Seems that the issues are far more ranging than just DADT (YouTube NSFW). Language warnings, and nude computer puppets.
Humor break
Printable View
Seems that the issues are far more ranging than just DADT (YouTube NSFW). Language warnings, and nude computer puppets.
Humor break
Thanks Sam !Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
I seemed to have missed the NSFW portions. Perhaps our server blocked the obscenities ;)
Don't cheapen your position. I'm perfectly aware of what UCMJ Article 125 contains, and you're perfectly aware of the specific portions of it to which I was referring.
I am reasonably certain that the recent bill repealing DADT was, in fact, about sexual orientation. That's the centerpiece of the current discussion, so I have a hard time seeing where we suddenly shifted to mainly considering soldiers' ability to follow orders and regulations, with homosexuality as a sidebar.
Your point 2 consists entirely of avoidance. I said that retaining experience is, on the whole, a good thing for an organization, and pulling out special cases where individuals actively work against the organization doesn't alter the truth of that general statement. I don't know if Dunlap was correct or not, because I don't know (and don't have time/inclination to investigate) which of the four articles of his on the linked page you're referring to.
My charge is that the personnel of all four branches are, without and without need for discussion, by and large not deciding to investigate and prosecute heterosexual violations of Article 125. This state of affairs is readily apparent to anyone who is familiar with the military. Nobody reports it, so nobody prosecutes it, because nobody cares.
The problem with DADT, as I've said before, is that it sounds nice but it doesn't work in practice. Sure, nobody specifically asks about a soldier's sexuality. But sex is a common topic, and remaining silent anytime it comes up generally leads to suspicion and/or assumption, not to mention the stress I discussed in a previous post. The soldier could always lie, I suppose--certainly that would be the professional thing to do.
As for its Constitutionality, a court ruled against it in September. That decision has not been overturned by SCOTUS, and with the recent repeal, it's unlikely to ever be.
Goddammit, I am a straight person but I have to truly bite my tongue to resist calling you a XXX.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boot
When did you decide to be straight? I didn't decide, nor did you. If you have to make a conscious choice every day to find women attractive, I may have some unsettling news for you (here's a hint: you might be gay)! I was fortunate to be born straight. Some people simply find themselves attracted to the same sex.
Every gay person I know, which is a great deal because I was raised in a very gay city (take a guess), has said they cannot arbitrarily choose who they are attracted to. They never made a conscious choice to be attracted to men or to women. I like women who are around 5 foot 4, with curves, a stacked ass, tanned skin, and a hot face. I didn't make a checklist one day and determine I loved those things from there on out.
The best thing about this is that history will vindicate me. People like you will be remembered as fondly as those who fought to deny black people their human rights prior to the Civil Rights Act. Gay people may be weird as hell sometimes, but they're human just like us, and they deserve equal rights.
I'm a little disappointed as I thought you were on the right track arguing your point with dignity and intellect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus Ex
This post is just a load of Sierra and leaves me with the impression you will simply continue.
Please tone it down and attack the subject not the council members.
The whole sexuality = choice thing seems to be specifically U.S. myth.
I've never heard or read it coming from any European source. The whole idea is alien in Germany (and would be laughed at by almost everyone here).
Tip for U.S. culture wars: Look at other Western nations. Many nations have settled the very same issues long ago, usually overwhelmingly in favour of a specific answer.
Germany addressed almost all of the current U.S. culture war topics in the period of 1880-2000 and laid them to permanent rest.
Same as Fuchs said.
I really don't get the hub-bub. I had both a gay and a lesbian soldier under my command; all the horror stories you tell are simply not true.
Funny, while the end of the world(TM) is being debated the Canadian military just updated its dress policy to address transgendered members.
Sure, there is no problem... but maybe then you missed this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Infanteer
Canada sacks general in Afghanistan
Chief of Canadian forces serving under Nato dismissed for "inappropriate relationship".
In turn every nation needs to address this issue and now its the time of the US military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
The generals were correct in that the military is not ready for gays to serve openly in the military. The military is being being to be the social guinea-pig for the nation.
