opposite sex and "go bowling" three times a week? Or is it honorable for gay people, as advocated by some religions, to live celibate, horribly lonely lives just to avoid making YOU uncomfortable?

What's dishonorable is asinine bigotry. What's dishonorable is a Catholic clergy who supports the restriction and elimination of civil rights for gay people, while they themselves are comprised of between 30% and 70% active homosexuals (depending on which study one chooses to believe). What's dishonorable is utter hypocrisy.


----------



## Quay

Epaminondas said:


> I absolutely do. It's laughable to call active duty generals/admirals before the Senate - the vary body that has to approve their promotions - and expect any of them to fall on their sword and tell the Senators anything but what they want to hear on these kinds of social issues...


They televise these things now and what went on was hardly a love-fest for the Senators. In particular, Senator Sessions was obviously thrilled to hear Admiral Mullen's testimony, especially when the Senator got so worked up and made such an ugly and serious accusation against the Admiral that Secretary Gates had to step in. About as close to an actual brawl as there has ever been in a hearing like that. Yup, those at the head of our military are just making those senators sooooo happy right now!



> As a lifelong civilian who knows nothing about the military....


I believe you on this since you also kindly provide such convincing evidence to sustain this statement.


----------



## Acct2000

IlliniFlyer said:


> You can't be serious.


I'm totally serious. It's not like (at least most) gay people go around making advances that they know probably will not be received well. There are probably cases of miscommunication, but especially given what most heterosexual men think about this issue and how they are repelled by it, there is little to gain for most gay people by hitting on people who are straight. (And there is a lot of danger of retaliation.)

I can't imagine someone in a foxhole making an unwelcome advance on a fellow soldier.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Epaminondas said:


> I already said - Clark strikes me as a bureacrat. He's already shown he was a political animal when he went in the running for the presidency. I'm sure he's extremely smart, competent, professional, etc., but I think he exemplifies the kind of modern general that is as much a political animal as a military one. I'd value Schwarzkopf's opinion over Powell's - Powell, again, has proved himself to be a political animal and almost always careful and mindful of political contingencies/opportunities. I'm no fan of his.
> 
> Mc Cain says he has a letter against with over 1,000 names.
> 
> Look, it's inevitable that openly gay people will be allowed in the military largely becasue our culture is enervated and lacks concepts of honor. We have relatively large numbers of women in the military to fill-in gaps left by men. We've never been much of a military culture and that has become more pronounced since Vietnam. If we ever were to have a draft and a large conflict, most men who didn't want to go would simply say that they're gay to get out of service - which is why I think the don't ask, don't tell policy will inevtiably die: in a large conflict too many men will use it as an excuse to get out of service.


How convenient that those former generals who are politically conservative all strike you as genuine, whereas those who are moderate strike you as being "political animals." Here's a clue: every general is a political animal to some extent, as is everyone who rises to/near the top of any organization. Dwight Eisenhower was certainly a political animal, and he was *far* more important to the ultimate allied victory in WWII than was Patton. We would have won without Patton - maybe a few months later, but inevitably. Without Eisenhower to hold the allies together, to mediate between Patton, Bradley, Monty, etc., it's quite possible that the allies would have become so disjointed, cross-purposed, and ineffective that we never would have crossed the Rhine.

If that's not persuassive enough for you: George Washington.

There have been gay men in the military since colonial times. It's not new, and it's not due to any lack of "honor" in our country. They've always been there, and they always will be there. The *ONLY* question is whether they must keep their sexual orientation a secret. That's it. That's all that's up for debate.


----------



## Quay

CuffDaddy said:


> LOL! Yes, *only* thirty-five years ago, or so! Too bad that we knew everything about psychology, neurology, etc., by the 1960's, and have just been eroding that solid, sound knowledge with PC-ness since then. If only we could go back to focusing on exorcisms, vapors, and humors, the quality of mental health care in this country would really improve....


Well, some haven't come aboard with the modern medical view and insist that homosexuality is caused by some kind of demonic possession or intrinsic evil for which there is no recourse but to go sit quietly someplace else and not bother anyone. Many of these people get up every morning and flip on the electricity, start the computer and engage in a modern lifestyle all day but when it comes to _this_ issue it is interesting how primitive the view becomes.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Epaminondas said:


> With the exception of Israel and maybe the UK, all of those countries are a military joke.


Anyone who thinks the military of Sweden is a "joke" is simply ignorant. I won't even comment on your insult to the military of Australia, one of our most steadfast, valiant, and capable allies in the military actions of the last decade.

And the "exceptions" of Israel and "maybe the UK" are really pretty giant f-ing exceptions, aren't they? On a per-man basis, there are probably no finer fighting forces in the world. If having gays in the military doesn't keep you from fighting like the Israeli army, then it *cannot* be a problem, can it?


----------



## JDC

CuffDaddy and Quay, I'd like to post a set of WWII ads published in LIFE Magazine in 1943-44 by Cannon Bath Towels. They're a real eye-opener.


----------



## Quay

FrankDC said:


> CuffDaddy and Quay, I'd like to post a set of WWII ads published in LIFE Magazine in 1943-44 by Cannon Bath Towels. They're a real eye-opener.


You should as this is, after all, a men's fashion forum. :icon_smile: I suppose you mean ones like this one?


----------



## JDC

Yes, I have all six, in larger sizes. If you want I'll post them now.


----------



## CuffDaddy

LOL, no need. Naked dudes are not the preferred viewing material of some of us, even among those who think gays should be allowed to (openly) serve their country with honor and courage.


----------



## Quay

FrankDC said:


> Yes, I have all six, in larger sizes. If you want I'll post them now.


Well, now, Frank, such things might make some uncomfortable, even though they come from advertisements in one of the most widely popular, subscribed, and circulated magazines of its time, appeared during wartime, and caused no letters of protest. Some popular history makes some folks wince, perhaps acting upon an unseen evil humor that takes umbrage at such things.

But since this forum is about men's fashion, why not?


----------



## Quay

CuffDaddy said:


> ...If having gays in the military doesn't keep you from fighting like the Israeli army, then it *cannot* be a problem, can it?


Indeed not! In fact, Israeli army studies are pretty clear on the point that having openly gay service personnel is a strength that provides advantages to their military. (And I don't just mean the fact that this is yet another perceived irritant for the Iranians and Saudis.)


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Quay said:


> Indeed not! In fact, Israeli army studies are pretty clear on the point that having openly gay service personnel is a strength that provides advantages to their military. (And I don't just mean the fact that this is yet another perceived irritant for the Iranians and Saudis.)


I would be interested to know what advantages married old men, women and homosexuals possess, unique to their age, marital status, gender or sexual preference that make them equally or even more qualified than young, single, heterosexual males.


----------



## Epaminondas

WouldaShoulda said:


> Even though I agree with your position, this argument is as poor as the "ick" factor.
> 
> Enlistees neither set policy nor give orders.
> 
> Theirs not to reason why!!


Yes, but, it's a volunteer force. You can tell them what to do once they elist - the question is: will they enlist if there are openly gay individuals in the military.


----------



## Epaminondas

CuffDaddy said:


> Anyone who thinks the military of Sweden is a "joke" is simply ignorant. I won't even comment on your insult to the military of Australia, one of our most steadfast, valiant, and capable allies in the military actions of the last decade.


Yeah? What's their airlift capacity like? How many carriers do they have? How many submarines? etc. etc. How fast can they move a division half way across the world,etc. Hell, how many men do they have under arms? The forces may be good in quality, but they're all VERY small with no real cpacity to "gear up" and expand or do much more than barely guard their own respective countries (and that knowing that they have US forces to back them up). Honestly, if the US weren't around and hadn't been around for the last 60 years, would any of those countries dare to have had the paltry forces that they have - I doubt it.


----------



## Chouan

Epaminondas said:


> With the exception of Israel and maybe the UK, all of those countries are a military joke.
> 
> Personally, in terms of military matters, I'd prefer we were in with the "brutal" countries, not the enlightened ones like Canada that has more generals than tanks (Canada's a lovely country with fine people, but it doesn't take military strength very seriously).


Maybe the UK? Do you have knowledge whatsoever of Britain's armed forces? I'll give you an example that I was told by a French Foreign Legion Officer attached to Lympstone (look it up) when I did a training course there. The Legion runs an combat endurance course in French Guiana. Various elite forces use it at times. The Legion's average time for completion, I was told, was something like 3 hours. Royal Marines did it in 7. The SAS did it in 5. US Special Forces did in in 23 hours. Dutch Royal Marines did it in 6. 
In any case, the Israeli Defence Forces only really look good because of what they're up against in that area.


----------



## eagle2250

Quay said:


> The "end of the US military"? How apocalyptic and sensationalist. Of course not.
> 
> oooh. :crazy: How insulting! Do you really think Admiral Mullen's testimony was all about kissing ass, protecting his job, and talking in some socially acceptable language? Was he then simply lying about his own experience and opinions? Do you really hold such a low opinion of the motives of the highest ranking man in uniform?
> 
> (Or are we seeing one of those "prejudices" everyone harbors, such as the love the Air Force has for the Navy? )


Prior to Mullen's serving under President Obama, I have not found anything on record, as to Admiral Mullen's position on the DADT policy. He has certainly stated a position, subsequent to taking the job, working for a President who made campaign promises to change the DADT policy. Unfortunately, both Admiral Mullen and President Obama did virtually nothing during the first year of Obama's administration to achieve that goal. Now that the voters are increasingly voicing their displeasure over Obama's performance to date and his failure to follow through on campaign promises, the Administration is in a rush to show how decisive they are, regarding such matters and they are in a headlong rush...to give Obama a quick victory. Indeed, changing the policy is the right thing to do...in the long term. However, a rush to judgement, without the appropriate "pre-assault bombardment, to soften up and, hopefully, CHANGE existing attitudes, prior to decreeing (with great fanfare) "the DADT Policy is No more(!)" Too bad the Obama administration and Admiral Mullen carry out some of those re-socialization efforts during the year that is now lost! 

PS: Regarding Sec of Defense Gates, if you check the record, his present position on DADT is a perfect reversal of his position on the policy, while serving the previous administration! Go figure.


----------



## Chouan

Epaminondas said:


> Yes, but, it's a volunteer force. You can tell them what to do once they elist - the question is: will they enlist if there are openly gay individuals in the military.


They enlist in the UK armed forces. I'm not aware of any significant diminuition of their combat capability.

The evidence, from the UK, is absolute. The sexual orientation of military personnel makes no difference to the military ability of the armed forces..


----------



## Epaminondas

CuffDaddy said:


> How convenient that those former generals who are politically conservative all strike you as genuine, whereas those who are moderate strike you as being "political animals." Here's a clue: every general is a political animal to some extent, as is everyone who rises to/near the top of any organization. Dwight Eisenhower was certainly a political animal, and he was *far* more important to the ultimate allied victory in WWII than was Patton. We would have won without Patton - maybe a few months later, but inevitably. Without Eisenhower to hold the allies together, to mediate between Patton, Bradley, Monty, etc., it's quite possible that the allies would have become so disjointed, cross-purposed, and ineffective that we never would have crossed the Rhine.
> 
> If that's not persuassive enough for you: George Washington.
> 
> There have been gay men in the military since colonial times. It's not new, and it's not due to any lack of "honor" in our country. They've always been there, and they always will be there. The *ONLY* question is whether they must keep their sexual orientation a secret. That's it. That's all that's up for debate.


I have no idea what Schwarzkopf's politics are.

Yeah, Eisenhower would have won WWII without Patton, but not as cheaply and we could have done a lot better if Eisenhower hadn't been such a diplomat and had given Montgomery's fuel allocation which he used for that blunder Operation Market Garden. You overestate the skill requied to "hold" the allies together - it wasn't that unique a skill; Patton's skills were far harder to come by - Eisenhower knew this too. So did the Germans.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Epaminondas said:


> Yeah? What's their airlift capacity like? How many carriers do they have? How many submarines? etc. etc. How fast can they move a division half way across the world,etc. Hell, how many men do they have under arms? The forces may be good in quality, but they're all VERY small with no real cpacity to "gear up" and expand or do much more than barely guard their own respective countries (and that knowing that they have US forces to back them up). Honestly, if the US weren't around and hadn't been around for the last 60 years, would any of those countries dare to have had the paltry forces that they have - I doubt it.


Oh, so your objection to gays in the military is not that they will drag down the quality, but that they will deplete logistical capabilities? Worried about them bringing too much scented soap and margarita mixes onto the C-17, are you?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Epaminondas said:


> Yes, but, it's a volunteer force. You can tell them what to do once they elist - the question is: will they enlist if there are openly gay individuals in the military.


Eventually, yes, they won't mind. But to me it just isn't the point.

In addition, I have problems with the whole volunteer nature of the US Armed forces anyway!!

Except for Officers and NCOs, I think national service should be compulsory. But that's a whole 'nuther matter!!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> Maybe the UK? Do you have knowledge whatsoever of Britain's armed forces?


One of the most impressive clips of video I ever saw was an SAS soldier emptying his Browning Hi-Power into a series of targets at a speed that was absolutely breathtaking... with essentially _perfect_ accuracy.


----------



## Epaminondas

FrankDC said:


> What in the world does one's sexual orientation have to do with their honorability?


Nothing, FranDC - calm down.

I meant that I suspect a huge percentage of men - relative to say WWII - even in a war with the same moral clarity - would seek any excuse to get out of military service and so you would have large number of men claiming to be gay to get out of service - if it were still grounds to be discharged. The honor comment was not attributed to being gay, but to my suspcion that a growing significant number of men would likely shirk military service, as a result of our culture, no matter how clear the case for war would be.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Epaminondas said:


> You overestate the skill requied to "hold" the allies together - it wasn't that unique a skill; Patton's skills were far harder to come by - Eisenhower knew this too. So did the Germans.


You should write a book about how overrated Ike's contributions to WWII were. I think it would probably contribute something really new to the scholarship.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> Except for Officers and NCOs, I think national service should be compulsory. But that's a whole 'nuther matter!!


Except for the gays, right?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> Except for the gays, right?


DADT could/should still work.



> I would be interested to know what advantages married old men, women and homosexuals possess, unique to their age, marital status, gender or sexual preference that make them equally or even more qualified than young, single, heterosexual males.


Any thoughts??


----------



## JDC

Quay said:


> Well, now, Frank, such things might make some uncomfortable, even though they come from advertisements in one of the most widely popular, subscribed, and circulated magazines of its time, appeared during wartime, and caused no letters of protest. Some popular history makes some folks wince, perhaps acting upon an unseen evil humor that takes umbrage at such things.
> 
> But since this forum is about men's fashion, why not?


Ok.

This is a set of illustrations from Cannon Bath Towels entitled "True Towel Tales", published in LIFE Magazine from August 1943 to June 1944. At the time of their publication these images generated no controversy: it was a welcome sight for heartsick American women (and countless gay men), whose partners were serving long tours of duty in WWII. The images were done by three of the leading graphic illustrators of that era: Stevan Dohanos, Fred Ludekens and James Bingham.

Note to Mods: Copyrights for these illustrations were not renewed by Cannon in 1973, and they have been in the public domain since then.

August 16, 1943 No. 1: "Army Day - Crocodiles Keep Out!"

October 4, 1943 No. 2: "Alaskan Aquacade"

December 20, 1943 No. 3: "What ... No Bath Salts?"

January 3, 1944 No. 4: "Tank Corps"

March 20, 1944 No. 5: "Hey, Turn Off The Water, Jumbo!"

June 26, 1944 No. 6: "Buna Bathtub"


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> Any thoughts??


Uh, did you even read my exchange with you yesterday? I'll reiterate: All of those "groups" have such huge variances that it's positively idiotic to make judgments about individuals based on groups. *It doesn't matter whether the "groups" have an advantage; what matters is whether an individual does. *

Please go back and re-read my earlier posts if you want to talk about this some more.


----------



## Cruiser

Epaminondas said:


> I meant that I suspect a huge percentage of men - relative to say WWII - even in a war with the same moral clarity - would seek any excuse to get out of military service and so you would have large number of men claiming to be gay to get out of service - if it were still grounds to be discharged.


Having been of draft age and entering service myself when there still was a draft I can assure you that not many straight men were willing to do this, despite this suggestion being offered in Arlo Guthrie's _Alice's Restaurant. :icon_smile_big:_

Cruiser


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> Uh, did you even read my exchange with you yesterday?
> 
> I'll reiterate: All of those "groups" have such huge variances that it's positively idiotic to make judgments about individuals based on groups. *It doesn't matter whether the "groups" have an advantage; what matters is whether an individual does. *


1. Yes I did.

2. So women should pay more for car and life insurance than men?? The young more or less than the aged??

It can be positively essential to make judgments about individuals based on groups.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1. Yes I did.
> 
> 2. So women should pay more for car and life insurance than men?? The young more or less than the aged??
> 
> It can be positively essential to make judgments about individuals based on groups.


Woulda, the very point of insurance is to pool risk together. In fact, if perfect information were available about individuals in insurance, nobody would buy insurance at all, since its cost would exactly match their future outlays/losses with a profit tacked on.

In hiring decisions, OTOH, looking at groups is foolishness itself.


----------



## Peak and Pine

While there's a break in the action may I to poke in with this:

This is the only forum of which I'm a member, but do you suppose there are others, hundreds maybe thousands of forums in which topics like this are being discussed in equally rich and elequent detail? I bet there are a million or more individuals who can speak and write as well as you're doing here but who never had the opportunity to showcase their knowledge, skill and wit, conviction and alacrity until this internet thing came along. Jesus, all this is so impresssive to me.

As a kid I'd listen to radio programs hoping some day they'd put pictures to them. And they did, but I never even drempt of this internet thing. And this thread, this is a joust of the most exciting kind. Judge Judy be damned, I'm glued to this today.​


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> In hiring decisions, OTOH, looking at groups is foolishness itself.


How much time should be spent looking for Non-MBA job applicants to be a CEO??

I'm sure there is a drop-out somewhere that can handle it!!


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> How much time should be spent looking for Non-MBA job applicants to be a CEO??
> 
> I'm sure there is a drop-out somewhere that can handle it!!


An MBA is training, not a demographic category. The equivalent in the military would be something like completion of Ranger school.


----------



## Quay

WouldaShoulda said:


> I would be interested to know what advantages married old men, women and homosexuals possess, unique to their age, marital status, gender or sexual preference that make them equally or even more qualified than young, single, heterosexual males.


In terms of what your question supposes, I think your view of the role of modern military is probably too narrow. Perhaps (and only perhaps) many years ago it wasn't such a relatively complex thing, but in the 21st century our five services are tasked with performing incredibly diverse missions all over the world. Not everyone is infantry. There is a constant demand for doctors, nurses, engineers, librarians, communication specialists with multi-language skills, artists, illustrators, lawyers, painters, welders, musicians, tech specialists, programmers...the lists are nearly endless. Service personnel with an equally wide diversity of backgrounds and skills is the only way to accomplish all these missions.

One need only address one item on your list, "married older men" to see the problem here. These people tend to have this incredibly valuable thing called experience that makes them far better suited to many different tasks than young males. And being married is a life-changer in and of itself, and that's way before any children arrive. Put experience plus family life together and you have a serviceman that has a much greater range of experience to draw upon, and in many missions the more and wider experience the better the performance.

The studies that FrankDC cited earlier, plus studies done overseas, bear out this need for a wide range of people in the services.


----------



## Quay

*What will Senator McCain do now?*

"The reason why I supported the [DADT] policy to start with is because General Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one that strongly recommended we adopt this policy in the Clinton administration. I have not heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position." - *Senator John McCain, February 2, 2010. *

"In the almost 17 years since the 'don't ask, don't tell' legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen." *General Colin Powell, February 3, 2010.*

Sources: Multiple newswire stories, official statement released by Powell's office.


----------



## Quay

eagle2250 said:


> ...Now that the voters are increasingly voicing their displeasure over Obama's performance to date and his failure to follow through on campaign promises, the Administration is in a rush to show how decisive they are, regarding such matters and they are in a headlong rush...to give Obama a quick victory.


This is incorrect. The official plan as outlined is to take at least a year, conduct every kind of correct review possible, and get it 100% right to forestall any problems with its implementation. Even the left-wing bloggers are calling this whole thing the "hurry up and wait" routine. If the President was truly in a rush he could always sign an executive order like Truman did. Now -that- would be a rush and cause all sorts of unwanted and unnecessary problems.



> Indeed, changing the policy is the right thing to do...in the long term.....


Exactly so. But kindly remember that this thing has been on the table since the Clinton administration (around 1992 or so) and the DADT was considered a compromise to be revisited as soon as possible as the policy analysts at the time were pretty sure it was only a bandaid and not sound military policy. (Parenthetically, it's fun to watch Republicans defending a Bill Clinton policy in preference to anything Obama and the JCOS are implementing.)



> PS: Regarding Sec of Defense Gates, if you check the record, his present position on DADT is a perfect reversal of his position on the policy, while serving the previous administration! Go figure.


Probably anyone appointed by "the Shrub" and re-appointed by "Obummer" is bound to have to reverse himself at least once a day just to be able to find his fly. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Quay said:


> In terms of what your question supposes, I think your view of the role of modern military is probably too narrow. Perhaps (and only perhaps) many years ago it wasn't such a relatively complex thing, but in the 21st century our five services are tasked with performing incredibly diverse missions all over the world. Not everyone is infantry. There is a constant demand for doctors, nurses, engineers, librarians, communication specialists with multi-language skills, artists, illustrators, lawyers, painters, welders, musicians, tech specialists, programmers...the lists are nearly endless. Service personnel with an equally wide diversity of backgrounds and skills is the only way to accomplish all these missions.
> 
> One need only address one item on your list, "married older men" to see the problem here. These people tend to have this incredibly valuable thing called experience that makes them far better suited to many different tasks than young males.


1) So perhaps it is logical to repeal DADT for MOSs that are also open to women and old men and leave the combat arms to young, unmarried heterosexual males for wich they have seperate and distinct properties that make them more desirable for the mission??

After a year, is it possible the JCOS will come to that conclusion??

2) There have always been old men in the General Staff but enlisting 40+ year old married men and fathers as they have recently is rediculous!!


----------



## JAGMAJ

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) So perhaps it is logical to repeal DADT for MOSs that are also open to women and old men and leave the combat arms to young, unmarried heterosexual males for wich they have seperate and distinct properties that make them more desirable for the mission??


I think that would be a good compromise. The logical rationale for not having women in combat arms units largely applies to gays, as well. In non-combat arms units, the objections are much less significant.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

JAGMAJ said:


> I think that would be a good compromise. The logical rationale for not having women in combat arms units largely applies to gays, as well. In non-combat arms units, the objections are much less significant.


Which goes back to my point about units that deploy versus those that don't. The gay pilot wouldn't matter since his/her function is to come into work, fly, and go home from work. The gay trigger-puller on the other hand presents greater issues for unit cohesion when that unit lives, eats, and sleeps in the same spots. I still would like to know... why would we stop at just gay members when we also could allow open transgender individuals from serving?


----------



## CuffDaddy

IlliniFlyer said:


> The gay trigger-puller on the other hand presents greater issues for unit cohesion when that unit lives, eats, and sleeps in the same spots. I still would like to know... why would we stop at just gay members when we also could allow open transgender individuals from serving?


Except that they, you know, _don't_ actually pose any "issues," at least not after the first few months. See, e.g., all the previously cited evidence/information from the UK, Israeli militaries, etc.

Can you provide us with a definition of what you mean by "transgender"?


----------



## CuffDaddy

JAGMAJ said:


> The logical rationale for not having women in combat arms units largely applies to gays, as well. In non-combat arms units, the objections are much less significant.


Can you explain this a bit for us? (I originally wrote "Can you flesh this out," then thought better of it. :devil: )


----------



## IlliniFlyer

CuffDaddy said:


> Except that they, you know, _don't_ actually pose any "issues," at least not after the first few months. See, e.g., all the previously cited evidence/information from the UK, Israeli militaries, etc.
> 
> Can you provide us with a definition of what you mean by "transgender"?


I guess I am referring to one having a sex change, whether or not they go under the knife.

Perhaps the biggest difference is in how the culture of the US versus many European countries varies when relating to sex. What is socially acceptable in the US is (from what I understand) much less than what is acceptable elsewhere (in the West). Within this category, homosexuality does not have widespread acceptance in the US especially outside of big cities. I'm curious if it does have that acceptance in Europe... anyone? It seems that the greater reliance upon faith in the US (when compared to Europe) is a major factor for the perception and therefore has an impact on how the military subculture sees it.

I'm not trying to make an argument over homosexuality as right/wrong but purely how it is perceived by the masses.


----------



## CuffDaddy

IlliniFlyer said:


> Within this category, homosexuality does not have widespread acceptance in the US especially outside of big cities. I'm curious if it does have that acceptance in Europe... anyone? It seems that the greater reliance upon faith in the US (when compared to Europe) is a major factor for the perception and therefore has an impact on how the military subculture sees it.
> 
> I'm not trying to make an argument over homosexuality as right/wrong but purely how it is perceived by the masses.


Illini, you should look at some of the polling numbers on various gay rights issues. Acceptance of homosexuality, support for gay marriage, support for gay adoption rights, support for gays openly serving in the military, etc., are all numbers that rise quite steadily and predictably over time.

The fact is that, in the business world, acceptance of gays as equally valuable members of the community is more than a decade old. A _huge_ portion of employers now have gay partners' benefits, and the vast majority espouse a non-discrimination policy. The military is far, _far_ behind the business culture on this.

Which is a shame. The military was a leader on the end of racial discrimination. The morality on anti-gay discrimination seems just as clear to me. The military is now a moral trailer. Sad.

EDITED TO ADD: I guess I don't see how whether one has had a sex change makes a difference, either. If the person is otherwise qualified, what difference does it make if they tuck, snip, or let it swing?


----------



## JAGMAJ

CuffDaddy said:


> Can you explain this a bit for us? (I originally wrote "Can you flesh this out," then thought better of it. :devil: )


The primary reason women aren't allowed in the infantry isn't because no woman is capable of being infantry--clearly, some are. The problem is one of efficiency. Men and women are not expected to sleep together in close quarters or to shower together because of the sexual and social issues. Accordingly, women have to have separate barracks, latrines, and showers. In the infantry, soldiers often don't even have these luxuries while in the field, so soldiers often have to sleep together or, as seen in the WWII ad, bathe together. Obviously, our society wouldn't expect women to have to do this. The same rationale applies to heterosexual men with respect to gay men.


----------



## CuffDaddy

JAGMAJ said:


> Obviously, our society wouldn't expect women to have to do this. The same rationale applies to heterosexual men with respect to gay men.


So your view is that straight men are to gay men as women are to straight men? _Really_?

Again, I wonder what kind of experience those of you concerned about this have with actual gay men. Or, rather, what your awareness is. If you've ever slept on a large commercial airplane, you've slept in the presence of gay men, almost guaranteed.

What, exactly, are you worried about? That the gay man will overpower you and rape you? Is rape the reason that women and men aren't allowed to bunk together?


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr.

*pardon me if this was covered in previous pages...*

A few years back when recruiting was dire, the USMC was less effected. The explanation was that Hispanic men, for some reason, felt that they were less likely to be subordinate to a woman in the Marines.

Given the strong disfavor that racial minorities generally have for the gay, isn't it entirely likely that minorities will have less incentive to enlist?


----------



## JDC

CuffDaddy said:


> Again, I wonder what kind of experience those of you concerned about this have with actual gay men. Or, rather, what your awareness is. If you've ever slept on a large commercial airplane,


or ever gone to confession,

or ever showered at a gym or health club,

you've done so in the presence of gay men, almost guaranteed.

The two main refuges for gay people from the heterosexual world over the last several hundred years have been the military and clergy. In my family (Italian Catholic), any male who was 30 years old and not either married, a career soldier or a priest was considered a literal non-entity, a complete loser. Rather than be that strange uncle who no one ever talks about, many gay people in the past, probably even most, have involved themselves with sham opposite-sex marriages. It's never been explained to me how this option is somehow more honorable than simply being honest and admitting who you are.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr.

*homosexuality prevalent in prisons, because they are criminal*



FrankDC said:


> It's never been explained to me how this option is somehow more honorable than simply being honest and admitting who you are.


Because homosexuality is shameful behavior that has been shunned for the history of mankind. Trying to do good and failing beats trying to do wrong and succeeding. Now you know.

The notion that the part of shameful behavior that is wrong is the shame is a modern contrivance for those seeking to totally destroy society.


----------



## JDC

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Because homosexuality is shameful behavior that has been shunned for the history of mankind. Trying to do good and failing beats trying to do wrong and succeeding. Now you know.


Welcome to Iran, everyone.

If you believe gay people are out to destroy society, you're morally obligated to push for laws to recriminalize homosexuality.

We'll wait patiently.


----------



## In Mufti

Gays openly serving in the military is a bad idea. A very bad idea. 

No one has a "right" to serve in the military. 

There is virtually no up-side to changing the policy and a hell of a lot of down-side.

This isn't so much about rights as it is about a group of people who like to commit, "cultural vandalism" as George Will so aptly put it during the last disastrous trip down this trail.

It's key to note that most of the people who are so adamant about this are usually elite Ivy-league wonks who will never ever serve in the military and don’t have any respect for the military as an institution to begin with.

As far as Gates and Mullen—this isn’t the first time they have proven to be more interested in their careers than in the good of the service. I had very little respect for them before. I have none now.


----------



## JDC

In Mufti said:


> Gays openly serving in the military is a bad idea. A very bad idea.


That claim has already been disproven, in countries all around the world.


----------



## Acct2000

FrankDC said:


> Welcome to Iran, everyone.
> 
> If you believe gay people are out to destroy society, you're morally obligated to push for laws to recriminalize homosexuality.
> 
> We'll wait patiently.


Methinks Chats is having a bit of fun and that is not what he believes. He is probably satirizing the anti-gay position, although only he knows for sure.

C'mon Frank, though mayest be striking the bait!


----------



## ksinc

I'm sorry, but the narrative that gays are somehow inherently more noble or kind than straights and won't have the exact same abuse-of-authority issue as straights or men-to-women is just ludicrous. Bad people abuse authority whether they are gay or straight. Bad people are bad people. There's straight bad people and gay bad people. It happens now, and it will happen without DADT too. Why is this distraction being put forth? The embassy guard story was on 60 Minutes.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/pol...sy-Guards-Ousted-in-Sex-Scandal-57279972.html


----------



## IlliniFlyer

CuffDaddy said:


> So your view is that straight men are to gay men as women are to straight men? Really?


Yes, when it comes to being in the most private of places... the bedroom and the bathroom.



CuffDaddy said:


> Again, I wonder what kind of experience those of you concerned about this have with actual gay men. Or, rather, what your awareness is. If you've ever slept on a large commercial airplane, you've slept in the presence of gay men, almost guaranteed.
> 
> What, exactly, are you worried about? That the gay man will overpower you and rape you? Is rape the reason that women and men aren't allowed to bunk together?


You're missing the point completely. Rape is not an issue. It is well defined and against the law regardless of heterosexual or homosexual. The point is that one's personal privacy should not be impeded down to the point of being bare. I totally understand if you want to give up that privacy... that's why several of you don't see an issue with homosexuals in the military. I certainly believe that it's your own decision. However, for the rest of us, this is a major infringement on what little privacy we have in the military. Don't force a decision upon us because somehow you (the general you, not CuffDaddy) have a different opinion. Perhaps America values the individual and the right to privacy more so than these other nations that are brought up in this discussion.

And CuffDaddy, I apologize for not responding to your earlier post. Looking at poll data across the US, the only apparent truth is that the topic is much debated and that there is not a clear and concise victor in the argument.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr.

*racial integration the only military social experiment that worked*



FrankDC said:


> Welcome to Iran, everyone.


Bingo. Enforcing social mores is a sign of a civilization on the rise, like Iran. Civilizations in decline, like most of Europe, start allowing and celebrating all kinds of deviancy. Why we're embracing a symptom of decline is beyond me.


> If you believe gay people are out to destroy society...


I said no such thing; they have no interests outside of themselves. Their apologists debase the fabric of society just like those that blame society for crime. Wrong is wrong, and it is the wrongdoer's fault regardless of the excuses of moral relativists.


----------



## In Mufti

FrankDC said:


> That claim has already been disproven, in countries all around the world.


The best military in the world is the US military--bar none. No one even comes close. During the time that the US military has become the best fighting force on the planet, gays have not been serving openly. My statement still stands: the best military in the world does not mess around with this stupid meddling.


----------



## Pentheos

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Because homosexuality is shameful behavior that has been shunned for the history of mankind.


Antiquity is calling and would like to have a word with you.


----------



## Pentheos

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Bingo. Enforcing social mores is a sign of a civilization on the rise, like Iran. Civilizations in decline, like most of Europe, start allowing and celebrating all kinds of deviancy. Why we're embracing a symptom of decline is beyond me.


Your take on history makes me weep.


----------



## JDC

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Bingo. Enforcing social mores is a sign of a civilization on the rise, like Iran. Civilizations in decline, like most of Europe, start allowing and celebrating all kinds of deviancy. Why we're embracing a symptom of decline is beyond me.


Iran? On the rise?? The rise of fascism!

I'm beginning to see forsberg's claim about you. If by some bizarre twist of stupidity you do believe what you're saying, you owe it to yourself to spend a few months or years in Iran, and see what happens when religious mythology is used to form the basis of a nation's civil laws. You'll be especially pleased by the way homosexuals are dealt with in Iran: gay men are hog-tied, castrated, and their own testicles are force-fed to them down their throats. If this procedure doesn't cause the gay victims to bleed to death, they are then publicly executed via hanging or firing squad.

Parting shot in this thread: If YOU have a problem with homosexuality (thinking it's "wrong", etc), the only one who has a problem is YOU.


----------



## Memphis88

In Mufti said:


> The best military in the world is the US military--bar none. No one even comes close. During the time that the US military has become the best fighting force on the planet, gays have not been serving openly. My statement still stands: the best military in the world does not mess around with this stupid meddling.


So, how long have you known you're gay? You'll feel much better if you drop the charade and fully accept who you really are.


----------



## Memphis88

JAGMAJ said:


> The primary reason women aren't allowed in the infantry isn't because no woman is capable of being infantry--clearly, some are. The problem is one of efficiency. Men and women are not expected to sleep together in close quarters or to shower together because of the sexual and social issues. Accordingly, women have to have separate barracks, latrines, and showers. In the infantry, soldiers often don't even have these luxuries while in the field, so soldiers often have to sleep together or, as seen in the WWII ad, bathe together. Obviously, our society wouldn't expect women to have to do this. The same rationale applies to heterosexual men with respect to gay men.


You must have some kind of ego to think that someone would make an advance towards you simply because you are male and they are attracted to males. Why, you must have to fight off all of the heterosexual women who are constantly throwing themselves at you. I bet you go after a lot of lesbians, too. You know, because you are attracted to females and their sexuality is immaterial to you in your pursuit of any and all females.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

In Mufti said:


> No one has a "right" to serve in the military.
> 
> There is virtually no up-side to changing the policy and a hell of a lot of down-side.


This is where the emphasis must be placed in making an intelligent defense of the status quo.

Be it DADT, Defense of Marriage or legalization of drugs gambling and prostitution.

First, examine why the status quo was established, then, have the opposition explain how their proposals IMPROVES the current situation.

Not, "a little toke never killed anyone" but have them actually explain how legalization would actually have positive effects in society.

The arguments usually fail on that level.

And most importantly, it never pays to argue points the opposition makes that otherwise just don't matter.


----------



## Chouan

In Mufti said:


> The best military in the world is the US military--bar none. No one even comes close. During the time that the US military has become the best fighting force on the planet, gays have not been serving openly. My statement still stands: the best military in the world does not mess around with this stupid meddling.


The biggest, I'll grant you. Put a Northumberland Fusilier, Greenjacket, Light Infantry, or Green Howard platoon, or company or battalion against any equivalent unit of the US military, and I'll lay any odds on which will come out on top. It won't be the US. When it comes to elites, I'd back the Royal Marines against the USMC any time (I've done the training, although I'm not a bootie), and the SAS over anything in the world, including the Legion. My cousin was in the Legion Etrangere.
As far as other branches of service are concerned, again, the US has numbers, superior quantity. Superior quality to the RAF? Or the RN? I doubt it. I've seen both USN and RN operations. Again, I know which I'd back unit for unit.

I'm not "Ivy-league", and I have served in the RN, so I do have some idea of which I speak.

But, my experience so far on this thread is that evidence which disproves the anti-gay in the Forces membership's prejudices is largely ignored. Is Britain's experience not relevant? Or is it because of ignorance?


----------



## JDC

WouldaShoulda said:


> This is where the emphasis must be placed in making an intelligent defense of the status quo.


A half century ago, half-wits were all up in arms about the legalization of interracial marriage in America.

And now Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman, and all of us, conservatives and liberals alike, look back on that debate with astonished wonder, and more than a little embarrassment.

Same deal here.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

FrankDC said:


> A half century ago, half-wits were all up in arms about the legalization of interracial marriage in America.
> 
> And now Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman, and all of us, conservatives and liberals alike, look back on that debate with astonished wonder, and more than a little embarrassment.
> 
> Same deal here.





WouldaShoulda said:


> And most importantly, it never pays to argue points the opposition makes that otherwise just don't matter.


Or otherwise completely unrelated to the topic at hand!!


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Gentlemen, all, do you realize how infantile the the respondent postings in this thread have become? Go back and reread the postings over the last two pages and ask yourselves, is this how we really want to be seen...is this the best we have to offer? Granted, the anonymity of the cyber world provides some modicum of comfort in such instances but really, I've a two and a half year old grand daughter who (generally) demonstrates greater maturity than I'm seeing reflected herein! 

In crafting a response to either Chatsworth, In Mufti or Chouan, etc, I'm left wondering how to best respond? Perhaps, oh yea, "Well my momma is tougher than your momma and could kick her a**...and not even muss-up her make-up in doing so!" ROFALOL!


----------



## JDC

WouldaShoulda said:


> Or otherwise completely unrelated to the topic at hand!!


How so? IMO that comment is true for both DADT and DOMA.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Gentlemen, all, do you realize how infantile the the respondent postings in this thread have become? Go back and reread the postings over the last two pages and ask yourselves, is this how we really want to be seen...is this the best we have to offer?


I thought the "bathing with crocodiles" distraction provided historical perspective and comic relief!!


----------



## JDC

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Gentlemen, all, do you realize how infantile the the respondent postings in this thread have become? Go back and reread the postings over the last two pages and ask yourselves, is this how we really want to be seen...is this the best we have to offer? Granted, the anonymity of the cyber world provides some modicum of comfort in such instances but really, I've a two and a half year old grand daughter who (generally) demonstrates greater maturity than I'm seeing reflected herein!
> 
> In crafting a response to either Chatsworth, In Mufti or Chouan, etc, I'm left wondering how to best respond? Perhaps, oh yea, "Well my momma is tougher than your momma and could kick her a**...and not even muss-up her make-up in doing so!" ROFALOL!


Eagle, I've always been terrible at deciphering trolls, and especially on this issue, the line between troll and honest opinion is extremely blurry.


----------



## eagle2250

^^Frank: We are in agreement on this. I think the subject of the thread is a very valid and timely focus for debate and for the most part, I have been positively intrigued and sometimes actually impressed by the opinions expressed herein. However, relative to spotting trolls, it can be a challenge but, when I see those I assume to be grown men, arguing back and forth to the effect, "our army can beat up your army," that seems clearly immature to me and intended to do nothing except promulgate further (senseless) argument!


----------



## flatline

TLDR: If you have problems with gays serving openly, based on scattered opinions and flying in the face of empirical evidence, _you_ are the one with a problem. Stow your baggage at the door, work your issues out, or STFU.



FrankDC said:


> A half century ago, half-wits were all up in arms about the legalization of interracial marriage in America.


That is a little harsh, but kind of true. The salient point here is that _not_ everyone that opposed interracial marriage was a member of the KKK. The exact same words were used back then - the moral decay of society, the end of civilization as we know it, etc - by people who considered themselves sane, moderate human beings. "I'm not a racist, I'm just not comfortable with the idea of my little girl marrying one of _them_." If history has shown us anything, it's that these things take time. My generation (Gen Y, late-twentysomethings) has more or less shown itself to be completely behind this type of equality. I think that as baby boomers shuffle more and more down to Florida, opposition will slowly go with them. Most of my friends, liberal or conservative, have zero problems with gays in the military, gays marrying each other, or any other thing they want to do. We are more worried about the economy, international conflict, energy, and the environment.

As for the military and quotes saying the vast majority of units will oppose this kind of open equality - I'm very skeptical. Even so, just because a group makes up the majority doesn't automatically mean they're _right_. I am tired of hearing people defend their position by shifting blame to the gay servicemen. Look at the problems that still face women in the military (via NPR):


> In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed.


Are we somehow going to blame the women for this? They were asking for it maybe, all slutted-up in their ACUs? Please. Once again - if you can't stow your own issues at the door, that is entirely on you. The soldier next to you is sacrificing a lot more by having to hide who he is and constantly living in fear of slipping and risking a general discharge.

