Well, that's one view of atheism, but it's not the only one and it's certainly not the only logical one. It's just as reasonable to decide that what makes humanity 'fit' is our ability to form resilient societies, and conclude that the ultimate expression of humanity's fitness is an inclusive society that promotes the welfare of every participant.Originally Posted by DVC
Off the top of my head? Ephesians 6:5-9. It doesn't advocate slavery, but that wasn't Deus Ex's claim. What this passage says is exactly what Deus Ex said: it tells slaves to obey their masters, and tells masters how to treat their slaves. It doesn't tell masters to release their slaves.
I did address this earlier. Regarding incest, two things--one, I'm not sure such relationships can necessarily be counted as consensual given the amount of influence family members can have on each other; there are rules against fraternization in the military for reasons similar to this. Second: Abraham married his half-sister, a union God explicitly blessed. Just throwing that out there.
Because it would inherently negatively impact combat readiness. Homosexuality does not inherently have an effect on combat readiness.
I don't object to Christianity at all. I think it's great--for other people. Personally, I don't care very much about whether or not God exists, so to pursue any religion beyond that basic apathy would be silly for me.
And likewise, I'm enjoying the debate.
Last edited by motorfirebox; 01-01-2011 at 05:26 AM.
Nice spin there Rex. I guess you will find some people who would buy that.
Sadly it is evident that the Canadian military has been turned into a social experiment by liberal politicians. Given the wonderful military history of Canadian forces in the past the situation today is very sad.
...and oh yes, peacetime discipline sets the standard for wartime. As does training... ever heard the expression train hard... fight easy ?
Last edited by JMA; 01-01-2011 at 07:44 AM.
Lets try again... what I say is that the introduction of women into the military has already resulted in a new set of problems in the militaries of most countries. We see data relating to heterosexual sexual offenses within the military and evidence from pregnancy rates that even at a consensual level there are the "distractions" the US generals spoke about and the competitive sexual tension that goes with it.
Adding the gay thing to the equation is just asking for more trouble IMHO.
I am less concerned about 'weak' gays being bullied in the forces as it appears to me that the type of gays who would go for the infantry would be (I believe) described as 'butch' and it is likely that the boot is likely to be on the other foot especially when (just like predator heterosexuals do to junior females) these people rise to a position where they are able coerce junior (18 year old) soldiers to submit to their wants. This has and continues to happen with male-to-female soldiers and it should be anticipated that it will with the gay variant. Only idiots would invite trouble in the back door.
So there is more of the tension I speak of.I'm more concerned about stupidities of the heteros in the unit. Infantry service is for example considered to be a very 'male', 'warrior' thing - and this attracts at least some highly motivated men (and more than too much loud-mouths, of course).
Aside from recruitment issues, heterosexual males may develop stupid behaviour towards homosexual males and turn the latter into outsiders.
May happen, doesn't need to happen. It's usually a NCO job to correct stupid behaviour by stupid people, but sadly many NCOs are stupid as well.
Now the problem is that as most militaries have not yet got the heterosexual tensions under control there is not way they will get the tensions around gays under control either.
General Amos is correct when he said that gay servicemembers might cause a “distraction” that could result in increased injuries and deaths.
Actually, you'll find overwhelming support for women and gays in the military within the Canadian military--and only a tiny minority who believe that, in fully reflecting Canadian values (by not discriminating on the basis of gender or sexual orientation)--the military is somehow victim of a "social experiment." Indeed, if there were to be a "social experiment" it would be to exclude these groups from full participation in national defence on the basis of the prejudices of a bygone age.
It would also make very little sense to exclude over half of the otherwise eligible national population from contributing their skills, energy, and commitment to the Canadian Forces--it would rather like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
I suppose I would be one of those who 'buy that'. I must respectfully disagree with how you characterize our inclusion of homosexuals in the Forces as a 'social experiment', as well as your similar objections earlier in this thread to the similar inclusion of women, particularly in combat trades.
It's not 'an experiment'. We're not trying something out to see how it goes. Rather, our (Canadian) society has grown to be simply quite accepting of homosexuals, and they have gained nearly full legal equality with others. In short, social views have informed both our constitutional system of rights and the judicial interpretation thereof, and consequently there's no longer any generalized official acceptance that simply being gay is a quality that conveys any legitimate grounds to exclude a person from serving in the military.
As a junior leader in the infantry, my primary concern (after the primacy of the mission) is that my soldiers are possessed with the ability to soldier, and that they put a full effort into doing so and into improving themselves professionally. If a soldier can soldier, I don't care much about who or what he or she does when they go home at night, so long as they comport themselves professionally and do the job. I see no percentage in excluding part of the potential pool of recruits- particularly as the labour market makes finding good people more and more time consuming and expensive. Speaking form a limited amount of experience, I've served with homosexuals both at home and overseas, and never found their sexuality to be a detriment to their ability to do the job. Likewise the women I've served with or led. Fewer women succeed in the combat trades than men, but those who can do the job have a place in my rifle section as long as they contribute to my ability to accomplish the mission.