The generals (perhaps) argued the case badly but I would have thought that they would have told the legislators to first amend the constitution and any legislation (as applicable) before forcing this on the military. Then they should have been honest about the MST (military sexual trauma) incidence in the military currently.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...546344551.html
"2,200 reported rapes in the military in 2007" is an outrageous figure and based on the generally accept rule of thumb that 8-10 times the reported rape figure go unreported.
It gets worse:
'I reported the rape within 30 minutes - then watched my career implode'
The generals were correct... this is not the right time to open the gates.Quote:
" During the last Gulf war, 8% of women sent overseas were sexually assaulted or raped, according to a study by researchers for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. "
An egotistical General with a history of philandering who got caught breaking regulations that most soldiers have no problem adhereing to - what's to miss?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
The soldier he was with was a female clerk, so your point (as usual) has nothing to do with homosexuality or integration into combat units. That's 1397 inane posts; care to contribute anything else?
Dammit, Infanteer, with your posting based on actual command experience with gay and lesbian soldiers in the field (in a North American military that eliminated discrimination based on sexual orientation 18 years ago with no discernible ill effects). Facts and practical experience have no place in this debate!Quote:
Originally Posted by Infanteer
Well... when would be a good time? Given that we integrated women in 1948 and we're still having issues, does it even matter if we do it at a "good" time or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
The decision has been made it is going to happen now... so its a done deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
I can only offer my opinion on the matter for what its worth.
I have a strong opinion that under no circumstances should sexual tension be introduced into combat units. That means women and gays.
In my experience it is enough of a challenge keeping the integrity of the focus/control/camaraderie of combat infantry troops intact without adding sexual rules of engagement to this already complex brew.
So my position is that anything which introduces sexual tension into a combat unit should be avoided at all costs as it will degrade the units combat ability.
Gen Amos spoke of "distractions", “unit cohesion” and said:
I agree 100% with Gen Amos but differ in how I would have presented my argument to the Senate hearing.Quote:
When a firefight breaks out, he said, lives depend on “intuitive behavior” free from distraction.
1. Be clear that the distraction that will adversely affect unit cohesion is the introduction of sexual tension. (don't be vague on this)
2. Be honest that the introduction of women into the military remains fraught with difficulties (and cite for example that "during the last Gulf war, 8% of women sent overseas were sexually assaulted or raped") which the military does not have a handle on yet. Also to mention the pregnancy rate among females in the same theatre.
3. Then question why the military should act as the social laboratory for this experiment. The politicians should be told that until the US Constitution and all legislation has been amended to give gay people full rights and protection against discrimination in every aspect of life not to force this upon the military.
4. That should the repeal of DADT should be delayed until the military get to take a time out to fix the problems with women in the service and prepare systems and regulations for gays serving openly.
Given your theory that sexual tension degrades combat units, how do you explain the admirable performance of gender-integrated units in Iraq and Afghanistan? We've got units, such as MPs--which do allow females--who are effectively acting as infantry in many situations. They're performing many of the same tasks with no apparent degradation in performance or unit cohesion.
One, they are NOT acting as infantry. They are getting into fights (and responding appropriately) while doing MP missions.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Two, talking to senior NCO and mid-grade officer leadership of these units, all is not nearly as rosy as you paint. There are plenty of issues caused and/or made worse by the presence of females, but the politically correct Army culture covers these facts up.
Read Sebastian Junger's book "War" about a platoon from 173d on a combat outpost in Afghanistan. Then come back and tell me that the lot of that IN platoon would be improved by adding women (or gays) into that mix. There is a slight possibility that their situation would not be worsened, but why make a change for a slight possiblity. There is no right to serve, and IMO, the only justification if for improvement in combat effectiveness, which no one is claiming. We deny people from service for plenty of congenital deficiencies.