Opponents often cite incidents of homosexual 'bad behavior' as evidence against their open inclusion. The problem with this line of reasoning is that we have no idea just how many homosexual servicemen/women there _are_, so generalizing based on isolated incidents is shaky at best. Compare that with the huge number of women that are assaulted, raped, and harassed by hetero soldiers - its not even news anymore when this happens unless the perp kills the girl and flees to Mexico. There will always be "bad apples", especially seeing as criminals are allowed (and often encouraged) to join the armed forces. If you're not going to acknowledge the huge number of problems initiated by straight soldiers, I can't abide trying to use the same kinds of incidents to bury gay ones.

Another point is that everyone seems to think that allowing gays to be open about their preference means that suddenly they'll be allowed to play gay-grabass in the showers, shag whomever they want in the barracks, and generally turn the whole of the US Army into a pinky-waving group of nancy-boys. Fraternization will _still_ be against regs, and the UCMJ will still exist. Repealing DADT doesn't mean that they can suddenly paint rainbows on their helmets and hit on everyone in their fire team - it means they don't have to be ashamed or hide the fact that back home, their "girlfriend" Sandy is actually their boyfriend Sandy.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> Be it DADT, Defense of Marriage or legalization of drugs gambling and prostitution.
> 
> First, examine why the status quo was established, then, have the opposition explain how their proposals IMPROVES the current situation.
> 
> Not, "a little toke never killed anyone" but have them actually explain how legalization would actually have positive effects in society.
> 
> The arguments usually fail on that level.
> 
> And most importantly, it never pays to argue points the opposition makes that otherwise just don't matter.


Actually, it's quite easy to make positive arguments for each of those. You just don't accept the arguments because they lead to a result you don't like.

The very easy positive argument for ending DADT is that it keeps highly qualified, highly motivated people out of the military. Ending irrational discrimination results in improvements of the quality of a workforce. Baseball became better when blacks were allowed to play. Not because all blacks are good at baseball, or even because they were good as a group at it, but because there were black individuals that were very good. Throwing out good soldiers, exceptional soldiers, _decorated_ soldiers, soldiers with rare skills, simply because they are gay is irrational and harmful to the efficacy of the military.

There's your positive argument, and it is fact. You won't be persuaded by it because you're not persuadable. You've ignored every piece of empirical evidence, pulled asserted rank prejudice as "fact," and just refused to engage with any argument that you can't counter. And you'll do it again here. But that doesn't make you right and smart, it makes you wrong and smug.


----------



## CuffDaddy

IlliniFlyer said:


> You're missing the point completely. Rape is not an issue. It is well defined and against the law regardless of heterosexual or homosexual. The point is that one's personal privacy should not be impeded down to the point of being bare. I totally understand if you want to give up that privacy... that's why several of you don't see an issue with homosexuals in the military. I certainly believe that it's your own decision. However, for the rest of us, this is a major infringement on what little privacy we have in the military. Don't force a decision upon us because somehow you (the general you, not CuffDaddy) have a different opinion. Perhaps America values the individual and the right to privacy more so than these other nations that are brought up in this discussion.
> 
> And CuffDaddy, I apologize for not responding to your earlier post. Looking at poll data across the US, the only apparent truth is that the topic is much debated and that there is not a clear and concise victor in the argument.


Illini, I'm confused. You say it's not about rape; you're quite right that is a non-issue. Instead, you say, it's about privacy. I think you and I have a different definition of privacy. If you're taking a shower with a group of men, regardless of their orientation, that's not private. If you're moving your bowels on a toilet with no door on the stall, that's not private. Privacy is about being able to exclude others, and impose solitude. At least among enlisted men, entering the military entails giving up a good deal of that.

You seem to be using the word "privacy" to me "free from observation by someone that might find me physcially attractive." I take it this desire for privacy leads you to insist upon only seeking medical attention from male doctors and nurses?

Maybe you can explain your concern a little more fully to me. Is it merely the desire to avoid the thought in the back of your head that one of your shipmates finds you physically attractive? DADT doesn't prevent that from happening. I'm puzzled. Help me understand.

Regarding the polling data, my point was not that all these issues have clear outcomes today, but that the trend towards greater acceptance is undeniable, steady, and long-lived. In 20 years, anti-homosexual attitudes will be regarded the same way as racist attitudes were by the mid-90's - simply embarassing. It's a demographic fact. As old people die off, and younger ones replace them, attitudes on *these* sorts of issues become inexorably more tolerant/inclusive/non-discriminatory.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> Or otherwise completely unrelated to the topic at hand!!


Or, rather, precisely analogous, and impossible for you to refute, so best ignored.


----------



## flatline

In Mufti said:


> The best military in the world is the US military--bar none. No one even comes close. During the time that the US military has become the best fighting force on the planet, gays have not been serving openly. My statement still stands: the best military in the world does not mess around with this stupid meddling.


I'm not saying this is untrue, exactly, but what is 'the best'?


Most manpower? Obviously not, China kicks our ass in the numbers department - and according to the most recent figures I've seen, so does India, North Korea, and Pakistan, if we're talking number of active standing forces.
Most hardware? I haven't seen figures to back this one up, but based on spending, the US probably has pole position here, at least for awhile. China is playing catchup but good though.
Best training? Again, debatable and nearly impossible to quantify. As others have pointed out, different branches of the same military have vastly different levels of discipline and precision.
Obviously in a real conflict, all of these factors come into play, and the "best" military is the one that wins and gets to write the history books. I think in the current climate, assuming we keep from spreading our resources too thin, the US might still have a military capable of taking on any other conventional force, but a lot of our advantage comes from superior numbers and equipment as much as it does from training and personnel. We are having a bastard of a time fighting insurgents, as the conventional training and tactics needed to be thrown out the window to prepare soldiers for stuff they see in Kabul and Fallujah.

That being said - has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand.


----------



## In Mufti

Memphis88 said:


> So, how long have you known you're gay? You'll feel much better if you drop the charade and fully accept who you really are.


This response makes no sense.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> You've ignored every piece of empirical evidence,
> 
> pulled asserted rank prejudice as "fact," and just refused to engage with any argument that you can't counter.


1) I never said that some women, gays or old men can't be effective, so it isn't important that I contest that with which I am in agreement!!

2) Am I to opoligize young, single heterosexual men for having asserted these rank prejudices from post #18??



WouldaShoulda said:


> Young, single heterosexual men have distinct and unique qualities that make them more suitable for combat specifically, but for participation in our armed services in general.
> 
> 1) They are more prone toward and accepting of violence.
> 
> 2) They tend to not contemplate their own mortality.
> 
> 3) They are more maliable and trainable in areas that are potentially leathal.


And in conclusion, from post #118...



WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) So perhaps it is logical to repeal DADT for MOSs that are also open to women and old men and leave the combat arms to young, unmarried heterosexual males for wich they have seperate and distinct properties that make them more desirable for the mission??
> 
> After a year, is it possible the JCOS will come to that conclusion??


----------



## Memphis88

In Mufti said:


> This response makes no sense.


Sure it does. Your vehement refusal to let gays serve openly and thinly veiled homophobia are good indicators that you yourself are a gay man who is struggling with your true identity.


----------



## JAGMAJ

CuffDaddy said:


> So your view is that straight men are to gay men as women are to straight men? _Really_?
> 
> Again, I wonder what kind of experience those of you concerned about this have with actual gay men. Or, rather, what your awareness is. If you've ever slept on a large commercial airplane, you've slept in the presence of gay men, almost guaranteed.
> 
> What, exactly, are you worried about? That the gay man will overpower you and rape you? Is rape the reason that women and men aren't allowed to bunk together?


I don't think that the issue is one of being raped. If we had security at the showers, do you think we would suddenly say that women have to shower with men? No, the issue is one of discomfort. A woman wouldn't want to shower in front of a group of men even if she knew that they weren't going to rape her. And to some extent, ingnorance is bliss. I have no doubt that there are gay men serving in the military now, but if some 18-year old kid from the Bible belt is made aware of an openly gay man in the shower with him, I have a feeling that he might have a greater degree of discomfort than simply knowing that there might theoretically be a gay guy in the shower. This doesn't make things right, but it reflects the way things are now. A fairly large segment of the population views homosexuality as a sin, and some even think that it should still be a crime. Maybe a few years from now, American society will tolerate gays more.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Woulda, you keep asserting that young heterosexual men have certain attributes, yet you acknowledge that the vast majority of them do *not* in fact have those attributes (your estimate was that ~10% did). And you acknowledge that some percentage (which you contend is lower) of gays, women, and older men also have the desired characteristics.

Despite this, you argue for sexual orientation (and marital status?) as a proxy for combat quality. In any other context, you would be a fool to say that a proxy with a .1 correlation is a good one to use as a bright-line test.

Let's use clothing for example. Let's say the stores in your area stock two brands of ties, Brand A and Brand B. You find 10% of A ties to be desirable, but only 5% of B to be worthy. What kind of moron would walk into the store in that situation and say "show me _only_ Brand A ties, even though most will be unsuitable, and some of the Brand B ties will be just as good"?


----------



## In Mufti

Chouan said:


> The biggest, I'll grant you. Put a Northumberland Fusilier, Greenjacket, Light Infantry, or Green Howard platoon, or company or battalion against any equivalent unit of the US military, and I'll lay any odds on which will come out on top. It won't be the US. When it comes to elites, I'd back the Royal Marines against the USMC any time (I've done the training, although I'm not a bootie), and the SAS over anything in the world, including the Legion. My cousin was in the Legion Etrangere.
> As far as other branches of service are concerned, again, the US has numbers, superior quantity. Superior quality to the RAF? Or the RN? I doubt it. I've seen both USN and RN operations. Again, I know which I'd back unit for unit.
> 
> I'm not "Ivy-league", and I have served in the RN, so I do have some idea of which I speak.
> 
> But, my experience so far on this thread is that evidence which disproves the anti-gay in the Forces membership's prejudices is largely ignored. Is Britain's experience not relevant? Or is it because of ignorance?


There are many ways to measure military performance. But the most common are the ability to: "shoot, move and communicate." The US forces have a much better ability to put ordnance on target, move personnel and equipment around the world and to establish and maintain communication. That's not just at the global level but also at the platoon level.

I don't want want to turn this into an a pissing match about who has the toughest soldiers. There are lots of tough dedicated soldiers around the world. But when there is a big international crisis, Haiti for example, the US military is the only organization that can handle the job. Certainly small unit performance is important, but there is a tipping point where a military force gets so small and so elite that it is no longer much more than a palace guard.


----------



## CuffDaddy

JAGMAJ said:


> I don't think that the issue is one of being raped. If we had security at the showers, do you think we would suddenly say that women have to shower with men? No, the issue is one of discomfort. A woman wouldn't want to shower in front of a group of men even if she knew that they weren't going to rape her. And to some extent, ingnorance is bliss. I have no doubt that there are gay men serving in the military now, but if some 18-year old kid from the Bible belt is made aware of an openly gay man in the shower with him, I have a feeling that he might have a greater degree of discomfort than simply knowing that there might theoretically be a gay guy in the shower. This doesn't make things right, but it reflects the way things are now. A fairly large segment of the population views homosexuality as a sin, and some even think that it should still be a crime. Maybe a few years from now, American society will tolerate gays more.


So discrimination is OK if it permits those with prejudices to avoid "discomfort"? Shameful.

American society tolerates gays extremely well. The business world got past this issue 10 years ago. 83% of the Fortune 100 now offer domestic partner benefits. I would be surprised to hear of one that openly discriminated against gays. The military is the trailer on this. It is an embarasment.


----------



## CuffDaddy

In Mufti said:


> There are many ways to measure military performance. But the most common are the ability to: "shoot, move and communicate." The US forces have a much better ability to put ordnance on target, move personnel and equipment around the world and to establish and maintain communication. That's not just at the global level but also at the platoon level.
> 
> I don't want want to turn this into an a pissing match about who has the toughest soldiers. There are lots of tough dedicated soldiers around the world. But when there is a big international crisis, Haiti for example, the US military is the only organization that can handle the job. Certainly small unit performance is important, but there is a tipping point where a military force gets so small and so elite that it is no longer much more than a palace guard.


And none of this has anything to do with the sexual orientation of soldiers. Duh.


----------



## In Mufti

Memphis88 said:


> Sure it does. Your vehement refusal to let gays serve openly and thinly veiled homophobia are good indicators that you yourself are a gay man who is struggling with your true identity.


Nice try. I haven't heard that retort since the 1970s.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> Woulda, you keep asserting that young heterosexual men have certain attributes, yet you acknowledge that the vast majority of them do *not* in fact have those attributes (your estimate was that ~10% did). And you acknowledge that some percentage (which you contend is lower) of gays, women, and older men also have the desired characteristics.


I'm sorry I wasn't claer.

What I meant was that even in the most desirable pool of prospectively trainable hired killers for Uncle Sam, that 10%+ would wash out.

I do contand that some gays, women, and older men also have the desired characteristics. (Obviosly, I hope)

And I admit that my mindset is more relevent to when vast numbers of men werer drafted into service.

That's how I came to the conclusuin I had come to in post #118.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

In Mufti said:


> Nice try. I haven't heard that retort since the 1970s.


Was it a pick-up line?? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## In Mufti

CuffDaddy said:


> And none of this has anything to do with the sexual orientation of soldiers. Duh.


It all goes back to discipline, unit cohesion, esprite, etc, etc. These are the bedrock upon which an effective military organization is built. The current policy works. there is no reason to change it.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

JAGMAJ beat me to the punch and I didn't see his comments until after I wrote the following...



CuffDaddy said:


> Illini, I'm confused. You say it's not about rape; you're quite right that is a non-issue. Instead, you say, it's about privacy. I think you and I have a different definition of privacy. If you're taking a shower with a group of men, regardless of their orientation, that's not private. If you're moving your bowels on a toilet with no door on the stall, that's not private. Privacy is about being able to exclude others, and impose solitude. At least among enlisted men, entering the military entails giving up a good deal of that.
> 
> You seem to be using the word "privacy" to me "free from observation by someone that might find me physcially attractive." I take it this desire for privacy leads you to insist upon only seeking medical attention from male doctors and nurses?


Privacy in this context is being allowed to have modesty when around those that are attracted to your sex. That's why women don't share showers with men, and why gay men/women shouldn't be sharing the same living spaces nor the same heads. It's funny that you mention seeking medical attention from male doctors and nurses... it IS a legal right (at least in the military) to have a same-sex examination. That is a right of the individual even though the examinations themselves are required.



CuffDaddy said:


> Maybe you can explain your concern a little more fully to me. Is it merely the desire to avoid the thought in the back of your head that one of your shipmates finds you physically attractive? DADT doesn't prevent that from happening. I'm puzzled. Help me understand.


No, but perception is a major factor for many issues in the military (e.g., fraternization). DADT is simply a way to work around the law (UCMJ Article 125) that prohibits homosexual acts.



CuffDaddy said:


> Regarding the polling data, my point was not that all these issues have clear outcomes today, but that the trend towards greater acceptance is undeniable, steady, and long-lived. In 20 years, anti-homosexual attitudes will be regarded the same way as racist attitudes were by the mid-90's - simply embarassing. It's a demographic fact. As old people die off, and younger ones replace them, attitudes on these sorts of issues become inexorably more tolerant/inclusive/non-discriminatory.


Overall acceptance may indeed be moving toward a more liberal society (but there are also studies showing the opposite). However, the military in its current state is quite conservative relative to the general populace. When even liberal California has a ban on gay marriages, it's safe to say that the overall issues related to homosexuality are still up for debate. Whereas liberals see greater acceptance as enlightened thinking, conservatives see it as degrading moral standards and the overall downward spiral of society. If the military was made up of mostly liberals, I don't see that this would be an issue at all. That just isn't reality.

Either way, a policy on this issue makes a statement on values. It's using law to enforce a moral code. When that moral code runs contrary to the majority of members in the military, how can you not expect to have a degradation of unit cohesion?


----------



## In Mufti

WouldaShoulda said:


> Was it a pick-up line?? :icon_smile_wink:


Whatever...


----------



## Memphis88

In Mufti said:


> Nice try. I haven't heard that retort since the 1970s.


So you've been living as a closeted homosexual for at least that long, huh? Relax man I'm just kidding around with you. You make it pretty damn easy to do.


----------



## mrkleen

Bottom line is that THIS IS HAPPENING. Period.

You can get over it or keep crying about it. Makes no difference.


----------



## In Mufti

mrkleen said:


> Bottom line is that THIS IS HAPPENING. Period.
> 
> You can get over it or keep crying about it. Makes no difference.


Not so sure. The Healthcare thing was supposed to be a lock too.


----------



## Chouan

I rather resent the "palace guards" jibe; the Brigade of Guards is currently serving in Afghanistan. Not quite "palace guards", but perhaps that is how "In Mufti" would like to perceive them.

I'm sorry if my response to the assertion that US Forces are the best in the world, an assertion that I absolutely reject, is seen as immature. I wasn't saying (check my posts) that Britain's forces are the toughest, but that battalion against battalion, indeed, brigade against brigade, I'd put my money on Britain's army. In joint manoevres, British units have consistently outperformed US units, at all levels, and in all services. 

Perhaps in future I'll allow an assertion without evidence, indeed, still without substantive evidence offered, to stand without response, so as not to be perceived as "immature".

As far as the topic in question is concerned, my comment was to establish the idea that the quality of Britain's armed forces has not deteriorated with the toleration of openly gay people. I was concerned that this evidence was being ignored.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Chouan said:


> In joint manoevres, British units have consistently outperformed US units, at all levels, and in all services.


I am sorry sir, but that is not a statement of fact. I would go further but it is not relevant to the original post.


----------



## CuffDaddy

IlliniFlyer said:


> I am sorry sir, but that is not a statement of fact. I would go further but it is not relevant to the original post.


You're right. The relevant question is whether the UK's forces got worse after changing their policy. Lots of evidence it did not, haven't heard any evidence that it did, ergo UK experience is strong evidence that having gays openly serve in the military does not harm performance.


----------



## In Mufti

CuffDaddy said:


> You're right. The relevant question is whether the UK's forces got worse after changing their policy. Lots of evidence it did not, haven't heard any evidence that it did, ergo UK experience is strong evidence that having gays openly serve in the military does not harm performance.


This is all subjective regardless. One could just as easily ask if the UK forces would be markedly BETTER right now if they had NOT changed their policy. It can go around and around.

On a personal note: I have fought alongside UK forces several times and have a great deal of respect for them. They have many strenghts we don't have--and vice versa. Many of the UK soldiers I served with in both Gulf wars did not think having gays in their military was a good idea for the same reasons that American military personnel are saying now. It is by no means a universally popular policy within The Forces.

I stand behind my original point: There is no up-side to changing the policy and plenty of down-side.


----------



## CuffDaddy

In Mufti said:


> This is all subjective regardless. One could just as easily ask if the UK forces would be markedly BETTER right now if they had NOT changed their policy. It can go around and around.
> 
> On a personal note: I have fought alongside UK forces several times and have a great deal of respect for them. They have many strenghts we don't have--and vice versa. Many of the UK soldiers I served with in both Gulf wars did not think having gays in their military was a good idea for the same reasons that American military personnel are saying now. It is by no means a universally popular policy within The Forces.
> 
> I stand behind my original point: There is no up-side to changing the policy and plenty of down-side.


"Popularity" is irrelevant. What matters is results. There is ample evidence that the results are favorable. There is no evidence to the contrary. *You don't like what the evidence shows.* That's your right, but you should acknowledge that your objections to gays in the military are _not_ based on facts, nor even reasonable concerns about the impact on performance, but on your personal preferences (which may be widely shared).

Just say: I don't like gays, and I don't want them around me, and if they are around me, I don't want to know about it. Be honest.


----------



## In Mufti

CuffDaddy said:


> "Popularity" is irrelevant. What matters is results. There is ample evidence that the results are favorable. There is no evidence to the contrary. *You don't like what the evidence shows.* That's your right, but you should acknowledge that your objections to gays in the military are _not_ based on facts, nor even reasonable concerns about the impact on performance, but on your personal preferences (which may be widely shared).
> 
> Just say: I don't like gays, and I don't want them around me, and if they are around me, I don't want to know about it. Be honest.


There is no evidence that gays openly serving in the military will enhance the military and a lot of evidence that it will hurt morale, discipline, unit cohesion, recruiting, etc, etc.

It is a stupid move to do something that has no benefit and certain detriment.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Pathetic, Mufti. Just can't bring yourself to say it, can you? Have the courage of your convictions, man.


----------



## In Mufti

CuffDaddy said:


> Pathetic, Mufti. Just can't bring yourself to say it, can you? Have the courage of your convictions, man.


I've made my position pretty clear: Changing the policy doesn't make sense.


----------



## CuffDaddy

In Mufti said:


> I've made my position pretty clear: Changing the policy doesn't make sense.


Yes, you have. And you've made your actual motivation for it equally clear. You just won't own up to it.


----------



## In Mufti

CuffDaddy said:


> Yes, you have. And you've made your actual motivation for it equally clear. You just won't own up to it.


My motivation is the combat readiness of the military. Pretty simple.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Pretty clearly a story you are telling yourself. The "logical" arguments against changing the policy have been eviscerated in this thread. All that remains is the dislike of some towards gays. You can call your dislike "combat readiness" if you want, but you aren't fooling anybody.

Mufti, I think I've said my peace on the matter. You can have the last word.


----------



## In Mufti

CuffDaddy said:


> Pretty clearly a story you are telling yourself. The "logical" arguments against changing the policy have been eviscerated in this thread. All that remains is the dislike of some towards gays. You can call your dislike "combat readiness" if you want, but you aren't fooling anybody.


Not sure when or where the arguments were "evicerated." Clearly, again, changing the policy will be much more damaging than any benefit.

Combat readiness is the only important consideration when making decisions about military policy. When the country settles for anything less, for any other reason, it puts the lives of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines at risk needlessly. Again, pretty simple.


----------



## a4audi08

JAGMAJ said:


> There's no doubt that servicemembers should be able to tolerate openly gay members, but the fact is that many heterosexual men are threatened by being in close proximity to gay men. Back when the Army was first integrated, a white soldier might have thought that the black soldier in the foxhole with him was inferior, but he wasn't worried that he might make sexual advances on him. Again, I think that most heterosexual soldiers in non-combat units would be able to put aside their feelings and work together, but I'm afraid that the typical American infantryman would have a hard time sharing a foxhole or a tent with an openly gay man.


do you honestly believe thats what these guys are worried about when there are bombs exploding around them?


----------



## Memphis88

In Mufti said:


> My motivation is the combat readiness of the military. Pretty simple.


Aaaaaand you hate gay people.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

CuffDaddy said:


> Pretty clearly a story you are telling yourself. The "logical" arguments against changing the policy have been eviscerated in this thread. All that remains is the dislike of some towards gays. You can call your dislike "combat readiness" if you want, but you aren't fooling anybody.


CuffDaddy, I still believe that you have missed the point. Many of those in favor of open homosexuals in the military claim that those opposed are simply bigoted. Furthermore, the claim that because it works in other nations' militaries that it will work here is obviously a logical fallacy. We have to look at the conditions for why this one issue affects different militaries in different ways. That fact that homosexuality is seen as wrong/perversion/sin by the majority of military personnel needs to be taken into account for policy. Otherwise it is simply seen as trying to ram the morals of the minority down the throat of the majority.

I understand the argument that neither the majority nor minority can affect whether something is actually right or wrong. That argument even assumes that there is an absolute right and wrong. The reality is that the argument is purely academic. People live, vote, and legislate by codes of right and wrong and therefore the majority viewpoint is what matters.

If homosexuality is in fact wrong, then allowing the open display of that would be equivalent to endorsing adultery, robbery, cheating, etc. I'll say it again, if the military was less conservative and more liberal then open homosexuality wouldn't be such an issue.


----------



## JDC

IlliniFlyer said:


> I understand the argument that neither the majority nor minority can affect whether something is actually right or wrong. That argument even assumes that there is an absolute right and wrong. The reality is that the argument is purely academic. People live, vote, and legislate by codes of right and wrong and therefore the majority viewpoint is what matters.


https://www.zogby.com/NEWS/readnews.cfm?ID=1222

"The data also indicate that military attitudes about homosexuality have shifted. In the early 1990's, many senior officers argued that U.S. troops could not form bonds of trust with gays and lesbians, according to Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, who has written widely on the subject. According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians."

There are no laws in the U.S. against homosexuality, and that is what matters. You have the right to be personally opposed to it, you do not have the right to impose your opposition on everyone (or anyone) else. Even the concept of being "opposed" to homosexuality is considered absurd today, since sexual orientation is not a choice: it's like being "opposed" to left-handed people. If being opposed to it makes you feel better, fine, but please don't pretend it makes any difference to anyone, or to reality.


----------



## tigerboy

Personally I have no isue whatever with homosexuals serving per se. That said it is nonsensical to pretend it is not an issue in a service largely comprised of young working class boys in their late teens and early 20s. It has to be managed.

A far greater isue is the frankly ridiculous issue of women on warships and in active service units.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

FrankDC said:


> There are no laws in the U.S. against homosexuality, and that is what matters.


Really? Try Title 10 of the US Code.



FrankDC said:


> You have the right to be personally opposed to it, you do not have the right to impose your opposition on everyone (or anyone) else.


I'll flip that around. What gives anyone for it the right to impose their propensity on everyone (or anyone) else?



FrankDC said:


> Even the concept of being "opposed" to homosexuality is considered absurd today, since sexual orientation is not a choice: it's like being "opposed" to left-handed people. If being opposed to it makes you feel better, fine, but please don't pretend it makes any difference to anyone, or to reality.


It's only considered absurd by liberals. You aren't that narrow minded are you?


----------



## tigerboy

FrankDC said:


> https://www.zogby.com/NEWS/readnews.cfm?ID=1222
> 
> "The data also indicate that military attitudes about homosexuality have shifted. In the early 1990's, many senior officers argued that U.S. troops could not form bonds of trust with gays and lesbians, according to Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, who has written widely on the subject. According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians."
> 
> There are no laws in the U.S. against homosexuality, and that is what matters. You have the right to be personally opposed to it, you do not have the right to impose your opposition on everyone (or anyone) else. Even the concept of being "opposed" to homosexuality is considered absurd today, since sexual orientation is not a choice: it's like being "opposed" to left-handed people. If being opposed to it makes you feel better, fine, but please don't pretend it makes any difference to anyone, or to reality.


Whilst I see your point I would caution that that data almost certainly suffers from young largely heterosexual man replying as the think they are supposed to reply. I would be astounded if 3 in 4 working class youths serving in the armed forces actually felt like that but am not surprised at their giving what they deem to be the "correct" answers.


----------



## tigerboy

IlliniFlyer said:


> CuffDaddy, I still believe that you have missed the point. Many of those in favor of open homosexuals in the military claim that those opposed are simply bigoted. Furthermore, the claim that because it works in other nations' militaries that it will work here is obviously a logical fallacy. We have to look at the conditions for why this one issue affects different militaries in different ways. That fact that homosexuality is seen as wrong/perversion/sin by the majority of military personnel needs to be taken into account for policy. Otherwise it is simply seen as trying to ram the morals of the minority down the throat of the majority.
> 
> I understand the argument that neither the majority nor minority can affect whether something is actually right or wrong. That argument even assumes that there is an absolute right and wrong. The reality is that the argument is purely academic. People live, vote, and legislate by codes of right and wrong and therefore the majority viewpoint is what matters.
> 
> If homosexuality is in fact wrong, then allowing the open display of that would be equivalent to endorsing adultery, robbery, cheating, etc. I'll say it again, if the military was less conservative and more liberal then open homosexuality wouldn't be such an issue.


Do keep in mind that Liberal armies on the western European model tend to be glorified boy scouts which are not actually intended for war.....Europeans expect America to defend them.

Liberal armies tend to be essentially useless nn fighting militias. the WW2 wehrmacht, napoleon's regiments, Caesar's legions and the red Army were not noted for liberalism nor were they noted for being ineffective.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

tigerboy said:


> Personally I have no isue whatever with homosexuals serving per se. That said it is nonsensical to pretend it is not an issue in a service largely comprised of young working class boys in their late teens and early 20s. It has to be managed.


Don't forget the college educated senior enlisted and officers in their 30s and 40s!


----------



## JDC

IlliniFlyer said:


> Really? Try Title 10 of the US Code.


I was referring to civil laws.



IlliniFlyer said:


> I'll flip that around. What gives anyone for it the right to impose their propensity on everyone (or anyone) else?


Who's doing that? DADT is going to be changed to a more honest and workable policy, that's all.



IlliniFlyer said:


> It's only considered absurd by liberals. You aren't that narrow minded are you?


If you believe being opposed to left-handedness makes people right-handed, like I said you have every right to that delusion.


----------



## tigerboy

IlliniFlyer said:


> Don't forget the college educated senior enlisted and officers in their 30s and 40s!


Indeed. They need managing as well.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

FrankDC said:


> If you believe being opposed to left-handedness makes people right-handed, like I said you have every right to that delusion.


You are missing the moral point while trying to frame the argument as if biology was what was being discussed. Excusing homosexual behavior because someone is born a homosexual is like excusing an adulterer because he/she was born with that desire. It's a moral argument that is codified in law. And it's the military law that matters here. Regardless of DADT, doing homosexual acts is illegal in the US military. There is no arguing that point. The law will first have to change before the DOD can do anything more left-leaning than DADT. That is of course unless you believe laws are morally relative and should only be followed when it suits the individual.

I get the sense that many of you are caught up on the biologic argument without engaging the moral argument. Unless you are willing to accept that some believe homosexuality is a sin (on par with others I mentioned earlier) then you fail to grasp the conservative mind. If you fail to grasp that, then you fail to understand a large portion of the military (especially officers). It would be akin to politicians saying you can now be an open adulterer in the military. Where is the order and discipline then?


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Changing the subject slightly, let's assume that DADT is retracted and the law is changed. Gays are allowed to be open and married in the US military. Now there is the issue of gay marriage and which state that the couple is a resident. What happens if the couple move from a pro-gay marriage state to one that is not? Regardless of your side in the ongoing discussion, this scenario would be a reality. Any ideas?


----------



## JDC

IlliniFlyer said:


> You are missing the moral point while trying to frame the argument as if biology was what was being discussed. Excusing homosexual behavior because someone is born a homosexual is like excusing an adulterer because he/she was born with that desire. It's a moral argument that is codified in law. And it's the military law that matters here. Regardless of DADT, doing homosexual acts is illegal in the US military. There is no arguing that point. The law will first have to change before the DOD can do anything more left-leaning than DADT. That is of course unless you believe laws are morally relative and should only be followed when it suits the individual.


The UCMJ exists to keep order in our armed services, not to dictate someone's (or the majority's) definition of morality. The list of fraternization restrictions imposed on our troops is very long, and includes heterosexual relations when they "undermine good order, discipline, authority or morale". The gender one happens to be attracted to is irrelevant to this necessity for order.



IlliniFlyer said:


> I get the sense that many of you are caught up on the biologic argument without engaging the moral argument. Unless you are willing to accept that some believe homosexuality is a sin (on par with others I mentioned earlier) then you fail to grasp the conservative mind. If you fail to grasp that, then you fail to understand a large portion of the military (especially officers). It would be akin to politicians saying you can now be an open adulterer in the military. Where is the order and discipline then?


Unlike sexual orientation, adultery is a choice. That's the difference. Gay people have always been in our military, and have always served us proudly without imposing any more order/discipline/etc problems than heterosexuals.


----------



## JDC

IlliniFlyer said:


> Changing the subject slightly, let's assume that DADT is retracted and the law is changed. Gays are allowed to be open and married in the US military. Now there is the issue of gay marriage and which state that the couple is a resident. What happens if the couple move from a pro-gay marriage state to one that is not? Regardless of your side in the ongoing discussion, this scenario would be a reality. Any ideas?


Same-sex marriage is progressing exactly like interracial marriage did a half-century ago. First some states allowed it, then more, and eventually the feds (SCOTUS) stepped in and overthrew the last dozen or so state laws that prohibited it. And what do you know, the sky didn't fall, society didn't collapse, and people didn't start asking to marry their pets.


----------



## In Mufti

FrankDC;Gay people have always been in our military said:


> Those who were serving, didn't cause a discipline issue because their orientation was not public. Which is the point of DADT.


----------



## JDC

In Mufti said:


> Those who were serving, didn't cause a discipline issue because their orientation was not public. Which is the point of DADT.


DADT mandates dishonesty, and as such it's a stupid policy.

If you haven't already, read a book called "Unfriendly Fire". It gives a glimpse from people on the inside of our armed services of just how ridiculous DADT has proven to be.


----------



## In Mufti

FrankDC said:


> DADT mandates dishonesty, and as such it's a stupid policy.
> 
> If you haven't already, read a book called "Unfriendly Fire". It gives a glimpse from people on the inside of our armed services of just how ridiculous DADT has proven to be.


I spent a career in the military--including combat tours. I've got a pretty good grasp of the issues.


----------



## JDC

In Mufti said:


> I spent a career in the military--including combat tours. I've got a pretty good grasp of the issues.


Thank you for your service. I've known several career soldiers, all of them (straight and gay) have been amazing people.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves

When one devotes himself to a greater cause, he must put aside parts of his individualism. Those of you who have served in the military know this already. But it's also true in the business world and in society generally.

In the military, one must put aside all kinds of dislikes and prejudices, be they racial, regional, or whatever.

The military has excelled in taking people from all areas of this country--rural and urban--and from all ethnic backgrounds and forcing them to work together. A good many of them end up actually not just tolerating each other but respecting and even liking each other.

Thus I am confident that our armed forces are up to the task of learning to adapt to the *knowledge* that some of the people current serving are gay--for their actual presence has been long established.

In addition: The Army kicks out a significant number of Arabic linguists every year for being gay. These are people who could be out there hunting down the next terrorist. Yet they're kicked out--their YEARS of training (at our considerable expense) and their rare linguistic aptitude discarded.

For those of you who support kicking them out: Are you saying that the "Eww, gays!" feelings of a few homophobic enlisted men are so worth coddling that it's worth an increased risk of another terrorist attack? That human lives are worth less than the insecurities of some fearful recruits?

I grew up with the same homophobic attitudes that most young guys have. But a lot of that is posturing and male bonding. Once I got to college and actually met people who were gay, I realized it's no big deal. I grew up.

I think the military makes people grow up fast. Recruits can go in not being comfortable with people belonging to a particular group--but they have to get over it and do their job.


----------



## In Mufti

AscotWithShortSleeves;
In addition: The Army kicks out a significant number of Arabic linguists every year for being gay. These are people who could be out there hunting down the next terrorist. Yet they're kicked out--their YEARS of training (at our considerable expense) their rare linguistic aptitude discarded.
[/QUOTE said:


> This is not quite true. There was a handfull of Arabic linguists discharged from the Defense Language Institute in Monterey several years ago. These soldiers made a spectacle of their orientation and basically dared the army to do something about it. The people I know who work there (DLI) were of the opinion the individuals did not want to deploy--and as members of the Arabic program, knew they would be going to Iraq and nowhere else. So they decided this was the easiest path out. There was no witch hunt.
> 
> This was an isolated instance. There is no gay community within the Arabic linguist field.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves

In Mufti said:


> This is not quite true. There was a handfull of Arabic linguists discharged from the Defense Language Institute in Monterey several years ago.


A handful? Looks to be 58 linguists in 2007: https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/58_gay_arab_linguists_ousted_from_military/



In Mufti said:


> These soldiers made a spectacle of their orientation.


Really? How do you know this? And why would they do so? Because nothing would make their lives easier in the military? I'm sure some of them were perhaps effeminate, but I hardly think that would constitute "making a spectacle" of their orientation. Keep in mind that a lot of guys in the military would think that engaging in a discussion about men's wear is really, really gay.



In Mufti said:


> The people I know who work there (DLI) were of the opinion the individuals did not want to deploy--and as members of the Arabic program, knew they would be going to Iraq and nowhere else..


Come on. They signed up to learn Arabic *while we're at war with an Arabic-speaking country* and were surprised to learn they'd be deployed to Iraq? I really don't think so. That just isn't remotely believable.

You present as evidence information that only you have had access to. Who are these people you know at DLI? How many? And how do we all know that they're unbiased on this issue?

But OK, let's suppose for the sake of argument that your supposedly unbiased and numerous friends at DLI are right--that all 58 of these guys were cranking up the Madonna and saying things like saying "That rifle drill is FIERCE!"

Would you prefer that the risk of more Americans dying from a terrorist attack be increased--rather than have the Army tolerate gayness?


----------



## CuffDaddy

IlliniFlyer said:


> You are missing the moral point while trying to frame the argument as if biology was what was being discussed. Excusing homosexual behavior because someone is born a homosexual is like excusing an adulterer because he/she was born with that desire. It's a moral argument that is codified in law. And it's the military law that matters here. Regardless of DADT, doing homosexual acts is illegal in the US military. There is no arguing that point. The law will first have to change before the DOD can do anything more left-leaning than DADT. That is of course unless you believe laws are morally relative and should only be followed when it suits the individual.
> 
> I get the sense that many of you are caught up on the biologic argument without engaging the moral argument. Unless you are willing to accept that some believe homosexuality is a sin (on par with others I mentioned earlier) then you fail to grasp the conservative mind. If you fail to grasp that, then you fail to understand a large portion of the military (especially officers). It would be akin to politicians saying you can now be an open adulterer in the military. Where is the order and discipline then?


The conservative mind in 1948 believed integration was morally wrong. The conservatives in the military got over it.


----------



## CuffDaddy

IlliniFlyer said:


> Changing the subject slightly, let's assume that DADT is retracted and the law is changed. Gays are allowed to be open and married in the US military. Now there is the issue of gay marriage and which state that the couple is a resident. What happens if the couple move from a pro-gay marriage state to one that is not? Regardless of your side in the ongoing discussion, this scenario would be a reality. Any ideas?


I'm sorry, what is the question?


----------



## Jae iLL

I just got out of the Military, I was a Linguist, and there are plenty of homosexuals that serve, either openly gay or in the closet. Of them I only know worked closely with one who got kicked out because of being gay, he had a youtube page where he discussed gay rights in the military. 

He was very competent in his job, performed it better than those of higher rank and equal rank to him, regardless of sexual orientation. He was consistently recognized for the work he did, but once chain of command was told about his youtube (chain of command higher than my unit) he was tried and administratively separated. He fought his case, and every one of us in the unit supported him from the chain of command to the enlisted. 

I have no problem with gays in the military if they can do their job equal to their straight counterparts, or better, than why waste millions of dollars on training and security clearances and potential lives saved over sexual orientation? It never hurt our morale to know that there were gays serving with us, and nobody minded the homosexuals at DLI.


----------



## Jae iLL

In Mufti said:


> This is not quite true. There was a handfull of Arabic linguists discharged from the Defense Language Institute in Monterey several years ago. These soldiers made a spectacle of their orientation and basically dared the army to do something about it. The people I know who work there (DLI) were of the opinion the individuals did not want to deploy--and as members of the Arabic program, knew they would be going to Iraq and nowhere else. So they decided this was the easiest path out. There was no witch hunt.
> 
> This was an isolated instance. There is no gay community within the Arabic linguist field.


you are 100% wrong.


----------



## In Mufti

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> A handful? Looks to be 58 linguists in 2007: https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/58_gay_arab_linguists_ousted_from_military/
> 
> ?


This link goes to a statement made by politicians who are trying to repeal DADT. When you follow the link from that statement it dead ends. I was looking for the explanation of the 58 discharges. My job in the military involved using linguists so I was keenly interested in the field. Most of the stories you will find go back to the discharge at DLI at the beginning of the Iraq War.

Every time a war starts for real, the military goes through a wave of people trying to get out for various reasons. We have a bunch of born-again conscientious objectors, sudden "family crises" and so on. At the time, these guys were considered part of that group. They enlisted before it became so dangerous to be in the army and decided it was time to find something else to do.

Having worked in Washington, I find this number suspect. I have seen too many politicians "juke the stats" to support their agenda. For example, the soldiers discharged from the DLI were not really Arabic linguists; they were in school to become linguists. They had not been granted the MOS. It is incorrect and misleading to continue to repeat over and over that they were "linguists." However, in Washington, I'm sure they have been included in the stats because that supports the argument.

As background: most of the translators we used in Iraq-in the field-were not even in the military. They were native Iraqis, hired as contractors. Despite the valiant work of the people at the DLI, you can not turn a native American into a fluent Arabic speaker who can detect all of the nuances in a source's speech, understand local slang and so on. So don't get too excited about the Arabic linguist argument.

Regardless, if you join the military under DADT-and then dare them to discharge you, you are going to get into trouble. The rules are spelled out when you enlist. If you knowingly enlist with the intention of testing those rules, you will not win.

Again, back to my original point: Repealing DADT is not an enhancement to the combat readiness. There is no up-side to military combat readiness.