I'm curious as to your comment about the 'wonderful military history of Canadians in the past' versus 'the situation today'. I would say that the situation facing the Canadian military today is better than it has been in decades- we have a better equipped, better trained, more modernized and more combat experienced force than we've had in a long time. What is it about 'the current situation' that causes you to lament the state of our military- and what's it got to do with gays or women serving in uniform?
Motorfirebox - thanks for your thoughtful post.
Questions about your statement above. If an overweight/over fat person person can pass the PT test, how does their weight negatively effect combat readiness? If it is a health concern (contention that even otherwise fit overweight/overfat people suffer more illness or injury than people within the height weight standards), have you compared the health statistics for homosexuals (even if you factor out HIV) with those of heterosexuals? This seems to be a factor that the mainstream media has really suppressed in the current debate.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-03-2011 at 07:36 PM. Reason: Fix quote
There are some problems with how the military measures healthy body weight. There are, indeed, a number of soldiers who, despite being very well-conditioned physically--able to easily pass their physical fitness tests--have to go out of their way to meet the military's standards for body shape. My understanding is that this more frequently happens with men who are above-average height with a lot of muscle mass.
Those are edge cases, though. If, by and large, soldiers who are overweight by whatever standard the military uses are, in fact, able to pass physical fitness tests designed around an honest expectancy of what a soldier needs to be able to accomplish on the battlefield, then the body shape standards are incorrect and should be adjusted. It's my understanding that that doesn't happen, usually (or, if it does, it's blamed on slipping physical fitness standards rather than incorrect standards for body shape). So if a fat soldier does pass his PT test, it's within the military's purview to demand that the soldier alter his body shape anyway. The soldier is an edge case, and there's no need for the military to accommodate edge cases.
Non-straight sexuality can't reasonably be considered an edge case at this point in time.
As for health risks, it's suspect how difficult it is to find articles on the topic that don't come from right-leaning or very right-leaning sources. One might think that's reasonable--that those darn lefties are just banding together to cover up the truth. The problem with this theory is that the only thing us lefties love more than bashing the right is bashing each other. We're our own kryptonite, and have been since before Reagan. If the evidence were any good, frankly, the health nut left would have brained the sexual freedom left with it by now.
Motorfirebox - overweight/overfat but can pass the PT test is "edge" but homosexuals in the military is not "edge"? Statistics or other evidence to support this contention?
Release on health risks from that bastion of right wing extremism, the Center for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Press...STDGay2000.htm
Again, I enjoy the candid exchange.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-04-2011 at 07:44 PM.
Support for and the advisability of are two very different things.
The Canadian military is less than 5% of the strength of the US forces. ( Source )
Also the application of troops to international operations differ markedly in that the US currently deploys around 6% of total troop strength while Canada deploys around 2.5% ( US source - Canadian source )
A test of overwhelming support is only proven through a secret ballot. Was one held? Doubt it. No this has been forced upon a small military who have been told FIFO. (fit in or f*** off) and I dear say that people with 5 years or so service know no different and just accept the official spin that all is well and as such they go along unthinkingly with the social experiment.
It is evident that those who have no military experience see the inclusion of these groups and minorities as a constitutional requirement regardless of any potential negative impact on the military (especially the combat arms).
So why is the military different from other captive government services which can have such policy forced upon them from a collection of expedient politicians sitting in parliament?
Let’s start here:
Common sense will dictate that you screw around with an environment the complexity of and the likes of which is found only in the combat arms of militaries at your peril.The nature of military service demands compliance with orders and
authority, sometimes in situations in which life or death rests upon that
compliance. In this regard, military service is like no other employment.
Military personnel operate in a high-risk working environment that
demands teamwork, mutual support and personal reliability.
The infantry is not like some government department, that can be filled with faceless bureaucrats that can be staffed according to demographics based quota systems. The infantry and combat arms are different - very different - (I would have thought this was obvious).
The past is the past and that has nothing to do with the selection and training of infantry units in today’s world. Like with any job specification the military (and not some politician) decides what it needs of soldiers to fight in infantry units, they then recruit them and train up these units – so any tying of hands behind ones back is being done to the military by expedient politicians.
The nature of combat soldiering selects out a large percentage of the male heterosexual population anyway as being physical, emotionally and otherwise unsuitable. To open the doors to all comers on the basis of filling posts or through forcing through demographic quotas and lowering physical standards does not solve the problem but merely exacerbates it. (I would have thought that was obvious)
Yes, the little goldfish bowl that the Canadian military represents with this particular social experiment will be interesting to observe. So far the information that reaches the public domain indicates that despite official spin and reassurances things are not quite so fine and dandy in the land of Canaan.
