Frankly, I was more fascinated by the use of Colonel (ret) Kerr's question, providing that he was a political "plant".
I'm sorry, I can't refer a CSMR "Brigadier" as anything but a b.s. "pretender" He's a retired Colonel, period.
Printable View
Frankly, I was more fascinated by the use of Colonel (ret) Kerr's question, providing that he was a political "plant".
I'm sorry, I can't refer a CSMR "Brigadier" as anything but a b.s. "pretender" He's a retired Colonel, period.
A new study from the Palm Center (PDF File). Here are the key findings:
Quote:
Finding one: The law locks the military’s position into stasis and does not accord any trust to the Pentagon to adapt
policy to changing circumstances
Finding two: Existing military laws and regulations provide commanders with sufficient means to discipline
inappropriate conduct
Finding three: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and undermining
the cohesion of their units
Finding four: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has prevented some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from obtaining
psychological and medical care as well as religious counseling
Finding five: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has caused the military to lose some talented service members
Finding six: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has compelled some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to lie about their
identity
Finding seven: Many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are serving openly
Finding eight:“Don’t ask, don’t tell” has made it harder for some gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to perform their
duties
Finding nine: Military attitudes towards gays and lesbians are changing
Finding ten: Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to
morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion
I completely understand prejudice to Gays in the military, but only if you want to admit that being ignorant and bigoted is OK, and why would anyone want to serve with men who think harming or discriminating against others based on sex, race or even religion is OK?
If an armed force, as macho, over-bearing, traditional, family orientated and even religious as the Israeli Defence Force can encompass the idea of being gay, then sure as hell, the US Armed Forces should do so.
I went to the Gay pride beach party in Tel-Aviv. Wonderful! Anywhere you can watch cute chicks kissing, while your wife enjoys a penis shaped iced lolly, and you get yell abuse at the small number of religious, or right wing zealots and bigots who exercise their right to mostly peaceful protest, gets my vote!
I will admit to declining the penis shaped ice lolly though!
This is a difficult subject and I think if the policy is ever re-looked or eventually overturned, it will come after years of study by DOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
I generally email my congresswoman (democrat) from time to time and ask her military specific questions. A few months back, I engaged her about "don't ask, don't tell" and her response was along the lines of, "I will take the advice of the leaders of the military on this subject". Not that she speaks for the entire House, but I found her response interesting. The overturning of this policy would take a Presidential decision and an act of congress, I'm assuming. Although I think that our society has evolved to be more "gay friendly" or "tolerant", considerations for gay servicemembers should be recognized and reviewed before the implementation. The military would completely need to revamp the EO, Sexual Harrassment policies, etc. When I'm normally asked by civilians about my opinion on this issue, my response is that "don't ask don't tell" is not a policy to exclude gay servicemembers, but to protect them. The policy, in literal translation, doesn't say gay people can't serve, they just can't tell anyone they are gay. There is a documentary currently running on Showtime about a gay Marine; his story was interesting, to say the least.
Aww! When in Rome.... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Seriously, though, I pretty much agree with what you said. Gays in the military don't bother me one whit and so I my personal opinion is that it's time for DADT to go.
I have to say, though, the ignorance of many civilians who are against and actively work against DADT is astonishing. It's incorrectly labeled a "policy" by these groups and in the general media which suggests the military can easily change it. Many times I've pointed out that the military has no choice in the matter because it is a federal law - not policy - and instead of blaming the military they should perhaps point the blame elsewhere. Keeping ROTC off campus and protesting at recruiting stations is not going to get the military to drop DADT - only Congress can do that.
From CBC.ca
See alsoQuote:
Soldiers march in Toronto Gay Pride parade
Set up booth in gay village for recruitment drive
Last Updated: Sunday, June 29, 2008 | 2:07 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/ph...tto-080629.jpg....
"The message to the public is that the Canadian Forces is an employer of choice. We have employment opportunities that people can pursue, regardless of gender identity, sexual orientation," he told CBC News.
More...
Quote:
Military joins Pride parade
Toronto.com
Jun 29, 2008 06:53 PM
Emma Reilly
THE CANADIAN PRESS
Hundreds of revellers danced, shimmied, and strutted their way through downtown Toronto Sunday in the Gay Pride parade – and for the first time, members of the Canadian Armed Forces were among them.
"It's a huge thing for me personally," said Warrant Officer John McDougall, a parade participant who has been an openly gay member of the military for 13 years. "To be able to be in public and be recognized not just for being a soldier, but for being a soldier who happens to be gay is amazing."
More...
Do tell, it works on paper back on Capital Hill, but seriously, not doing much far from the flag poles where most of us work.
Crankin' out regs in an election year rarely translates into automatic (full) acceptance in the ranks.
"He's gay, Stan, and it's legal... live with it" (yeah, right).
It's going to take more than reams of paper from some snappy congressman's aid and it's gonna take tons more time.
Glad I'm retired :p
Nice jpeg, Marc !
I don't think that the issue has anything to do with whether allowing homosexuals to openly serve will impact morale, cohesion, discipline, et cetera. This is a 100% political issue from both sides.
One side wants to eliminate DADT simply because it will be seen as progress in the equal rights / equal privileges / whatever you want to call it movement. The other side wants to keep DADT in place - or go back to pre-DADT - because this would be seen as defending a healthy cultural norm or as a political victory for their side. It strains my credulity to think that those on the former side really care about military discipline or that those on the latter side really care about whether some guy in a four-man stack is aroused.
This is just a convenient battlefield in a much larger political and cultural battle between people who don't see the military as anything other than a block to check on their list of political goals. A discussion of the merits of DADT, in the context of whether we maintain it, seems like a moot argument.