Clearly, with regard to this topic, many of us will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## richardUK

Epaminondas said:


> With the exception of Israel and maybe the UK, all of those countries are a military joke.
> 
> Personally, in terms of military matters, I'd prefer we were in with the "brutal" countries, not the enlightened ones like Canada that has more generals than tanks (Canada's a lovely country with fine people, but it doesn't take military strength very seriously).


military joke?

you might want to look at who is serving in afghanistan & iraq


----------



## richardUK

WouldaShoulda said:


> Eventually, yes, they won't mind. But to me it just isn't the point.
> 
> In addition, I have problems with the whole volunteer nature of the US Armed forces anyway!!
> 
> Except for Officers and NCOs, I think national service should be compulsory. But that's a whole 'nuther matter!!


but then youd have women & gays serving!!!

oh the horrors


----------



## richardUK

JAGMAJ said:


> I don't think that the issue is one of being raped. If we had security at the showers, do you think we would suddenly say that women have to shower with men? No, the issue is one of discomfort. A woman wouldn't want to shower in front of a group of men even if she knew that they weren't going to rape her. And to some extent, ingnorance is bliss. I have no doubt that there are gay men serving in the military now, but if some 18-year old kid from the Bible belt is made aware of an openly gay man in the shower with him, I have a feeling that he might have a greater degree of discomfort than simply knowing that there might theoretically be a gay guy in the shower. This doesn't make things right, but it reflects the way things are now. A fairly large segment of the population views homosexuality as a sin, and some even think that it should still be a crime. Maybe a few years from now, American society will tolerate gays more.


er, if he feels discomfort, thats his feeling, he is causing it to himself & has to take responsibility for it

are you expecting all gay soldiers to wear a badge, or have a special tattoo? 
why would the kid have been made aware of the other soldiers sexual orientation?
& if he's an unmarried 18yr old from the bible belt, should he even be thinking about sex?


----------



## richardUK

In Mufti said:


> There is no evidence that gays openly serving in the military will enhance the military and a lot of evidence that it will hurt morale, discipline, unit cohesion, recruiting, etc, etc.
> 
> It is a stupid move to do something that has no benefit and certain detriment.


where is this evidence then?

cite it or it dosnt exist


----------



## richardUK

In Mufti said:


> Those who were serving, didn't cause a discipline issue because their orientation was not public. Which is the point of DADT.


how do you know their orientation wasnt public?

again
cite it or it dosnt exist


----------



## JAGMAJ

richardUK said:


> are you expecting all gay soldiers to wear a badge, or have a special tattoo?
> why would the kid have been made aware of the other soldiers sexual orientation?
> & if he's an unmarried 18yr old from the bible belt, should he even be thinking about sex?


I don't think you understand the American policy. The current policy is that gays can serve in the military as long as are quiet about it, and Army officials aren't allowed to ask about sexual orientation. That way, the 18-year old in the shower doesn't know that the guy next to him is gay. People are now discussing whether we should let openly gay people serve in the military.


----------



## OldMilitary

*We should proceed cautiously.*

I have been in the service a number of years in various places and in various positions coming up through the ranks. The Rand study, done about 1993, which discusses the issue of integrating gays is very familiar to me. (It is available for download for free in PDF format on the internet. Just look up the string +"Rand" +"sexual" +"military" Cutting through the ins and outs (no puns intended) and the whys and wherefores I will say that we should be able to reasonably integrate homosexuals into Military life in this day and time. There will be problems or maybe I should say particular areas where the integration will not be exactly like what the most vigorous gay groups are now wishing and asking for. Examples: In the groups where there is real and vigorous combat and especially in close quarters, gays will not generally be able to fit in well. Probably they won't want to anyway so unless we go to a general "big" war with a lot of troops (with draftees) it won't be a problem. In close birthing areas like on attack submarines (See Rand) there will be difficulties. (By the way women aren't allowed in those areas now.) On a Carrier, no problem. Lots of room. The major problems will be in the lower ranks, in the ground forces, in close quarter hardcore deployment areas, and also especially in early training where there has been a tradition of open shower, open toilet and open bunk areas, especially on older posts. There will be a strong tendency for the heterosexuals troops to wish some minimum of "privacy." Not giving this privacy will be tantamount to throwing gasoline on a fire. We must be prudent and protect both sides from dangerous situations. I can't stress this enough. We should realize that there is a difference between knowing or suspecting there are a few homosexuals here and there and knowing and seeing identifiable appreciable groups of them in the barracks areas, in the showers, along with their own mannerisms and humor. Also I hear from the homosexual groups that there actually would be more of them enlisting if the bans were removed. Now some will speak of "professionalism, and leadership, and the rules and the law" and claim there should be, or will be no problem if everyone just makes "nice," is ordered to make "nice." But I say just take a gander at the problems that have occurred with women in our "Very Elite" Service Academy's and in other areas where there actually is now generally separation of the sexes in bunking and hygiene. Personally I say that we should just consider it a privacy issue and respect people's wishes for privacy and then we won't have to consider the worse problems that might occur if we just order young hormone driven men (and women) to be "nice."


----------



## Peak and Pine

OldMilitary said:


> Also I hear from the homosexual groups that there actually would be more of them enlisting if the bans were removed.


You had to actually "...hear from the homosexual groups" to figure that one out?
​


----------



## Cruiser

OldMilitary said:


> In close birthing areas like on attack submarines (See Rand) there will be difficulties. (By the way women aren't allowed in those areas now.) On a Carrier, no problem. Lots of room.


As someone who has served on an aircraft carrier let me say that the phrase "lots of room" is relative. Compared to a submarine? Yes. To just about every other living situation encountered by civilians? Not so much.

This picture shows the living space for three people aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. You will notice that the racks (bunks) are three high. Within an arms reach in any direction you would find the living spaces of a half dozen more.










Cruiser


----------



## Valhson

CuffDaddy said:


> Yes, it's a real shame that we let the woman who got her A-10 home with this damage into a close combat support role. I'm sure her effect on squadron morale was terrible.
> 
> The men look really PO'd about her preferential treatment by the enemy.


that is an A10 my friend. That really isn't that much damage for that airframe. Many have been brought back in much worse condition, i.e. missing 1/3 of entire port side. etc.

Not to discount her however! Any damaged plane that makes it back is worth of praise.


----------



## Valhson

WouldaShoulda said:


> That's obviously good for her.
> 
> How many women did we waste time on to find 1 as capable as this one??
> 
> We could have found a capable man much more quickly.
> 
> How much bickering and sniping goes on about who she sleeps with, looks at funny, or doesn't sleep with??
> 
> Overall, her participation in a combat role is un-necessary and detrimental.
> 
> Again, if you are running government funded flight training program, it propbably doesn't matter.
> 
> If you are running an efficient killing machine, not so much.


 I don't even know what to say. Is this a joke?


----------



## Valhson

Wow. I just read this entire thread and certainly don't have any answers myself but i am prior service.

Just some thoughts
1) The majority of people with opinions on this topic have never served. I do think it is silly to use the "I know someone that knows someone argument."

2) Many responses are of perceived truths they have heard not what they have seen or experienced. Really? how do grown adults get so heated over something they know nothing about? Not saying everyone is that way but some of the posts or combination of posts sure throw up the flag.

Now this is out of pure ignorance about the gay community. I post it as a question to that community but it really could be used for all sides.
Why does sexuality matter so much when you are working? Why it is necessary to be defined as having a preference when there is a job to do? Honestly I am not attacking here I just don't get it. 

Gays have been in the ranks for years. Who bloody cares honestly? And before you attack me either way. I have racked near gays on ship and I have dug emplacements with them in cold wet muddy BFN. I just don't care. Don't hit on me I won't hit on you and everything is cool. We are after all at work. When s*it hits the fan, do your job and STFU and that goes for anyone. 


I was enlisted so I really don't know the challenges in planning are involved but as far as I am concerned in the enlisted. If sexuality was suppose to be part of the work place training, they would have included that at ATI or Operator training. Yeah short sighted and easier said than done I know.


----------



## DukeGrad

*What scare me*

Gentlmen,

This is post 225!

The military is a direct reflection of society. Gays have been in the service before our time, serving with Adm Nelson and going forward. They have fought in combat, received CMH, silver stars and so on.
Sid by side have been blacks, jews and all else.

I admire the talk the new chief of staff said. He stated that he is putting the crap behind. That he wants all to have a chance to serve, without any heartache. It is for all that he worked with, including gays. That helped him to make CNO and now chief of staff.

The one group I hate to see serve, is your white, red neck , tobacco chewing ash. Big truck, small you know what!
This person frightens me gentlemen, that is why I still pack a weapon.
I can not stand the red neck man!
Innocently people are hurt. First to mind, the young college kid, gay. Montana. Killed by these drunken pieces of s h it .
Over my life, I have been sicked by this one group.
Sorry, IMO, 
Later


----------



## eagle2250

OldMilitary said:


> I have been in the service a number of years in various places and in various positions coming up through the ranks. The Rand study, done about 1993, which discusses the issue of integrating gays is very familiar to me. (It is available for download for free in PDF format on the internet. Just look up the string +"Rand" +"sexual" +"military" Cutting through the ins and outs (no puns intended) and the whys and wherefores I will say that we should be able to reasonably integrate homosexuals into Military life in this day and time. There will be problems or maybe I should say particular areas where the integration will not be exactly like what the most vigorous gay groups are now wishing and asking for. Examples: In the groups where there is real and vigorous combat and especially in close quarters, gays will not generally be able to fit in well. Probably they won't want to anyway so unless we go to a general "big" war with a lot of troops (with draftees) it won't be a problem. In close birthing areas like on attack submarines (See Rand) there will be difficulties. (By the way women aren't allowed in those areas now.) On a Carrier, no problem. Lots of room. The major problems will be in the lower ranks, in the ground forces, in close quarter hardcore deployment areas, and also especially in early training where there has been a tradition of open shower, open toilet and open bunk areas, especially on older posts. There will be a strong tendency for the heterosexuals troops to wish some minimum of "privacy." Not giving this privacy will be tantamount to throwing gasoline on a fire. We must be prudent and protect both sides from dangerous situations. I can't stress this enough. We should realize that there is a difference between knowing or suspecting there are a few homosexuals here and there and knowing and seeing identifiable appreciable groups of them in the barracks areas, in the showers, along with their own mannerisms and humor. Also I hear from the homosexual groups that there actually would be more of them enlisting if the bans were removed. Now some will speak of "professionalism, and leadership, and the rules and the law" and claim there should be, or will be no problem if everyone just makes "nice," is ordered to make "nice." But I say just take a gander at the problems that have occurred with women in our "Very Elite" Service Academy's and in other areas where there actually is now generally separation of the sexes in bunking and hygiene. Personally I say that we should just consider it a privacy issue and respect people's wishes for privacy and then we won't have to consider the worse problems that might occur if we just order young hormone driven men (and women) to be "nice."


What an excellent and very well thought out first post. Welcome to the forum! Looking forward to reading your future posts!


----------



## DukeGrad

*Rand*

Old Military,

I agree, very nice post. The Rand study mention I have not read. Have a lot of retired friends that have worked with the Rand or consulted for them in a lot of other areas.
I read your comment about close quarters, vigorous combat settings and have no idea where the Rand came up with this.
IMO only, have seen the exact opposite in my career.
I agree with the statement about women being put into the service academies.
I have been to both West Point and the Naval Acadmies when this happened. Women were equal to or greater than a man.
I saw many young, intelligent women forced out. Many to fine civilian careers after the fact.
Naval Academy had a troubled start with women in the beginning.
The same goes for gays, and I feel many believe this.
The highest decorated man I know, was gay, an old SF type.
And has the DSC, Silver Star etc to boot.
Served in Vietnam in 1968-1970 time frame, before all the hoopla.


----------



## DukeGrad

*Rand*

My friend

I should read that study before I write. And I will. IMO the Rand is a big military outlet for retired soldiers, who need a life after the fact.
Am surprised they did a study on gay men.
IMO the Rand works for the DOD, ARMY, Navy etc.
Confused by the waste of a study, on something they can not grasp.
The man I mentioned, I did this to point out, you cann not get a more intense war setting, than an A detachment, in Vietnam.
And it woked well then.
Again, am also deeply troubled that our government, is wasting tax dollars on this stupid studies.
In my earlier post, the most wasteful human, IMO. Is the *******, chewing tobacco. Waiting to kill someone, gay, black or whatever.
Actually, put them on small teams, and their trucks and send them to war!

I apologize for ranting gentlemen. This subject to me, is a sore one.
I still think of that young, gay kid from Montana.
I think of his parents, and how horrible his life was ended.

My friends, gays are not our problem!
Nice day people


----------



## 127.72 MHz

OldMilitary said:


> I have been in the service a number of years in various places and in various positions coming up through the ranks. The Rand study, done about 1993, which discusses the issue of integrating gays is very familiar to me. (It is available for download for free in PDF format on the internet. Just look up the string +"Rand" +"sexual" +"military" Cutting through the ins and outs (no puns intended) and the whys and wherefores I will say that we should be able to reasonably integrate homosexuals into Military life in this day and time. There will be problems or maybe I should say particular areas where the integration will not be exactly like what the most vigorous gay groups are now wishing and asking for. Examples: In the groups where there is real and vigorous combat and especially in close quarters, gays will not generally be able to fit in well. Probably they won't want to anyway so unless we go to a general "big" war with a lot of troops (with draftees) it won't be a problem. In close birthing areas like on attack submarines (See Rand) there will be difficulties. (By the way women aren't allowed in those areas now.) On a Carrier, no problem. Lots of room. The major problems will be in the lower ranks, in the ground forces, in close quarter hardcore deployment areas, and also especially in early training where there has been a tradition of open shower, open toilet and open bunk areas, especially on older posts. There will be a strong tendency for the heterosexuals troops to wish some minimum of "privacy." Not giving this privacy will be tantamount to throwing gasoline on a fire. We must be prudent and protect both sides from dangerous situations. I can't stress this enough. We should realize that there is a difference between knowing or suspecting there are a few homosexuals here and there and knowing and seeing identifiable appreciable groups of them in the barracks areas, in the showers, along with their own mannerisms and humor. Also I hear from the homosexual groups that there actually would be more of them enlisting if the bans were removed. Now some will speak of "professionalism, and leadership, and the rules and the law" and claim there should be, or will be no problem if everyone just makes "nice," is ordered to make "nice." But I say just take a gander at the problems that have occurred with women in our "Very Elite" Service Academy's and in other areas where there actually is now generally separation of the sexes in bunking and hygiene. Personally I say that we should just consider it a privacy issue and respect people's wishes for privacy and then we won't have to consider the worse problems that might occur if we just order young hormone driven men (and women) to be "nice."


Firstly this is *the most insightful post in the entire thread* and I applaud you OldMilitary.

I have been attached to the United States military in one way or another for over half my life. First as the son of a career naval aviator and second as an enlisted man in the United States Navy. My enlisted experience convinced me that I would finish college at all costs.

Reading through some of the strong opinions and ranting responses in this thread confirms my belief that the United States should have compulsory military service. Such national service would serve *many* purposes. The least of which would be for everyone to gain a basic understanding that all people, regardless of the circumstances of their upbringing or their intelligence, have something worthwhile to offer.

Compulsory military service would also give the most intelligent members of our society a chance, perhaps the only chance many of them would ever get, to spend time around a true fiftieth percentile I.Q.. (as measured by the ASVAB) And that's not to mention those below the fiftieth percentile.

The special forces in all branches of the United States military have very high percentages of individuals from rural areas of our country. (Some might even call them "********.")

I also wish there was a method to prevent any more responses in this thread until it could be verified that one had at least viewed a cursory synopsis with the above sited Rand study. If this was possible I feel confident that many of the ignorant responses would not be here,...

Bill Woodward
Portland, Oregon

"Horses don't bet on people and neither do I."


----------



## DukeGrad

*Bill*

Just saw your note, and I agree with you.
I also apologize for bashing red necks etc.
I just guessed none were here.
And my comments were very, very rude, and uncalled for.
The Rand we can discuss another day, not a Sunday.
We all agree, a think tank for Uncle Sam.
Again, apologies for my shameful comments regarding red necks.
I still feel the same though.

IMO moving targets!!!
Airborne!

Later


----------



## eagle2250

^^
ROFALOL! Jimmy, say what you wish about the color of my neck but, don't go bad mouthing my dog or my truck. I've looked within my heart and been able to forgive you for being a "Blue Devil" supporter Now don't make me call in an air strike over this!  Seriously, thanks for being a really decent human being...you restore my faith in people!


----------



## JDC

DukeGrad said:


> Just saw your note, and I agree with you.
> I also apologize for bashing red necks etc.
> I just guessed none were here.
> And my comments were very, very rude, and uncalled for.
> The Rand we can discuss another day, not a Sunday.
> We all agree, a think tank for Uncle Sam.
> Again, apologies for my shameful comments regarding red necks.
> I still feel the same though.
> 
> IMO moving targets!!!
> Airborne!
> 
> Later


Jimmy, the conclusion of the Rand study was that acknowledged gay people should be allowed to serve:

https://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/military/1993/rand.study.publicly.released-8.26.93

I believe it's common sense that any policy which not only encourages but mandates dishonesty and deception is a bad policy, and that one's sexual orientation isn't germane to their ability or fitness to do their job, whether it's as a soldier, cop or whatever else. Gay people have been integrated into police and fire forces all over our country without issue.

Also, nobody is saying the policy that replaces DADT will be or should be written in stone: if unworkable problems present themselves when the change is implemented, the policy can be changed yet again. But if past experience is any indication, allowing people to be honest will turn out to be a complete non-issue.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

FrankDC said:


> Jimmy, the conclusion of the Rand study was that acknowledged gay people should be allowed to serve:
> 
> https://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/military/1993/rand.study.publicly.released-8.26.93
> 
> I believe it's common sense that any policy which not only encourages but mandates dishonesty and deception is a bad policy, and that one's sexual orientation isn't germane to their ability or fitness to do their job, whether it's as a soldier, cop or whatever else. Gay people have been integrated into police and fire forces all over our country without issue.
> 
> Also, nobody is saying the policy that replaces DADT will be or should be written in stone: if unworkable problems present themselves when the change is implemented, the policy can be changed yet again. But if past experience is any indication, allowing people to be honest will turn out to be a complete non-issue.


Although you do go into some detail, to say the entire study can be synthesized down to, "Jimmy, the conclusion of the Rand study was that acknowledged gay people should be allowed to serve," is, in my opinion, a gross oversimplification,...

The aim of such studies is not to say if a given action *can* be done but rather to assess the *effect(s) *of such actions.

Perhaps one could also say a similar study some years ago came to the conclusion that women can be assigned to forward combat areas, shipboard service with males, etc. etc. etc.,... (A more accurate statement might be we can create a self fulfilling prophecy in that it's going to work because that's all you're going to get!)

Do a search and find out the numbers of junior enlisted ranking females being rotated out of such areas as a result of being pregnant. (again not to mention the overall costs to unit readiness service(s) wide.)

This is a rather complex issue that will not clarify in a format such as this. Certainly not one that can be reduced to a three or four word bumper sticker quip which is all many members in our society can understand.

Regards,

Bill Woodward
Portland, Oregon

"Horses don't bet on people and neither do I."


----------



## DukeGrad

*Eagle/Frank DC*

Eagle

ROFL, you can keep your trucks etc.
No other place I would rather be, than right here.
Is with my ********, white socks and BLUE RIBBON BEER!

Frank DC, thank you for surmising that for me. I have to be forthright regarding the Rand, my knowledge of it.
Too heavy duty a think tank for me.
I get confused trying to spell it!
Eagle, good one, have nice night.
Frank you too, and all of ya.
Nice week my friends


----------



## JDC

Bill, I understand and agree with your point, but you shouldn't paint everyone with the same brush of inexperience on this subject. The experience I personally had with it, as I described earlier in this thread, occurred in the mid-1980's, and I've been following it closely ever since. It opened my eyes to the levels of absurdity and hypocrisy that exist in the treatment of gay people in our armed services.

I've read the Rand study, all 400+ pages of it, and I did so at the time it was made public. While it does detail possible problems with allowing openly gay people to serve, its basic conclusion is that this can and should be done. Here's what the Rand website itself says:

The resulting RAND study, _Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment_, took a broad perspective on the subject. It analyzed the policies of other countries' military forces and the police and fire departments in six American cities; it considered the historical record, focusing on the integration of blacks into the military; it reviewed public opinion, including the views of active-duty military personnel, and explored their concerns about health risks and unit disruption; it reviewed the scientific literature on group cohesion, sexuality, and related health issues; and it investigated legal and implementation issues. Based on this research, the study team concluded that only one of the policies examined satisfied the President's directive and was internally consistent. This policy would

consider sexual orientation as "not germane" to determining who may serve in the military,
establish a standard of professional conduct that requires all personnel to conduct themselves in ways that enhance good order and discipline, and
enforce this standard by leaders at every level of the chain of command in a way that ensures that unit performance is maintained.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB7537/index1.html


----------



## richardUK

JAGMAJ said:


> I don't think you understand the American policy. The current policy is that gays can serve in the military as long as are quiet about it, and Army officials aren't allowed to ask about sexual orientation. That way, the 18-year old in the shower doesn't know that the guy next to him is gay. People are now discussing whether we should let openly gay people serve in the military.


but what is 'openly gay' ?

wheres the definition of that very phrase?

if someone you were serving with, & got on very well with, asked what youre doing one weekend, & you answered 'going to the theatre with my boyfriends parents', would that suddenly make them 'openly gay' ?

"the 18-year old in the shower doesn't know that the guy next to him is gay"
he dosnt know whether hes straight, gay or bisexual, or if he even has any interest in sex
does it really make any difference whatsoever?

what about that very 18yr old, he himself might not be sure of his sexuality.

is that 18yr old going to not want any gay doctors or nurses treating him if hes injured?
is he not going to use anything thats been supplied by a gay person? gays are ok in purchasing i assume?


----------



## richardUK

Valhson said:


> Wow. I just read this entire thread and certainly don't have any answers myself but i am prior service.
> 
> Just some thoughts
> 1) The majority of people with opinions on this topic have never served. I do think it is silly to use the "I know someone that knows someone argument."
> 
> 2) Many responses are of perceived truths they have heard not what they have seen or experienced. Really? how do grown adults get so heated over something they know nothing about? Not saying everyone is that way but some of the posts or combination of posts sure throw up the flag.
> 
> Now this is out of pure ignorance about the gay community. I post it as a question to that community but it really could be used for all sides.
> *Why does sexuality matter so much when you are working? Why it is necessary to be defined as having a preference when there is a job to do?* Honestly I am not attacking here I just don't get it.
> 
> Gays have been in the ranks for years. Who bloody cares honestly? And before you attack me either way. I have racked near gays on ship and I have dug emplacements with them in cold wet muddy BFN. I just don't care. Don't hit on me I won't hit on you and everything is cool. We are after all at work. When s*it hits the fan, do your job and STFU and that goes for anyone.
> 
> I was enlisted so I really don't know the challenges in planning are involved but as far as I am concerned in the enlisted. If sexuality was suppose to be part of the work place training, they would have included that at ATI or Operator training. Yeah short sighted and easier said than done I know.


this is precisely it:

under DADT, a gay person cannot be themselves within the US military, they simply cannot act in the same way that others do

yet when the 'gay community' asks why not, there isnt a factual answer to be given

how do they even prove that someone is gay?
do they collect evidence, & to a high enough standard that would stand up in a regular court?
surely thats the least that would be expected when ending someones career & removing all the benefits that they had worked for?


----------



## richardUK

DukeGrad said:


> My friend
> 
> I should read that study before I write. And I will. IMO the Rand is a big military outlet for retired soldiers, who need a life after the fact.
> Am surprised they did a study on gay men.
> IMO the Rand works for the DOD, ARMY, Navy etc.
> Confused by the waste of a study, on something they can not grasp.
> The man I mentioned, I did this to point out, you cann not get a more intense war setting, than an A detachment, in Vietnam.
> And it woked well then.
> Again, am also deeply troubled that our government, is wasting tax dollars on this stupid studies.
> In my earlier post, the most wasteful human, IMO. Is the *******, chewing tobacco. Waiting to kill someone, gay, black or whatever.
> Actually, put them on small teams, and their trucks and send them to war!
> 
> I apologize for ranting gentlemen. This subject to me, is a sore one.
> I still think of that young, gay kid from Montana.
> I think of his parents, and how horrible his life was ended.
> 
> My friends, gays are not our problem!
> Nice day people


are you sure it was Montana?

Matthew Shepard was at University of Wyoming, Laramie


----------



## Zot!

How fragile the Right seems to believe our way of life really is. Just about every first world democracy provides universal health care for its citizens. Places like the UK, Canada, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Japan etc. remain open, healthy societies and do so without resort to "death panels" or any such nonsense. Yet deviate even slightly from our own (second-rate) system, and "They're gonna pull the plug on granny!" Likewise, plenty of top-rate military forces around the world, including the UK and Israel (which, I don't think anyone needs to be reminded, needs its military in a state of _constant_ of readiness) allow gays to serve openly. Yet should we adopt that policy with our own military and suddenly "Our troops will be too weak to fight the terrorists!"

Honestly, if you don't like gays then just say so. Don't dress it up in a bunch of BS double-talk about "Oh, it's not bigotry, it's national security." Otherwise, given their apparent lack of confidence in what our institutions can handle, one gets the impression that Conservatives mean something different when they say that America is a very "special" country.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Zot! said:


> Honestly, if you don't like gays then just say so. Don't dress it up in a bunch of BS double-talk about "Oh, it's not bigotry, it's national security."


Man, you are so right. I was the third poster in this behemoth and the first to say, somewhat cruder, what you've said above. Now this comes to mind, from Richard III: *"I am so deep in blood that sin will pluck on sin" *Those that wish restictions on gays are convincing only each other, and digging deeper and deeper hateful holes with every post. ​


----------



## OldMilitary

A little housekeeping first-

#1 the url to the Rand stuff.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/index.html

(hope that works) Got down a little past the synopsis and you will get to where the 3 PDFs can be downloaded. The only problem I found with them was you can't search on the words. They must be photos.

#2 about more gays enlisting, yes I did see that in a forum when I was browsing around on that subject and though it only re-enforced my own opinion, I used it for a backup.

#3 Robert Gates the DOD head who is in favor of repeal of DADT has two groups working on a new study. 
1. Is the Rand group, again, updating the 1993 study. 
2. A 4 star General and a/the top Pentagon lawyer. (the 4 star General is generally does not favor repeal of DADT)

#4 The Joint Chief Head Admiral Mc? said he was in favor of repeal but he couldn't get the individual service chiefs to stand behind him when he spoke because some of them have "doubts" and "concerns."

I appreciate the many kind things and comments some of you have made about my earlier post.
I will say this in general. 
The problems with integration of the gays with the straights will not occur so much in an action situation but much more likely will occur away from the action in the bathrooms, the showers, the bunk areas, the watering holes, etc. That is always the case which is one reason the service likes to keep people busy cleaning, policing, polishing, waxing, and training. (something about "idle hands being the devil's workshop" was what I was told.) 
This assumes that the gays have identified themselves by their actions, their comments, their common goals and likes, and their grouping together as an identifiable group as opposed to the straights. This is what will be different from the current DADT situation

If privacy isn't enhanced, then each group will rag each other much more than necessary. For example, straight Joe will say to straight Jim, "hey gay George is looking at you in the shower (or in the toilet) and sizing you up" or "hey I saw you talking confidentially to gay Jerry over by his bunk," etc. Of course the gays will respond also. People will become tense, resentful, and defensive. They will further group up. This could result in incidents which of course will be reported and amplified by the media which will cause more incidents, etc.

I know this has already happened where someone was thought to be gay but actually was only a little different. It became a bad situation. I would say more but I don't have the details handy.

The real question and I don't claim to know the answer is whether or not separate shower and toilet areas are needed and can be provided. Perhaps just closed personal areas (like in some women's areas) are needed. -- Yes women usually (to my knowledge) have privacy curtains and partitions within their shower areas and of course regular stalls with doors for toilets.


----------



## JDC

OldMilitary said:


> If privacy isn't enhanced, then each group will rag each other much more than necessary. For example, straight Joe will say to straight Jim, "hey gay George is looking at you in the shower (or in the toilet) and sizing you up" or "hey I saw you talking confidentially to gay Jerry over by his bunk," etc. Of course the gays will respond also. People will become tense, resentful, and defensive. They will further group up. This could result in incidents which of course will be reported and amplified by the media which will cause more incidents, etc.


If straight Joe is lying about gay George, Joe is a troublemaker and needs to be disciplined.

If straight Joe isn't lying about gay George, George is a troublemaker and needs to be disciplined.

Again the point is, people are divided not by their sexual orientation but by their ability to do their jobs in a professional manner, and I've never heard anyone claim a fundamental difference exists in this regard between straight and gay people.


----------



## Chouan

tigerboy said:


> *Do keep in mind that Liberal armies on the western European model tend to be glorified boy scouts which are not actually intended for war.....Europeans expect America to defend them.*
> 
> Liberal armies tend to be essentially useless nn fighting militias. the WW2 wehrmacht, napoleon's regiments, Caesar's legions and the red Army were not noted for liberalism nor were they noted for being ineffective.


So the British Army are "glorified boy scouts which are not actually intended for war". So who is it that are serving in Afghanistan? Boy Scouts not intended for war? Which army managed to beat the WW2 wehrmacht (by themselves in N.Africa!), and Napoleon's regiments? One of these useless "Liberal armies".

This isn't a "our army is better than your army" statement, but reply to the assertion made above.

Could I just point out, again, that Britain's forces abandoned this archaic pratice of excluding gay people some years ago, with no detrimental effect to the efficiency and combat capability of any branch of service. Why do members persist in either ignoring this evidence, or, seek to denigrate, unjustly, Britain's forces, if not because it is evidence that, of itself, can't be disproved?


----------



## Peak and Pine

OldMilitary said:


> The real question and I don't claim to know the answer is whether or not separate shower and toilet areas are needed and can be provided. Perhaps just closed personal areas (like in some women's areas) are needed. -- Yes women usually (to my knowledge) have privacy curtains and partitions within their shower areas and of course regular stalls with doors for toilets.


You've obviously put a lot of thought and (some) research into your lone two posts here and I don't want to slam too hard into you, but it seems odd that your only posts in a mens clothing forum are here in the Interchange and on this particular subject. (Style Form, our loveable nemesis, requires 100 posts before you can even read their interchange equivilent.) Anyhow, you've dwelled on this shower thing. I have showered with many gays from high school through college without incident. Nor did I know they were gay at the time (reunions and booz can prompt revealing admissions). Not all gay men are attracted to every single man they see. And to those they are, as with straights, grab ass is not often the preferred means of introduction. Read what Frank has said just above. The military is one of the few places where you salute and you obey orders._ Just order the rubes to lay off the gays and just order the gays to stop grabbing the rubes_, if that's what you think the problem is.
​


----------



## Jae iLL

In Mufti said:


> This link goes to a statement made by politicians who are trying to repeal DADT. When you follow the link from that statement it dead ends. I was looking for the explanation of the 58 discharges. My job in the military involved using linguists so I was keenly interested in the field. Most of the stories you will find go back to the discharge at DLI at the beginning of the Iraq War.


 have been discharges after the beginning of the Iraq War, as in people were discharged who signed up knowing we were in a war and yet they signed up anyway. Case in point, Sgt Copas was discharged because of anonymous e-mails sent to his leadership about being a homosexual, he joined after 9/11 and graduated from DLI.



In Mufti said:


> time a war starts for real, the military goes through a wave of people trying to get out for various reasons. We have a bunch of born-again conscientious objectors, sudden "family crises" and so on. At the time, these guys were considered part of that group. They enlisted before it became so dangerous to be in the army and decided it was time to find something else to do.


How do you explain the homosexuals kicked out who joined after this war on terror began? Why are "these guys considered part of that group" if they joined after we were already at war? They enlisted after it became dangerous to be in the army, and wanted to stay in, yet were kicked out.



In Mufti said:


> worked in Washington, I find this number suspect. I have seen too many politicians "juke the stats" to support their agenda. For example, the soldiers discharged from the DLI were not really Arabic linguists; they were in school to become linguists. They had not been granted the MOS. It is incorrect and misleading to continue to repeat over and over that they were "linguists." However, in Washington, I'm sure they have been included in the stats because that supports the argument.


The soldiers discharged from DLI were still in tradoc so they weren't "linguists". I'll give you that, but how about the soldiers that graduated from DLI and had served tours, they were Linguists and they were soldiers. And those at DLI would have gone on to become Linguists and Soldiers/Airman/Sailors/Marines.



In Mufti said:


> As background: most of the translators we used in Iraq-in the field-were not even in the military. They were native Iraqis, hired as contractors. Despite the valiant work of the people at the DLI, you can not turn a native American into a fluent Arabic speaker who can detect all of the nuances in a source's speech, understand local slang and so on. So don't get too excited about the Arabic linguist argument.


You can turn a native American into a fluent Arabic speaker, it is hard, but it all depends on how much the person is willing to work. Regardless of that, your statement shows you don't know what Arabic linguists do. If you don't understand what Linguists do, then how can you say "don't get too excited about the Arabic linguist argument"? Our primary mission has never been to provide direct translation in the field, and if you worked with us at all you would know that.



In Mufti said:


> Regardless, if you join the military under DADT-and then dare them to discharge you, you are going to get into trouble. The rules are spelled out when you enlist. If you knowingly enlist with the intention of testing those rules, you will not win.


Why do you keep saying that, when people that were discharged didn't want to be discharged. How many servicemembers that were discharged for DADT "dared" the army to discharge them? How many tested the rules?



In Mufti said:


> Clearly, with regard to this topic, many of us will have to agree to disagree.


Clearly, with regard to this topic you shouldn't present statements as facts when they obviously aren't. I don't really feel that strongly about the issue; however, if you're trying to make an argument for or against you should avoid lying or at least research the claims you're making to ensure they aren't made up.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Has anyone considered the cultural differences between those currently serving and one who is openly gay? Let me ask the gay gentleman on this forum: would you be offended if you heard one straight man call another straight man "******," "co******er" or "gay?" I ask this not to prove a point but to simply see what some of the gays here would say. I also ask this because the military is very non-PC and is not for those that are easily offended. That's part of a problem with certain women in the military (*or part of a problem with the military culture). What happens when accusations occur that someone was promoted for fear of retribution? Affirmative action in a mostly white officer corps has presented that problem. 

Before anyone puts words in my mouth, please understand that I bring these points up for their real-world implications and not whether gays/blacks/women/aliens/zombies should serve. Those that seem to have no problem are the ones that already have the "proper" personality. I think gays in the military could be the exact same... if you were openly gay but acted/talked/interacted like everyone else, you'd be better accepted. This is the case regardless of sex/race/sexual orientation. Thoughts?

*I realize this post has been poorly worded. I'll go back to my wine now.


----------



## JDC

IlliniFlyer said:


> Has anyone considered the cultural differences between those currently serving and one who is openly gay? Let me ask the gay gentleman on this forum: would you be offended if you heard one straight man call another straight man "******," "co******er" or "gay?" I ask this not to prove a point but to simply see what some of the gays here would say. I also ask this because the military is very non-PC and is not for those that are easily offended.


Are black people still routinely called "ni**ers" in our military?

There's your answer. The definition of acceptable behavior changes over time, and while black people have had to contend with hundreds of years of institutionalized bigotry, gay people are up against thousands of years of this same bigotry and ignorance. It's not only part of our culture, but even our religion, and it's not melodramatic to say it runs as deep as any other bigotry in human history. I don't think many people, even most gay people, expect it to die easily or quickly.


----------



## OldMilitary

To FrankDC.

Hey Frank. You are exactly right.
If there are no troublemakers, or jokers, or razzers, or raggers, braggers, liars, law/rule breakers, criminals, mischievous types, etc., then there will be no problems. 

And I speculate that the entire human race will live together in harmony and peace.

To put it even more pointedly, there will not be a need for a military as we know it. Just maybe a reserve of rescuer workers for emergencies like floods, earthquakes, and large forest fires to aid the normal police who will be typically aiding stopped motorists and searching for lost children, and pets.

Heck the police and the "rescuers" won't have to carry guns. We will leave the gun carrying to the Wild Life folks for maurading bears and rabid dogs.

Truth is Frank I have my job, over 20 years in the service because people aren't "nice." They aren't nice in big ways. Think 9/11 and they aren't nice in small ways. Check the police blotters and arrest records in your own town. And there are troublemakers everywhere.

The best thing we can do is plan on how to avoid trouble.

Within 2 or 3 days of the start of my basic training, the entire company was marched over to the Post Stockade. It was such a hot day, and while we were stopped we pulled our pants legs out of our boots and loosened our shirts/jackets.

We looked across at the Stockade and the Sergeant said "There is good time in the Army and there is bad time. If you come here for a couple of months, then that is bad time and it doesn't count, and you have to still serve out your full enlistment. If you come here for longer than your enlistment, then you are a bad criminal with a bad record and then you will be released. We won't want you then. Nor will many other people."

Frank, you locate enough good, healthy, non trouble making, smart people and persuade them to join up and there will be no problems with integrating gays into the military. Personally I would welcome that.


----------



## OldMilitary

To Peak and Pine.

You are correct. This last week is the first time I have come to AskAndys. I honestly didn't know about it before I dropped in following a google thread to the very intelligent discussion of gays in the military here on this forum. 
I like the concept of the site a lot.
I do like excellent civilian clothes though I wear a uniform mostly.
The clothing store I frequent though not very often is near my mothers up in Clemson, SC. M.H. Franks, downtown. 
Since I don't wear civilian clothes regularly, and my job requires(encourages at least) me to maintain my weight (only 6 pounds up in over 20 years -with a good bit of effort on occasion, I confess) I still get into most everything I wore in high school except the pants of my old senior prom suit, a nice dark gray wool herringbone with a snug 30" waist (full pleats because I had muscular legs.) My waist is now about 32" and snug. But I was pretty poor in high school and only had 2 suits for a long time, one of which my wife gave to my older son much to my chagrin when I discovered it.

But anyway to the subject.

I have known gays in the military in training that were quite discreet including in the shower. None that I am sure of in my normal command area later, but the guys do rag each other about everything including made up crap as I have indicated.

One in particular in training comes to mind. I went to a specialized school after infantry training and I badly needed a haircut one weekend for a Saturday inspection. I had been warned both the two weekends before but had forgotten, put it off, and then couldn't get to the barber shop. I thought I was up the old s*** creek Friday Night without a paddle and a friend came to me privately and offered to cut my hair. I asked how? He said he had a comb and some scissors. I laughed and said thanks but no thanks. I would risk the SGT's wrath. My friend smiled and said not to worry, he could do a professional job. I looked at him, and he quietly said that he actually worked in a Salon up North cutting hair before enlisting. He had done some hair cutting in Basic, but got so much crap that he then kept quiet about his ability afterwards. He wanted me to be quiet about it. He give me a great haircut unlike the usual shearing we got, but quite acceptable by the SGT.

I then realized that my friend was always very, very careful around people, especially what some here on this forum would call nasty troublemaker type people in the training area. He had probably chosen to be my friend because I am generally nice and polite to everyone who is nice and polite to me, was in close with the acting-platoon leader because I could help him with the course work, and very few people would mess with me in a physical confrontation, which we did occasionally have. From then on, I made sure my friend's path in that school was paved. You help me, you help yourself is one of my favorite mottoes.

But you ask about the showers. Outside the Military especially when I was young, from elementary school on up, until I got too old and I guess hard looking from traveling this world, I have been accosted by homosexuals in no uncertain terms in common showers at gyms, in pools, when I have walked down the street, when I was in restrooms, etc. The first time I must have been in the 4th or 5th grade in a Municipal pool.
Atlanta is one of the worse places even now at my age.
My older son had the same problem in Atlanta until he left.

Don't fault me for trying to get a handle on the possibility of my Commander in Chief integrating gays fully into the military. It will be one of my jobs to make sure that works. To make sure we have an effective force, and we have a safe environment for everyone.

As I have browsed this subject since it came up in the State of the Union speech, I have seen some gays in particular in the New York Times, etc. that belong to groups of one kind or another, talk about rejecting the ideas of separate showers, latrines, and living quarters as "inane" and stupid. Sure I realize that some of the talk about acting their usual "flaming selves" is just talk, but I consider my job is to keep people safe and alive whether they are worried about it or not.
So anyway, I decided to do some research on the subject and have one other working on it too.

And by the way, going back to the haircut, one way I have saved money over the years is to get my hair cut by my wife when I am home. She uses shears I bought years ago, but my haircut is pretty simple. Just very short all over. And I cut hers also with scissors and the children's too when they were young and I was home. ((I am not adverse to learning a useful skill.)) If I do my own hair though, I use the shears in the mirror. Can't cut my own with the scissors in a mirror, --- yet. That skill I haven't got down yet.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

FrankDC said:


> Are black people still routinely called "ni**ers" in our military?
> 
> There's your answer. The definition of acceptable behavior changes over time, and while black people have had to contend with hundreds of years of institutionalized bigotry, gay people are up against thousands of years of this same bigotry and ignorance. It's not only part of our culture, but even our religion, and it's not melodramatic to say it runs as deep as any other bigotry in human history. I don't think many people, even most gay people, expect it to die easily or quickly.