Fair point, but it remains that gender-integrated units are performing in combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by 82redleg
I don't doubt there are problems. There also problems with clashes and race and creed, and while the latter two tend to cause problems on a smaller scale than gender, it is a matter of scale rather than quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by 82redleg
A change doesn't necessarily need to improve combat effectiveness in order to be accepted. It merely needs to a) have some value, and b) not significantly degrade combat effectiveness. It is not in line with our national values to solely consider military effectiveness. If it were, well, for one thing, Afghanistan and Iraq combined would have taken maybe three years to pacify.Quote:
Originally Posted by 82redleg
There is absolutely a right to try to serve. Yes, defects and other factors can bar one from service. But unless such a condition actively detracts from military readiness, then it should not be a bar to service.
Other nations--nations whose military capability we respect--have integrated homosexual soldiers and, in some cases, female infantry (though that's a topic for another thread) without apparent significant impairment. I would like to believe that our soldiers are just as capable as theirs. Hell with that, I'd like to believe ours are better.
Only sort of. Those MP units that you point to have all sorts of problems for their leadership that simply don't exist in Infantry (and other segregated units). And those co-ed units simply don't do the same type of operations. MP units generally run FOB to FOB, and don't stay out and live hard for long periods of time. When they do, you can bet that the leadership generally find a way to leave all or most of the females on the FOB, and deploy an all male unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
I don't understand this. These units perform, at a much lower standards on easier missions. That's just the way it is. I doubt you will find a male officer or senior NCO that will argue that co-ed units improve combat effectiveness, which is what the issue should be about.Quote:
I don't doubt there are problems. There also problems with clashes and race and creed, and while the latter two tend to cause problems on a smaller scale than gender, it is a matter of scale rather than quality.
All right, what value does ending DA/DT provide?Quote:
A change doesn't necessarily need to improve combat effectiveness in order to be accepted. It merely needs to a) have some value, and b) not significantly degrade combat effectiveness. It is not in line with our national values to solely consider military effectiveness. If it were, well, for one thing, Afghanistan and Iraq combined would have taken maybe three years to pacify.
Where is this right found? I haven't seen it anywhere. Or are you arguing that there should be a right to serve.Quote:
There is absolutely a right to try to serve. Yes, defects and other factors can bar one from service. But unless such a condition actively detracts from military readiness, then it should not be a bar to service.
And when you talk honestly with their leaders (not constrained by political correctness), they will tell you that both changes cause issues that result in lower combat effectiveness. In an existential conflict (you know, one where the enemy has the capability to destroy our nation, like where we are fighting in the streets of LA, NY, etc) we might have to accept the lower combat efficiency in order to generate the massively greater requirements of such a conflict. As long as were are sending miniscule cadres of professionals to execute (relatively) short duration missions of choice, I don't see any reason to accept anything less than optimal combat effectiveness.Quote:
Other nations--nations whose military capability we respect--have integrated homosexual soldiers and, in some cases, female infantry (though that's a topic for another thread) without apparent significant impairment. I would like to believe that our soldiers are just as capable as theirs. Hell with that, I'd like to believe ours are better.
as Polarbear1605 might say; or more exactly, What does the H.R. 2965 (the text passed by both houses and signed by the President), "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010", do besides making an amendment to "the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes."
Let's first look to some of the 2010 text (full text here):
I'd estimate (because of the 2012 election campaign) that those reports will be completed within the next 12 months (probably the next 6 months).Quote:
(a) Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654 [JMM: this subsection requires a full DoD report to SECDEF on a number of issues - no time limit for this report - see full text]...
...
(b) Effective Date [JMM: effective 60 days after the SECDEF receives the report, and after POTUS, SECDEF and CJCS reporrt to Congress re: the report, its plan of action and other conforming rules - no time limit for this report - see full text]...
...
(c) No Immediate Effect on Current Policy- Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect until such time that all of the requirements and certifications required by subsection (b) are met. If these requirements and certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect.
(d) Benefits- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ and referred to as the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’).
(e) No Private Cause of Action- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to create a private cause of action.
(f) Treatment of 1993 Policy-
(1) TITLE 10- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking section 654; and
(B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d).