Regardless of the enlightened fantasy of the American public towards racial, gender, sexual orientation freedom the reality is a puritanical repression based on zealotry. No where will that zealotry be so pronounced as the military, the one place where people can be forced to comply to edicts of social manipulation, regardless of the fantasy or antiquated reasons behind it. The false dichotomy of puritanism versus hedonism that the argument implies rejects the spectrum of humanity and beliefs that make us as a society resilient. In capitulation to repression and adoption of ideas and restrictions based on flawed social concepts the military is weakened through self deception and baseless repression.
The Eisenhower doctrine of enforced idealism to a formalized Christian nation layered upon the reality of secular rules and laws has had consequences far beyond "One nation under God". Constraints and dictates empowered to respond to a communist expansion have resulted in a variety of unintended pseudo-religious repressive tendencies. There is nothing more basic as a freedom, other than, the ability to choose who you are intimate with. The restrictions and restraints imposed by the military for various reasons are based on a self perpetuating straw-man that impose draconian response to a pedantic threat. A threat supposedly to good order, good discipline, and morale based wholly on an egregious pseudo-religious moral rectitude.
In essence there is a basic freedom and level of maturity in regards to that freedom. The question posed is shall it be permissible for any entity to deny a familial relationship of a heterosexual nature? Putting some more meat on the question shall it be permissible for any entity to deny a familial relationship of a bi-racial nature? There is an underlying puritan stream of reasoning that says society shall determine who is allowed to consort with whom. A concept I personally reject.
It will take me all day to process what you just said, man...my vocab consists of swear words, Army Acronyms and 20 different ways to say..."I am/was drunk" I can't even spell thesarus correctly...or did I?Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Pure political theater. Most troops could care less -- but a very few would go bonkers and do stupid stuff (that applies to both gay and overly straight troops). It's all politics and social engineering.
I will never forget the first time I was propositioned by a fellow male service member, A Captain USMC -- ruined all my little 17 year old PFC illusions. :D
Best Mess Sergeant I ran across in the Army was totally gay. He also had gone through WW II with the 82d and Korea with the 187th RCT. Ran a great mess hall and did not hassle his KPs. Had a gay Squad Leader working for me in Viet Nam. Did a good job and I put him in for two Bronze Stars, one with 'V' and one for generally doing good in the combat zone.
I ran across dozens of gay males and females ranging from GO -- according to the common wisdom of the day -- and Colonel (acknowledged) down to peon from all four branches in my 45 years in and with the unigrammed services. Most of 'em just did their jobs and didn't bother anyone.
Don't worry I'm just waiting for marct to yell at me for the inappropriate use of zealot.Quote:
Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso
Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
He better not. I thought MarcT stood on a cultural-based-understanding-of-language platform. So, your use of 'zealot' ought to be appropriate, given your culture (or lack of it). :D
If you say so. I managed to resist that manipulation for over 45 years -- didn't really see that much of it in all that time, guess I was in all the wrong places. Got a kid serving now, my perception is he doesn't see that either.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Son of a gun -- I missed that as well. I sure can't recall feeling repressed in 27 years in the Corps and the Army as an old hairy legged EM :DQuote:
...In capitulation to repression and adoption of ideas and restrictions based on flawed social concepts the military is weakened through self deception and baseless repression.
I know there are some in uniform who believe that way -- most do not so I think your rectitude may be quite overly broad. I have to agree with Schmedlap, this is more politics than anything else.Quote:
...A threat supposedly to good order, good discipline, and morale based wholly on an egregious pseudo-religious moral rectitude.
I suggest there is also an underlying super secular and freedom from constraint stream of reasoning that says society shall determine who must consort with whom.Quote:
There is an underlying puritan stream of reasoning that says society shall determine who is allowed to consort with whom. A concept I personally reject.
I reject both those concepts. Strongly.
recommendations of the Study Group (pp. 2 & 12) seem a neutral and reasonable approach toward eventual solution of a number of problems mentioned in preceding posts:
Politics being what they are, the probability of their adoption seems remote.Quote:
Recommendation 1. Congress should repeal 10 USC § 654 and return authority for personnel policy under this law to the Department of Defense.
Recommendation 2. The Department of Defense should eliminate “don’t tell” while maintaining current authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and service regulations to preclude misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and unit cohesion. The prerogative to disclose sexual orientation should be considered a personal and private matter.
Recommendation 3. Remove from Department of Defense directives all references to “bisexual,” “homosexual,” “homosexual conduct,” “homosexual acts,” and “propensity.” Establish in their place uniform standards that are neutral with respect to sexual orientation, such as prohibitions against any inappropriate public bodily contact for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires.
Recommendation 4. Immediately establish and reinforce safeguards for the confidentiality of all conversations between service members and chaplains, doctors, and mental health professionals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
LOLOL - hey, it works for me! I'm just getting worried that Sam has been reading a touch too much Sociology :p!Quote:
Originally Posted by wm
Actually, I think you're spot on, Sam. One of our (Canada's) greatest Prime Ministers, Pierre Trudeau once said that the State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. While that was a bit of a self-serving remark on his part, it's certainly a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly.
Din't he do a cartoon?Quote:
Actually, I think you're spot on, Sam. One of our (Canada's) greatest Prime Ministers, Pierre Trudeau once said that the State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. While that was a bit of a self-serving remark on his part, it's certainly a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly.
What's State look like? Must sleep around since Trudeau said bedrooms..:cool:
I think you can get the background here :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Odom
I just want to say that I enjoyed the ads in the "single in Baghdad" thread much more than the ads in this one.
Are you saying that you are not? Perhaps you don't appreciate CQC enough.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Schmedlap
SFC W