It's not the gay people being called gay. Likewise, blacks aren't called n****ers. But if you think the term n****er is not thrown around in daily conversation, you are being naive. I'm not at all trying to justify the behavior; I'm simply saying that the culture is different from the mainstream civilian world. Being politically correct is something that happens at the upper echelons at the military... not the lower. If there are not interruptions in the military for lawsuits, inquiries, and hearings then I don't see a problem. Unfortunately the world isn't that perfect.

*Edit: These are not meant to be reasons for/against the case for open homosexuals in the military. They are simply the realistic obstacles that would be encountered.


----------



## Chouan

And, as I've repeatedly said, these problems have, I assume, been encountered in the army, the RAF and the RN, and successfully dealt with, with Britain's forces as effective as ever. 
Are you suggesting that such prejudice, indeed homophobia, is so deeply entrenched in the US that it is an insurmountable problem? If so, it's a very sad state of affairs for a country that sees itself as a guardian of freedom and liberty.

"Heck the police and the "rescuers" won't have to carry guns."

They still don't in Britain, and still don't need to. There are, of course, armed police who can be called upon if needed, but only to deal with a specific problem.


----------



## JDC

OldMilitary said:


> Outside the Military especially when I was young, from elementary school on up, until I got too old and I guess hard looking from traveling this world, I have been accosted by homosexuals in no uncertain terms in common showers at gyms, in pools, when I have walked down the street, when I was in restrooms, etc. The first time I must have been in the 4th or 5th grade in a Municipal pool.
> Atlanta is one of the worse places even now at my age.
> My older son had the same problem in Atlanta until he left.


I can't argue with your experience, I can only point out that child abuse is an epidemic problem in our country: in the U.S. 1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before she reaches the age of 18, as is 1 in 6 boys.

Even more shocking, 30-40% of this abuse takes place within families, and another 50% by others who're known and trusted by families. Only 10% is perpetrated by strangers:

One last stat: The FBI tells us 9 of every 10 child molesters have a heterosexual orientation. Or in other words, being a homosexual does not make one more likely to be a child molester.


----------



## Busterdog

If young homosexual men and women have the courage to volunteer to serve their country in the armed forces - particularly in these violent times - they should be allowed to without let or hinderance.
What is everyone frightened of? To assume there are no gays in the military is naive, there always were.

I am a former infantryman both enlisted and commissioned - in combat and more peaceful times. I knew gay soldiers, how they were regarded by their fellows depended on how they performed their duties (as it was with their straight contemporaries), most (as with their straight contemporaries) didn't let their side down. Woe betied any outsider who cast aspersions on a gay member of a unit who had performed well in combat, he was a member of their team.

Perhaps certain sectors of the military are apprehensive their gay bretheren will put the moves on them? Well.... there are laws governing sexual harrassment. Perhaps the military are afraid gays will be subject to violence by their straight contemporaries?......there are laws governing assault too.

As a heterosexual former professional soldier I say gays should be allowed to serve in the military and the 'Don't ask don't tell' law repealed.


----------



## OldMilitary

Chouan,

most of the Western nations except the US don't really have a large ready military force. They have much smaller forces and their requirements are somewhat different. 
They do all have their smaller special forces outfits which I would be surprised to find many gays in.

In Britain, where the police don't typically carry guns, though a lot of them now do wear "knife proof" vests, only the specialists typically carry weapons. The British police does have a tactical group that is weaponized, and certain detectives and inspectors can carry hand guns.

The USA does have a lot more guns, kill a lot more people in the US per capita, and jail a lot more people too. Call it the wild-wild west if you want, but that is the way it is.

But to the main point. No homophobia isn't insurmountable. It is present though. Violence is present. Mean dumb people are everywhere. 

Things have changed a lot since 1993, and now we are trying to figure out if there is enough change and how we might finally integrate homosexuals into the military with as little pain as possible.


----------



## OldMilitary

To FrankDC.

Frank, I agree with you. There is abuse from every group.

I gave reference already to some of he problems with the women at the Service Academies. You would think that in such rarefied atmosphere,
the little ladies would be as safe as any little sister or daughter should be. 

These people are smart, they are going to college, getting an expensive education, usually have very supportive families, money, supposedly have the inside political tracking.

The females are in individual rooms, have separate facilities, and yet they were still raped, abused, harassed, etc. And even after steps were taken to curtail the problems, it happened again.
And with most of the men naturally protective of the ladies as well!
Then after all that, the young female cadets were pressured by their superiors to downplay the problems, not to report to the police or go on the record.

Anyway, at a Training Fort, things aren't anywhere like at a Service Academy.
I don't worry about rape so much, though of course anything could happen
from any side, but I do worry constantly about violence. We have 
it now. 

We are working to lessen what we have now and certainly should take as many steps as we can to prevent more. And the time for planning is now.

That is why I have been scouting around trying to find out what real people on all sides are thinking. I know we will get official reports and we will get "marching orders" sooner or later. But the nitty gritty details will rest in the hands of the "boots on the ground," and for that matter so will the blame.


----------



## Chouan

OldMilitary said:


> Chouan,
> most of the Western nations except the US don't really have a large ready military force. They have much smaller forces and their requirements are somewhat different.
> They do all have their smaller special forces outfits which I would be surprised to find many gays in.
> 
> But to the main point. No homophobia isn't insurmountable. It is present though. Violence is present. Mean dumb people are everywhere.
> 
> Things have changed a lot since 1993, and now we are trying to figure out if there is enough change and how we might finally integrate homosexuals into the military with as little pain as possible.


Britain does have a "ready military force", obviously not even approaching the size of US forces, but it can be more raidly mobilised and transported than that of the US. The airmobile brigade, based at Colchester, for example, is on permanent standby.

In any case, the size of Britain's army isn't an issue. Britain's forces have seen action in virtually every conflict, post WW2, apart from the USA's colonial war in Vietnam, as well as successful wars of its own, like the liberation of the Falklands. As such I find it insulting to have people lumping them together with countries that have forces that clearly aren't combat ready. Nevertheless, Britain's combat experienced forces have assimilated gays, with no problems. Surely US forces are trainable enough to do the same?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

OldMilitary said:


> Chouan,
> 
> In Britain, where the police don't typically carry guns, though a lot of them now do wear "knife proof" vests, only the specialists typically carry weapons. The British police does have a tactical group that is weaponized, and certain detectives and inspectors can carry hand guns.


Hi Old Military, 
as I am still active in the security/military sector and still in close contact with my ex-force the Met Police in London, I feel it my duty to correct you on a few points regarding the carrying of firearms in the Met police.:icon_smile:

First off. All HO police forces in the UK are UNARMED as a matter of course.

1. "only the specialists typically carry weapons" - incorrect! Traffic Divsion, Mounted Branch, CID, Thames Division (river police) do not carry firearms or even have access to firearms on a daily basis. The nearest ARU is called to assist if necessary. The TSG (Territorial Support Group) do not carry firearms as a matter of course but have access to certain weapons after authorisation from above.

The only permanently armed uniformed police officers in the Met are the ARUs (armed response units - patrolling on an area basis in London) and the DP (Diplomatic Protection) officers of the RDPG (Roylaty & Diplomatic Protection Group). Non-uniform non-detective branches: SB (Special Branch) are sometimes armed if the threat level calls for it. And if it is a SOC (serious & organised crime) job then a unit from the SCD will be called in. 
Royal CP (close protection)officers are nearly always armed.

2. "The British police does have a tactical group that is weaponized"- Incorrect on several points. There is no such thing as "the British police" Each county and/or Metropolitan region has its own Home Office police force with its own regulations. 
If by tactical group you mean the TSG, then read above. They are not armed routinely. 
If you mean CO19 (formerly SO19), then yes, they are the training and
central operational firearms command. And it is from CO19 that the ARUs are manned.

3. "Certain detectives and inspectors can carry hand guns" - But not as a matter of course, only if the threat calls for it. Detectives of all ranks in the Met do not go out on everyday investigations carrying firearms. ALSO, it is usually only detectives of CO and SCD units that take out firearms when going on a shout. Especially those on the Flying Squad (The Sweeney) which is now part of SCD7 (used to be SO8 in my day).

Detective is not a rank, as I beleive it is in the US, it is a specialisation. Traffic constable, mounted constable, TSG constable, detective constable. Traffic sergeant, detective sergeant and so on.


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> Britain does have a "ready military force", obviously not even approaching the size of US forces, but it can be more raidly mobilised and transported than that of the US. The airmobile brigade, based at Colchester, for example, is on permanent standby.
> 
> In any case, the size of Britain's army isn't an issue. Britain's forces have seen action in virtually every conflict, post WW2, apart from the USA's colonial war in Vietnam, as well as successful wars of its own, like the liberation of the Falklands. As such I find it insulting to have people lumping them together with countries that have forces that clearly aren't combat ready. Nevertheless, Britain's combat experienced forces have assimilated gays, with no problems. Surely US forces are trainable enough to do the same?


Let the record show, the words that follow were typed solely as a forum member and not as a moderator!

Chouan, you really do seem to be talking out of your a**, rather than your mouth. Many of your words come across as those of a juvenile, rather than of an experienced, mature adult. For clarification, what exactly is your definition of "a colonial war"? How many times have the Brits had to step in to pull the USA's cookies from the fire and how many times has the 'sadly flawed' USA been pleaded with and seen fit to do so for the Brits. As for the ability to move sizable collections of military forces (substantially greater than individual unit size) and focus firepower in a specific location, the US is unsurpassed and gentlemen, I could add that, even with GWB's "Shock and Awe campaign" now but one more historical footnote, "you ain't seen nothing yet!" Chouan, be assured, we are trainable and unfortunately in the most horridly effective ways.

I refuse to stoop to your level and resort to slinging mud at Great Britain. However, I'm pretty sure, if you open your eyes and take but a glancing look, your military forces have their own set of challenges to overcome and not all of them will prove sterling!

As for the challenge presently before us, we will get the job done. If probably won't go smoothly and probably won't be pretty but, gays will be openly integrated into the US military. However, reading through the posts included in this thread, I am surprised and somewhat amused by all the conclusive assertions that "Blacks and Women" have been so seamlessly integrated in our military (or the military forces of other nations). Closer examination would reveal that we are still addressing the problems and working out remaining details, pertaining to those past two (claimed) successful efforts.

I observed in my first post to this thread, it is relatively easy to cut an executive order of issue a command decision to implement a change. It is far more difficult to make it happen. I stand by my original assertion!


----------



## Chouan

I think that you'll find, by reading the posts, that the mud was flung at Britain's forces by other members. I tried to remind them that Britain's forces weren't, "useless", as another member asserted. I haven't anywhere "flung mud" at the US forces, although perhaps if one is over sensitive, one might think that a member who doesn't whole-heartedly support the US is therefore flinging mud. 
I've not doubted the US' ability to move quickly, and in bigger numbers, afterall, it is a much bigger country, and, until recently, very much richer. However, I think that I can remember British ground troops, for example, deploying in Kossovo a lot faster than US ground troops. 

"How many times have the Brits had to step in to pull the USA's cookies from the fire"?

None that I'm aware of, and

"how many times has the 'sadly flawed' USA been pleaded with and seen fit to do so for the Brits."

None that I'm aware of. The US joined in both World Wars for their own purposes. To protect their investments in the First, and because they were attacked by Japan in the Second. Britain, and France, of course, was glad that they did so. 
Post war? I can't think of a single example. Malayan emergency? No. Liberation of the Falklands? I can't remember the involvement of any American forces. If they'd been there, I'm sure that there would have been a film about it by now! Suez? No. Aden? No. 
Perhaps you'll have to help me with examples here.

Colonial War? A war to gain or maintain control over an overseas territory, or country that isn't one's own. The Zulu War, for example. Or Vietnam.


----------



## OldMilitary

I am not denigrating Britain. 
When I said "specialist," I meant a more general term than Britain seems to use for their police forces. e.g. not a computer or traffic specialist for example.

I am later than Vietnam, but reject the "colonial" assertion for Vietnam. I do remember when the US was getting ready to go into Iraq, we were accused in a big meeting in Europe of colonial expansion and land and oil grabbing, and the US retort was that when we were in Europe for WWII, the only land we asked for was enough to bury our dead and we didn't expect that to happen in Iraq.

As for the integration of "everyone" into the US armed forces, we are doing what we can as fast as we can though of course there are problems as we have discussed intelligently on this forum. I will claim that things continually get better but still people will be people, and so we should never expect a perfect situation even though we strive for it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

OldMilitary said:


> I am not denigrating Britain.
> When I said "specialist," I meant a more general term than Britain seems to use for their police forces. e.g. not a computer or traffic specialist for example.


I never for a minute thought you were. I just wanted to give you the up to date info on Met police firearms. :icon_smile:


----------



## OldMilitary

As I look around for info and ideas I found this article, actually some 10 or 11 years old.

https://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa011000a.htm

It treats the gay integration problem (opportunity, some would have it) with humor, and honesty.

I will only remark that this is for men/women who are in a relatively "nice" situation, maybe even a location Stateside, where they are in double occupancy rooms. This would not be the case for other locations, services other than the Air Force, lower ranks especially trainees.

Likewise I must say that generally the Air Force is like a Country Club compared to the Army and the Marines.

But be that as it may, this is pretty interesting as it follows a mythical "Top" (Top SGT) through his daily travails.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Old Military: Excellent referrence. The article pretty much says all that needs to be said! To this day, I don't think that much, regarding the issue, has changed. Thanks.


----------



## Relayer

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Old Military: Excellent referrence. The article pretty much says all that needs to be said! To this day, I don't think that much, regarding the issue, has changed. Thanks.


Agreed. Maybe the author should write a story about 30 men in the showers at one time. Or maybe, 50 guys sleeping side by side in one barracks every night.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr.

*support the gay, support sexual abuse of children*



FrankDC said:


> Or in other words, being a homosexual does not make one more likely to be a child molester.


But...almost every single homosexual was introduced to the activity by statutory rape. The vice relies on pederasty for recruitment.

The awkward kids that 'everyone knew were gay' were in fact just vulnerable prey for gay rapists. I know of not one case of young single sex before molestation by an adult.

Break the cycle.


----------



## JDC

Chats, glad to know you've personally interviewed almost every single homosexual to come up with your thesis. People who've reviewed the research know you're speaking directly out of your rear end.

That your outrageous, hateful and most importantly disproven claims about sexual orientation will probably be allowed to stand in this forum is a perfect illustration of the depths of homophobia the gay community is facing. You're just a few minor steps away from becoming Fred Phelps.


----------



## Scotch&Cigars

FrankDC said:


> Chats, glad to know you've personally interviewed almost every single homosexual to come up with your thesis. People who've reviewed the research know you're speaking directly out of your rear end.
> 
> That your outrageous, hateful and most importantly disproven claims about sexual orientation will probably be allowed to stand in this forum is a perfect illustration of the depths of homophobia the gay community is facing. You're just a few minor steps away from becoming Fred Phelps.


Having not read through the entire thread (in part to keep my blood pressure down), I assumed Chats was being sarcastic. If not, Frank, you are entirely correct.

What I will say on the matter is this:

If there are individuals in the military who are so bigoted, prejudiced, or ignorant as to have their sense of morale or unit cohesion damaged by serving alongside gays and lesbians who are risking their lives to protect their countrymen and fellow servicemembers, it is *they* who are unfit to serve, and *they* who should be discharged. They clearly lack the mental stability and maturity to handle such a meaningless situation, and I do not feel one bit safer knowing that their immaturity is what stands between innocents living and dying. Allow the real patriots to serve; toss out those who would limit patriotism by a ridiculously stupid metric.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> But...almost every single homosexual was introduced to the activity by statutory rape. The vice relies on pederasty for recruitment.
> 
> The awkward kids that 'everyone knew were gay' were in fact just vulnerable prey for gay rapists. I know of not one case of young single sex before molestation by an adult.
> 
> Break the cycle.


So when you were sodomised as a child was it reported to the police?

"Me thinks m'lord he doth protest too much"


----------



## MichaelS

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> But...almost every single homosexual was introduced to the activity by statutory rape. The vice relies on pederasty for recruitment.
> 
> The awkward kids that 'everyone knew were gay' were in fact just vulnerable prey for gay rapists. I know of not one case of young single sex before molestation by an adult.
> 
> Break the cycle.


Boy, what an uninformed, bigoted, ignorant, boneheaded, brainless, etc.

I know a number of gays; my nephew included who were never abused. It is not a "choice" it's just who you are, and no one should care. It is total bull**** to equate gays to child abusers. There are NO facts that show the correlation that Bonehead above is trying to state. How about the ongoing troubles the Roman Catholic Church continues to have around the world? The church is very anti-gay but has generated many, many, many child abusers.

Bj the way, I haven't read the whole thread (to keep my blood pressure in check), but does anyone think people in the military have not already served with gay men and women? They have been there forever, open or closeted. People already serve with gays.

There was an interesting test done by a university (I forget which) where they first had men fill out forms regarding their sexuality and how they thought about gay men, and then had them watch gay porn while "wired" to test their arousal. Often the most violent anti gays according to the forms they filled out were the ones most aroused by the gay porn.

One other thing, many of the same arguments that are used to justify not allowing gays in the military were also used to justify not integrating the military. It's a good think that Harry Truman had the guts to do what was right unlike so many others.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

MichaelS said:


> Boy, what an uninformed, bigoted, ignorant, boneheaded, brainless, etc.
> 
> I know a number of gays; my nephew included who were never abused. It is not a "choice" it's just who you are, and no one should care. It is total bull**** to equate gays to child abusers. There are NO facts that show the correlation that Bonehead above is trying to state. How about the ongoing troubles the Roman Catholic Church continues to have around the world? The church is very anti-gay but has generated many, many, many child abusers.
> 
> Bj the way, I haven't read the whole thread (to keep my blood pressure in check), but does anyone think people in the military have not already served with gay men and women? They have been there forever, open or closeted. People already serve with gays.
> 
> There was an interesting test done by a university (I forget which) where they first had men fill out forms regarding their sexuality and how they thought about gay men, and then had them watch gay porn while "wired" to test their arousal. Often the most violent anti gays according to the forms they filled out were the ones most aroused by the gay porn.
> 
> One other thing, many of the same arguments that are used to justify not allowing gays in the military were also used to justify not integrating the military. It's a good think that Harry Truman had the guts to do what was right unlike so many others.


Well said Michael!


----------



## mrkleen

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> But...almost every single homosexual was introduced to the activity by statutory rape. The vice relies on pederasty for recruitment.
> 
> The awkward kids that 'everyone knew were gay' were in fact just vulnerable prey for gay rapists. I know of not one case of young single sex before molestation by an adult.
> 
> Break the cycle.


i hope this is a joke.


----------



## 16412

As long as they function fine, so not a problem, who cares?

They should die for this country as well as anybody else.


----------



## richardUK

while people are onto comparing militaries around the world:


__
https://flic.kr/p/3941254968

quite interesting when you look at the 2nd set of data, as to who has sent the most troops per million of population


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

MichaelS said:


> Boy, what an uninformed, bigoted, ignorant, boneheaded, brainless, etc.
> 
> How about the ongoing troubles the Roman Catholic Church continues to have around the world? The church is very anti-gay but has generated many, many, many child abusers.


As have other churches and many other professions. I'm saying that not as an excuse, because I agree with you, I'm saying it to give balance. Sometimes the message that comes across in the media is that the only child abusers in the world are the Catholic clergy, when nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## 16412

MichaelS said:


> It is not a "choice" it's just who you are, and no one should care.


For being a scientists what are you basting this on? Scientific facts show nothing of what you said above in quote to be true. Some are hoping that above is true, but there is no proof of it. Which means maybe some can be physiological cured. For example, some murders have been "cured" of their problems, but not all, as with any physiological problem.

I was reading a report of a study where "gay" guys were getting married to women as soon as the parent or parents were dead. Wouldn't they be even more gay? Some were married before the body was put into the ground. What kind of gay is that? There are all kinds of physiological traps in this world which even you nephew could have fallen into that not even shrinks understand, nor understand for a hundred year or more to come. Shrinks sure don't know it all, as does any science know it all. If so, you would be doing different kind of work.


----------



## MichaelS

Earl of Ormonde said:


> As have other churches and many other professions. I'm saying that not as an excuse, because I agree with you, I'm saying it to give balance. Sometimes the message that comes across in the media is that the only child abusers in the world are the Catholic clergy, when nothing could be further from the truth.


I agree and apologize if it appeared that I was singling out the Roman Catholic church.


----------



## 16412

Not a fan of the Roman Catholic church, but around here they are the only group that I know of that provides a girls home and a boys home. Some parents are terrible.

I taught skiing and one of the classes was from a local Roman Catholic church school. They were the nice' group of children I have ever worked with. Unbelievable so good.


----------



## MichaelS

WA said:


> For being a scientists what are you basting this on? Scientific facts show nothing of what you said above in quote to be true. Some are hoping that above is true, but there is no proof of it. Which means maybe some can be physiological cured. For example, some murders have been "cured" of their problems, but not all, as with any physiological problem.
> 
> I was reading a report of a study where "gay" guys were getting married to women as soon as the parent or parents were dead. Wouldn't they be even more gay? Some were married before the body was put into the ground. What kind of gay is that? There are all kinds of physiological traps in this world which even you nephew could have fallen into that not even shrinks understand, nor understand for a hundred year or more to come. Shrinks sure don't know it all, as does any science know it all. If so, you would be doing different kind of work.


A couple of things: I was basing what I said about being gay not being a choice from a weight of evidence point of view based on people I have spoken to and what I have read about this, mostly people discussing their personal thoughts and experiences with this issue.

A lot of people have struggled with being gay and not admitted it to themselves for years suffering through failed marriages etc because they didn't want to be gay, but really had no choice. It is not really a choice many of us would willingly take considering the troubles it can bring you. Other people are I guess naturally bi-sexual so for them it is a choice. Others are completely straight and could never "perform" with someone of the same sex so for them it is not a choice. With so many other things in the natural world, there may not be a simple black and white answer.

I guess the real question shouldn't be "Is it a choice or not" but "Who cares". Someone's sexuality does not affect my relationship with my wife or my marriage. I don't care if someone is gay, straight, or bisexual. It doesn't affect me and shouldn't affect my decisions regarding the person. (Although when I was young and single I had a couple of very good female friends who were gay. At that time I did really wish at least one of them was straight so she would go out with me. The thing is, I was such a bumbling fool, that she probably wouldn't have gone out with me anyway even if she had been straight.)

As to child molesters, I wouldn't have wanted anyone, male or female to molest my (or anyone's) children.

I don't think being gay or bi is a disease that needs to be cured. It's just who people are and there is noting needed to be cured.

(Sorry for the length and for pontificating).


----------



## JDC

WA said:


> For being a scientists what are you basting this on? Scientific facts show nothing of what you said above in quote to be true. Some are hoping that above is true, but there is no proof of it. Which means maybe some can be physiological cured. For example, some murders have been "cured" of their problems, but not all, as with any physiological problem.


WA, do you know any openly gay people? I suspect you don't, but if you do, ask them if they chose their sexual orientation and see what they tell you.

Could you (or any other heterosexual man who's reading this discussion) wake up tomorrow and "choose" to no longer be sexually attracted to women, but only to men? Of course you couldn't. So why do you believe gay people have the opposite ability?

The notion that sexual orientation is a choice has been completely disproven by formal research over the last 40+ years. Not only that, the evidence points to a substantial biological component for sexual orientation; it may be determined even before a person is born:

https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

So the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice has already been answered. The question that remains is, why do some people insist on clinging to the disproven theory that it is a choice? Well, because it's the only way bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals can be logically justified. As soon as one admits that sexual orientation isn't a choice, discriminating against homosexuals becomes the moral equivalent of blaming disabled people for being disabled.

With regard to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, it's by far the world's largest organized group of gay men and lesbians, and has been for the last 1500+ years.


----------



## 16412

MichaelS said:


> A couple of things: I was basing what I said about being gay not being a choice from a weight of evidence point of view based on people I have spoken to and what I have read about this, mostly people discussing their personal thoughts and experiences with this issue....


The reason why shrinks have a job is because the problem is because the person does not know how to choose a way out. Therefore, they choose somebody to help them out. There are many problems that shrinks have no ideas what to even do about. There are problems they don't even know about yet.

Your reasons sound very good, but there is so much unknow still. Some gays say they can turn anybody into gay if given the chance. One guy said his granddad got him started. Some have had parents that are over ruley so the child choose the lest amount of trouble. Personality conflicts with the parents. The list goes on and on. Sometimes the problem isn't really gay, but something else. Get rid of that something else and the problem is gone. This can be with any/many problems. There is a huge push to blanket gay as OK and it's all natural, but some of the problems above show otherwise. The blanket push is hurting even those who don't know it.


----------



## 16412

FrankDC said:


> WA, do you know any openly gay people? I suspect you don't, but if you do, ask them if they chose their sexual orientation and see what they tell you.
> 
> Could you (or any other heterosexual man who's reading this discussion) wake up tomorrow and "choose" to no longer be sexually attracted to women, but only to men? Of course you couldn't. So why do you believe gay people have the opposite ability?
> 
> The notion that sexual orientation is a choice has been completely disproven by formal research over the last 40+ years. Not only that, the evidence points to a substantial biological component for sexual orientation; it may be determined even before a person is born:
> 
> https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
> 
> So the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice has already been answered. The question that remains is, why do some people insist on clinging to the disproven theory that it is a choice? Well, because it's the only way bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals can be logically justified. As soon as one admits that sexual orientation isn't a choice, discriminating against homosexuals becomes the moral equivalent of blaming disabled people for being disabled.
> 
> With regard to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, it's by far the world's largest organized group of gay men and lesbians, and has been for the last 1500+ years.


There are all kinds of vices people choose to get into, many not knowing they are getting into a vice. A vice means help to get out.

So, everybody who disagrees with you is a bigotry? It's time you grew up, isn't it?


----------



## JDC

WA said:


> There are all kinds of vices people choose to get into, many not knowing they are getting into a vice. A vice means help to get out.
> 
> So, everybody who disagrees with you is a bigotry?


Bigotry is "the expression of unreasonable prejudices", and your posts are perfect illustrations of it. E.g. "scientific facts show nothing" etc. I've read your posts for years here on AAAC on this issue, you're consistently and astonishingly clueless. If you'd simply do a bit of research you'd understand just how ridiculous your claims are.

You also didn't answer my question. Do you know any openly gay people, and if so, have you ever asked them whether they choose to be gay?


----------



## JDC

Earl of Ormonde said:


> As have other churches and many other professions. I'm saying that not as an excuse, because I agree with you, I'm saying it to give balance. Sometimes the message that comes across in the media is that the only child abusers in the world are the Catholic clergy, when nothing could be further from the truth.


Actually many things are further from the truth.

Just since 2002, and just in the United States, the Roman Catholic Church has paid out over a billion dollars to settle child molestation lawsuits. Entire dioceses have been sued out of business:

Since 2002:

$660 million: Los Angeles, for about 500 cases

$100 million: Orange County, for 90 cases

$84 million: Covington, Ky., to more than 350 people

$84 million: Boston, for 552 claims

$56 million: Oakland, to 56 people

$52 million: Portland, Ore., to 175 victims

$48 million: Spokane, Wash., for about 150 claims

$35 million: Sacramento, to 33 people

$25.7 million: Louisville, Ky., to 243 victims

$22 million: Tucson, for more than 50 victims

SOURCE: The Associated Press

And just a few days ago, the same thing began in Germany:

It's a very bitter pill to swallow, but the cold hard reality is, a significant portion of each dollar you drop into that big basket every Sunday goes to pay defense attorney fees for child molesters.


----------



## 16412

FrankDC said:


> t's a very bitter pill to swallow, but the cold hard reality is, a significant portion of each dollar you drop into that big basket every Sunday goes to pay defense attorney fees for child molesters.


I don't understand the reasoning why this all happened in the first place. Other churches immediately throw the offenders out, why didn't the RC? I don't know, but I think most churches tell the law enforcment as soon as a molester is discovered. Does the RC some how think it is equal with God, instead or under God?


----------



## 16412

FrankDC said:


> Bigotry is "the expression of unreasonable prejudices", and your posts are perfect illustrations of it. E.g. "scientific facts show nothing" etc. I've read your posts for years here on AAAC on this issue, you're consistently and astonishingly clueless. If you'd simply do a bit of research you'd understand just how ridiculous your claims are.
> 
> You also didn't answer my question. Do you know any openly gay people, and if so, have you ever asked them whether they choose to be gay?


If scientist are so right then why have they said every vegeable that I eat, except maybe a couple, I shouldn't eat? And what is the apa? The sex experts of the 80s, what happen to them? Somebody came along and knocked out most everything those two pushed. Those two were a couple of cons, in it for the money and fame, they didn't care if they were right. There have the gift of gab, that is why they got away with it for so long. Instead of being brain dead do your own research. Zombieness is not a sign of good health. Besides, you have written enough to show that your "gay" is a symptom of something else. Get rid of that something else and you will be chasing women.

Who hasn't worked with "gays"? One guy used to ask me for sex every time we were alone.

When asking somebody why they are "gay" and then start asking other questions it doesn't take long to find out why they are "gay". So, then, who is born gay? Nobody. For example, the fact that you call people bigots, etc., explains alot. It isn't that you do, but how you do it explains why you do it. Your not hiding the undertones that go further back than what you think. I suppose there is one word that is missing you up. Change that one word and you will never look at another guy again.


----------



## JDC

WA said:


> If scientist are so right then why have they said every vegeable that I eat, except maybe a couple, I shouldn't eat? And what is the apa? The sex experts of the 80s, what happen to them? Somebody came along and knocked out most everything those two pushed. Those two were a couple of cons, in it for the money and fame, they didn't care if they were right. There have the gift of gab, that is why they got away with it for so long. Instead of being brain dead do your own research. Zombieness is not a sign of good health. Besides, you have written enough to show that your "gay" is a symptom of something else. Get rid of that something else and you will be chasing women.
> 
> Who hasn't worked with "gays"? One guy used to ask me for sex every time we were alone.
> 
> When asking somebody why they are "gay" and then start asking other questions it doesn't take long to find out why they are "gay". So, then, who is born gay? Nobody. For example, the fact that you call people bigots, etc., explains alot. It isn't that you do, but how you do it explains why you do it. Your not hiding the undertones that go further back than what you think. I suppose there is one word that is missing you up. Change that one word and you will never look at another guy again.


Wow, don't keep all of us in the dark. What's that one word?

If homosexuality was a disease, and someone invented a pill to "cure" it, I bet you actually believe most gay people would take those pills. Am I right?


----------



## 16412

FrankDC said:


> Wow, don't keep all of us in the dark. What's that one word?
> 
> If homosexuality was a disease, and someone invented a pill to "cure" it, I bet you actually believe most gay people would take those pills. Am I right?


Believe I wrote somewhere else they wouldn't "take the pill" knowingly.

You tell me what the word is, Frank. Your the one having a problem with it. Find it and swop it with a better word. Of course, you wouldn't swop it, because you wouldn't take the pill either, right?

Your numbers of child abuse from sex is very high compare what I read ten or more years ago. Do you think child abuse from sex is worse or the other numbers inaccurate? The methods of getting the numbers is probably better today. It used to be one out of ten boys and the numbers for girls would be much higher.

In ten years what will be the prevailing theories? Nobody knows because they probably haven't been thought of yet, much more made known to the rest of us. That is how fragile theories are.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

FrankDC said:


> Actually many things are further from the truth.
> 
> Just since 2002, and just in the United States, the Roman Catholic Church has paid out over a billion dollars to settle child molestation lawsuits. Entire dioceses have been sued out of business:
> 
> Since 2002:
> 
> $660 million: Los Angeles, for about 500 cases
> 
> $100 million: Orange County, for 90 cases
> 
> $84 million: Covington, Ky., to more than 350 people
> 
> $84 million: Boston, for 552 claims
> 
> $56 million: Oakland, to 56 people
> 
> $52 million: Portland, Ore., to 175 victims
> 
> $48 million: Spokane, Wash., for about 150 claims
> 
> $35 million: Sacramento, to 33 people
> 
> $25.7 million: Louisville, Ky., to 243 victims
> 
> $22 million: Tucson, for more than 50 victims
> 
> SOURCE: The Associated Press
> 
> And just a few days ago, the same thing began in Germany:
> 
> It's a very bitter pill to swallow, but the cold hard reality is, a significant portion of each dollar you drop into that big basket every Sunday goes to pay defense attorney fees for child molesters.


No, I'm not doing this one Frank. It's just a pointless, destructive and irrelevant discussion, nobody wins in the end, and everyone ends up arguing, and I meran that in all friendliness.

I, like most people in the world (inlcuding over a billion Catholics i.e. more than half of all Christians and 1/6 of the world's population) hate child molesters and rapists of all colours and creeds. I also hate religious practices imposed on innocent children like female circumcision in Africa, imposed marriages of 9 year old girls to 70 year old men in Saudi Arabia, and so on. Sadly, the list of injustices committed by men and women of the cloth is endless. Abuse of power, abuse of trust. Very sad, tragic. But I'm not going to defend the Catholic church as an insitution. In the past and even today I have been and am very vocal in my criticism of some of the secular teachings of the church and the behaviour of her clergy.

But I will defend the spirituality and theology of the Catholic faith.


----------



## JDC

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, I'm not doing this one Frank. It's just a pointless, destructive and irrelevant discussion, nobody wins in the end, and everyone ends up arguing, and I meran that in all friendliness.
> 
> I, like most people in the world (inlcuding over a billion Catholics i.e. more than half of all Christians and 1/6 of the world's population) hate child molesters and rapists of all colours and creeds. I also hate religious practices imposed on innocent children like female circumcision in Africa, imposed marriages of 9 year old girls to 70 year old men in Saudi Arabia, and so on. Sadly, the list of injustices committed by men and women of the cloth is endless. Abuse of power, abuse of trust. Very sad, tragic. But I'm not going to defend the Catholic church as an insitution. In the past and even today I have been and am very vocal in my criticism of some of the secular teachings of the church and the behaviour of her clergy.
> 
> But I will defend the spirituality and theology of the Catholic faith.


I was born and raised in the RCC, and my family has close ties to the church (e.g. my uncle has been a Catholic priest for 62 years). I would like nothing more than to return to the pre-Vatican II days, when the RCC focused on the gospel of Jesus and charity, and simply STFU on controversial civil matters. But instead, they've morphed into a political action committee, and now spend much of their time and money organizing to push their own political and civil agenda, which includes trying to shove gay people back into their closets and turn the clock back on women's reproductive rights. They've become a somewhat less radical and more politically correct version of the Taliban.

As long as the RCC insists on pushing for civil laws which restrict or eliminate the rights of everyone, believers and non-believers alike, it should be expected that the targeted communities will continue to fight back, and do everything possible to put the church out of business. This isn't the first time established science has collided head-on with the RCC's traditional teachings, and in every case science has eventually triumphed over ignorance. It's just a matter of time.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

WA said:


> Which means maybe some can be physiological cured. For example, some murders have been "cured" of their problems, but not all, as with any physiological problem.


For starters the word is psychological not physiological. 
BUT you're implying then that sexual preference is a psychological "problem". 
You do realise I hope that if we were to take your view about homosexuality to its logical conclusion we'd be living in a society where all emotions and desires were perceived as psychological problems. In fact, we'd be living in the dystopic world portrayed in Orwell's 1984.

Query from a linguist, what is your mother tongue/first language?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

FrankDC said:


> I would like nothing more than to return to the pre-Vatican II days, when the RCC focused on the gospel of Jesus and charity,


Abortion and homosexual acts were illegal in most of the US then. Is that what you really want??



Earl of Ormonde said:


> ...we'd be living in a society where all emotions and desires were perceived as psychological problems.


Are you sure we don't??


----------



## JDC

WouldaShoulda said:


> Abortion and homosexual acts were illegal in most of the US then. Is that what you really want??


I'm talking about the RCC, not the U.S.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

FrankDC said:


> I'm talking about the RCC, not the U.S.


I'm suggesting that the RCC simply didn't have as much to complain about then in the US. (Or abroad for that matter)

They couldn't have publically admonished a public official then, because there was no publically funded abortion or SSM movement to oppose!!


----------



## JDC

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm suggesting that the RCC simply didn't have as much to complain about then in the US. (Or abroad for that matter)
> 
> They couldn't have publically admonished a public official then, because there was no publically funded abortion or SSM movement to oppose!!


True. Back in the "good ol' days", women used coat hangers to abort their pregnancies, and gay men met for sex in bowling alley restrooms.

The RCC really had nothing to complain about.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

FrankDC said:


> True. Back in the "good ol' days", women used coat hangers to abort their pregnancies,
> 
> and gay men met for sex in bowling alley restrooms.


1) Actually, adoption was a far more favorable and common outcome. I have many friends who were adopted born before 1972. After?? Not so much.

2) Yep, the days of the glory hole are long gone!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

WA said:


> There are all kinds of vices people choose to get into, many not knowing they are getting into a vice. A vice means help to get out.


Sexual inclination is not a vice, it is an emotion, a desire, a lusting, an uncontrollable, unchangeable urge, one of life's driving forces. And if you think sexual preference is a vice then you need some serious emotional counselling. Also, sexual inclination is nobody's business but your own.


----------



## eagle2250

FrankDC said:


> True. Back in the "good ol' days", women used coat hangers to abort their pregnancies, and gay men met for sex in bowling alley restrooms.
> ...


....and at least two of them, as recently as an evening back in October 2001, were doing it in a men's room of the Randolf Street Metra-Station, Chicago, IL...when I walked in on themeek. No sh*t, I was so shocked, I did an about face and left the facility, forgetting to take care of (my) business! Gay or straight, there should be a proper time and place and methinks a public restroom is not it. Tacky...to say the least!


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC

eagle2250 said:


> ....and at least two of them, as recently as an evening back in October 2001, were doing it in a men's room of the Randolf Street Metra-Station, Chicago, IL...when I walked in on themeek. No sh*t, I was so shocked, I did an about face and left the facility, forgetting to take care of (my) business! Gay or straight, there should be a proper time and place and methinks a public restroom is not it. Tacky...to say the least!


Ha, yes, one evening in 2000 or so I was at the Gingerman in NYC. I went in the men's room and there were two pairs of feet in the stall; their orientation and the dropped trousers left nothing to the imagination. I nonetheless used the urinal, but I probably never released four beers in faster time. :crazy:


----------



## JDC

I think most of us have seen more than we wanted to at some point. Anyone remember drive-in theatres?

Point is, sex in public places is disgusting, regardless of who's doing it.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC

FrankDC said:


> I think most of us have seen more than we wanted to at some point. Anyone remember drive-in theatres?
> 
> Point is, sex in public places is disgusting, regardless of who's doing it.


Agree, and I hope that you didn't take my comment to imply otherwise. That simply is the only story I have on point. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## 16412

Earl of Ormonde said:


> BUT you're implying then that sexual preference is a psychological "problem".
> You do realise I hope that if we were to take your view about homosexuality to its logical conclusion we'd be living in a society where all emotions and desires were perceived as psychological problems. In fact, we'd be living in the dystopic world portrayed in Orwell's 1984.


I'm not sure what you are saying or asking. Lets say you keep a pig in the house for sex. Sex is fun right? So emotionaly good and desireable. Don't you have a problem with the pig part? Or, are there boundaries to these emotions and desires that say, outside the boundaries is insanity?


----------



## JDC

WA said:


> I'm not sure what you are saying or asking. Lets say you keep a pig in the house for sex. Sex is fun right? So emotionaly good and desireable. Don't you have a problem with the pig part? Or, are there boundaries to these emotions and desires that say, outside the boundaries is insanity?


So when two men who love each other make love to each other, who's boundaries are they outside of? Yours?

And since when can pigs give legal consent to sexual relations with human beings?

I need to bow out of this discussion. Just when you thought it couldn't possibly get any more ridiculous, somehow it does.

I'm sorry to break the news to you WA, but if you have a problem with homosexuality, it's nobody's problem but your own.


----------



## 16412

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Sexual inclination is not a vice, it is an emotion, a desire, a lusting, an uncontrollable, unchangeable urge, one of life's driving forces. And if you think sexual preference is a vice then you need some serious emotional counselling. Also, sexual inclination is nobody's business but your own.


Heroin vice, which is an addition, has all of those - emotion, a desire, a lusting, an uncontrollable, unchangeable urge for more - and people are just born that way. People that get high on heroin - it's not there fault. They didn't choose. They just woke up one day and went out to find a heroin dealer. There not responsible for their actions.

Preacher kids are the worst kids, so I've heard from a number of people. Why? Is it pressure to be little angles they can't be? Another good example it the movie Dead Poets Society where the youth commits suicide. Don't think he wasn't already dead before he commited suicide? The way his father was running his life he really didn't have a life, so already dead. It's called pressure that makes a person bend the way they shouldn't. The hot water tank in your house if it can't release the pressure and it keeps building up you won't have a house, because of the pressure. The power of pressure in the wrong hands can do a lot of damage, even by the well meaning. Some parents weld enormous power on their children and then add to the mix personality conflicts and the list goes on and on - this is why psychology can be so interesitng. People problems can be quit the puzzel.