What is then going to be "struck" - as though it were never passed. Let's look to the key parts of 10 U.S.C. 654:
The constitutionality of 10 U.S.C. 654 has been upheld by numerous decisions, Brett E. Heyman, Constitutional Law—”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Acceptable in an Accepting Society?—Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008) (SULR 2009).Quote:
(a) Findings.— [JMM: Congress made 15 findings which will be stricken as though Congress had not made them; but, striking does NOT enact the opposite into positive law - e.g., striking finding 2 "There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces." does not create a finding that there is such a constitutional right - negating a point does not prove the point's opposite holds true.] ...
...
(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts [JMM: the remainder provides an exception for "one off" acts - similar but stricter than the sub (2) exception below.]...
...
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.
...
[JMM: subsections (c) Entry Standards and Documents, (d) Required Briefings and (e) Rule of Construction are conforming provisions to the mandatory discharge policy]
...
(f) Definitions.— In this section:
(1) The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.
(2) The term “bisexual” means a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.
(3) The term “homosexual act” means—
(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).
The repeal also will strike the Sec. 571 provisions when repeal becomes effective, which are:
The bottom line is that, unless Congress enacts added legislation and/or DoD promulgates added rules and regulations, the legal situation will largely revert to what it was in 1993 before DADT was enacted. In that scenario, Randy Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming, Gays & Lesbians in the US Military (1993), will no longer be ancient history !Quote:
Section 571 (b)–(d) of Pub. L. 103–160 provided that:
(b) Regulations.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 30, 1993], the Secretary of Defense shall revise Department of Defense regulations, and issue such new regulations as may be necessary, to implement section 654 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).
(c) Savings Provision.—Nothing in this section or section 654 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), may be construed to invalidate any inquiry, investigation, administrative action or proceeding, court-martial, or judicial proceeding conducted before the effective date of regulations issued by the Secretary of Defense to implement such section 654.
(d) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the suspension of questioning concerning homosexuality as part of the processing of individuals for accession into the Armed Forces under the interim policy of January 29, 1993, should be continued, but the Secretary of Defense may reinstate that questioning with such questions or such revised questions as he considers appropriate if the Secretary determines that it is necessary to do so in order to effectuate the policy set forth in section 654 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a); and
(2) the Secretary of Defense should consider issuing guidance governing the circumstances under which members of the Armed Forces questioned about homosexuality for administrative purposes should be afforded warnings similar to the warnings under section 831 (b) of title 10, United States Code (article 31(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
This legal story is far from finished - lots of legal beavers will be working on this forest of trees because all the "repeal" does is to repeal the DADT mandatory discharge policy, bringing back into effect (unless there is positive law enacted or promulgated) a discretionary discharge policy - or no policy in this area at all. Take your pick.
Regards
Mike
I simply do not understand this. I cannot fathom how anyone thinks integrating females into combat arms and the repeal of DADT are in any way the linked. 82 already responded appropriately, but this seems to be a developing trend and it worries the hell out of me.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
The repeal of DADT seems to be, for the most part, a good thing. However, DADT always seems to be mentioned in hand, mainly by liberals (not saying you are one, motorfirebox, and not that it's a bad thing to be liberal) on other sites, as something that should occur with the integration of women into combat arms.
I seriously cannot fathom how anyone could argue for women in infantry or cavalry. The standards for female fitness (PT test and otherwise) are ridiculously low, females are biologically weaker (I don't give a damn about some obscure outlier), and the evolutionary mentality for combat seems quite different in men than in women, given our 70,000 or so years of evolution where women were not the combatants and hunters. I have done MMA training for years. I have yet to encounter a single woman who I couldn't beat to death if the need arose. Women are equal to men, but not when it comes to infantry and cavalry tasks.
Never seen that argument before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus Ex
FWIW, a rifle company just finished up its 7 month tour in one of the most contested areas of Panjwayi district under a female commander.
These same claims were raised over 2 decades ago when the Canadian military was fully integrated. The sky has not fallen. Really - there are better things to expend one's energy on....