Popular veiws don't make right, because if they weren't right a hundred years ago, then how do you know that a hundred years from now those won't be right? The truth is that right can never be wrong, nor can it change. So, if they were right a hundred years ago about gay, then popular view today is wrong. If a hundred years from now is different and it's right, then a hundred years ago and today is wrong. So the answer isn't popular view, but whatever the truth is. Popular veiw is like a ship without a rudder. And it seems to me you are falling for popular view.


----------



## JDC

WA said:


> Heroin vice, which is an addition, has all of those - emotion, a desire, a lusting, an uncontrollable, unchangeable urge for more - and people are just born that way. People that get high on heroin - it's not there fault. They didn't choose. They just woke up one day and went out to find a heroin dealer. There not responsible for their actions.


Listen to Earl, WA. Homosexuality is not a disease, but homophobia is.

You're in serious need of counseling, to find out what's behind all these negative feelings you have toward homosexuality. In many cases, homophobes discover through counseling that they themselves are deeply repressed homosexuals.


----------



## 16412

FrankDC said:


> And since when can pigs give legal consent to sexual relations with human beings?


Before it was legal for gays to have gay sex in the US, and yet they did have gay sex. So what is your arguement?


----------



## 16412

FrankDC said:


> Listen to Earl, WA. Homosexuality is not a disease, but homophobia is.
> 
> You're in serious need of counseling, to find out what's behind all these negative feelings you have toward homosexuality. In many cases, homophobes discover through counseling that they themselves are deeply repressed homosexuals.


As I said before I can't throw out what I have read from trained observers of psychology with there Ph.Ds. There is much more to this than what you want to believe.


----------



## JDC

WA said:


> As I said before I can't throw out what I have read from trained observers of psychology with there Ph.Ds. There is much more to this than what you want to believe.


Which trained observers of psychology are you referring to? NARTH?

A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. And in your case, you're ignoring every credible psychology and psychiatry association in the Western world.


----------



## eagle2250

^^


WA said:


> I'm not sure what you are saying or asking. Lets say you keep a pig in the house for sex. Sex is fun right? So emotionaly good and desireable. Don't you have a problem with the pig part? Or, are there boundaries to these emotions and desires that say, outside the boundaries is insanity?





FrankDC said:


> So when two men who love each other make love to each other, who's boundaries are they outside of? Yours?
> 
> And since when can pigs give legal consent to sexual relations with human beings?
> 
> I need to bow out of this discussion. Just when you thought it couldn't possibly get any more ridiculous, somehow it does.
> 
> I'm sorry to break the news to you WA, but if you have a problem with homosexuality, it's nobody's problem but your own.


....and then again FrankDC, while my memory is admittedly not what I wish it would be this AM, perhaps WA is simply co-mingling story lines from Orwell's 1984 and another of his works, Animal Farm? If so, we would be talking "pig on pig" sex here...or at worst, pig on cow sex, in the farmhouse! Why humans having even consensual sex with farm critters is still illegal, as I recall? Don't they call such acts ...beastiality?:crazy:


----------



## JDC

eagle2250 said:


> ....and then again FrankDC, while my memory is admittedly not what I wish it would be this AM, perhaps WA is simply co-mingling story lines from Orwell's 1984 and another of his works, Animal Farm? If so, we would be talking "pig on pig" sex here...or at worst, pig on cow sex, in the farmhouse! Why humans having even consensual sex with farm critters is still illegal, as I recall? Don't they call such acts ...beastiality?:crazy:


Read WA's quote again. He's not talking about "pig on pig" sex:

_"Lets say you keep a pig in the house for sex. Sex is fun right? So emotionaly good and desireable. Don't you have a problem with the pig part? Or, are there boundaries to these emotions and desires that say, outside the boundaries is insanity?"_

Also, there's no such thing as consensual sex with animals. Animals cannot give legal consent to sexual relations (or to anything else).


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC

WA said:


> Before it was legal for gays to have gay sex in the US, and yet they did have gay sex. So what is your arguement?


I think that you misunderstood FrankDC's comment....FrankDC's point is that animals cannot give _consent _to have sex with humans. Thus there is a significant distinction that makes your analogy unpersuasive. The fact that "gay sex" was illegal does not mean that humans were unable to give consent to have "gay sex." Indeed, we acknowledge that humans consent to doing many things that are illegal: that's why "intent" plays such a role in criminal law.

I don't have a dog in the fight here, but it seems that certain posters here have a position on this issue that is informed _solely_ by faith and not by logic. Faith cannot be bent by logic and vice versa. As such, this discussion will not get anyone anywhere. But so long as everyone is having fun, carry on! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## 16412

If mankind wrote a law that the pig can _consent, _then it would be legal_._

Can a pig consent? Some horses love human relations and come when whislted and don't give an effort to keep the saddle off nor the rider. I would say the horse has _consented _to be riden.


----------



## sowilson

WA said:


> If mankind wrote a law that the pig can _consent, _then it would be legal_._
> 
> Can a pig consent? Some horses love human relations and come when whislted and don't give an effort to keep the saddle off nor the rider. I would say the horse has _consented _to be riden.


I just love the rantings of a true homophobe as he spirals into the black hole of ignorance and stupidity. This has been a great show, time to open another beer and keep watching. Pass the popcorn please


----------



## 16412

sowilson said:


> I just love the rantings of a true homophobe as he spirals into the black hole of ignorance and stupidity. This has been a great show, time to open another beer and keep watching. Pass the popcorn please


I guess my point about the pig is this. 50 years ago the thought about gay marriage is just as ridiculous, except it is now trying to happen and your part of it. So in 20 years more or less will you be part of the pig part if it becomes popular? When it comes to humanity changing, with all the history, I think your the one who is spiraling into the black hole of ignorance and stupidity. The only excuse you have is if you were not around 40 or more years ago to know how people really felt and thought about it and is as laughable as you laughing about what I wrote about pigs. The world really does change. If your a youngster you wouldn't know how people felt and thought about gay. Nor do you know how much trouble you would have been in if you stood up for gay.

Since your so bright did you know that the word gay had nothing to do with homosexual until about 1970? The word gay was totally ruined from then on. It was a nice word and its purpose is no longer used. There should be a replacement, because the old word gay was important and well used.


----------



## JDC

WA said:


> I guess my point about the pig is this. 50 years ago the thought about gay marriage is just as ridiculous, except it is now trying to happen and your part of it.


And a little over 50 years ago, interracial marriages in America were not only considered ridiculous, they were illegal in most states. But today, Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman, and all of us look back on the mental midgets who screamed about immorality, the collapse of society, people marrying their pets etc if we allowed interracial marriages, and we cringe in embarrassment at their abysmal ignorance and short-sightedness.

In the exact same way, 20 or 30 years from now, long after gay people are finally made full partners in their own country and in the American Dream, today's supporters of gay rights will be able to stand tall in the knowledge that they did what was right, and were somehow able to see the truth through all the bigotry, fear mongering and ignorance. And you my dear WA, along with several of the world's major religions, are going to look like mean-spirited, horribly short-sighted horse's asses.


----------



## 16412

FrankDC said:


> And a little over 50 years ago, interracial marriages in America were not only considered ridiculous, they were illegal in most states. But today, Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman, and all of us look back on the mental midgets who screamed about immorality, the collapse of society, people marrying their pets etc if we allowed interracial marriages, and we cringe in embarrassment at their abysmal ignorance and short-sightedness.
> 
> In the exact same way, 20 or 30 years from now, long after gay people are finally made full partners in their own country and in the American Dream, today's supporters of gay rights will be able to stand tall in the knowledge that they did what was right, and were somehow able to see the truth through all the bigotry, fear mongering and ignorance. And you my dear WA, along with several of the world's major religions, are going to look like mean-spirited, horribly short-sighted horse's asses.


Moses, more than 50 years ago, married a black women, according to Gods Word. Show me where God married two men or two women.

What counts is what God says to you on your judgement day before Him, not what men say upon this earth.


----------



## JDC

WA said:


> Moses, more than 50 years ago, married a black women, according to Gods Word. Show me where God married two men or two women.


I'm talking about the history of America's civil marriage laws. What do Moses and sky fairies have to do with anything? But in any event, there is a well established precedent for same-sex marriage in human history, dating back at least to the Roman Empire and possibly even earlier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History



WA said:


> What counts is what God says to you on your judgement day before Him, not what men say upon this earth.


I wish you'd explain that to the Catholic Church, and LDS as well.


----------



## eagle2250

FrankDC said:


> I'm talking about the history of America's civil marriage laws. What do Moses and sky fairies have to do with anything? But in any event, there is a well established precedent for same-sex marriage in human history, dating back at least to the Roman Empire and possibly even earlier:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History
> ...


Just for purposes of extending an already seemingly interminable discussion, haven't each of the civilizations to which you refer, fallen...indeed, collapsed in upon themselves as a result of unrelenting internal decay(!)??


----------



## JDC

eagle2250 said:


> Just for purposes of extending an already seemingly interminable discussion, haven't each of the civilizations to which you refer, fallen...indeed, collapsed in upon themselves as a result of unrelenting internal decay(!)??


When it gets to the point where even the mods are trolling (I think :icon_smile, it's time draw the discussion to a close.

But for what it's worth, read the article I cited and you'll discover the Roman Empire collapsed not long after "Christianity" gained a foothold and, as a result, same-sex marriages were _outlawed_. So it depends on how one defines "internal decay". :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC

WA said:


> If mankind wrote a law that the pig can _consent, _then it would be legal_._
> 
> Can a pig consent? Some horses love human relations and come when whislted and don't give an effort to keep the saddle off nor the rider. I would say the horse has _consented _to be riden.


Here we have Exhibit 157 in support of my proposition that this discussion is pointless.


----------



## 16412

Are you saying that the loony can't happen again when history shows Men with a PH.D in law have wasted their time by arguing in court over other loony laws. You of all people should know about lots of these crazy laws. History repeates itself one way or another, doesn't it? So what kind of loony law will show up next? And why haven't the ph.d minds gotten rid of all of the loony laws that still exist? When I see Lawyer in your name why are you shameing yourself in this thread? Wouldn't it be only crazy men and women who fight in court over the loony laws? How did crazy men get Ph.d', anyway? Wouldn't it be crazy people handing out crazy degrees to others of their kind? When you can show that your kind hasn't created loony laws, nor wasted their time in court about them, then you can show your face without shame. Some of the laws that have been pointed out to me leaves me wondering how those people ever pasted kindergarten.


----------



## mjo_1

WA said:


> people ever pasted kindergarten.


I believe 'Juris Doctorate' is the degree you are attempting to discuss. I'm in the conservative camp myself, but posts like this cause a quick downhill spiral in credibility.

Best,

Michael
(A guy who has pasted kindergarten :icon_smile_big


----------



## JDC

mjo_1 said:


> I believe 'Juris Doctorate' is the degree you are attempting to discuss. I'm in the conservative camp myself, but posts like this cause a quick downhill spiral in credibility.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Michael
> (A guy who has pasted kindergarten :icon_smile_big


:icon_smile_big:

I remember suggesting this years ago: my sincere guess is mild Down's.


----------



## Asterix

FrankDC said:


> Also, there's no such thing as consensual sex with animals. Animals cannot give legal consent to sexual relations (or to anything else).


Quick question: Do animals give consent to being killed for the meat we consume since the bestiality folks need the consent of an animal to screw them? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## 16412

mjo_1 said:


> Best,
> 
> Michael
> (A guy who has pasted kindergarten :icon_smile_big


Me, I never got past picture books. :icon_smile: No doubt everybody will believe that.


----------



## richardUK

Gay Soldiers Don't Cause Disruption, Study Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/world/americas/22gays.html?src=twr


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Here we have Exhibit 157 in support of my proposition that this discussion is pointless.


Proposition seconded! Motion to strike from the record your honour!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> I don't have a dog in the fight here, but it seems that certain posters here have a position on this issue that is informed _solely_ by faith and not by logic. Faith cannot be bent by logic and vice versa. As such, this discussion will not get anyone anywhere. But so long as everyone is having fun, carry on! :icon_smile_big:


I tried logic in the first two pages of the thread.

It just didn't prove entertaining!!


----------



## Jovan

It seems pretty certain that DADT is going to end. What we need to do now is, for lack of a better suggestion, "deal with it."


----------



## Peak and Pine

WouldaShoulda said:


> I tried logic in the first two pages of the thread. *It just didn't prove entertaining*!!


Actually, it was entertaining. As was Archhie Bunker, wincingly so, back in the 70s.
​


----------



## flatline

I guess we've all agreed that no one's mind is going to be changed, no matter how thoughtful or thoughtless our respective arguments. I don't want to keep this thread alive pointlessly, but I just saw this and figured some of you would be interested.

Women will now be allowed to serve on subs.

https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/23/women.sub.duty/index.html?hpt=T2



> Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has notified Congress of plans to allow women to serve aboard submarines, a Defense Department official said Tuesday.
> 
> Letters of intent were sent Monday to Congress, which has requested briefings on the matter, said the official, who asked not to be identified. There will be no vote on the matter in Congress.
> 
> The change was recommended by the chief of naval operations and the secretary of the Navy in addition to Gates, the official said, adding that there was no opposition to the move among Navy leaders.


To me that seems to take a leg out from under those who argued that openly serving homosexuals in combat groups were akin to women serving in the tight confines of a sub.


----------



## flatline

And on the flipside: Casey voices concerns over the repeal of DADT...

https://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/23/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?hpt=T2



> He agreed, however, that it would be fair to characterize his opinion as not being "strongly" for or against a repeal.


----------



## OldMilitary

Been a little while since I have been here and things are developing as some of you have posted about above.

On the Submarines, yes they are going to allow women starting with Academy graduates (officers) who normally would get less crowded quarters on board than enlisted men anyway.
They will have separate "facilities," only be allowed in groups of 2 or more, and "adjustments" must be made to the subs living and hygienic areas for the women's "privacy." The initial effort will be on the larger subs (not attack usually) like missile subs which have a lot more room, and if that works out move on from there.

To FrankDC and others who have already spoken well on a lack of "good manners" from some people in bathroom areas, I will relate an early experience of mine that really puzzled me at the time.
When I was a kid (maybe 10 to 12), I used to go to a movie uptown occasionally in the summer when I had the time to make the trip. It was a good distance (miles) from my home, and I didn't have the money to spare on a bus, and there was no place to lock my bike, so I walked.
Usually it was earlier in the week and fairly early in the afternoon before the prices changed for the evening, but the days were long in the summer and one Friday I got uptown later than usual. I actually got to the show late and it had started already and I wanted to see the beginning, so I waited for the next one to start and during the time between shows realized I really needed to go to the restroom which was up stairs by the entrance to the balcony (this was an old single large screen theater).

I did notice more people than usual in the upstairs area, and then when I went into the restroom, I saw that it was jammed. There were guys standing around the sides of the restroom seemingly waiting for one of the stalls to vacate. (There were no urinals outside the stalls, which seemed kind of dumb to me.) I moved to a vacant area along the walls and started to wait on the people already there to use the facilities. I then realized that there seemed to be a delay and little movement. The people around the walls weren't entering the stalls! I crouched to see if anyone was in the stalls and most appeared empty of feet. Then one guy said something to me and motioned me to go ahead. I looked around and no one else was moving so I quickly went to the stall, did my business and hurried downstairs to see the rest of the movie.

It took me a few days to sort that out, and associate it with my previous experience with the kid in the Municipal pool. From that day on, I never went upstairs to the balcony area again until I was a lot older and was with a girl.

I have found a pretty good article expressing well the major problem I see with repeal of the DADT policy. It is by the way the same issue the individual Service Chiefs (Army and AF so far) are thinking of when they are telling Congress that they are waiting on the Gates study though (of course) they will do what the "Law" requires. In the past the Marine Chief has been pretty outspoken against it, but we haven't heard from him yet in Congress.

The title of the article is: 
*Repealing DADT/ Why don't men and women shower together?*

https://kksfeather-1.newsvine.com/_...g-dadt-why-dont-men-and-women-shower-together

Anyway, I have been looking into the feasibility of adapting some training barracks to have either separate hygienic facilities or have more privacy within what is now large "common" areas for if and when there is a change.


----------



## Jovan

OldMilitary: Presumably, the homosexual men and women who've been serving are professional enough to keep their urges private -- that or they just don't find everyone attractive.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

flatline said:


> Women will now be allowed to serve on subs.


There goes the neighborhood!!

Article~
Women joined the crews of the Navy's surface ships in 1993, but officials had previously cited limited privacy and the cost of reconfiguring the vessels in arguing against their joining sub crews.

They didn't mention that half come back preggers??


----------



## Jovan

If what you say is true (I want a citation) then all the better that homosexuals are in the military!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> If what you say is true (I want a citation) then all the better that homosexuals are in the military!


Navy Strives to Retain Pregnant Sailors
Virginia Pilot | By Kate Wiltrout | October 11, 2007
Women have never played a bigger role in the Navy. They fuel and fly fighter jets, stand watch on the bridges of warships, and build bombs. They also have babies.

Reconciling those roles is a challenge for Navy brass. During wartime, sailors must be ready to deploy at a moment's notice -- something pregnant women can't do and single parents can't do easily. 
Compounding the issue is a rise in the number of single mothers in uniform and concern about unplanned pregnancies among enlisted sailors. 
The Navy's most recent survey found 14 percent of all women in the Navy were single mothers in 2005, up from 11 percent in 2003 and 7 percent in 2001. Fourteen percent isn't unprecedented -- similar statistics were found in 1989 and 1999 -- but military officials say they don't know the reason for the recent increase. 
The Pregnancy and Parenthood survey also found that almost two-thirds of enlisted women who became pregnant in the previous year had not planned to do so. 
That's higher than the overall U.S. unintended pregnancy rate of 49 percent -- and well above the Department of Defense's target rate of 30 percent. 
The biennial survey is being updated this year, with results expected in 2008. 
Whether expectant moms are single or married, pregnancy poses thorny issues for the Navy. There are more than 50,000 women in the Navy -- about 15 percent of the total force -- and most are in their prime childbearing years. The most recent survey found 38 percent of women in the Navy are mothers. Forty-seven percent of Navy men are fathers. 
This summer, the Navy changed its pregnancy policy, allowing new mothers a full year of shore duty after giving birth. Previously, sailors who had babies got a four-month reprieve from ship deployments or assignments in war zones.

https://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,152426,00.html

So what happened??

Report outlines pregnancy policy concerns
By Andrew Tilghman--Staff writer
Posted : Monday Oct 19, 2009 6:18:09 EDT

Some shore commands in the Norfolk, Va., area report that up to 34 percent of their billets are filled by pregnant sailors, and commanders are complaining about a "lack of proper manning to conduct their mission," according to a Naval Inspector General report. 
The IG has asked Navy personnel officials to review the new rules for Navy mothers-to-be and consider the work conducted by each rating and how pregnancy affects a sailor's ability to do that work. 
The spike in pregnant sailors assigned to some units comes after the Navy changed its rules for handling mothers-to-be. And it's compounded by a baby boomlet in the Navy community. 
When sailors on sea duty become pregnant, they are transferred to shore-based commands that fit certain criteria, such as being close to a Navy medical center. The length of that assignment changed in June 2007, when the Navy extended the postpartum tour from four months after a child's birth to 12 months. Combined with a nine-month pregnancy, that puts expectant mothers on limited duty for up to 21 months. Now, shore industrial and aviation commands say they are receiving more pregnant sailors--from 15 percent to 34 percent of authorized billets, in some cases--who are unable to fulfill essential duties because of their pregnancy, according to the IG.

https://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014590.html

Dumbasses!!


----------



## flatline

WouldaShoulda said:


> Dumbasses!!


Ummm.... that provided some interesting statistics, but I didn't see anything in there that suggested allowing women to serve on ships increased pregnancies. The spike in pregnant sailors happened 15 years after ladies were allowed on surface ships. No correlation.

If anything, the articles you posted were simply an indictment of the way the Navy handles pregnant sailors - the amount of time off they are given and the limited duties they are allowed to perform, coupled with restrictions on where their assignments can be located.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

flatline said:


> Ummm.... that provided some interesting statistics, but I didn't see anything in there that suggested allowing women to serve on ships increased pregnancies.


Trying to get honest statistics from the DOD is indeed a chore!!

But that can happen when you run an Army or Navy like it's the Post Office instead of a killing machine!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

flatline said:


> If anything, the articles you posted were simply an indictment of the way the Navy handles pregnant sailors - the amount of time off they are given and the limited duties they are allowed to perform, coupled with restrictions on where their assignments can be located.


The Navy instituted a policy that encourged single parenthood and it got more single parents.

Imagine that!!


----------



## Asterix

I hope this is not a repeat but I just stumbled on this bit of news.

Top US Marine rejects Obama plan to repeal gay ban


----------



## JDC

Uh, does the term "commander-in-chief" mean anything to this clown?

He's not in a position to "reject" anything, except his job if he's unable or unwilling to follow orders.


----------



## Jovan

FrankDC: No offence, but it seems like you didn't read the article.



> General James Conway told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he disagreed with Obama's plan to repeal the ban.
> 
> "My best military advice to this committee, to the (defense) secretary, and to the president would be to keep the law such as it is."


The title of the article is pure hyperbole.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Asterix said:


> I hope this is not a repeat but I just stumbled on this bit of news.
> 
> Top US Marine rejects Obama plan to repeal gay ban


While we are at it, Let's review the JCOS's comments...

Appearing at what at times was a spirited hearing on the 1993 law, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that he believes gays and lesbians should be allowed to reveal their sexual orientation without the risk of being discharged.

"It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," Mullen said. "No matter how I look at this issue I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/02/nations_top_off.html

1) "The right thing to do" is not "enhaces our national security."

2) No one is being "forced to lie" about anything. DADT requires only that personal busines remains personal.

The PC speech police has clearly infiltrated the DOD at the highest level.


----------



## flatline

WouldaShoulda said:


> 2) No one is being "forced to lie" about anything. DADT requires only that personal busines remains personal.
> 
> The PC speech police has clearly infiltrated the DOD at the highest level.


Your definition of lying is.... a stretch. Under your rules, NO ONE in the service should be allowed to talk about their kids, their wife, boyfriend, or anything - it's all personal business. Of course, that idea is ridiculous - such a rule would border on unenforceable, and would almost certainly have a negative impact on morale and unit cohesion.

Telling one segment of the service that they cannot participate in these discussions is utter poppycock - and is absolutely akin to forcing them to lie. The "Don't Ask" part of DADT mainly just applies to the service itself - they can't explicitly ask a soldier if he's gay without proof. It doesn't stop the soldier's fellow platoon-mates, who almost certainly talk about relationships on a daily basis, from asking something as innocent as "You seeing anyone back home?". Therefore they can either lie (overtly or just by omission), or tell the truth and risk the information getting to a level where they risk a discharge.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

I'm curious for all of your thoughts on the article that OldMilitary posted about men and women showering together. Should they? That's been the biggest argument I've heard against homosexuals openly serving.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

flatline said:


> - and is absolutely akin to forcing them to lie. The "Don't Ask" part of DADT mainly just applies to the service itself - they can't explicitly ask a soldier if he's gay without proof.


I'm troubled that the JCOS has to resort to feel good hyperbole and can't make a more nuanced and factual statement such as your own.


----------



## JDC

Jovan said:


> FrankDC: No offence, but it seems like you didn't read the article.
> 
> The title of the article is pure hyperbole.


Jovan, I read it after posting, and you're right. Oops.


----------



## JDC

IlliniFlyer said:


> I'm curious for all of your thoughts on the article that OldMilitary posted about men and women showering together. Should they? That's been the biggest argument I've heard against homosexuals openly serving.


I don't follow that logic. From what I've read, something like 92% of soldiers take individual showers these days. Also, where groups do shower together, heterosexual and homosexual men already shower together. A repeal of DADT won't make groping any more allowable than it is now.


----------



## flatline

IlliniFlyer said:


> I'm curious for all of your thoughts on the article that OldMilitary posted about men and women showering together. Should they? That's been the biggest argument I've heard against homosexuals openly serving.


Personally, I don't buy it. The article asked some pointed questions, and raised a few points, but never came to a conclusion. The problem is, you're trying to make a policy for an organization containing over a million people. You're _never_ going to appease everyone. There are always going to be soldiers who aren't really comfortable showering with anyone else, period. The only solution that will please them is 100% private showers - which might be more common in some military installations these days, but is certainly not in others. And if you go that route, people will be up in arms over the cost and logistics (if such a thing is even possible in all cases). So again not everyone is happy.

Unfortunately for them, it isn't really a soldier's place to question policies or orders - he is responsible only for following said orders. If a policy like this really has an impact on our national security, I would be highly suspicious of the quality of soldiers currently serving. You become brothers, and if you're not capable of accepting that one of your brothers is gay, you aren't really part of the family. Luckily, the overwhelming majority I know are honorable, courageous individuals more than capable of stowing any baggage at the door - Christians serve with Muslims, Steelers fans serve with Ravens idiots (sorry, fans). Good friend of mine just shipped out this week to Afghanistan with the 1/178th FA.

This all comes back to the previous points made by myself and some others. It is possible that some members of the service will not be able to accept openly-serving homosexuals. That is their problem. Eventually (and I don't think it will affect as many as some predict, nor take as long as feared) equilibrium will be attained again - as happened in Israel and the UK and everywhere else with non-discrimination policies.

Lastly, I know it's not the same - I'm not trusting them with my life except when they're spotting me on the bench - but I shower, fairly regularly, with gay guys at my gym. There are only the two locker rooms, and it seems to work out alright.


----------



## OldMilitary

Jovan, the point simply is that most straight women don't want to shower with straight men because they are different sexes, and society recognizes this and provides separate facilities. Now you could argue that both groups are "professional" and this shouldn't be a problem, but you would be laughed at and ignored.

Asterix this is the second time the marine General has expressed the opinion that things should stay the way they are.

FrankDC the general will obey orders as issued when they are issued or he will resign. That is certain, but he is obligated when asked to express his honest opinion.

IlliniFlyer, the article impressed me also. And it impressed at least one Post Commander very much.

FrankDC, you make two separate points. I will agree that if the men are showering and going to the toliet in private then there is little problem. I personally am working with that in mind, but sometimes the possibilities for privacy are limited.
Then you make a rather specious argument that I have heard over and over about homosexual and heterosexual men showering together now under DADT with no problem so why not let the homosexual men come out and continue showering together with the heterosexuals.
I will accept that you feel that would work. Will you accept my statement, as a straight man with over 25 years in ground combat, that I don't feel it will work. If the straights know for sure who the gays are, there will be great discomfort, resentment, and potentially violence. 
Probably the main problems would occur early on in training with the young soldiers (17 to 22), but the military life is in many ways like a pressure cooker. Things simmer and then from time to time boil over and you can't be sure when it will happen. I have seen "sober" 30 year olds going at each other like some kind of gang in a ghetto street. You add a little alcohol and things get much worse.
We have many problems with soldiers living together even in peacetime. During times of more tension like with active deployments, the problems multiply, and removing DADT would further worsen the situation, greatly in some instances. We can police the situation after the violence but that won't make for a very cohesive effective force. What it will make is a lot of sensational news stories about violence in our military, which will only make things worse.

As for your "groping" remark, I don't know if you are being sincere, or just being flippant. Still I am curious. What would you expect to happen if there was actually groping in a shower or elsewhere in a military barracks?

Flatline, you have a choice. Maybe those gay guys at the gym are your friends, maybe you don't care, maybe you don't even really know for sure, but you still have a choice. 
Soldiers don't in many cases.
To compare the US to Israel or the UK, or Denmark and elsewhere is foolish. I would point out the differences in rates of violent crime in the US and the EU, and Israel.
Now I will wait for you to claim that equilibrium will be attained one day and the violent deaths in the US will ebb to the level in the UK or elsewhere.

And now I will make my own personal quip. If the time comes when the homosexuals come out in force, and there are only two common showers in the area, then I personally will request to shower with the women, and I will just refer all the outraged folks to some of the arguments I have just heard here. _*e.g. "What is all the fuss? I didn't grope anyone."*_


----------



## flatline

OldMilitary said:


> And now I will make my own personal quip. If the time comes when the homosexuals come out in force, and there are only two common showers in the area, then I personally will request to shower with the women, and I will just refer all the outraged folks to some of the arguments I have just heard here. _*e.g. "What is all the fuss? I didn't grope anyone."*_


You could always say coed showering is the future - see _Starship Troopers_. (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_x7c1ka9ss2g/SkAGqBmHljI/AAAAAAAAcbc/LRzN8Y6X5LE/s400/01.jpg a bit NSFW)


----------



## flatline

OldMilitary said:


> To compare the US to Israel or the UK, or Denmark and elsewhere is foolish. I would point out the differences in rates of violent crime in the US and the EU, and Israel.
> Now I will wait for you to claim that equilibrium will be attained one day and the violent deaths in the US will ebb to the level in the UK or elsewhere.


Perhaps you are right. From what I can tell of the published statistics, the UK has a higher overall rate of 'violence against persons' per capita, although the US maintains a 2-3 times higher homicide rate. A cynic might say that in the US, at least we finish what we start.


----------



## Laxplayer

flatline said:


> You could always say coed showering is the future - see _Starship Troopers_. (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_x7c1ka9ss2g/SkAGqBmHljI/AAAAAAAAcbc/LRzN8Y6X5LE/s400/01.jpg a bit NSFW)


I also thought of Starship Troopers after reading this thread.


----------



## Jovan

Too bad it was such an awful movie, as are all of Paul Verhoeven's...


----------



## OldMilitary

Flatline, we will do what we have to do just as the Marine General will if the orders come. What we really want to do is to avoid violence in the ranks, and for myself this means particularly in the training of young recruits because that is where large common hygienic and living facilities are most common.

Some of my friends, real thinkers, who have been around even longer than I say that Obama will be very careful because if he does institute changes that result in real violence including deaths then he will end up looking very, very bad.

There will be those that scream because he made the changes that caused the problems, and there will be those who say the changes were good, but he didn't take enough care to avoid violence. Anyway he is aware of the risks is my understanding and he wants guarantees from the military that they can handle the changes with minimum problems.

So anyway the final opinion is that he will end up with doing one of those "public relations" things and will not go much beyond changing how and when gays are cashiered out. He will let the blame lie with an *archaic Military culture* that needs to be changed sometime in the future.


----------



## OldMilitary

Jovan,
Flatline,
Laxplayer,

I well remember that Starship Troopers movie. The first one I think with the popular song that wasn't very good.

Denise Richards was marvelous in that movie. But my favorite lady in that movie was the curly haired blonde, I think in the shower, and certainly in the love scene, who got killed. (Another good reason not to have the ladies in combat.)

Denise kept it covered up more back then.


----------



## Laxplayer

Jovan said:


> Too bad it was such an awful movie, as are all of Paul Verhoeven's...


It was pretty bad although I seem to always watch it when it comes on tv. It is more of a comedy to me with all of the bad acting. I watch Twister for the same reason.


----------



## OldMilitary

I rethought what I said, especially the way I said it.

Yes, President Obama will make some initial minor changes that won't really satisfy anyone except those of us (myself included) who are really worried about the safety of the troops. But those minor changes *will NOT just be cosmetic*, they will lay the groundwork for more extensive changes to be implemented later.

Those more extensive changes will concern changing the Spartan living conditions that have existed in some cases since WWII. Yes some of the temporary structures built for that war still exist.

We may need to train like Spartans, but we don't necessarily have to live like Spartans. It will mean directing money into better facilities and assigning more people (which is also more money) into managing these facilities and keeping our young men safe. Not just a few overworked Chaplains.

Once we move the men and ladies past the training stages, and acclimate them to the service, and also identify and deal with problem type people, it gets easier to have a cohesive group.

As a rule of thumb, as concerns discipline, I would say give me a 100 new men, let me deal with them a few months, remove 1 to 3 of them, discipline say a dozen, and educate a little maybe 3 dozen (total) we will have after 6 months (hopefully) of training maybe 95 (average) troops that are suitable for military life. This group of 95 men with reasonable privacy considerations would be able to handle openly gay men. When the combat factor comes in later, the number 95 will have to be readjusted downward. (We would have to study how to adjust things for a forward very Spartan type battle position.

Some will say that it doesn't matter, that the attention will be on staying alive in combat, but I would say that the stress would aggravate some men to be very dangerous to each other with the homosexual factor added in. We can't really tell in advance who would have the problem, just like we can't really tell who will have PTSD or who will return to the States and beat or kill their wife.

That factor doesn't include women by the way, since I am dealing with men that are primarily designated for combat. Women I understand bring about new factors, that I am glad I don't deal with.


----------



## Wildblue

This will not be the end of the US military. We've survived worse. But it WILL be a degradation of cohesion and force effectiveness.


----------



## Chouan

Wildblue said:


> This will not be the end of the US military. We've survived worse. But it WILL be a degradation of cohesion and force effectiveness.


Why? This hasn't been the case in armed forces where such changes have been put in place already.


----------



## MichaelS

OldMilitary said:


> Flatline, we will do what we have to do just as the Marine General will if the orders come. What we really want to do is to avoid violence in the ranks, and for myself this means particularly in the training of young recruits because that is where large common hygienic and living facilities are most common.
> 
> Some of my friends, real thinkers, who have been around even longer than I say that Obama will be very careful because if he does institute changes that result in real violence including deaths then he will end up looking very, very bad.
> 
> There will be those that scream because he made the changes that caused the problems, and there will be those who say the changes were good, but he didn't take enough care to avoid violence. Anyway he is aware of the risks is my understanding and he wants guarantees from the military that they can handle the changes with minimum problems.
> 
> So anyway the final opinion is that he will end up with doing one of those "public relations" things and will not go much beyond changing how and when gays are cashiered out. He will let the blame lie with an *archaic Military culture* that needs to be changed sometime in the future.


Many of the same arguments were used when Truman integrated the military. Now the military is one of the most successfully integrated organizations in the US (or elsewhere). Sexual violence aginst women in the military is already way too common. The need to protect troops already exists.


----------



## Wildblue

Chouan said:


> Why? This hasn't been the case in armed forces where such changes have been put in place already.


Well, there's only so far that it'd probably be wise for me to delve into this discussion, as my reasons would get FAR too contentious. I'll have to leave it at my original statement, that I think this would be a poor move that would degrade the military, not enhance its performance.

I do find it interesting that the vast majority of those who want gays in the military have never been in the military themselves.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Wildblue said:


> Well, there's only so far that it'd probably be wise for me to delve into this discussion, as my reasons would get FAR too contentious. I'll have to leave it at my original statement, that I think this would be a poor move that would degrade the military, not enhance its performance.


You are probably correct. I'd appreciate your thoughts on my posts #18, 25, 66, 74 and 93 however, I like to think they expreess our side of the subject in a non-confrontational way.


----------



## OldMilitary

*The scary and perplexing thing about this discussion on the internet*

The scary and perplexing thing about this discussion on the internet isn't that the Gays want to be fully integrated into the Military but that I have found as I researched the issues that they essentially are refusing to really address the issues of *privacy.*

We have addressed these issues with the women in the service, though as some have said the women still suffer a lot of abuse.

Why the Gays won't just say or agree with the idea that any privacy concerns can be addressed by some reasonable changing/enhancing and updating the privacy of the common facilities, i.e. hygienic (shower, lavatory, toilet) and bunking areas. This very thing has been announced by Secretary Gates for the Submarine Service so women can serve on board submarines.

I come back to that statement that I referenced earlier: *"Men don't shower with women!"* and will add a further one that I actually found over at www.palmcenter.org in a study where they quoted from a Royal British Marine: *"Men don't want to shower with men who want to shower with men."*

Again the usual argument given by the Gays (www.palmcenter.org and www.advocate.com and other places on the internet) against considering the needs for changes for privacy is that they already shower with men and there aren't any particular problems. 
I can only say to that that the Gays may know they are showering with straight men, but the straights usually don't know it except in some vague non-definite and usually non actionable way. 
But if readily identifiable gay men shower with straight men in a common shower or share a fairly open toilet area with straight men, there will be resentment and sometimes even hostility and violence.

Now real problems won't occur every time. It will depend on the individuals involved, the actual physical arrangements of the facilities, the amount of time the soldiers have been in service, the actual mission. 
For example, I see the most problems occurring with young soldiers in early training where unfortunately the worse facilities are usually found. 
But the older troops also can have problems.
Add a little alcohol to the situation, more problems.
Add bantering and ragging among the gays and among the straights and between the two groups no matter what the age and you can have a confrontation.

Yes we can police the situation but we can't be everywhere.

And one final thing. The integration of black and white races isn't near the problem of integrating sexes, and it is "sexes" that we are now discussing integrating. *Very very "different" Sexes!

*


----------



## Chouan

Wildblue said:


> Well, there's only so far that it'd probably be wise for me to delve into this discussion, as my reasons would get FAR too contentious. I'll have to leave it at my original statement, that I think this would be a poor move that would degrade the military, not enhance its performance.
> 
> I do find it interesting that the vast majority of those who want gays in the military have never been in the military themselves.


An assertion isn't an argument. I've already given evidence from the experience of the British Armed Forces; there has been no degradation of performance, and integration happened over 10 years ago. I'd like to see some kind of evidence to support your assertion that the US Military's performance will be degraded by this. Is the US Military so homophobic, or ignorant, or illeducated, or badly led, or asocial, that it can't manage it? I wouldn't like to think so.

What do you know about the backgrounds of those who can't see anything wrong with ay integration?


----------



## Wildblue

Chouan said:


> An assertion isn't an argument. I've already given evidence from the experience of the British Armed Forces; there has been no degradation of performance, and integration happened over 10 years ago. I'd like to see some kind of evidence to support your assertion that the US Military's performance will be degraded by this. Is the US Military so homophobic, or ignorant, or illeducated, or badly led, or asocial, that it can't manage it? I wouldn't like to think so.
> 
> What do you know about the backgrounds of those who can't see anything wrong with ay integration?


Oh, dear. If you read my posts, sir, you'll see that I am, in fact, NOT looking for an argument. If I can contribute my two cents by stating where I stand on the issue, then I shall. If you require argumentative reactions to your inciteful questions, I'll respectfully pass.

As for what I know of the backgrounds of those non-military people who advocate for homosexual people to be openly integrated into the military, I know absolutely nothing beyond one thing. I only know that they have no experience with the military, yet feel compelled to prescribe how the military should be composed.

WouldaShoulda, thanks for your reply! I'll take a look at your posts when I have a minute.

I'll also just say that I am, in fact, currently typing from a tent, next to the big tent where I'm currently bunked along with about 20 other guys in one space, down the row from the hut where we shower every morning next to however many people happen to be in there at the time. It's not some movie--this is the real world of military ops.


----------



## ksinc

*Eric Massa's Navy Files*

Glad to know _this_ _sort_ _of thing_ *doesn't happen* under DADT.



> According to Peter Clarke, a Navy shipmate, Massa was notorious for making unwanted advances toward subordinates. He tells the story of his friend Stuart Borsch, with whom Massa shared a hotel room while on leave during the first Gulf War. "Stuart's at the edge of the bed," Clarke says Borsch told him at the time, "and [Massa] starts massaging him. Massa said, 'You'll have to get one of my special massages.' He called them 'Massa Massages.'" Ron Moss, a Navy shipmate and Borsch's roommate, confirmed that Borsch told him this story at the time.
> 
> Borsch, now a history professor at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts, didn't addresss that specific incident, but did confirm to me in an email that he was groped by Massa: "In 1990, aboard the U.S.S. Jouett, I was awakened when a senior officer, Lt. Commander Massa, seemed to be groping me. (I was a lieutenant at the time.) I believe he may have been drinking. I shouted at him and he left. I mentioned the incident to several other officers. I did not officially report it."
> 
> Clarke says that Massa's roommate, Tom Maxfield, was also assaulted. "Tom lived on upper bunk," Clarke say. "When you're on ship, you're almost exhausted 24-7. So a lot of times you sleep with your uniform on. Tom and Massa shared a stateroom together. Massa climbed up on the top of his bunk, which is hard to do--you never crawl up on somebody else's bunk. He wakes up to Massa undoing his pants trying to snorkel him." Ron Moss also confirmed hearing this story from Maxfield. Maxfield did not return calls and messages left for him--I'll update if he does.
> 
> Massa's shipmates didn't turn him in for fear that he would retaliate. "He was a cocky guy, competent, but he saw himself as a future admiral," Moss told me. "It doesn't surprise me he wound up in Congress." When news of Dickert's dispute with Massa appeared in the Rochester, New York, Democrat-Chronicle in 2006, several of Massa's former shipmates considered coming forward. One of them referred to the dispute as "classic Massa" in an email that was forwarded to me. As Moss wrote to Borsch and Maxfield just before the 2006 election, when Massa first ran for Congress, "I think it is ironic that Massa is accusing this guy [Dickert] of the same thing he tried with you guys (and who knows how many others?) and I think it is pathetic that he would drag his own son into the fray in a public forum." In the end, the former shipmates did not go public with their stories.


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/eric-massas-navy-files/37309/

And all the better that Massa is a former-Republican that ran as a Democrat - neither side can blame the other for him.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

> ...trying to snorkel him."


:crazy:


----------



## ksinc

WouldaShoulda said:


> :crazy:


I think that was the pre-DADT term in 1990. :devil:


----------



## kbrown5523

*Facing God on Judgement Day*



WA said:


> Moses, more than 50 years ago, married a black women, according to Gods Word. Show me where God married two men or two women.
> 
> What counts is what God says to you on your judgement day before Him, not what men say upon this earth.


So, if that's what you believe, don't be gay. That is your choice and has nothing to do with anybody else.

Matthew 15
8 "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men."

This is exactly what it comes down to for me - Facing God on judgement day. I truly believe that it's what we do for eachother, not what we prevent others from doing, that we will be judged for.

Everything can be debated, so what it boils down to for me is will my actions hurt or help other people. Being gay does not hurt anyone, preventing gays from having full human rights is hurting gays. Every moral issue can be supported or not with any religion.

I would like to face God with what I did to help people, not what I did to prevent them from living a full and happy life.


----------



## Chouan

Wildblue said:


> Oh, dear. If you read my posts, sir, you'll see that I am, in fact, NOT looking for an argument. If I can contribute my two cents by stating where I stand on the issue, then I shall. If you require argumentative reactions to your inciteful questions, I'll respectfully pass.
> 
> As for what I know of the backgrounds of those non-military people who advocate for homosexual people to be openly integrated into the military, I know absolutely nothing beyond one thing. I only know that they have no experience with the military, yet feel compelled to prescribe how the military should be composed.
> 
> WouldaShoulda, thanks for your reply! I'll take a look at your posts when I have a minute.
> 
> I'll also just say that I am, in fact, currently typing from a tent, next to the big tent where I'm currently bunked along with about 20 other guys in one space, down the row from the hut where we shower every morning next to however many people happen to be in there at the time. It's not some movie--this is the real world of military ops.


So essentially, you don't care what anybody says, whatever the evidence may be, your opinion will stand.
Perhaps putting your fingers in your ears and singing would be a better option?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> So essentially, you don't care what anybody says, whatever the evidence may be, your opinion will stand.
> Perhaps putting your fingers in your ears and singing would be a better option?


Your paraphrasing skills need honing.

But the bullying tactics are spot on!!


----------



## eagle2250

^^
...and might I ask, Choun, where is the evidence to support opinions you have expressed herein? You have certainly offered a number of arguably broad and, as yet, unproven assertions regarding efforts to integrate Gays into the armed forces of several countries and you seem rather quick to offer clearly negative assumptions of the intellectual capacity, moral fortitude and quality of leadership of the US military forces. You can really talk the talk but have yet to "walk the talk," as that old adage goes. Have you ever really experienced life, outside of the classroom? 

WildBlue is presently serving in our Nations military and I and so many others have served. It seems interesting to note that those who have actually "walked the talk" (read that as, served) have reservations and feel we should tread slowly and carefully down this path; while those who have only watched from the bleacher (might I say, !Cheap) seats seem, from the words they have offered herein, so ready to claim implementation of these changes should be quick and easy. If you really think so, why not engineer yourself into a position where you could be part of the implementation and show us how easily it can be done.

With all the hot air drafts we seem to be witnessing herein, this would be a great place for Hang Gliding!


----------



## Chouan

I suggest that you read my profile. You'll find a more detailed resume of my career there.

As far as evidence and proof is concerned, my repeated argument is that Britain's armed forces have not suffered a decline in efficiency since our law was changed. The evidence is there to see every day on the news from Afghanistan.
My argument is that, if you, or others, argue that US Forces can't or won't integrate gay people into their ranks, like the Army, RAF and Royal Navy did 10 years ago, then I suggest that the problem lies with the US Forces' apparent inability to train, educate and lead. I further suggest that the reluctance to integrate gay people expressed here isn't to do with any real impact of such an intergration, but is a perception based on prejudice, not on evidence. It has happened without degradation of efficiency in HM Armed Forces. Why can't it be done in US Armed Forces?

Just as a secondary issue, seeing as you mention my current profession as a teacher, being a teacher and being gay was once thought to be an absolute taboo. Since openly gay people were allowed to be teachers there has been no rise in sexual abuse of students by teachers. In fact, incidents of sexual abuse overall have declined slightly. Heterosexual abuse has increased, however. There has been no increase in the number of gay people now than there 
were before the change in the law. So all the fears that gay people as teachers would abuse our kids, or teach them to be gay, have proved completely unfounded.

PS, this is me during the First Gulf War.
https://my.imageshack.us/v_images.php


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> As far as evidence and proof is concerned, my repeated argument is that Britain's armed forces have not suffered a decline in efficiency since our law was changed. The evidence is there to see every day on the news from Afghanistan.


This is far more compelling than your prior post. It's how it should work here.

I'm not convinced that successful, limited combat success w/some gays not excluded constitutes "proof" that the fighting force is somehow not diminished, however.

And besides, we aren't talking about excluding gays from service entirely, just the repeal of DADT.

(BTW~Image shack bocked me out.)


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> I suggest that you read my profile. You'll find a more detailed resume of my career there.
> 
> ... I further suggest that the reluctance to integrate gay people expressed here isn't to do with any real impact of such an intergration, but is a perception based on prejudice, not on evidence. It has happened without degradation of efficiency in HM Armed Forces. Why can't it be done in US Armed Forces?
> 
> PS, this is me during the First Gulf War.
> https://my.imageshack.us/v_images.php


Chouan: Acknowledging that I made some erroneous assumptions regarding your not having served in the military, as you suggested, I have looked at your resume of service and certainly commend you for your service to Great Britain. However, I continue to suspect the assertions you make, as to the relative ease of openly integrating gays into any nations military service, are dangerously overstated. Perhaps we are simply of different cultures and perhaps we Americans are of a somewhat more aggressive and rebellious lot but, my experience tells me that such a path of travel in the US military forces is indeed going to be a rough walk...certainly during it's beginning phases.

In the early years of my military career, I was commanding what is (these days) referred to as a "Force Protection" unit (just short of 400 very capable, macho young men; barely out of their twenties and many living in groups, under the same roof). One of our K-9 Handlers, who was very capable at his job, exhibited decidedly feminine characteristics. Not surprisingly, when the unit leadership (officers and NCOs) were not present, he was subjected to some pretty persistent teasing by his peers. One afternoon he snapped and went to his vehicle to get a tire iron from the trunk of his vehicle. He returned to the squadron day room and proceeded to use it on a number of the fellows, who had been teasing him. That day and those actions, served witness to the abrupt end to his military career and that of the five fellows who had been involved that day in teasing him. I still don't know if the fellow was actually gay or, as I suspect to be the case, simply grew up in a house filled with females and no other male mentors to guide his personality development but, he did serve time behind bars for his actions that day.

If the proper groundwork is not laid, prior to implementing changes suggested herein, people will get hurt and lives possibly lost; careers will be damaged and, to some degree, readiness will be affected, as WouldaShoulda states in the following quote. Contrary to your oft repeated assertion that those of us who oppose the immediate, perfunctory implementation of gays serving openly in the US military, I am not a prejudiced man but, I am one willing to acknowledge my limitations when it comes to producing miracles! Looking at a shadow box that hangs on the wall in my study and relying on my admittedly failing memory, it seems I wore the uniform for just four months short of 31 years and I must have been pretty competent at my military craft(?). As I have twice said earlier in this thread, make the change but, do it smartly and well. Don't shoot from the hip, on this issue and get people hurt!



WouldaShoulda said:


> This is far more compelling than your prior post. It's how it should work here.
> 
> I'm not convinced that successful, limited combat success w/some gays not excluded constitutes "proof" that the fighting force is somehow not diminished, however.
> 
> And besides, we aren't talking about excluding gays from service entirely, just the repeal of DADT.
> 
> (BTW~Image shack bocked me out.)


I also could not access the photo you referenced.


----------



## Chouan

Its a poor photo anyway! I'll try again when I have more time. I'll see if I can upload some others.
I rather resented the argument that supporting the integration of gay people into the US Armed Forces meant that either:
1) The person in favour can't have served in any armed forces, or
2) They must be gay themselves
and, 
3) as a teacher I'm somehow not qualified to speak. A classic militarist response to the opinion of a teacher. Can't do, teach.
Not all teachers went into teaching straight from school. 
Not only gay people speak up for the rights of gay people. 
Not only civilians speak up for the rights of gay people to serve their Country.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Chouan: As one who has contributed to some of the misunderstandings cited in your post above, allow me simply to add an additional observation. Really good, wise and dedicated teachers, particularly those who have been seasoned by life experiences, stand to have a much more positive and lasting impact on society through the influence they have on the charges in their classroom, than might the professional soldier, who exists, it seems, to resolve the worlds cultural differences, sadly, in the most violent and prejudicial fashion. It seems a lot like standing in the supermarket and hearing over the loudspeaker, "Clean-up, in aisle five!" 

These days I think our world has far more professional soldiers (gay or straight) in it, than should be necessary, and far too few good teachers!


----------



## Wildblue

Chouan said:


> So essentially, you don't care what anybody says, whatever the evidence may be, your opinion will stand.
> Perhaps putting your fingers in your ears and singing would be a better option?


Quite the contrary, sir. I am always open to changing my mind if my experiences and learned knowledge overcome a previous conclusion. I have roughly studied some historical examples of this topic, have extensive background on theory and practice of military organization, and 17 years and counting of current experience I draw upon for my present conclusion until I am swayed otherwise. I welcome further information that might change that.

I'm not looking to change anyone's mind, only tried to state my own opinion for input to the discussion. I believed this section to be one where fellow members could respectfully state opinions without poking each other in the eye for arguments. As it's not, I'll gladly read the posts here to be better informed on the topic, but will respectfully decline to be drawn into a fight.


----------



## Cruiser

eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps we are simply of different cultures and perhaps we Americans are of a somewhat more aggressive and rebellious lot


I think that you've hit the nail on the head. Gallup polls have shown a significantly more liberal attitude toward homosexuality and gay rights in both Great Britain and Canada than in the United States. Accordingly it will make it much more difficult to successfully implement this policy in the U.S. than in those countries.

I learned this first hand when many years ago a Japanese company opened a factory in my community. There was this big hoopla about how managers in this company would wear the same clothing (uniforms?) as the assembly line workers and would be situated on the floor rather than in private offices. This didn't work as well with American workers and managers as it had in Japan.

Why? The Japanese plan was modeled on a caste system that was still very much alive in Japan. Managers derived their authority more from their family background than they did from their job. They didn't need fancy suits and private offices to solidify their status. The Japanese weren't familiar with the concept of an assembly line worker telling the boss to go stick it where the sun doesn't shine, something that Americans have been known to occasionally do. :icon_smile_big:

Clearly we need to recognize our cultural differences when we comment on the impact of something like this in a group other than our own.

Cruiser


----------



## lovemeparis

*My father was a soldier...*



eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps we are simply of different cultures and perhaps we Americans are of a somewhat* more aggressive and rebellious lot*.


Eagle, You can count me in for that:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Chouan: As one who has contributed to some of the misunderstandings cited in your post above, allow me simply to add an additional observation. Really good, wise and dedicated teachers, particularly those who have been seasoned by life experiences, stand to have a much more positive and lasting impact on society through the influence they have on the charges in their classroom, than might the professional soldier, who exists, it seems, to resolve the worlds cultural differences, sadly, in the most violent and prejudicial fashion. It seems a lot like standing in the supermarket and hearing over the loudspeaker, "Clean-up, in aisle five!"
> 
> These days I think our world has far more professional soldiers (gay or straight) in it, than should be necessary, and far too few good teachers!


Thanks for those positive comments about my current profession. I always describe myself, if my pupils ask me, as a Historian who teaches History, rather than a teacher who teaches History.....


----------



## DukeGrad

*Teachers*

Gentlemen

Chouan. I admire that you teach history. This is a subject that is being let go, our history so to say.
I saw a bumper sticker one day. It said if you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a soldier.
Regarding profession my friend. I firmly believe that the military, will always be a profession.
I practice medicine. We have a whole conglomerate of all the profession in the military.
One time some Army General, or Marine can not remember.
He stated in a speech about being asked what he did for a living.
He said that his profession was that of a soldier.
This one speech he gave helped me to realize that I was a soldier, and in retirement, I still am a soldier.
This feeling is automatic, just like bearing.
This mass of soldiers, you will never take the profession out of.
It is a combination of many things that is learned over time.
Again, this being a profession I just can not see where it will help in this gay issue.
On the other hand, the gay issue is there, and gay soldiers are serving proudly.
Long story short, we need to leave this issue alone, and it will be fine.
Nice day my friends


----------



## JDC

Cruiser said:


> I think that you've hit the nail on the head. Gallup polls have shown a significantly more liberal attitude toward homosexuality and gay rights in both Great Britain and Canada than in the United States. Accordingly it will make it much more difficult to successfully implement this policy in the U.S. than in those countries.


Not sure which polls you're referring to, but a clear majority of Americans favor gay rights in virtually all cases. And a majority now understand homosexuality is an orientation and not a moral issue:

https://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm


----------



## Cruiser

FrankDC said:


> Not sure which polls you're referring to, but a clear majority of Americans favor gay rights in virtually all cases.


I said nothing about whether or not a majority of Americans favor gay rights. What I said was that polls show a more liberal attitude about gay rights in Great Britain than in the U.S.. I think that if you look at polls for the British population asking the same questions that were asked in the polls that you posted you will find the acceptance level to be quite a bit higher.

You read something into my post that I didn't say.

Cruiser


----------



## OldMilitary

I think it was in my last post I said it was "scary" that Gays (and I should add a lot of their non gay supporters) didn't seem to be interested in the Privacy issues I have raised here and others have raised elsewhere.

I don't have much time but let me address Britain which has been discussed over and over.
Britain integrated Gays because of the EU's Equal Rights legislation and requirements.
Britain seems to be doing ok with it as far as I know with their relatively small defense force. A fine one, but small. But I honestly don't know what they did with their showers and toilets. Maybe they already had more genteel gentlemanly type privacy arrangements. I like Brits, but I am not one.

Now let me float this toward you Brave New Worlders who think the US should just take heed of and follow blindly the leadership of Britain in this matter. (Forget the Colonies now.)

*Should we also take away the handguns from America's Policemen, Sheriff Deputies, Highway Patrolmen, Border Patrol, etc. so as to also follow the leadership and example of Britain?*

I think that is *laughable*. America for better and for worse IS NOT Britain.

Now if it is politically necessary, that is if Washington and the American Public want the US Military to be integrated with all matter of people from the sexually diverse to the religiously unusual (I think Wiccans at one of our Academy's here for example.) as well as the mental and physical extremes, well then we, the US Military, always Ready and Able, can do it on any timetable that is presented, *but* unless you want dead, maimed, imprisoned and essentially ruined people on your conscience and reduced fighting effectiveness as well, we had best take our time and see what works.

And another warning. If this is rushed and turns into a disaster as could happen if just a half a dozen people seem to go nuts, as has happened in the past already, then progress in Gay integration in the US Military would be delayed much more than by any slow careful and cautious proceedings would delay it.

(redid that last sentence)


----------



## JDC

Cruiser said:


> I said nothing about whether or not a majority of Americans favor gay rights. What I said was that polls show a more liberal attitude about gay rights in Great Britain than in the U.S.. I think that if you look at polls for the British population asking the same questions that were asked in the polls that you posted you will find the acceptance level to be quite a bit higher.
> 
> You read something into my post that I didn't say.
> 
> Cruiser


You said:

"Gallup polls have shown a significantly more liberal attitude toward homosexuality and gay rights in both Great Britain and Canada than in the United States. Accordingly it will make it much more difficult to successfully implement this policy in the U.S. than in those countries."

Time will soon tell whether that's correct, but stating it as a given is absurd. DADT mandates secrecy and dishonesty, and I think it's common sense that repealing it will turn out to be a complete non-issue, or something very close to it.


----------



## Cruiser

FrankDC said:


> You said:
> 
> "Gallup polls have shown a significantly more liberal attitude toward homosexuality and gay rights in both Great Britain and Canada than in the United States.


I know that's what I said, and in response you said,

"Not sure which polls you're referring to, but a clear majority of Americans favor gay rights in virtually all cases."

Again, I said nothing about what a "majority" favors. I simply said that there is a more liberal attitude toward gay issues in Great Britain than in the U.S.. That means that the minority that is opposed to gay rights in GB is smaller than the minority that is opposed in the U.S..

I think that if you review polls taken in GB asking the same questions you will find that the favorable opinions run about 10-15 percentage points higher than in the U.S.. That's what I meant about GB being more liberal. In other words, the majority in the U.S. can be in favor of gay rights but still be less of a majority than in the British population.

Like I said, you read something into my post that just wasn't there.

Cruiser


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

eagle2250 said:


> In the early years of my military career, I was commanding what is (these days) referred to as a "Force Protection" unit .....K-9 Handler


USAF CSP?


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Yes!


----------



## OldMilitary

*The beat (cadence) goes on!*

Things are heating up.

Some Generals aren't being shrinking violets. They are stepping up and being heard though there is pressure on them to sit down and shut up.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/marine-general-says-hed-gays-separate-rooms/

One possibility I have heard is to have the Gays and the Lesbians bunk together though I would expect they would have to agree with that. The other possibility is to bunk solo (individual room.) Bases will have to be changed. Of course in the field it would be a double problem.

But anyway, the main idea is to keep the "Identified" Gays and the Straight men apart "for Unit Cohesiveness." [Read that in a very quiet and low tone as "for safety."]

The www.advocate.com and the www.palmcenter.org have mainly indicated in what I have read that they would have some problems with that course of action.

https://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/26/Conway_Wants_Gay_and_Straight_Troops_Segregated/

.


----------



## DukeGrad

*Gays*

Gentlemen

Almost 400 post about gays in the military. I believe a waste.
I know the military has been rock solid all along, before this all became a big deal with our politics.
They have been serving proudly, before many of us were born. And much longer.
Not much was done with the acceptance of blacks/hispanics and women. And all religions.
I know some are retired military here and may appreciate what I am saying.
I dont know gentlemen, it just seems like a waste of life.
The simple fact my friends, we are talking about human beings.
Why we discussing something stupid as separate showers , or bunks? My God my friends!
I know there are dumb soldiers or whatever, and leaders of them who cant accept reality.
These my friends, are the problem, those that do not care for another human, should be thrown out of the military, instead of worrying about gays.
Again, I would rather see those who hate humans, be thrown out of the military. I have met my share.

Anyway, instead of wasting your time here, get on the NCAA tourney forum and boost my Duke up some, instead of worrying about the military!

Nice day friends


----------



## Cruiser

DukeGrad said:


> instead of wasting your time here, get on the NCAA tourney forum and boost my Duke up some


OK, but you aren't going to like it. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## DukeGrad

*OK*

God hated to see Kentucky go my friend.
Again, no matter what 2 teams that play intense hoop are those 2, Duke and Kentucky.
Why I have no idea.
Nice day


----------



## Sebjames

I tried to make it through all 390 posts, but only got about 8 pages in. The amount of ignorance about homosexuals openly serving in the military saddens me. I'm not so sure why they would need separate bunks, showers, etc. There have been gays in the military all along. Just because they are allowed to talk about who they date or go home to, doesn't make them a threat to your own sexualty, or the morale of the unit.
It seems like some people here honestly believe gay men would pounce on any man within reach....are you really that foolish? Are you in such poor command of your sexuality, you can't be trusted among women? If so, then you're a sexual predator, and there is no room in the military for sexual predators of any orientation.


----------



## JAGMAJ

Sebjames said:


> I tried to make it through all 390 posts, but only got about 8 pages in. The amount of ignorance about homosexuals openly serving in the military saddens me. I'm not so sure why they would need separate bunks, showers, etc. There have been gays in the military all along. Just because they are allowed to talk about who they date or go home to, doesn't make them a threat to your own sexualty, or the morale of the unit.
> It seems like some people here honestly believe gay men would pounce on any man within reach....are you really that foolish? Are you in such poor command of your sexuality, you can't be trusted among women? If so, then you're a sexual predator, and there is no room in the military for sexual predators of any orientation.


So, you're saying that men and women in the military should share showers and sleeping facilities? In that case, I don't think the problem would be with men not thinking that they could restrain themselves, but rather, with the women's discomfort with being exposed to the men.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Don't Ask, Don't Tell stems from the concept that it's not the military's concern what a Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine's sexual orientation is. It is inconsequential to the performance of their duties.

Who an American is attracted to, is quite frankly is irrelevant to how well they protect their country.

DADT was a first step in bringing the military into "modern society's" view regarding sexuality. Sooner or later, the remainder of it will disappear as well. It may not be with this president, but it will happen. Fighting it, is like fighting an avalanche.

It won't end the military, because nothing can end the military. There's no exit clause, other than letting your contract run out per normal. For most folks, a change in policy will mean absolutely nothing because it will have absolutely no effect on them. For a select few, there will be long term repercussions as they discover that just because a soldier is gay, doesn't mean that solider didn't pay attention during combat training, and isn't just likely to defend himself at the first sign of trouble. And I'm guessing his buddies won't let some shortsighted bigoted bastard push him around just because.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Sebjames said:


> I tried to make it through all 390 posts, but only got about 8 pages in. The amount of ignorance about homosexuals openly serving in the military saddens me.
> 
> It seems like some people here honestly believe gay men would pounce on any man within reach....are you really that foolish? Are you in such poor command of your sexuality, you can't be trusted among women? If so, then you're a sexual predator....


Just read posts 3, 18 and 25. There is no pouncing mentioned. No religion. Just the facts about building an effective killing machine.

Being in perfect command of my sexuality, I could be trusted with women in a combat role or in a submarine, but I would just as certainly be distracted!! Such a distraction is healthy and normal. It is no more of a "disease" to be punished as being gay is.

But if the intent of combat or submarine duty is to seek and destroy an enemy, distractions to that goal have been and should continue to be eliminated.


----------



## eagle2250

Apatheticviews said:


> ....
> 
> It won't end the military, because nothing can end the military. There's no exit clause, other than letting your contract run out per normal. For most folks, a change in policy will mean absolutely nothing because it will have absolutely no effect on them. For a select few, there will be long term repercussions as they discover that just because a soldier is gay, doesn't mean that solider didn't pay attention during combat training, and isn't just likely to defend himself at the first sign of trouble. And I'm guessing his buddies won't let some shortsighted bigoted bastard push him around just because.


You seem to miss the point that the crux of the challenge of Gays serving openly in the military is not how they or their straight fellows perform during field operations but rather, how they conduct themselves when in garrison. Good soldiers, sailors and airmen are young, aggressive and...perhaps unfortunately, tempestuous of mind and emotion. When the sh*t hits the fan during field operations, prejudices regarding race, gender religion, and yes, even sexual orientation, go out the window and group animus is directed at the enemy. However, put that same group of young men and women back in their barracks. The demands for their attentions and energies to be perfectly focused are not quite so great. boredom builds, and eventually the troubles begin.

It is always wise to get very familiar with the nature of the beast, which you intend to try to tame!


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> You seem to miss the point that the crux of the challenge of Gays serving openly in the military is not how they or their straight fellows perform during field operations but rather, how they conduct themselves when in garrison. Good soldiers, sailors and airmen are young, aggressive and...perhaps unfortunately, tempestuous of mind and emotion. When the sh*t hits the fan during field operations, prejudices regarding race, gender religion, and yes, even sexual orientation, go out the window and group animus is directed at the enemy. However, put that same group of young men and women back in their barracks. The demands for their attentions and energies to be perfectly focused are not quite so great. boredom builds, and eventually the troubles begin.
> 
> It is always wise to get very familiar with the nature of the beast, which you intend to try to tame!


I don't miss the crux at all.

The US military has little if no tolerance for harassment, hazing, bullying, and other unprofessional behavior. The military is first and foremost a PROFESSIONAL organization, and the second even a "scent" that someone is violating another soldiers' civil rights (race, religion, gender, and soon to be sexual orientation), it will be like the hand of God himself coming down itself.

It will only take a few quick instances for the idiots to realize that such behavior will not not tolerated. In the modern US military, if you are a racist/sexist, you will not survive. Count my words, some knucklehead will use a slur, and lose his commission or stripes over it, just as it happened in the past. It's just a different minority group now.

Those who can't abide by it will either not join, will find themselves one rank lower, or out of the service completely, while the vast majority will continue on holding the *same opinion* they had the day before.

But let me as you a question. Do you think that someone assaulting any member of the military would get away with it? Do you think the excuse "he's a ****!" would fly for one second? I'm willing to bet that soldier's ass would be toast before the ACLU even knew what happened.


----------



## eagle2250

Apatheticviews said:


> I don't miss the crux at all.
> 
> The US military has little if no tolerance for harassment, hazing, bullying, and other unprofessional behavior. The military is first and foremost a PROFESSIONAL organization, and the second even a "scent" that someone is violating another soldiers' civil rights (race, religion, gender, and soon to be sexual orientation), it will be like the hand of God himself coming down itself.
> .....
> But let me as you a question. Do you think that someone assaulting any member of the military would get away with it? Do you think the excuse "he's a ****!" would fly for one second? I'm willing to bet that soldier's ass would be toast before the ACLU even knew what happened.


Please refer to my post #376 to this thread, for at least a partial answer to your question.

While a lapse in discipline will never be tolerated, the reality remains that we specifically target aggressive and dominant, yet emotionally stable, personalities for inclusion on our combat crews. The reality remains that the personality traits that equate to optimal performance in the field can be more difficult to manage when the pace of operations slows down...but, managed, they must be!


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> Please refer to my post #376 to this thread, for at least a partial answer to your question.
> 
> While a lapse in discipline will never be tolerated, the reality remains that we specifically target aggressive and dominant, yet emotionally stable, personalities for inclusion on our combat crews. The reality remains that the personality traits that equate to optimal performance in the field can be more difficult to manage when the pace of operations slows down...but, managed, they must be!


We don't target aggressive & dominant personalties anymore though. We haven't for years. It's part of the "All volunteer force" mindset, and you'll notice the shift in advertising from "we do more before 7am" to "pay for college" that has happened over the last ten years. The military is subset of the community, and a representation of the community.

The modern military is far less "aggressive" in nature than it was even 10 years ago. The USMC "recently" changed its rules on tattooing, and visible tattoo are all but forbidden. Hazing is a thing of the past. In garrison operations are much more like "office work" than the days of the past. These are not "boys" but grown men. The standards to become a member of the military far exceed what the average person on the street thinks, not just on a physical level, but on a mental, and emotional level as well. Everyone is tested before they make it to bootcamp. If they don't pass, they don't get on the bus...

But your argument is not about Gays ability to serve but Straights ability to serve. Gays are already serving. DADT allows that in it's current capacity. It just does it in the same capacity that a firing squad functions. No one really knows a definitive answer.

If your opposition is to Gays serving, you've already lost. It's already a law. If your opposition is to Gays serving openly, the President, and his appointed counsel have stated they want to overturn DADT. It's just a matter of time.

I'm not calling the policy right/wrong/indifferent, but I am saying it will have little to no effect on the actual military. It's a profession organization, which will be affected by a minor policy change like any other. It will make changes as needed, and carry on. The average soldier will retain his personal opinion regarding gays in the military, and not do a thing in deviance from official regulation. Those that do will meet the consequences. Those that do it first will be examples.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> We don't target aggressive & dominant personalties anymore though. We haven't for years. It's part of the "All volunteer force" mindset, and you'll notice the shift in advertising from "we do more before 7am" to "pay for college" that has happened over the last ten years. The military is subset of the community, and a representation of the community.


You have correctly identified the declining state of our military. The proposed repeal of DADT is not it's cause, but mearly symptomatic of that decline along with recruiting old men and installing women on combat vessels.

When training and deploying 100s of thousands is again required, especially in light of the recent announced intent to further limit our potential use of tactical nukes, I am concerned that a deminished and sanitized military will be unprepared.

I am even more concerned that the deminished and sanitized military is becoming so on purpose as part of a larger agenda.

That, and fluorodated water!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> You have correctly identified the declining state of our military. The proposed repeal of DADT is not it's cause, but mearly symptomatic of that decline along with recruiting old men and installing women on combat vessels.
> 
> When training and deploying 100s of thousands is again required, especially in light of the recent announced intent to further limit our potential use of tactical nukes, I am concerned that a deminished and sanitized military will be unprepared.
> 
> I am even more concerned that the deminished and sanitized military is becoming so on purpose as part of a larger agenda.
> 
> That, and fluorodated water!!


I think it was Heinlein who said it best.. Paraphrasing, so please don't knock me on the quote...

"Any society who doesn't put the protection of women and children first is doomed to failure."

The US military is the strongest in the strongest in the world. Despite what some say is a "decline." By doctrine it is able to conduct war in two theatres, while conducting "minor" operations in a third. We're doing that now. We're doing it effectively.

I doubt we will ever get to the point where selective service registration (aka Draft) is actually used again, because we just don't need it. The advent of nuclear weapons (and our possession of them) really does prevent a third world war (at least one involving mass ground combat, pre-apocalypse). So we now have Professional Warriors, instead of the Citizen Soldiers of yesteryear.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> I doubt we will ever get to the point where selective service registration (aka Draft) is actually used again, because we just don't need it.
> 
> The advent of nuclear weapons (and our possession of them) really does prevent a third world war (at least one involving mass ground combat, pre-apocalypse). So we now have Professional Warriors, instead of the Citizen Soldiers of yesteryear.


We needed it in Iraq II. If we had 500k+ cambat troops for occupation immediately it would have been far less likely we would have needed a "surge" at all.

I get your point however, I simply prefer to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

"Needed" is a matter of opinion. They instituted Stop-loss as soon as it happened, and it worked well. Between that and mobilization of reserve personnel, we had sufficient force for the operations in theatre. 

But drafting seldom works. War by its very nature is political. The draft removes a choice from a select portion of the populace (males, age 18-25), whereas those who are in the military have chosen to be there of their own free will.

The issue with Iraq is that we are fighting insurgents vice an actual mobilized army. THe actual war was over immediately. We had that done quickly, and likely could have been done with two troops of boy scouts with a single howitzer. It's the long term stabilization of the region which is the hard bit, which is going to take ten years, and has nothing to do with the military itself, but the Dept of State, and just maintaining a military presence (raw numbers). Object lessons from Korea & Japan.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> But drafting seldom works.


Drafting has always worked.

It may have been unpopular from the Civil War to Vietnam, but it worked!!

In these examples I think the greatest objection was to any real or appearent unfairness in it's application, not to an actual draft itself.

Eliminate commutation and deferrments and you have yourself grunts on the ground in sufficient numbers when and where you need them.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> Drafting has always worked.
> 
> It may have been unpopular from the Civil War to Vietnam, but it worked!!
> 
> In these examples I think the greatest objection was to any real or appearent unfairness in it's application, not to an actual draft itself.
> 
> Eliminate commutation and deferrments and you have yourself grunts on the ground in sufficient numbers when and where you need them.


The ACLU would poke holes through a draft in a heartbeat if they tried to push one through today. From Sex discrimination to Age discrimination, the government would be locked up pretty quick. Not to mention all the deferments you mention. The fact that we still have a selective service registration is merely a carryover of a bygone era. Vietnam was the last "Draft" war, because it was really the first war where the American people were not fully behind the government's stance. The "all volunteer force" is at complete odds with a draft. Can't have both.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> The ACLU would poke holes through a draft in a heartbeat if they tried to push one through today.


Zounds!!

That will be the day it IS the end of the US military!!

Thus, ic12337: to the ACLU!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> Zounds!!
> 
> That will be the day it IS the end of the US military!!
> 
> Thus, ic12337: to the ACLU!!


Yar. They managed to get female fighter pilots though, and females in combat zones, even though there was a law that specifically forbade "females in combat."


----------



## Cruiser

Apatheticviews said:


> The ACLU would poke holes through a draft in a heartbeat if they tried to push one through today.


We don't need a draft per se. What we need is some type of national service that is required of all young folks upon graduation from high school or attainment of age 18. This could involve anything from picking up trash to working in National Parks, road crews, etc., for a period of 18-24 months for a small wage plus room and board. For those who would prefer to do their national service in the military, this could be an option.

Personally I believe that there would be no shortage of macho young guys who would elect to serve in the military rather than pick up trash, not to mention more than a few young women. This way nobody is being forced to serve in the military.

Cruiser


----------



## Apatheticviews

The national service outlined in Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" comes to mind. However, it is hard to say we "need" it when for the last 225+ years we haven't had it.

It is essentially suggesting a "prison sentence" for citizenry for which many peoples grandparents did not have to pay.

Our own Declaration of Independence & Constitution essentially state that the rights we have are God given, and not subject to service. We have them as a birthright, and although military/national service is an honor, it is not a requirement.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Alas, far to many our our citizens seem to feel the way that you have expressed in the above post...a democracy works, only when the citizenry participates and gives something back for the betterment of the order!



> Apatheticviews;1083038]We don't target aggressive & dominant personalties anymore though...
> 
> 
> 
> I do hope you are in error with your assumption and that our training processes screen out those that are insufficiently aggressive to properly carry out their assignments.
> 
> "The modern military is far less "aggressive" in nature than it was even 10 years ago. The USMC "recently" changed its rules on tattooing, and visible tattoo are all but forbidden. Hazing is a thing of the past. In garrison operations are much more like "office work" than the days of the past. These are not "boys" but grown men. The standards to become a member of the military far exceed what the average person on the street thinks, not just on a physical level, but on a mental, and emotional level as well. Everyone is tested before they make it to bootcamp. If they don't pass, they don't get on the bus..."
> 
> Again, I do hope you are wrong in your conclusions. Otherwise, success on the battlefield is but a quickly fading memory. As to the enhanced standards of selection you refer to, I guess that explains the academic standards the Army temporarily waived and the criminal history standards the USMC and the Dept of the Army waived, so as to be able to meet recruiting goals over the past three years. Oh, and how about the active gang members that have been identified as members of various units, within four of our five uniformed services. The only uniformed service that has as yet not been tagged with this embarrassment is the US Coast guard! I guess we still have a bit of work to do, to insure the proper application of those selection standards! :icon_scratch:
> 
> "If your opposition is to Gays serving, you've already lost. It's already a law. If your opposition is to Gays serving openly, the President, and his appointed counsel have stated they want to overturn DADT. It's just a matter of time."
> 
> You have either not read my posts on this issue or you are grossly misrepresenting my position on the issue. I am not opposed to Gays serving, nor am I saying the President or his minions cannot change DADT! I have said that all citizens should be able to serve and also said that, any change or repeal of the DADT policy should be done smartly and not overly quickly and stupidly. Quick and stupid, in an effort to achieve a political end, will get people hurt careers damaged and combat readiness potentially and temporarily put in jeopardy!
> 
> "I'm not calling the policy right/wrong/indifferent, but I am saying it will have little to no effect on the actual military. It's a profession organization, which will be affected by a minor policy change like any other. It will make changes as needed, and carry on. The average soldier will retain his personal opinion regarding gays in the military, and not do a thing in deviance from official regulation. Those that do will meet the consequences. Those that do it first will be examples."
> 
> "Those that do it first will be examples." Well golly, it appears that someone has an axe to grind!
> 
> 
> 
> Apatheticviews said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACLU would poke holes through a draft in a heartbeat if they tried to push one through today. From Sex discrimination to Age discrimination, the government would be locked up pretty quick. Not to mention all the deferments you mention. The fact that we still have a selective service registration is merely a carryover of a bygone era. Vietnam was the last "Draft" war, because it was really the first war where the American people were not fully behind the government's stance. The "all volunteer force" is at complete odds with a draft. Can't have both.
> 
> 
> 
> The ACLU...the same organization that is presently providing a legal defense for three individuals charged under the "Stolen Valor" statute who respectively claimed that they were a retired marine who had won the Medal of Honor, an Annapolis graduate who had served in the Pentagon on 9/11 and received a Silver Star for Valor and Purple Heart for actions during the Battle of Fallujah and (the third individual) attending a public function dressed as a Major General, sporting two Distinguished Service Crosses, a Silver Star, a Purple Heart and the Combat Infantryman's Badge, with two campaign stars. Only one of the three had served for any period of time in any military capacity and that was for two years in a National Guard Unit. The ACLU seems to think the charges brought against them is a violation of their "freedom of speech and expression!" Unbelievable!
> 
> You really should choose those you put on a pedestal more carefully.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Apatheticviews

I place neither the ACLU nor the NRA on a pedestal however I do acknowledge both organizations have enough political clout and resources to create problems in Washington if they desire. What's important is they have the ability to get word to the People when issues come up. The government serves the People, not the other way around. 

The ACLU has it's issues. I have many disagrements with it as an organization, however only a fool wouldn't be wary if he got a phone call stating they were on line 1 and would like to speak to him.


----------



## Relayer

Apatheticviews said:


> The national service outlined in Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" comes to mind. However, it is hard to say we "need" it when for the last 225+ years we haven't had it.
> 
> It is essentially suggesting a "prison sentence" for citizenry for which many peoples grandparents did not have to pay.
> 
> Our own Declaration of Independence & Constitution essentially state that the rights we have are God given, and not subject to service. We have them as a birthright, and although military/national service is an honor, it is not a requirement.


Mostly agree with you here.

I'm very much against the government forcing (or anything approaching that) citizens into public service. Public service, especially military service, is an honorable thing. It becomes much less so when it is forced upon the people.


----------



## OldMilitary

It is easy for me to say and then explain that there is a lot of confusion among the people advocating a repeal of DADT when those people haven't served in the Military.

But it is much harder for me to have to explain why those people who are in the Service now or who have been in the Service also take positions for repealing DADT. No one is surprised when a politician takes a political stance, and sure I can explain that to be a General you have to be selected by the President and confirmed by the Congress. Also promotion may be a goal for the lower ranks where their superiors are promoting "equality" in every way. I have run into that as concerns whether women really passed the "normal" training proficiency tests, or whether those tests were changed so they could pass. I have had people looking straight at me and saying what was untrue and being backed up by their superiors. Essentially ignoring the stink in the room, and saying everything smells nice and what the hell is wrong with you claiming otherwise.

I have really thought about it a lot for I have had to explain it a lot recently.

The truth is that the politically (and mostly publicly) correct thing to do is to have no limits on what Gays can do in the military. That said, the liberals and the ACLU types and a lot of politicians will smile and clap and say "Well Done."

Then when I say that it is _*also the politically correct thing*_ to consider the needs of Straights (as well as Gays by the way) for privacy in bunking, in hygienic facilities, etc., just like there is for women now, then the Gays, as exemplified by articles and writings in Gay news outlets such as "The Advocate," "The Palm Center" and "365 Gay," seem to get upset and say there should be no special privacy for Straights. They make statements like: "That is ridiculous and will undermine cohesion."

Personally I think the ACLU and most the politicians will go along with "privacy" for everyone, but I don't know what the liberals in general will do.

When I then say that yes the old "cohesion" will be somewhat diminished, though that is already a foregone conclusion if you abolish DADT, but that making new privacy adjustments will *prevent even more disruption* to cohesion by preventing terrible incidents from happening where people are hurt, killed and lives are ruined, these same people, that want to do away with DADT, seem to say that "Rules," the rules of the Military, the rules of the American Justice system, the rules of common decency will prevent anything like that from happening in a good American Institution like the Military and the the Law will take care of the *few* _*malefactors *_that might break the rules.
I can only point to the non-ideal society that we live in and the discipline and criminal problems in that society, which are actually compounded in Military life. I can only point to young girls that hang themselves because of bullying and coerced rape in public schools, and many other terrible things and say that we don't live in a perfect world. Having a Rule is one thing. Having people abide by Rules is another.

Indeed if we did live in a perfect world we wouldn't need the military. Policemen would direct traffic, and find lost children and old people. The only people that would carry guns would be the Wild Life agents that had to take care of a mean bear that escaped the park, or the occasional pet Chimp that went nuts and ate someone's face.

Perhaps the time has come to repeal DADT, but if that is the case, then we will have to adjust to new norms of military life and capability. Indeed to have the same capability as before, the new Military will have to be larger for it will not be as efficient and as effective.

If that is what the President, the Congress, and the American public want, then the US Military will grit it's teeth and snap to.


----------



## beherethen

What I find interesting in all this is that we have the Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and the White House. All they would have to do to end this debate, is the add gender preference to some of the EEOC rules and the mater would be done, as could Gay marriage. It could be done in an afternoon, yet they don't do it and yet gays blame their problems on Republicans.
As for the draft, I rarely find people that would be subject to it in favor of it. It's always the exempt that find this a good idea. It always seems to be old people saying "yeah-send these punks out to the front lines". If we have to have the damned thing I think everyone should be subject to it and the cannon fodder jobs should be given out by lottery, even for the sons of the powerful like Al Gore.

As an aside the military for the first time has given up the bayonet and is changing it's training 
https://www.military.com/news/article/army-drops-bayonets-in-training-revamp.html?ESRC=recruiting.nl

Times are a changing.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

beherethen said:


> If we have to have the damned thing I think everyone should be subject to it and the cannon fodder jobs should be given out by lottery, even for the sons of the powerful ....


Yep.

Two years.

No exceptions.

That would be fair.

BTW~Why does anyone think the ACLU would object to compulsory service if they don't object to compusory health insurance??


----------



## Svenn

Apatheticviews said:


> Our own Declaration of Independence & Constitution essentially state that the rights we have are God given, and not subject to service. We have them as a birthright, and although military/national service is an honor, it is not a requirement.





eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Alas, far to many our our citizens seem to feel the way that you have expressed in the above post...a democracy works, only when the citizenry participates and gives something back for the betterment of the order!





Relayer said:


> Mostly agree with you here.
> 
> I'm very much against the government forcing (or anything approaching that) citizens into public service. Public service, especially military service, is an honorable thing. It becomes much less so when it is forced upon the people.


This debate is one of the central paradoxes of government, and no one should pretend like there is an easy answer to it.

The Declaration of Independence states that government is put into place to protect our rights to life and liberty, yet should government be allowed to take your life for the betterment of others? Many people claim one is a 'freeloader' on society if they never served, others claim they have no necessity for such a society and moved to canada. Those who speak for the draft and initiate war are rarely subject to it themselves, those who died in combat can never speak for themselves either. Whether to choose the 'old lie of dulce et decorum est' or 'live free or die' ?

The vast complexity of causation in world events questions a military's effectiveness- perhaps Chruchill's 'new Dark Age' was incorrect, and a triumphant Third Reich would have quickly crumbled on its own after a few years of insurrection and the like. The Pennsylvania Quaker John Dickinson in the Continental Congress could have been right too when he said more negotiation with Britain could have resolved the injustices. Though if causation is clear and purposes sufficiently determinable, perhaps then it is selfish for us to cherish our own life, when we avoid war, at the expense of our great grandchilren who will live in a less-free world.

As I said, it is a truly unresolvable dilemma that ought to require long, painful debate before any choices are made about drafts, wars, etc.


----------



## Cruiser

beherethen said:


> As for the draft, I rarely find people that would be subject to it in favor of it. It's always the exempt that find this a good idea. It always seems to be old people


Something like the reverse of the alcoholic beverage laws. Almost all of the people who are opposed to selling alcohol to minors are old enough to buy it for themselves. I wonder what the law would be if we allowed high school kids to decide? :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Relayer

Svenn said:


> This debate is one of the central paradoxes of government, and no one should pretend like there is an easy answer to it.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence states that government is put into place to protect our rights to life and liberty, yet should government be allowed to take your life for the betterment of others? Many people claim one is a 'freeloader' on society if they never served, others claim they have no necessity for such a society and moved to canada. Those who speak for the draft and initiate war are rarely subject to it themselves, those who died in combat can never speak for themselves either. Whether to choose the 'old lie of dulce et decorum est' or 'live free or die' ?
> 
> The vast complexity of causation in world events questions a military's effectiveness- perhaps Chruchill's 'new Dark Age' was incorrect, and a triumphant Third Reich would have quickly crumbled on its own after a few years of insurrection and the like. The Pennsylvania Quaker John Dickinson in the Continental Congress could have been right too when he said more negotiation with Britain could have resolved the injustices. Though if causation is clear and purposes sufficiently determinable, perhaps then it is selfish for us to cherish our own life, when we avoid war, at the expense of our great grandchilren who will live in a less-free world.
> 
> As I said, it is a truly unresolvable dilemma that ought to require long, painful debate before any choices are made about drafts, wars, etc.


Complex, yes. Unresovable, no, because at some point resolution comes, one way or the other. The best resolution may change depending upon circumstances, however, in general, my own opinion is as stated earlier.

(To give some context, I served in my uncle's all-volunteer military, not that that gives any more weight to my opinions)


----------



## Svenn

Relayer said:


> Complex, yes. Unresovable, no, because at some point resolution comes, one way or the other. The best resolution may change depending upon circumstances, however, in general, my own opinion is as stated earlier.
> 
> (To give some context, I served in my uncle's all-volunteer military, not that that gives any more weight to my opinions)


Yes, resolution does come, I just meant no one ever feels satisfied. As an example, my grandpa signed up to fight on the ground in Europe in WW2, once he came back he refused to ever talk about it or associate with any veteran's organizations. He was a university history professor and told us that war was nothing but tragedy, and shouldn't be celebrated. I tend to just follow his example and remain as neutral as possible whenever the subject comes up... and certainly respect whatever beliefs people have come to on the matter.

By the way, what do you mean your 'uncle's military'? I'm sure you didn't mean it, but it sounds like he had a militia or something :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Apatheticviews

Svenn said:


> By the way, what do you mean your 'uncle's military'? I'm sure you didn't mean it, but it sounds like he had a militia or something :icon_smile_wink:


Uncle Sam's All Volunteer Military = US Military if I am catching the reference correctly.


----------



## OldMilitary

*Things are getting heated up all over.*

_*"Maine Commission Moves to Ban Gender Specific Bathrooms, Sports Teams in Schools"*

"The Maine Human Rights Commissions taking heat over a proposal to ban schools from enforcing gender divisions in sports teams, school organizations, bathrooms and locker rooms, saying forcing a student into a particular room or group because of their biological gender amounts to discrimination.

The little girls' room won't be just for little girls anymore, if the Maine Human Rights Commission has its way.

The commission is taking heat over a controversial proposal to ban schools from enforcing gender divisions in sports teams, school organizations, bathrooms and locker rooms. It says forcing a student into a particular room or group because of his or her biological gender amounts to discrimination..."_

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/...cific-school-bathrooms-teams/?test=latestnews


----------



## OldMilitary

*Heard more about Submarines tonight.*

I have duty and am up tonight as we wrap up some serious training, but I am not in the field. For you civilians, I'm sort of a standby shepherd in case of lost lambs. Anyway I was listening to TV News, and they had a piece on the new Navy policy about women on the submarines. Congress just okay-ed the new policy.

As I might have mentioned women will go first to the Nuclear Missile Subs which are larger. They showed one, I think the USS Maryland, a Trident class. Has about 116 hands (that number might be off) and sleeps 9 to a bunk room which are dispersed among the guided missiles. Pretty tight quarters. About 3 racks per vertical column is what I think I saw.

The lady sailors will first come from the Naval Academy and will be officers and since officers already have individual rooms, there are no new problems in bunking arrangements.
The hygienic facilities will have signs on the doors that can be adjusted to say "Women" or "Men" and *locks* will also be installed on them so I guess as the Navy would say 
_*"Everything is shipshape!"*_

They made the comment that half the engineering and science degrees in the country these days are women and since the subs particularly needs a lot of technical people, having women will broaden the availability of people with needed skills. I have to say that I have learned that only about 13,000 people serve on subs so there aren't all that many people needed, but I do understand personnel needs.

One young officer was asked by the Lady Journalist if a woman could do his job. He, on national TV, very diplomatically said "yes" and didn't add any concerns that he or others might have. Likewise there were no questions asked about what kind of concerns there were or about what kind of problems might arise.

As the old country song (John Conlee) says so aptly- "Rose colored glasses!"

_"But these rose colored glasses, that I'm looking through
Show only the beauty, cause they hide all the truth",_

Yep, it's country music time! Good night lads.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Too Funny OM!!

"What could possibly go wrong!!"


----------



## Jovan

That's a good question and one I'm interested in your answers to.


----------



## eagle2250

Actually the assignment of women on the Navy's "Boomer" subs is not all that original of a concept. The Air Force has been assigning women to their ICBM Combat Crews since 1980 and they have acquitted themselves quite well. At least one has risen so far as to command a Strategic Missile Wing. Good show in my book!


----------



## Jovan

These gentlemen seemed to imply that there are obvious problems to it, however.


----------



## MichaelS

OldMilitary said:


> They made the comment that half the engineering and science degrees in the country these days are women and since the subs particularly needs a lot of technical people, having women will broaden the availability of people with needed skills. I have to say that I have learned that only about 13,000 people serve on subs so there aren't all that many people needed, but I do understand personnel needs.
> 
> _"But these rose colored glasses, that I'm looking through
> Show only the beauty, cause they hide all the truth",_
> 
> Yep, it's country music time! Good night lads.


A coouple of quick thoughts your comment: There may only be a need for 13,000 people but I guess that:

1) The number of people who want to serve on a sub and can actually manage it psychologically has got to be pretty limited (underwater for 6 months in a steel tube in which there isn't a lot of chance for escape if something goes seriously wrong).

2) Of those who are able to be underwater, the pool of very highly trained people may be limited. With women now being such a high percentage of science and engineering graduates (and it is the recent graduates we need in the subs), allowing women allows a much larger pool of applicants and therefore, higher quality personnel.

The world and society are changing. Having women in combat positions and having and openly gay people in the military will not destroy the US military. When they first started women's services in the US some people said that that was the end of the US. Women are now doing very well in their new roles in Afghanistan and Iraq. When Truman desegregated the military, people made all the same arguments they now make against gays in the military. The US military is however now one of the most integrated organizations in the US if not the world.

(All that said, I wouldn't go to sea in a submarine even if the full crew was female! Even though I've worked in mines over 1700 feet deep, if I was forced to be in a sub, about two seconds after it submerged, I think I'd be a total basket case scratching at the top crying to be let out. :icon_smile_big:

I've read a lot about the US submariners in WWII. Those were some incredibly brave and tough people.)


----------



## eagle2250

^^
+1. Those Gals can be plenty tough! Didn't any of yous' guys ever watch Zena, Warrior Princess? Lucy Lawless engaged in some real "equal opportunity" (from a gender perspective) a** kicking on that show! 

PS: Please note, the above is not intended to denigrate in any way, the bravery, sacrifices, and service of our Submariners!


----------



## OldMilitary

The other night I was doing the old service "hurry up and wait" and while waiting, I wrote a nice long comment on women, gays, and the various services, but I was using a borrowed MID - viliv 5 device. A bright young man let me borrow it to try it out. I liked it, but at the end, I tried to look something up in parallel with the comment and when I came back to Ask Andy, everything was wiped clean.

Anyway, I will be shorter this evening and I am on a more familiar stomping ground with a regular computer.

The major gist of my lost comment was that SECDEF Gates had just reported a Congressional Committee that they should wait on any DADT repeal/not repeal legislation until the Pentagon report due about Dec 1. He said that they were studying the problems of housing (new housing/separate housing, etc.) and benefits for same gender dependents, etc.

This goes along with my own personal thoughts and our local Commander's thoughts that the service (especially Training) can do just fine with a politically correct inclusive service IF we have more privacy considerations in our bunking areas and especially in our hygienic areas.

In all we will need more room for the same number of troops, and we will probably need more troops because there will be some "mixes" that won't necessarily work. i.e. Now we do consider personnel preferences and limitations in assignments, but we may have to add more. I won't go into that here.

Now what I will put quite plainly here because we have been discussing a lot, we do not want threats, intimidation, harassment, fights, and serious (I mean very serious) problems with any of our troop billeting situations. Privacy, and separation will allow us to mitigate many of the foreseeable problems from the get-go.

I speak mostly here of gay-straight problems. In particular what I would call "regular gay" problems. Even the most politically correct "Officers," who tend to be more politically correct than Non-Coms, start stammering when considering some of these "transsexuals" who do really strange things. I have read up on them, and it can get really strange. I refer you to the "Maine" problem I discussed earlier.

Now with women, we have different problems and they vary. You give me 100 regular 18 year old women, and 100 regular 18 year old men, and I will predict that I will have the women shooting better as a group than the men, especially in the offhand position with the exception of heavy weapons which require strength. Note those are regular enlistees.

But one big problem with women is strength, and Eagle you mentioned the 1980s and that is about when when the PT requirements were changed for the "mixed sex services."

I would predict that of that same 100 men and the 100 women, I would find a lot more men that can carry a hundred pounds of gear 300 meters up a hill in 100 degree heat in quick time. (I wouldn't bother to make that test. It would be considered sexist even to formally suggest it. It is one of those things that the politically correct ignore and the rest of us tread on eggs about.) Early on in the mixed sex service, there was some Navy training exercises that I read about. Of the dozen or more teams doing the exercises, 2 or 3 were falling badly behind. 

They investigated. The problem was that some of the ladies were having difficulty handling the (here I stretch my memory) 6 or 8" hawsers as each sailor was required to do. What happened is the other sailors stopped their own progress and went to help their "friends," their "team mates" even though they weren't supposed to.

And by the way I don't mean that every male sailor or soldier could pass the old strength tests, but it was easy to funnel those men into some kind of "clerk" or cook school where they would learn to type. Nowadays that would be considered "sexist."

The main problem besides strength with the women is what happens if they are captured. That is another glaring question that is swept under the rug and just not talked about. Who here with a service connection or not doesn't remember the most famous captive of our Iraqi effort just a few years ago. Ms. Jessica.

Now the submarines probably won't have a problem with women if they can find the room for privacy. As long as they have the strength of secure the hatch manually in an emergency!!
And I am with Michael, if they need people to go down in a sub for 80 days normally and up to 4 months sometimes, and the women help out their personnel needs, hey that is great. You couldn't get me to go down there either.

As for a mine 1700 feet deep? Oh Boy! My dad told me about the tunnels in Vietnam, and I saw some in Iraq that were actually pretty spacious. I don't like that either, though in the midst of a battle, you have just got to make up your mind that you are going to die anyway, and just keep going. That is my usual mind trick. If you think too much, you freeze, and are lost.

Anyway, welcome to the conversation Jovan. You can put your own two bits in too, you know.


----------



## Jovan

I was just curious what your thoughts were. You have clarified them. Thanks. I'm not sure if my opinion will even be considered but...

The closest thing I have done to military service is take the ASVAB when considering the Marines and Navy. I do believe that openly gay men serving is something that is possible right now (if not now, then when _is_ the "right time"?) and we will "get over it" in time just like with integrating minorities. The only supportive anecdote I can cough up is that in theatre, I share dressing rooms with openly gay men all the time. No one is weird about it, even the most "manly" men who think they are above the average theatre geek. Just some food for thought.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Life aboard ship.

Just like a theatre changing room.

Food for thought??

Urgh.....


----------



## Cruiser

WouldaShoulda said:


> Life aboard ship.
> 
> Just like a theatre changing room.
> 
> Food for thought??


Not really. I served for a period on an aircraft carrier that was longer than three football fields, but we still were crammed in like sardines. Racks were three high and end to end. Your locker was in the wall behind your rack, meaning that you had to get out of your rack to open the door, in which case you were then blocking the racks of the other two guys in the other two racks. Also keep in mind that this isn't a place where you just spend a couple or three hours at a time, it's your home where you live 24/7. Big difference. This picture is of a modern day ship which I will admit is a little nicer than the one I was on 41 years ago.










Cruiser


----------



## Jovan

WouldaShoulda said:


> Life aboard ship.
> 
> Just like a theatre changing room.
> 
> Food for thought??
> 
> Urgh.....


Commentary on how ridiculous the whole, "I don't want gays to see me undress," thing is. The sooner we end DADT, the sooner we'll get over it.


----------



## OldMilitary

*Jovan, you are like that "stranger in a strange land."*

Jovan, you are like that "stranger in a strange land."

I can see you asking that proverbial question "Why doesn't everyone just act nice? That would make it all better." You do say "just get over it."

And before I go on, let me just state that my wife has done a bit of acting from time to time down at the local little theater, so I do have access to theater caliber people on occasion and can understand where the statement "Just get over it" would draw approval and even applause.

That said, let me ask you a few questions.
Do you ever get around gangs or gang members?
Do you ever find out that someone that you are responsible for has a very serious juvenile past the record of which you are just learning of because of another serious infraction of the law on your watch?
Do you deal with young people and some older people who are very very concerned about "respect?" They worry about people "disrespecting" them, making fun of them, thinking that they aren't manly, showing them up. They worry so much about it that they are willing to hit these people or even shove a blade into them. If they can't do it alone, then they may get some buddies to help them.
Do you ever deal with young men or women whose brothers, or fathers, or even mothers are in prison, and I don't mean for Ponzi type white collar crimes?
Do you ever get called because someone connected to you is in the drunk tank, or has committed serious battery on another individual?
Have you ever been called to a disturbance to find a young man seriously beaten by another young man or even a group of young men?

I deal with people like this Jovan. And the older wiser people with a little alcohol in them are sometimes worse than the youngsters.

In the military, young people are put in a situation where their lives become something like one of those "ant farm" colonies of ants living between two panes of glass, except many times the glass is opaque and no one can really watch what is going on. They can't get away from each other. Everywhere they turn, is another tunnel with other ants. It is very stressful.

Now you can say like others have here that the trouble makers should be/will be "taken care" of by the Justice System, by the Military System. Sure we can do that, but many times lives are ruined in the process. The young person beaten or raped, and the young people going to prison don't really appreciate the very "elitist, foolish, and totally uninformed" remark of "Get over it!" They don't have that luxury. Lots of them have spent their entire life just reacting to situations, not planning things out.

Unfortunately life in the military isn't simple and straight forward. It is vastly more complicated.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Cruiser said:


> Not really. I served for a period on an aircraft carrier that was longer than three football fields, but we still were crammed in like sardines. Racks were three high and end to end. Your locker was in the wall behind your rack, meaning that you had to get out of your rack to open the door, in which case you were then blocking the racks of the other two guys in the other two racks. Also keep in mind that this isn't a place where you just spend a couple or three hours at a time, it's your home where you live 24/7. Big difference. This picture is of a modern day ship which I will admit is a little nicer than the one I was on 41 years ago.
> 
> Cruiser


I hear you brother, but we can't educate young people that know everything already!!



OldMilitary said:


> Unfortunately life in the military isn't simple and straight forward. It is vastly more complicated.


People make things simple when it suits them!!


----------



## Chouan

Its as complicated as you want it to be, especially if the complication suits your particular view. I echo Jovan's view, "get over it". The Royal Navy "got over it" ten years ago. Are USN matelots so hard to educate?


----------



## OldMilitary

*Omba's ploy-*

First nothing is set in concrete, more like sand really. Here is a review of the situation as we see it.

1. The whole DADT thing/promise/speech was a White House *ploy* to try and and appease the gays somewhat, and to get the liberals in general more enthused about the 2010 elections. In other words, they were given a *treat* and told to play nice.

2. Nothing, nothing is planned before 2011, though one Senator, Levin, seems to be pressing for more than the White House wants and threatens to put a change into the Defense Appropriations Bill. His success appears unlikely.

3. In actuality there would be no major changes before the 2012 elections are settled. i.e. Obama's 2nd term.

4. Privacy considerations will be given, which will of course continue to allow *women *to shower only with women. 
Whether lesbians and gays have their own showers and lavatories is still up in the air. There will be more separations, certainly in bunking areas, and stalls for showers.

Still at the very least full privacy stalls will be the norm for toilets. I suspect there will be the usual surveys among the troops to find out preferences and numbers of groups. That is the politically correct democratic thing to do.

All that will work fine in training, and on the regular posts, but in the field it could cause some headaches.


----------



## Chouan

"All that will work fine in training, and on the regular posts, but in the field it could cause some headaches. "
Why? It hasn't in Britain's armed forces.


----------



## eagle2250

OldMilitary said:


> All that will work fine in training, and on the regular posts, but in the field it could cause some headaches.


In my experience, during a period of 31 years in uniform, the situation seemed the reverse of what you have described. The trouble arose in garrison, when the troops found a bit too much free time on their hands. In the field, things seemed to work out. I recall commanding a composite Air Base Ground Defense Group, in which one of my M-60 gunners was a female (I think she was one of the first.). She was very good at her job and could really make that pig (the M-60, not the operator! ) sing! The males, whose lives depended on her demonstrated ability with her assigned weapon, really didn't seem to mind her gender when there was work to be done but, seemed inclined to tease her incessantly, during training periods when they were not deployed and got a little alcohol in them. And yes, myself, my officers and NCOs all worked mightily to control the less civilized inclinations of the masses!


----------



## Cruiser

eagle2250 said:


> my officers and NCOs all worked mightily to control the less civilized inclinations of the masses!


Yes, but who was looking out for the less civilized inclinations of the officers and NCOs? :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## OldMilitary

*Chouan, as one of my senior NCOs said one day: "This ain't Britain soldier!"*

Chouan, as one of my senior NCOs said the other day in an ongoing discussion

_*"This ain't Britain soldier!"*_

I am not going to go back through the accounting that I have already made on the various ways America differs from Britain. You can go back and look at the posts I have made in this thread if you wish to see what I have said already, though I will be glad to address any *particular point.*


----------



## OldMilitary

*eagle2250, "apples and oranges!"*

eagle2250, I accept your observation about the lady.

Yes the problems are compounded in the garrison be it Stateside or on the field of battle.

People group together when they have time on their hands and then it becomes *"we,"* and *"they,"* and *"them,"* and *"it."*

I was not referring to "in the midst of battle" where you tend to look out for and support your fellow troops for your own safety and because there is a mission and a command structure at work, but in the "off periods" where it isn't you and your buddies against the enemy but you and your buddies and other groups of buddies, and that same kind of "teasing" you mention and worse and alcohol, and very uncivilized inclinations from very stupid people.

Yes people refer to the integration of races and sexes as a success. Well it is up to a point but it is still difficult to manage. _ i.e. How many women were raped at the Air Force Academy?_

In my opinion homosexuality will be much harder to assimilate openly in the military than females and blacks. I would point out that it seems according to the media I read about hate crimes and the like that it actually is quite difficult to assimilate homosexuality in regular civilian society, but maybe that is me just misreading the papers. Anyway multiply that by 10 in the military is my own opinion.


----------



## Xeiheo

As someone who was deeply interested in attending the Air Force Academy for much of my junior high/high school career (and was more than capable of doing so if I had not been dissuaded), but was disqualified for reasons rather related to this discussion, I must question whether loosing capable officers and enlisted men outweighs the benefits gained by catering to the lowest common denominator of our society--prejudice.

Homophobia on this level seems to come from two sources: first, an antiquated view of morality; and second, an irrational fear compounded by the first factor. The basis for Judeo-Christian hatred of homosexuality is tenuous at best, for it is hardly a topic any religious scholar will tell you was often addressed in the texts which serve as the foundation of these traditionally western religions. Furthermore, explicit attempts were made on the foundation of the United States to distance themselves from any religious affiliation, so any legal attempt to bar the service of willing, gay individuals from the military cannot have its foundation in religious law. The result of centuries of this dogmatism has been the institutionalization of homophobia in our social mores and customs, with the once religious basis now replaced by a psychological aversion. Most people cannot mount a good reason to fear gay people other than deferring to coarse language such as "it is wrong" or "it doesn't make sense." Our society, as a result of its enlightened and progressive nature, is now beginning to correct the problem of these norms, much as they did with the subjugation of many past minority groups.

Now, gay individuals already serve in the military. In fact, those who serve in such a way are currently repressing part of their identity, and the side-effects of such repression can surely not be positive. If we allow these individuals are allowed to serve openly and proudly, their situation can only be made better, so the problem of allowing their service in the military can't be originating from them; in turn, it must be caused by some other subset of individuals--intolerant and irrational bigots. A common complaint I here is that it shouldn't be the case that gays and straights shower together, because it would make straight people uncomfortable, lest "one of the gays pounces him." In that case, such an action would be motivated by a deep psychological problem often found in rapists, not homosexuals. But it still may become uncomfortable just because a gay man is watching the straight man, and this could lead the gay man to be turned on, cause him to fantasize, etc, etc. Empirical evidence on my part, as well as that of my fellow gay men, suggests this is not the case; even if it were the case though, why should this disqualify them from service? I wager that many of my straight counter-parts routinely catch glimpse of a female co-worker or the likes and let their mind wander into an innocent fantasy; I also wager that they never intend to act on it and let it fly from their mind soon after. Homosexuality does not cause some insidious, predatory instinct to be born in gay men, thus causing them to want to overtake every attractive guy they see. Such a view is the result of the aforementioned homophobia that is dying from our culture. This, now, brings me back to the point that the only reason we cannot move forward with allowing gays to serve openly is because of this latent homophobia. It then becomes a question of whether dismissing over 13,000 well-qualified and trained individuals is worth catering to the lowest common denominator of our society.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

I am not afraid of homosexuals. However, I do believe that homosexually is wrong. On the first, I am not a homophobe. On the second, how am I a bigot? The argument that homosexuals is equal to women or racial minorities is mind boggling. Whether or not one is born gay is quite irrelevant to the discussion of morality. For sake of argument, let's say that I am a huge adulterer. Because it is illegal for me to go out and be an adulterer (in the military), isn't my identity being repressed? I certainly wouldn't be able to go around my unit saying that I am an adulterer. My point is that morality does play a huge part for order and discipline. 

Xeiheo, should men and women shower together even if one-side doesn't want to?

And besides, first there will be gays in the military. What next, men in the Air Force?!


----------



## Xeiheo

I am glad you are not afraid of homosexuals; that's a sign that engagement is possible! However, I wonder what the grounding is for your claim that homosexuality is wrong? Why is it wrong? What does it mean for something to be wrong? And furthermore, does your personal claim that it is wrong entitle you to impose that view on society? Pardon the barrage of questions, but it is useful in seeing whether you truly are a homophobe, a bigot, or none of those nasty names.

The argument should, however, not be mind-boggling that homosexuality cannot be viewed as similar to other minorities in society (for the sake of clarity, I will mention that I never once associated homosexuality with being a woman, only minorities). Each group makes up less than 50% of the society; each group has had specific rights denied to them historically; and each group has progressively regained these rights as society recognizes their fundamental entitlement to them. I admit, the comparison is not one-to-one, yet the similarities are striking.

Your analogy of homosexuality to adultery is a false analogy because adultery can only exist in the context of society that recognizes both monogamy and committed relationships (marriage). As homosexuality does clearly have some foundation in a natural predisposition (as you yourself allowed as a possibility when you said "Whether or not one is born gay is quite irrelevant to the discussion of morality"), pretending that the two can be compared as equals is wrong. This distinction is relevant because it indicates that someone being gay is indeed a part of their identity--who they are fundamentally psychologically wired to be--whereas adultery is not. One can choose to not be an adulterer by electing not to be married (just to name one of the potential junctions on which a choice not to be adulterous exists). The same choice does not exist for homosexuals. And to your final point, that "morality does play a huge part for order and discipline," you still have not demonstrated how the sub-stratum of recruits who think that they cannot serve with gay servicemen for moral reasons are more valuable than the gay servicemen themselves. If it were the case, that people can be disqualified from service because other servicemen are uncomfortable with them, then I can guarantee you some would speak up and state their inability to cope with working alongside many, many different types of people; before you know it, there wouldn't be an army.

I'm not sure what to make of your last question. Men and women are distinguished both by gender and sex (psychologically and biologically). I don't think anyone has ever suggested they shower together for this very reason. The same distinction does not exist between gay men and straight men; besides, showering in a combat-zone is hardly a sexual environment. If you are not afraid of homosexuals (as you claim), are not afraid to shower with other men (as can be assumed from your support for the status quo), and recognize the fact that the shower stalls in a combat-zone are inherently not a sexual venue, then what's the problem?


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Good talk, good talk. Xeiheo, let me respond to your questions. Please forgive me if I skip any since I am multitasking. My claim that homosexuality is wrong is Biblical. And I am grossed out by two guys kissing one another. But mostly it's the Bible. This is not an irrational thought nor do I have any animosity toward homosexuals. Second, my personal claim is only relevant in that it matches with the majority of the officer corps. This view is important because most military members are socially conservative.

The argument that homosexuality should be viewed in the same lens as minorities misses the understanding of why some are opposed to homosexuality. Given in the context of sin, homosexuality and adultery are on equal grounds. Being female is not immoral. Nor is being black. Furthermore, as previously mentioned several times in this thread, actively being gay in the military is illegal.

Skipping to your last point, I'm a bit confused why you say that people are "distinguished by gender and sex." Does it not matter that gay men are attracted to men and straight men are attracted to women? Are you saying that limp-wristed men should shower with women and butch women should shower with men? In that scenario, they would be separated by sex but not by "gender." It does't matter whether it is a combat zone or on a training base. Indecency cannot exist. Individual dignity must be maintained. As for showering with other people, I prefer to shower alone. Given that I have showered with 50+ guys at a time and have shared a room on numerous occasions, I will definitely say that I would not want to shower or be roommates with a homosexual. Ultimately, the logical question then is "what gives me that right?" Along with the law, it is the majority rule that wins. You've gotta love a representative democracy.

Anyway, that's probably enough from me on this topic. The rest of you have fun!


----------



## Chouan

OldMilitary said:


> Chouan, as one of my senior NCOs said the other day in an ongoing discussion
> 
> _*"This ain't Britain soldier!"*_
> 
> I am not going to go back through the accounting that I have already made on the various ways America differs from Britain. You can go back and look at the posts I have made in this thread if you wish to see what I have said already, though I will be glad to address any *particular point.*


Quite. You consistently imply that educating American military people is somehow harder, or more fraught with difficulty than educating British military people. Are American military people more intractable, ignorant and unresponsive to education and leadership? Or are the American military people who do the education, and leadership less competent? Or less willing to educate in an area thaty they are uncomfortable with? It can only be one or the other. It is either the incapable or unwilling leaders, or the intractable led. The American forces, in terms of training are surely not that much of a special case?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Xeiheo said:


> Homophobia on this level seems to come from two sources: first, an antiquated view of morality; and second, an irrational fear compounded by the first factor. The basis for Judeo-Christian hatred of homosexuality is tenuous at best, for it is hardly a topic any religious scholar will tell you was often addressed in the texts which serve as the foundation of these traditionally western religions.


The evidence does not exist that Western Cultures are somehow less tollerant than Asian or Middle Eastern cultures.

Try again.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

IlliniFlyer said:


> My claim that homosexuality is wrong is Biblical. And I am grossed out by two guys kissing one another. But mostly it's the Bible.


It really is best to leave The Bible out of this. The repulsion you feel is as natural as your fear of snakes and high places and is not unique to your faith.


----------



## Xeiheo

IlliniFlyer said:


> Good talk, good talk. Xeiheo, let me respond to your questions. Please forgive me if I skip any since I am multitasking. My claim that homosexuality is wrong is Biblical. And I am grossed out by two guys kissing one another. But mostly it's the Bible. This is not an irrational thought nor do I have any animosity toward homosexuals. Second, my personal claim is only relevant in that it matches with the majority of the officer corps. This view is important because most military members are socially conservative.
> 
> The argument that homosexuality should be viewed in the same lens as minorities misses the understanding of why some are opposed to homosexuality. Given in the context of sin, homosexuality and adultery are on equal grounds. Being female is not immoral. Nor is being black. Furthermore, as previously mentioned several times in this thread, actively being gay in the military is illegal.
> 
> Skipping to your last point, I'm a bit confused why you say that people are "distinguished by gender and sex." Does it not matter that gay men are attracted to men and straight men are attracted to women? Are you saying that limp-wristed men should shower with women and butch women should shower with men? In that scenario, they would be separated by sex but not by "gender." It does't matter whether it is a combat zone or on a training base. Indecency cannot exist. Individual dignity must be maintained. As for showering with other people, I prefer to shower alone. Given that I have showered with 50+ guys at a time and have shared a room on numerous occasions, I will definitely say that I would not want to shower or be roommates with a homosexual. Ultimately, the logical question then is "what gives me that right?" Along with the law, it is the majority rule that wins. You've gotta love a representative democracy.
> 
> Anyway, that's probably enough from me on this topic. The rest of you have fun!


Alright, I understand that your aversion to homosexuality is now founded in your interpretation of the Bible. I also recognize that it is your right to hold that view no matter how distasteful I find it! My problem is when such a view is imposed on the public sphere. Even if every officer disliked homosexuality in the same way that you do (which is untrue seeing as the *highest* military officer (Adm. Mullen) and commander-in-chief (President Obama) have already indicated their displeasure with the policy), their personal moral code does not automatically become the public's moral code. The military is perhaps the most visible manifestation of the American public sector, and so the rules governing it must conform to all the rules governing all aspects of the public sector. Again, this is not the case as is, but owing to the progressive nature of our social mores, it will be in time.

To the second point, while I understand your moral aversion to homosexuality, that does not indeed contradict the facts of the matter I pointed to. Also, religious arguments from the same texts you cite can be made to show the inferiority of the minorities you mentioned, as was the case with slave-owners in the American South. Because the Bible is open to multiple interpretations, I wonder why these views are any less valid.

Also, I mentioned both gender and sex because they are two distinct concepts. A gay male is both a male (identifies with the male gender) and is a man (is physically male), and the same is true of a straight male (for more info on why these are separation exists, look up some basic info on sex studies). For all intents and purposes, the distinction between gender and sex is rather meaningless, but I mentioned it to reinforce the idea that gay men are nonetheless men in every sense of the word; their sexual orientation has no bearing on their gender. It is fine that you are uncomfortable showering with gay men, but then again, you already indicated your uncomfortable showering with men. In the military, sacrifices to personal space are made in order to increase efficiency. When you are all sweaty and tired at the end of the day, I guarantee you that most gay men aren't fantasizing about showering with other guys.

And yes, your final point is the somewhat sad part. The majority of Americans -do- support a repeal of DADT (). This is currently a failure of the representative aspect of our government, for which I would suggest you read _The Social Contract_ by Jean-Jacques Rousseau if you are more interested on why representative governments of any type are destined to estrange the will of the people. Even when it was not the case that the majority of Americans supported a repeal, it still was indicative of the "tyranny of the majority" for the policy to established in the first place. For more info the the tyranny of the majority, I highly suggest _The Social Contract_ again as well as _Democracy in America_ (which is also particularly interesting when discussing the religious motivations of DADT and institutionalized homophobia in general).

I know you have said that you have put forth all you wish to say, but I hope you can at least understand the frustration on the part of many gay men and women who _want_ to serve their country proudly and openly. In the end though, I respect your right to form your own moral code and live in accordance with it!


----------



## Xeiheo

WouldaShoulda said:


> The evidence does not exist that Western Cultures are somehow less tollerant than Asian or Middle Eastern cultures.
> 
> Try again.


As we were talking about homophobia as the motivating force of a specifically American policy, the comment was completely appropriate. Indeed, other cultures have varying views on homosexuality: the Middle East is less tolerant because of their strict adherence to Islam (another Abrahamic religion); it is more of a mixed bag in Asian cultures, with it slowly becoming tolerated and protected in various secular nations such as Japan and China.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Xeiheo, I appreciate the time you took to respond. DADT is simply a policy. It is not law. I think you will agree that the country as a whole is very divided on this and many other issues. Until the law is changed (for example, UCMJ Art 125) then really it's purely an academic argument. As far as representative democracies and our current government... that's a can of worms I am unable to address. Cheers.


----------



## Xeiheo

Indeed; it is as it is. That is why I ultimately declined the United States Air Force Academy as an option! Ultimately, I think Admiral Mullen is taking the responsible course of action by conducting his own investigation into the matter to determine how readily the policy can be changed. It's unfortunate that it just prolongs the process, but it is better to do things safe than sorry?

And yeah, pardon me if I got a little -too- in to the problems with American democracy. It is one of my favorite topics as a poli-sci student, so I can tend to ramble! :teacha:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Xeiheo said:


> I know you have said that you have put forth all you wish to say, but I hope you can at least understand the frustration on the part of many gay men and women who _want_ to serve their country proudly and openly.


No one has explained how serving openly would benefit the military mission to seek out and destroy an enemy. What is it, specific and unique to serving openly, that would enhance instead of detract from that mission??


----------



## Xeiheo

WouldaShoulda said:


> No one has explained how serving openly would benefit the military mission to seek out and destroy an enemy. What is it, specific and unique to serving openly, that would enhance instead of detract from that mission??


At least 13,000+ individuals would be serving right now who otherwise would not be.


----------



## Jovan

Old Military: While I appreciate your experience, you're slowly falling into sensationalism. Because bad things can happen, we shouldn't be progressive in hiring openly gay men? You can't deny that there will be problems even if we repeal DADT 30 years from now. If we don't do it now, _when will we_? This is exactly what the prejudiced people who are doing the beating WANT to happen. They want to scare us. We can't lose to hatred, even if we're doing it with best intentions.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Xeiheo said:


> At least 13,000+ individuals would be serving right now who otherwise would not be.


I wager 10X that number have been released for a predisposition to be overweight or having gotten too old or getting preganant, but they too knew the rules when they signed up.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> Old Military: While I appreciate your experience, you're slowly falling into sensationalism.


I agree that such hyperbole is as meaningless as religious arguments.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
But...but, but, does history not teach us that the World's greatest empires have, in almost every instance, crumbled from forces emanating from within(!)? Are we witnessing an expression of sensationalism or could we be closing our eyes to the difficult lessons, be they moral, spiritual or social, that history has to offer? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Xeiheo

WouldaShoulda said:


> I wager 10X that number have been released for a predisposition to be overweight or having gotten too old or getting preganant, but they too knew the rules when they signed up.


 Yes, but those actually alter one's ability to serve. Sexual orientation doesn't change a recruit's ability to train thoroughly and follow orders.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> But...but, but, does history not teach us that the World's greatest empires have, in almost every instance, crumbled from forces emanating from within(!)? Are we witnessing an expression of sensationalism or could we be closing our eyes to the difficult lessons, be they moral, spiritual or social, that history has to offer? :icon_scratch:


Which lessons are those? 
Britain's Empire "crumbled" through the realisation that it was unsustainable. For most of the 20th century Britain's Empire was in a process of dissolution, from the 1920's onwards, although this was hidden from Britain's population at large.
Rome's Empire crumbled through plague, economic stagnation, endless civil wars, ever increasing taxation to pay for the ever increasing costs of armies. The Seleucid Empire crumbled through an unsustainable size, given the communications of the time, and a perceived lack of legitimacy of the "Great King". Russia's empire didn't really crumble, the outlying provinces were able to gain independence, once the USSR became the Russian Federation/Commonwealth. The French tried to hold on to their Empire until the 1950's, until, again, they realised that their Empire wasn't sustainable. 
Most Empires crumbled through the forces of regional autonomy pulling away from the centre. 
China's Empire, of course, still exists, as does that of the US.
I can't think of any empire that crumbled through some kind of "_moral, spiritual or social_" decline. Perhaps you can enlighten me further?


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> No one has explained how serving openly would benefit the military mission to seek out and destroy an enemy."
> QUOTE]
> 
> How about experience? Britain's forces have been seeking out and destroying enemies, whilst recruiting openly gay people for 10 years now. How is evidence irrelevant? Nobody has yet offered me a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> WouldaShoulda said:
> 
> 
> 
> "What is it, specific and unique to serving openly, that would enhance instead of detract from that mission??Quote]
> 
> What is it that serving openly would detract from a mission? Britain's 10 years experience would, I suggest, prove that serving openly certainly doesn't detract. Why would openly gay people serving necessarily enhance? They're people, like everybody else, so why the need for proof that they could do better?
Click to expand...


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> What is it that serving openly would detract from a mission? Britain's 10 years experience would, I suggest, prove that serving openly certainly doesn't detract. Why would openly gay people serving necessarily enhance? They're people, like everybody else, so why the need for proof that they could do better?


Because it isn't the post office, it's the military.

Let's take the English experience.

We know that introducing open homosexuality in an all male environment shall/has/will create both real and imagined favoritism, harassment and ill will.

These undesirable elements do not contribute to cohesiveness, it detracts from it.

It may not render a military powerless or be "the end" but I insist the proponents of the absolution of DADT be honest.

Your proposal deminishes and distracts from the mission. Perhaps not to the extent of the military's failure, but the interest of the DADT prohibishionist movement is to forward a gay equity agenda. NOT to enhance the effectiveness of our military.

It's not a matter of any "ick" factor.

It's not a religion based argument.

I prefer to deal with the facts as they exist.

Convince me and others the gay rights and equity are more valuable than focus on our military mission.


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> Which lessons are those?
> Britain's Empire "crumbled" through the realisation that it was unsustainable. For most of the 20th century Britain's Empire was in a process of dissolution, from the 1920's onwards, although this was hidden from Britain's population at large.
> Rome's Empire crumbled through plague, economic stagnation, endless civil wars, ever increasing taxation to pay for the ever increasing costs of armies. The Seleucid Empire crumbled through an unsustainable size, given the communications of the time, and a perceived lack of legitimacy of the "Great King". Russia's empire didn't really crumble, the outlying provinces were able to gain independence, once the USSR became the Russian Federation/Commonwealth. The French tried to hold on to their Empire until the 1950's, until, again, they realised that their Empire wasn't sustainable.
> Most Empires crumbled through the forces of regional autonomy pulling away from the centre.
> China's Empire, of course, still exists, as does that of the US.
> I can't think of any empire that crumbled through some kind of "_moral, spiritual or social_" decline. Perhaps you can enlighten me further?


Clearly our respective conclusions seem tied to our individual interpretation of the existing record. In each of the examples you cite, to support your perspective, one would find evidence of internal decay, widespread rejection of community, spiritual and individual core values and a growing sense of individual entitlement, the weight of which eventually crushes the empire(s) to which you refer. Great Britain, the example you are so prone to tout in furtherance of your arguments for the forced and open integration of gays into our military services, has trod well along this path of decline and I am saddened to say, it seems the US is not far behind her on this damnedable path of self destruction! Paraphrasing the late, great General George Patton, "Gentlemen, I fear we are living the 'end times'. By gawd, I really do!" :crazy:


----------



## Xeiheo

eagle2250 said:


> Clearly our respective conclusions seem tied to our individual interpretation of the existing record. In each of the examples you cite, to support your perspective, one would find evidence of internal decay, widespread rejection of community, spiritual and individual core values and a growing sense of individual entitlement, the weight of which eventually crushes the empire(s) to which you refer. Great Britain, the example you are so prone to tout in furtherance of your arguments for the forced and open integration of gays into our military services, has trod well along this path of decline and I am saddened to say, it seems the US is not far behind her on this damnedable path of self destruction! Paraphrasing the late, great General George Patton, "Gentlemen, I fear we are living the 'end times'. By gawd, I really do!" :crazy:


As I seem to recall, the Hellenic republics and Roman Empire seemed to flourish while homosexuality was accepted (and in some cases, encouraged) while the Roman Empire declined once Christianity was introduced... coincidence? Well, yes it is. Hegemonies don't falter because of "moral depravity" as some would entitle it but because of Geopolitical forces. Unless everyone is a part of that hegemonic group, it is a naturally unsustainable model. But it seems we are slowly slipping into a discussion of political science!


----------



## Xeiheo

WouldaShoulda said:


> Because it isn't the post office, it's the military.
> 
> Let's take the English experience.
> 
> We know that introducing open homosexuality in an all male environment shall/has/will create both real and imagined favoritism, harassment and ill will.
> 
> These undesirable elements do not contribute to cohesiveness, it detracts from it.
> 
> It may not render a military powerless or be "the end" but I insist the proponents of the absolution of DADT be honest.
> 
> Your proposal deminishes and distracts from the mission. Perhaps not to the extent of the military's failure, but the interest of the DADT prohibishionist movement is to forward a gay equity agenda. NOT to enhance the effectiveness of our military.
> 
> It's not a matter of any "ick" factor.
> 
> It's not a religion based argument.
> 
> I prefer to deal with the facts as they exist.
> 
> Convince me and others the gay rights and equity are more valuable than focus on our military mission.


What is so unique about us American gays that we would cause all these undocumented problems? You suggested there would be favoritism, but I wonder where the evidence is beyond your own anecdotal opinions on gays.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Xeiheo said:


> What is so unique about us American gays that we would cause all these undocumented problems? You suggested there would be favoritism, but I wonder where the evidence is beyond your own anecdotal opinions on gays.


There is nothing unique about American gays. The favoritism, ill will and harassment, real or imagined, exists in every office and employer except the military for the time being.

It is no different than the favoritism, ill will and harassment, either real or imagined that exists among the sexes and races.

Are you really goin to deny that it exists??


----------



## JerseyJohn

IlliniFlyer said:


> My claim that homosexuality is wrong is Biblical. And I am grossed out by two guys kissing one another. But mostly it's the Bible. This is not an irrational thought nor do I have any animosity toward homosexuals.


In my experience, people who offer the Bible as a source for their opinions tend to come to their opinions first, then cherry-pick the Bible to rationalize them and pretend God agrees with them. Jewish scholars traditionally list 613 OT prohibitions. On a scale of 1 to 10, homosexuality comes in at about a 6. It's about on par with cursing your parents, and a step or two better than working on the Sabbath, having sex with your mother-in-law or making fun of a bald person. According to the Bible, having sex with your mother-in-law is far worse than having sex with another guy!:icon_smile_big:

No one is arguing that the military should be shut down on the Sabbath or stop serving pork or shellfish because of the Bible; so why should people try to argue that gays should be banned because of the Bible? And don't start quoting Romans: first, because Romans doesn't condemn homosexuality, but rather offers it as a _symptom _of a general lack of morality; and second, because it goes on to condemn about 20 other things, like gossiping and lack of compassion, and then says we're _all _guilty of one or another offenses and _all _deserve death.

You're going to have to take responsibility for your own opinions and not try to shift them onto God.


----------



## Xeiheo

WouldaShoulda said:


> There is nothing unique about American gays. The favoritism, ill will and harassment, real or imagined, exists in every office and employer except the military for the time being.
> 
> It is no different than the favoritism, ill will and harassment, either real or imagined that exists among the sexes and races.
> 
> Are you really goin to deny that it exists??


 So you agreed there is nothing unique about gays. Then you said the military currently isn't subject to favoritism and harassment. Then you said allowing gays magically causes this, despite the fact that there is nothing unique about them. Pardon me if I don't see the logic.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Xeiheo said:


> So you agreed there is nothing unique about gays. Then you said the military currently isn't subject to favoritism and harassment. Then you said allowing gays magically causes this, despite the fact that there is nothing unique about them. Pardon me if I don't see the logic.


I said no such thing, at least I didn't mean to, so I will clarify.

Favoritism, ill will and harassment does exist in the military as it does elsewhere.

For the time being, the favoritism, ill will and harassment that would be compounded with the introduction of openly gay servicemembers to the ranks is avoided.

Thus, the introduction of openly gay servicemembers to the ranks would not enhance the mission.

If the mission of the military is formost, DADT should stay. I think is was introduced as a humane alternative to dishonorable discharge and I supported it.

If equity for gays is formost, DADT should go. But the discussion should be honest.


----------



## eagle2250

Xeiheo said:


> As I seem to recall, the Hellenic republics and Roman Empire seemed to flourish while homosexuality was accepted (and in some cases, encouraged) while the Roman Empire declined once Christianity was introduced... coincidence? Well, yes it is. Hegemonies don't falter because of "moral depravity" as some would entitle it but because of Geopolitical forces. Unless everyone is a part of that hegemonic group, it is a naturally unsustainable model. But it seems we are slowly slipping into a discussion of political science!


The examples you cite also accommodated, condoned, perhaps encouraged, practices that by today's definitions would constitute acts of genocide and pedophilia. Would you suggest that our military services should also accommodate such perverted practices as that? This conversation is encroaching on the outer limits of just plain silly.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

JerseyJohn said:


> words...
> You're going to have to take responsibility for your own opinions and not try to shift them onto God.


Welcome to the weekend, gentlemen. JerseyJohn, my morals and ethics are exactly that... mine. I will obviously disagree with your Biblical analysis but will agree that we all fall short. Yet, to cherry pick and attempt to make a case supporting homosexuality in the Bible is absolutely ludicrous. Only far liberal interpretations attempt to justify consensual homosexual activity, and I do not believe that these are contextually accurate. But for this argument, all of that is irrelevant.

What matters on military policy in this case is the law and its effect on military effectiveness. In order for open homosexuals to serve, the law will have to be changed. We can all agree on this, right? It is currently illegal for homosexual activity. It's not a gray issue. Second, does the benefit of having openly gays serve outweigh the incurred costs? As for military effectiveness, this is really the only important issue. Berthing and heads will have to be changed. To argue that gays can shower with straights and everyone will be in harmony is insignificant. If that were the case, then men and women would be showering together and would share berthing. Women should not be subjected to shower against there will with males (and vice versa) and straight men should not be subjected to shower against their will with gay men (or vice versa). The same goes for berthing. Obviously changes to current ways of operating would have to change.

As for the benefit, Xeiheo and the others are correct in that there would be an influx of otherwise eligible individuals for military service. Subtracting any decrease in current enlistments amongst straights (which I suspect would be minor) do to a change in policy and adding the openly gays, there would surely be a net increase. Is that increase worth the additional costs? Perhaps.

The problem is that the more we try to make a kinder/gentler military, the more our military becomes kinder and gentler.


----------



## JerseyJohn

IlliniFlyer said:


> Welcome to the weekend, gentlemen. JerseyJohn, my morals and ethics are exactly that... mine. I will obviously disagree with your Biblical analysis but will agree that we all fall short.


I'm not really getting involved in the question of whether gays in the military will create all sorts of havoc - I suspect they won't, though not having been in the military, I'll leave that to my betters. My argument is simply with your blaming the Bible for your opinions. Your statement that "my morals and ethics are exactly that... mine" doesn't agree with your earlier contention that "My claim that homosexuality is wrong is Biblical." Are you backing off on that now? And on what basis do you disagree with my biblical analysis? Note that I haven't suggested the Bible _condones _homosexuality, nor have I ever seen a "liberal" interpretation that suggests that. I suspect most liberals would just deny the authority of the Bible outright on the matter, rather than trying to twist it to justify homosexuality. All I'm saying is that the biblical prohibition against gay sex isn't the Eleventh Commandment people often try to make it out to be - it's just another rule, like not eating shrimp or touching a pig or wearing linen and wool together.

If you're saying now that [FONT=&quot]you just don't like homosexuals and want to leave the Bible out of it, then I guess we don't have an argument.
[/FONT]


----------



## Xeiheo

WouldaShoulda said:


> I said no such thing, at least I didn't mean to, so I will clarify.
> 
> Favoritism, ill will and harassment does exist in the military as it does elsewhere. For the time being, the favoritism, ill will and harassment that would be compounded with the introduction of openly gay servicemembers to the ranks is avoided. Thus, the introduction of openly gay servicemembers to the ranks would not enhance the mission. If the mission of the military is formost, DADT should stay. I think is was introduced as a humane alternative to dishonorable discharge and I supported it. If equity for gays is formost, DADT should go. But the discussion should be honest.


 Thank you for clarifying, though I'm still not sure how favoritism will encroach into the military by allowing gay service members to serve openly as opposed to allowing them to serve while in the closet (the current policy).

Past actions of integration have been met with the same criticism you just raised: "black soldiers would surely cause a disturbance in the barracks, as would having women working outside of the infirmary!" If you agree that those policies, in the long run hurt the military, than I welcome you to openly call for their repeal. Will there be incidents in the first few years? It's possible. However, the bigger disgrace will be to perpetuate the hateful attitude of, "we're okay with gay people, so long as they don't act gay."

Let us remember that the military works for the people of America and not the other way around. That is why we have a civilian in charge of the armed forces (in fact, there are two civilians who are senior in authority to any person in uniform). The people of America have indicated that DADT should not be in place and needs to be repealed. The commander-in-chief has said the same, as has the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If you honestly think that those three people do not have the best interest of America and our military at heart, please make that clear. The military now knows that this policy needs to be changed; that is why Admiral Mullen has launched his inquiry in to the matter.

If I really thought this is strictly a matter of gay rights, then the question should not be if, but when; and the answer to that would be now. I agree that it needs to be done responsibly, once the military knows it can handle it. I have faith in our elected and appointed officers to keep the interests of this nation at heart when proceeding with this issue. My question to those who argue for DADT is this: if Admiral Mullen announced tomorrow that DADT would be repealed by the end of 2011, would you support him?


----------



## Xeiheo

eagle2250 said:


> The examples you cite also accommodated, condoned, perhaps encouraged, practices that by today's definitions would constitute acts of genocide and pedophilia. Would you suggest that our military services should also accommodate such perverted practices as that? This conversation is encroaching on the outer limits of just plain silly.


 My point was to show how absurd the argument that, "this is how all empires fall." In other words, races don't live or die by slinking in to moral depravity, but rather because of complex geopolitical issues. Rome fell because it was based on an unsustainable model of persecution; the British Empire fell for similar reasons. American won't crumble from within because we allow gays to serve openly in the military. Many of the nations that allow this have significantly higher standards of living than America, so the correlation you proposed doesn't even exist, let alone an argument that one causes the other!


----------



## OldMilitary

*Chouan, you are thinking too much.*



Chouan said:


> Quite. You consistently imply that educating American military people is somehow harder, or more fraught with difficulty than educating British military people. Are American military people more intractable, ignorant and unresponsive to education and leadership? Or are the American military people who do the education, and leadership less competent? Or less willing to educate in an area thaty they are uncomfortable with? It can only be one or the other. It is either the incapable or unwilling leaders, or the intractable led. The American forces, in terms of training are surely not that much of a special case?


Chouan, we make do with the cards we are dealt and the cards speak for themselves. *America isn't Britain! * We have to deal with it.

It is that simple.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

JerseyJohn said:


> Your statement that "my morals and ethics are exactly that... mine" doesn't agree with your earlier contention that "My claim that homosexuality is wrong is Biblical." Are you backing off on that now? And on what basis do you disagree with my biblical analysis?


No senor, you are making logical jumps with too much assumption. My morals and ethics are shaped by the Bible, but they are still mine. I really don't care what a homosexual does with his/her own life. That's not a concern I have. I believe that homosexuality (along with a plethora of other sin) is wrong. So what? If you want to live your life differently, then so be it.

You try to equate homosexuality with old testament laws regarding that which is unclean. Maybe I should specify that Jesus pretty much clears that part up in the new testament. It would be more accurate Biblically to lump homosexuality with immoral behavior. This includes adultery, fornication, idolators, etc. (1 Cor 6). I will say though that a lot of people do tend to attack homosexuality with more vigor than other sins. I can only speculate that much of it comes as a response to the outward/open promotion of gay issues. It's not like there are pro-adultery marches going on in America.

Can we go back to talking about clothing? (mockingly hypocritical)


----------



## OldMilitary

*Jovan, you are confused about what I have been saying.*



Jovan said:


> Old Military: While I appreciate your experience, you're slowly falling into sensationalism. Because bad things can happen, we shouldn't be progressive in hiring openly gay men? You can't deny that there will be problems even if we repeal DADT 30 years from now. If we don't do it now, _when will we_? This is exactly what the prejudiced people who are doing the beating WANT to happen. They want to scare us. We can't lose to hatred, even if we're doing it with best intentions.


Jovan, I have only been suggesting, and even mildly insisting on providing *separate and equal accommodations* for our service people so that Gay and Straight people can bunk, shower and toilet separately with relative privacy so that everyone can serve.
Yes I have pointed out that sometimes there may be problem areas where the convenience of *"separate and equal"* might not be readily attainable. There trade offs will have to be made.
Yes, these additional accommodations will add more cost to our military infrastructure, but politically it is necessary.

The *"separate and equal"* idea in bunking, showering, and toileting has already been instituted for the* two sexes* of men and women, and should be also utilized as we officially add *"other sexes"* such as gays and lesbians.

I am working diligently in trying to avoid the *sensationalism *that could occur if we don't do our best ahead of time to avoid the problems of "too much togetherness" between disparate people."


----------



## Xeiheo

Separate but equal... where have I heard that before?


----------



## OldMilitary

*Yeah, it sounds like a non-starter at first.*



Xeiheo said:


> Separate but equal... where have I heard that before?


Yeah, it sounds like a non-starter at first, but it really serves to ram the real point across when you say *"separate and equal" like Mens and Womens restrooms.* Then people understand what what you are talking about and appreciate the purpose.

Besides you are putting a *"but"* between the two words. I used an *"and."*

Makes all the difference.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Xeiheo said:


> Thank you for clarifying, though I'm still not sure how favoritism will encroach into the military by allowing gay service members to serve openly as opposed to allowing them to serve while in the closet (the current policy).
> 
> Past actions of integration have been met with the same criticism you just raised: "black soldiers would surely cause a disturbance in the barracks, as would having women working outside of the infirmary!" If you agree that those policies, in the long run hurt the military, than I welcome you to openly call for their repeal.
> 
> if Admiral Mullen announced tomorrow that DADT would be repealed by the end of 2011, would you support him?


1. You are pretending to not understand it.

2. To conflate the DADT argument with racial intigration is disingenuous.

3. No.


----------



## Chouan

OldMilitary said:


> Chouan, we make do with the cards we are dealt and the cards speak for themselves. *America isn't Britain! *We have to deal with it.
> 
> It is that simple.


It might be if you could answer the question that I posed a while ago. To paraphrase, what is it about the US military that means that they can't be educated? The inability of the educatees to learn, or the inability of the educators to teach, or, indeed, lead?


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Chouan: Call it the influence of the Cowboy gene or whatever you so choose but, the bottom line is Americans have characteristically proven more independent in their personal opinions and thought processes than have the British. I'm not arguing that that is good or bad, right or wrong, superior or inferior...it just is! Try to accept that or, LOL...are you just not teachable on this point?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

DADT worked fine in my professional military days. 
I think it was Eagle who also mentioned this earlier, and now I'm oging to say it again: the only time I ever experienced any friction between people for various reasons, race, religion etc was off duty in the barracks, and never when out in the field or on patrol. Because "at work" everyone maintained a professional approach to the job.
And on this issue it should be career military men like Eagle that are listened to not civilians who think that gays in the military will threaten the combat soldier on the front line because they won't. That view belittles the integrity, professionalism and
loyality of homosexual troops.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Earl of Ormonde said:


> ...not civilians who think that gays in the military will threaten the combat soldier on the front line because they won't.


That would be a silly argument. I'm not sure anyone actually made such an argument, but if they did it would be silly!!



WouldaShoulda said:


> Favoritism, ill will and harassment does exist in the military as it does elsewhere.
> 
> For the time being, the favoritism, ill will and harassment that would be compounded with the introduction of openly gay servicemembers to the ranks is avoided.
> 
> Thus, the introduction of openly gay servicemembers to the ranks would not enhance the mission.
> 
> If the mission of the military is formost, DADT should stay. I think is was introduced as a humane alternative to dishonorable discharge and I supported it.
> 
> If equity for gays is formost, DADT should go.


How about a statement as simple as above??


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

WouldaShoulda said:


> That would be a silly argument. I'm not sure anyone actually made such an argument, but if they did it would be silly!!


 Bad choice of word on my part, I didn't mean threaten in the physical sense, rather to make the job more difficult than it already is. It is a daft argument I agree, but it was alluded to earlier in the thread.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Bad choice of word on my part, I didn't mean threaten in the physical sense, rather to make the job more difficult than it already is.


Fair enough.

Therein lies the only real issue. (to me)

That repeal of DADT creates a distraction and makes the job more difficult than it already is.

Not impossible, but with an additional and unnecessary distraction.

And, are the distractions a worthwhile price to pay for gay equity.

Reasonable people can differ over these issues.

Hyperbole, religion, and hateful allegations cloud the process.


----------



## OldMilitary

*eagle2250, I am not sure what Chouan is really trying to get at.*



eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Chouan: Call it the influence of the Cowboy gene or whatever you so choose but, the bottom line is Americans have characteristically proven more independent in their personal opinions and thought processes than have the British. I'm not arguing that that is good or bad, right or wrong, superior or inferior...it just is! Try to accept that or, LOL...are you just not teachable on this point?


eagle2250, I am not sure what Chouan is really trying to get at. I have described many times the differences between Britain and America here in this thread, but Chouan just keeps coming back to the subject ignoring what has been said by myself as well as others.

I really didn't want to be impolite and bring up the fact that some years ago we threw out King George's Redcoats in a pretty dramatic rejection of many of England's customs, laws and beliefs. (I understand they actually have a Queen now, but that isn't really germane.)

_(I may next bring up the old teaching parable about the fast hare and the faster bullet.)_


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

OldMilitary said:


> I really didn't want to be impolite and bring up the fact that some years ago we threw out King George's Redcoats in a pretty dramatic rejection of many of England's customs, laws and beliefs. (I understand they actually have a Queen now, but that isn't really germane.)


Nice respone!  Queen Germane or was it Queer Greer ?


----------



## Chouan

OldMilitary said:


> eagle2250, I am not sure what Chouan is really trying to get at. I have described many times the differences between Britain and America here in this thread, but Chouan just keeps coming back to the subject ignoring what has been said by myself as well as others.
> 
> I really didn't want to be impolite and bring up the fact that some years ago we threw out King George's Redcoats in a pretty dramatic rejection of many of England's customs, laws and beliefs. (I understand they actually have a Queen now, but that isn't really germane.)
> 
> _(I may next bring up the old teaching parable about the fast hare and the faster bullet.)_


By our customs, laws and beliefs, which you rejected in 1776, can I assume that you mean democracy, rule of law, and equality? In any case, I thought that Britain was defeated through the agency of the French Navy, which prevented Britain from reinforcing and re-supplying its continental army, but perhaps you did it all by yourselves. I realise, as I'm sure you do, that your 18th Century ideas of equality and Liberty excluded the Native Americans, and of course Black people, and that it took nearly another 200 years for your much-loved liberty to be extended to Black people, and nearly as long for your Chinese and Japanese citizens (and do your Mexicans have it yet?). 
I'd have thought that what I am getting at is quite straight forward, it is a question that you keep ignoring. I've read and understood what you've been saying, beyond your oft repeated mantra of "America is different". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of your view is that accepting homosexuality is a problem in the US military because US military people think that it is a problem. Why is it a problem? Are US Military people confirmed homophobes who wish to deny equality to people whose sexual preference is different? Are US Military people so ignorant that they can't understand that homosexuals are not necessarily sexual predators? Are US military leaders also so homophobic or ignorant that they can't understand that gay people can serve just as well as they can? The view that I get from your comments is that US love of liberty and "rugged individualism" (to quote the much loved president who did so much for his people during the depression) means that homophobia is a fixed feature of the US military psyche, indeed, of working class America as a whole, and that your "Cowboy gene or whatever you so choose but, the bottom line is Americans have characteristically proven more independent in their personal opinions and thought processes " means that they are incapable of developing the independence of thought that allows them to rise from the trough of homophobic ignorance that they seem to be stuck in. Your response as a Military leader is to defend that ignorance and dress it up, somehow, as a love of liberty and hatred of tyranny.


----------



## VictorRomeo

_"By our customs, laws and beliefs, which you rejected in 1776, can I assume that you mean democracy, rule of law, and equality?"_

With respect, Britain was hardly a bastion of democracy, rule of law, and particularly equality back then and long after....


----------



## williamson

Chouan said:


> By our customs, laws and beliefs, which you rejected in 1776, can I assume that you mean democracy, rule of law, and equality? In any case, I thought that Britain was defeated through the agency of the French Navy, which prevented Britain from reinforcing and re-supplying its continental army, but perhaps you did it all by yourselves. I realise, as I'm sure you do, that your 18th Century ideas of equality and Liberty excluded the Native Americans, and of course Black people, and that it took nearly another 200 years for your much-loved liberty to be extended to Black people, and nearly as long for your Chinese and Japanese citizens (and do your Mexicans have it yet?).


Victor Romeo is right concerning your first sentence (after 1776 Britain went through a long period of reaction) but the points you make in the rest of what I have quoted are on the spot.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> _"By our customs, laws and beliefs, which you rejected in 1776, can I assume that you mean democracy, rule of law, and equality?"_
> 
> With respect, Britain was hardly a bastion of democracy, rule of law, and particularly equality back then and long after....


That was laughable, wasn't it??


----------



## Chouan

VictorRomeo said:


> _"By our customs, laws and beliefs, which you rejected in 1776, can I assume that you mean democracy, rule of law, and equality?"_
> 
> With respect, Britain was hardly a bastion of democracy, rule of law, and particularly equality back then and long after....


And America, or indeed, any other country was? Britain's democracy may have been limited, but it was a concept embraced by the ruling elite, even if it was a narrow franchise. The rule of law was similarly embraced by the ruling elite. We fought a Civil war over it, and, if I remember rightly, the side backing Rule of Law over arbitrary rule won. Equality? Equality before the law was established in Magna Carta. The concept of equality of birth was established in America, and France, by Tom Payne, an Englishman.
The British in America objected to being denied, as they saw it, the concept of "No taxation without Representation", which was regarded as paramount in Britain. They wanted, as Englishmen, dare I say it, the freedoms and rights that freeholders had in Britain. 
In any case, I didn't say that Britain was a "bastion" of those things. They were, however, central to British political culture. Look at the public reaction in London in the later 18th Century, for example, if they thought that their rights were being infringed.


----------



## Xeiheo

Just a bit of news: there is legislation that may be introduced as early as this week which has been worked out between Obama, Congressional Democrats, and the Defense Department, which would repeal DADT as early as December 1, 2010, pending the release and review of the Defense Department's own internal assessment of the military's readiness. The deal obviously has the full support of the President and the majority parties in the House and Senate, as well as the tentative approval of the Defense Department. Seems the only hold-outs right now are the far right, and even they are starting to loose steam by not outright opposing the measure.

Earlier report

Gates on the measure

It's unclear right now if the legislation would preempt any information in the DoD report, so we'll have to wait and see the exact language of the amendment.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> _"By our customs, laws and beliefs, which you rejected in 1776, can I assume that you mean democracy, rule of law, and equality?"_
> 
> With respect, Britain was hardly a bastion of democracy, rule of law, and particularly equality back then and long after....


Oh my God, his rabid revisionism of British atrocities seems to know no bounds. I've had him on ignore now since yesterday evening so I assume that gem was posted today! LOL!!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Xeiheo said:


> It's unclear right now if the legislation would preempt any information in the DoD report, so we'll have to wait and see the exact language of the amendment.


Any ideas why this would be addressed now instead of waiting for the report??

Any currents events/failures require deflection at this time??


----------



## OldMilitary

*When is a rose not a rose?*

When is a rose not a rose?

_When it is artificial._

We have followed the behind the scenes more or less manipulations, but still were surprised by this latest product. I will give a good article below, but before you read it consider.

This does change a law, *if *it can get the votes.
(That is up in the air.)

It would affect nothing more *UNTIL* the triggers are pulled.

Likewise the whole process could be stopped or essentially rescinded without passing a repeal law. (_That is the current thought_.)

Anyway, a group of Obama/Democratic supporters get something when they had just about despaired of getting anything EVEN IF THIS IS REJECTED ALTOGETHER. They were worried and still should be that the GOP would take over congress or the Senate in 2010.
But they still have to get the votes.
My thought is no one knows at this time which way it will go.

If it does go through, and if the triggers are pulled, I hope that we have the money for the barracks privacy modifications as needed throughout the system.

As for more to read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/dont-ask-about-repeal-anymore/57204/

Don't Ask About Repeal Anymore

May 25 2010, 11:46 AM ET | Comment
Here's why the White House and the Pentagon so quickly accepted the Don't Ask, Don't Tell compromise: it provides comfort to a political ally and doesn't really change the process or calendar for its repeal...


----------



## Chouan

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Oh my God, his rabid revisionism of British atrocities seems to know no bounds. I've had him on ignore now since yesterday evening so I assume that gem was posted today! LOL!!!


It's a pity that I'm on his ignore list. I seem to have touched a nerve by disagreeing with him on another thread. I'd be interested if anybody could point me towards what "British atrocities" he is referring to, or even point out how my views are "Rabid revisionism".


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Chouan: Your leaving out the quote that the Earl was commenting in response to, seems somewhat deceptive/misleading.

However, I find it more intriguing to wonder, from what does your seeming dislike/disapproval of all things American, derive? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Chouan

Can you point out anything anti-American that I've ever posted?
I don't need to as all of our readership can see it for themselves.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Can you Limeys start your own "What I loathe about the USA" thread or something??

SHEESH!!


----------



## Xeiheo

The proposition that the British are more or less democratic by nature than Americans is fairly laughable. I wonder how the nation that brought us such gems as the Magna Carta, large-scale representative government, _The Second Treatise on Civil Government_, could be characterized as undemocratic for its time. The reason for the Declaration of Independence was the fact that the American colonies had no representation in the home government (which was a perfectly valid reason for separation). Since then, each country has had their problems with actually realizing the idealistic principles which led to their democratic revolutions (the treatment of minorities or the full enfranchisement of all in each nation), but please set aside historically baseless claims.

On to the real point of this discussion, it seems to me that if the civilian and military commanders of our armed forces issue an order to the subordinates, they should follow it, no?


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> Can you point out anything anti-American that I've ever posted?
> I don't need to as all of our readership can see it for themselves.


I suppose if I were to overlook your statements questioning our innate intelligence and judgement, or alleging some unspecified spurious intent in our actions, the incompetence of our military leadership and the untrainability of our soldier, sailors and airmen, there is probably nothing left to be said. You see, I too have confidence in the abilities of our membership to read and understand the intent of your postings. You should read your own postings, Chouan but then (LOL), my late Mama always said I was her sensitive child!


----------



## Chouan

But it is you, and others who have consistently argued that "America is different" when I've pointed out that Britain's armed forces established toleration for gay people. The argument offered has been that, whereas Britain's armed forces have accepted gay rights, US armed forces would have serious diffculties with accepting them. I've repeatedly asked why; the only reasons I can see are those that you find "anti-American". Nobody has offered me an answer as to why your forces can't or won't be educated. 
If your military can't or won't be educated, I've suggested that that is a problem with either them or their leadership. Can you offer another explanation? I don't see that as an anti-American statement.


----------



## OldMilitary

*eagle2250, Chouan is not serious.*



eagle2250 said:


> I suppose if I were to overlook your statements questioning our innate intelligence and judgement, or alleging some unspecified spurious intent in our actions, the incompetence of our military leadership and the untrainability of our soldier, sailors and airmen, there is probably nothing left to be said. You see, I too have confidence in the abilities of our membership to read and understand the intent of your postings. You should read your own postings, Chouan but then (LOL), my late Mama always said I was her sensitive child!


eagle2250, Chouan is not serious in this conversation. His primary mission is to annoy and harass. 
.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

WouldaShoulda said:


> Can you Limeys start your own "What I loathe about the USA" thread or something??
> 
> SHEESH!!


Well said!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

OldMilitary said:


> eagle2250, Chouan is not serious in this conversation. His primary mission is to annoy and harass.
> .


Agreed, he's making an annoying habit of it all over the forums though.


----------



## eagle2250

Earl, Old Military: I suspect the two of you are spot-on with your observations and will sit back and, as I typed in an earlier post, sit back and depend on the membership to reach their own conclusions regarding Chouan. Thanks guys!


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> Earl, Old Military: I suspect the two of you are spot-on with your observations and will sit back and, as I typed in an earlier post, sit back and depend on the membership to reach their own conclusions regarding Chouan. Thanks guys!


Of course the membership can reach their own conclusions; however, the two members who've accused me of trolling are both people who've disagreed with what I've said, so they can draw their own conclusions on that as well. 
I've asked the same question repeatedly of OldMilitary, which isn't a joke, but a serious question. I've asked you the same question, and neither of you will answer it.
I'll re-phrase it. If US military people could be educated out of the deep seated racist view held of Black people, why can't they we educated out of an essentially homophobic view of gay people. Other military forces have made that step, why can't that of the US?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> Other military forces have made that step, why can't that of the US?


I have made 61, no, 62 contributions to this thread.

Have you read one of them??


----------



## VictorRomeo

_"Of course the membership can reach their own conclusions; however, the two members who've accused me of trolling are both people who've disagreed with what I've said, so they can draw their own conclusions on that as well." 
_ 
You see, the problem is you make these dramatic, inflammatory statments that when challenged you can't or wont back your posts up with reasoned dialogue. You cry myth, repeat the same questions ad nauseum and/or plainly ignore the responses posted.

So now there are at least five members on the board that are experiencing this on different topics and are as you say drawing their own conclusions.


----------



## Cruiser

Chouan said:


> Nobody has offered me an answer as to why your forces can't or won't be educated.
> If your military can't or won't be educated, I've suggested that that is a problem with either them or their leadership. Can you offer another explanation? .


I don't think it's an issue of whether or not the American forces can be trained or educated, of course they can. I think that many are saying that they believe it will simply be a more difficult task than it was in the UK because the cultures are different. Studies have consistently shown that as a whole folks in the UK have been and still are more tolerant of homosexuality than folks in America. I'm not condoning this, just pointing it out. While tolerance and/or acceptance may be increasing in America, it still trails the UK.

Since the folks who make up the military come from the general population of the country it stands to reason that if the general population of one country is less tolerant/accepting of homosexuality, then the military will mimic that viewpoint; however, it's even more skewed in the U.S.. The American military tends to attract a disproportionate number of it's members from the very conservative South and Midwest moreso than from the more liberal parts of America, and middle America tend to be less accepting overall of homosexuality. And again, I'm not saying that this is the way it should be, just that it is.

The primary role of the central government is to provide for the National defense. Everything else should be secondary to that. The State and local governments along with private groups can educate the children, provide services, and just about anything else one can imagine. National defense is the one area in which there cannot be major mistakes in judgement. The United States is not the UK and likely never will be so just because something worked or was easy there doesn't mean that it will be the same here. Maybe it will, I don't know; however, I do know that just because some want something to be a certain way doesn't always mean it can or will be.

Thinking this issue through thoroughly and having meaningful debate is the proper thing to do. Simply declaring that the UK did it so America can too or worse declaring America to be inferior because it can't do it like the UK, without examining the differences in the cultures of the two countries isn't meaningful debate.

Cruiser


----------



## Chouan

At least you've made a rational reasoned argument. I've never said that the US was inferior, all I've said is nobody has been able to offer a rational argument as to why a western, democratic, universally educated state cannot socially educate its military people when other western, democratic, universally educated states, like Britain, can.
You've suggested that the US is less tolerant, and, potentially, educationally, less open minded and by inference, harder to educate in this area. I wouldn't say that your attitude is anti-American, yet when I've asked whether this was the case *I've* been accused of being anti-American.


----------



## Chouan

VictorRomeo said:


> _"Of course the membership can reach their own conclusions; however, the two members who've accused me of trolling are both people who've disagreed with what I've said, so they can draw their own conclusions on that as well."
> _
> You see, the problem is you make these dramatic, inflammatory statments that when challenged you can't or wont back your posts up with reasoned dialogue. You cry myth, repeat the same questions ad nauseum and/or plainly ignore the responses posted.
> 
> So now there are at least five members on the board that are experiencing this on different topics and are as you say drawing their own conclusions.


I was accused of being anti-Irish because I disagreed with what was beiong presented as History by people that I would have thought would have known better. I responded to their replies, because I didn't accept their reasoning, or their accusations, doesn't mean that I ignored them.
I repeat the same questions because the people whose views I'm questioning won't answer them!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> You've suggested that the US is less tolerant, and, potentially, educationally, less open minded and by inference, harder to educate in this area. I wouldn't say that your attitude is anti-American, yet when I've asked whether this was the case *I've* been accused of being anti-American.


HA!!

Now you are the victim.

Excellent!!

Well done.


----------



## VictorRomeo

_"....by people that I would have thought would have known better"_

Cacoethes carpendi

And on, and on we go.....


----------



## Xeiheo

I repeat:

this thread is now becoming a meta-conversation about the integrity of one board member. Doesn't such a dispute belong in private messages rather than in the open, especially on a completely unrelated topic thread?

Perhaps I gravely mistake what is happening, but in my debate years, meta-arguments like this tend to develop for a certain reason... :teacha:


----------



## OldMilitary

*Everybody, on the serious side, that is.*

Everybody, of the serious side, that is.

I personally will no longer address any on the dark (non serious) side.

Other than that, I really enjoy the great conversation here and if I don't address everyone's comments it is only because of a lack of time.

This is a very good group!

And good buddies, if I ever forget and falter and seem to touch the dark side here, then PLEASE REMIND ME NOT TO.

In fact you have express permission from me to throw several *large* *dirt clods* at me if I do somehow forget myself.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

OldMilitary;1106109
In fact you have express permission from me to throw several [B said:


> large[/B] *dirt clods* at me if I do somehow forget myself.


Stockpile of WMD* ready 

*Wads of Muddy Dung


----------



## Xeiheo

So the news is in. The House has voted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and similar legislation has made it through the Senate Armed Services committee and will likely be voted on by the whole body in the coming month. The bill stipulates that the ban cannot be reversed until Dec. 1st, 2010 at the very latest, pending the approval of both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Xeiheo said:


> The House has voted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell,


Don't you find that language misleading??

If DADT were "being repealed" it would mean resorting to dishonorably discharging homosexuals from military service the way they were before DADT was implemented.


----------



## Xeiheo

Would you prefer I say that the House voted change the military code to allow gays to serve openly, in the process nullifying DADT? If that significantly changes the argument, I fail to see how!

Also, I find Barry Goldwater's words on the issue particularly poignant at this point in time:
"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." -Barry Goldwater


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Xeiheo said:


> Would you prefer I say that the House voted change the military code to allow gays to serve openly?
> 
> If that significantly changes the argument, I fail to see how!


Yes.

It changes it simply because DADT doesn't prohibit gays to serve in the military. It did just the oposite.

Honesty and transperency are the hallmarks of good leadership.


----------



## Xeiheo

If you feel I misconstrued what happened, allow me to clarify:

Federal law prohibits gay and lesbians from serving in the military as of now (a policy made effective in 1950). "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" refers specifically to the executive order issued by Clinton that forbade members of the armed services to pursuing rumors and claims against service men and women without substantial evidence. More broadly, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" refers to the status quo situation in which open homosexuality is expressly forbidden in the military while it is theoretically allowed to be in the closet and still serve. When I said DADT has been repealed, I meant that the former 1950 policy has been repealed by a provision in the defense appropriation bill passed by the House that struck that part of the Uniform Military Code, thus making the executive order irrelevant.

I hope that clears everything up. If at any point you think I was being dishonest, I apologize for the confusion, but I can assure I was not.


----------



## OldMilitary

*Well, it ain't over until the fife and drum sounds and the troops march off the field.*

Some say it is a done deal. The law says repeal waits only on the Big Chief's, POTUS, SecDef and the Joint Chief say so, therefore though the 4 individual Service Chiefs say "hold on" that really doesn't matter.

The big guys have already telegraphed their intent.

One thing the Gays don't like and have been muttering about is the fact that the law will state that there is *NO*_* Non Discrimination Statue*_ per sec included in the law. We read that to mean that the service can assign as it will without being challenged on Discrimination issues.

Therefore there is no problem assigning 

*Separate Accommodations

*as needed.

So I guess maybe it is time to trot out the *Fife and Drum Corps* and play some music. (Bear with me. Sometimes I get to MC these kinds of things. I love it.) *For your enjoyment!!





*


----------



## OldMilitary

*More on the nitty gritty behind the scenes-*

More on the nitty gritty behind the scenes-

*(But first I hope everyone enjoyed the Fife and Drums!)*

I will give the Link to the article that gives a blow by blow sequencing to what happened as I understand it. And then I will give the pertinent quote regarding what I have said.

And one other thing. The fat lady hasn't sang yet! But this is the way some people see it going!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/dont-ask-dont-tell-fight_n_599718.html

*'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Fight Encountered Heavy Military Resistance

Ryan Grim,
HuffPost Reporting* _*

"...Military leaders refused to accept language that would bar discrimination, so the clause was dropped. And instead of repealing the policy immediately, it will remain in effect until the President, Defense Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify repeal, which can't take place until Byrd's 60 days after the report have elapsed..."*
_


----------



## OldMilitary

*The latest info. And yes we are trying to get ready. "Ready or not!"*

*Don't ask, don't tell' law's expected repeal creates strange state of limbo*

*By Greg Jaffe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 13, 2010

"The day after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced in March that the military would ease enforcement of its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, a 21-year-old soldier in Baghdad learned that he had been outed by a fellow service member.

The soldier's command opened an investigation into the charge, and he quickly retained a lawyer. Then, nothing happened. His platoon sergeant told him that his command was going to "stick the investigation in a manila envelope and put the envelope in a desk," recalled the soldier, whose name is being withheld at his request.

The only change he noticed was that his platoon sergeant, once prone to shouting out a derogatory term for gay men, cut back his usage.

"And when he does say it," the soldier noted, "he'll give me a look like he is sorry."

The soldier's case reflects the subtle, but significant, changes taking place throughout the military even before the expected repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Although it seems unlikely that changes to the policy will go into effect before next year, front-line troops, their commanders and others are already preparing themselves for the law's demise. ...

... Under current legislation, any repeal must be delayed until the military certifies that changes won't hinder the ability of U.S. forces to fight, and the Pentagon is in the midst of a comprehensive review to determine how to fully integrate openly gay men and lesbians.

Among other issues, that review is examining whether gay and heterosexual troops should be required to share barracks...."*  
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

I speak for myself now.
I have been around a long time, it seems and am closing in on 30 years. I have picked up a few things along the way. A little metal fragment where it is easier to leave it and "watch it carefully" rather than remove it, a few little titanium plates, screws, and even a rod, but I have also picked up over the years a lot of friends, and that is the best part of the military. I can't do a lot of the things I did at 20, but a lot of the friends are still there.

There is a togetherness in the barracks, in the mess, even in the showers in the military. When you start out as a young man you are all the same. The training is the same, the rules are the same, the choices are the same. On choices, not many, but still that is for everyone!

You feel you are in it together, whether marching down the road, PT in the morning, making up your beds the right way, getting your boot shine, locker or trunk just right, slipping over to the beer garden, or trying to put holes in a paper target way the hell over there.

Black or white or brown, or red, or yellow, so what! You all think the same way. "Look at that chick!" "Momma buy me that." "Man your old lady is so fine!"
"By the numbers, unzip, extend tool, fire, all of it in the slit trench fool! Zip up! Withdraw the tool first fool!"

The gay guys sometimes seem to say, "well they must know we are gay or that there are gays there, so what is the big deal?" Bull, we don't want to think you are gay, that would be too upsetting to deliberately use a mild word, so we just think maybe you are a bit strange, or a sissy, or were raised by old spinster aunts or we just plain ignore the possibility! * We honestly don't want to know you are gay.* Don't want to know! (And here try to imagine a kid shutting tight his eyes, and sticking his fingers in his ears.)

It all ends up to this, that I take from a song and change a little:

~We don't want you to call us
we are telling you not to bother coming around anymore~

That is what the gays will be facing in the military. Not the togetherness that I found at 20 and that served me so well.


----------