It would be more honest and mature for Canada to see the introduction of females/gays/intersex persons as a work in progress rather than a successful model they can hold out as an example to the world.
See my response to Rex in the main.
Perhaps you should start with Report of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry. Then start to read through stuff which is available on the Net. You say you are serving so you should be able to lay your hands on material which is not open source. I suggest (with some sadness) that there were and still remain serious problems within the Canadian military which can't be wished away.
BTW who told you the modern Canadian army is better than it was in the past?
You may have set a new standard for muddying the waters, JMA
The Somali Affair--in which a few Canadian soldiers beat and killed a Somalia teen--took place in 1993, before women served in the infantry, and only a year after gays were allowed to openly serve. I doubt that there were any openly gay men in the Canadian Airborne Regiment at the time.
If you read the actual report, you'll see that poor pre-deployment discipline, racism, and an excessively macho attitudes in the field led to most of the mistakes and abuse that occurred at the time.
It had nothing at all to do, of course with women or gays in the military. Indeed, the word homosexual only appears twice in the five volumes of the report. In both cases, it is simply highlighting that poor predeployment cultural awareness training led some soldiers to believe that casual Somali male physical contact (touching during conversation to emphasize a point, holding hands) was an outward sign of homosexuality--which, as anyone who knows Somalia would know, is not the case. Again, this had nothing to do with the incidents, and rather was being offered as evidence of the Regiment's weak preparation for the mission.
Indeed, given that excessive macho behaviour was partly at the root of Canada's Somalia problem, it seems logical that more women on deployment might have made the operation more effective, not less.
As a result of the inquiry--and to send the signal that abuse and racist behaviour was unacceptable in the Canadian Armed Forces--the entire Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded.
Next you'll be telling us that the decline in pirates is causing global warming....
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Ok, I need a source for that graph. That is awesome bit of sunspots and miniskirts stats.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Rex has already done a good job of detailing the irrelevance of your reference to the Somalia inquiry. I'll not duplicate his effort.
Of course there are problems- there always are. No military is exempt from that. We have far too large a bureaucracy for the combat force we have. We've recently sent one man to jail for screwing around with his weapon over in KAF and accidentally shooting a section mate dead. We've just cashiered one of our captains for putting two rounds into a Taliban who was bleeding to death. We have a navy and an air force plagued by old equipment. We have infantry battalions that are undermanned because the headquarters bloat and the growth of CANSOFCOM has eaten into our authorized manning levels. We have a field army out in the bases that values fitness, and a uniformed bureaucracy here in Ottawa that seems to wedge some of the fattest sacks of crap imaginable into (tailored) uniforms while the really *good* officers sent on headquarters postings do their best to get out of Ottawa and back to their units ASAP, despite the good they could do in reforming the bureaucracy if they were given more ability to do so against an inert, entrenched, very political system.
None of this is attributable to an outbreak of 'the gay' in the C.F. You've not listened to what I've said; this is not a social experiment. It's simple: every Canadian has the opportunity to volunteer to serve, so long as they're fit enough, smart/educated enough, have a clean enough history, and aren't drug users. Gender, sexual preference, race, colour, religion etc don't matter so long as an individual can do the job.
There is no argument I've seen yet raised objecting to homosexuals in the military that stands the test of reason. Most of the same arguments have been used in the past to exclude coloured people from combat units. The white soldiers wouldn't feel comfortable, or whatever other nonsense has been brought up. The only novel argument against gays in the forces is 'ew, icky', although few will come right out and say it- it's always some 'other' soldiers who might be uncomfortable by the thought of having to go to ground next to someone who might be homosexual.
To try to pass those of us with relatively short spans of service under our belts (seven years in my case) as 'unthinkingly going along' with something imposed is, frankly, bull#### and a bit pathetic. It's a transparent attempt to simply negate my views on the subject by casting me as someone who 'doesn't know' because I've not been in enough or am not applying a critical enough eye to the issue.
You're wrong. We think very much about everything that affects our efficacy. Perhaps you're not able to conceive of the fact that, well, a lot of us just really don't care. Maybe it's a generational thing, but someone being gay doesn't bother me, nor many of my peers. Some might find it a bit uncomfortable, but it doesn't affect the ability of either party to do the job. There are any number of reasons I may not want to work with another soldier- they might not be as fit as I think they should be. They could be the really awkward social reject who's annoying to hang out with. They might just be assholes or otherwise disgusting people. I'm professional enough to shelve all that and do the job, and I expect the same of my troops.
There is nothing about homosexuality that makes it any more inherently objectionable to a person who applies their sense of reason to their professional interactions with others.
You refer to a 'constitutional inclusion of these groups and minorities'. That's incorrect. There's no quota system- I don't get assigned my token gay, chick, and minority when I take command of my section. What it is, is a refusal to [i]ex[i/]clude people on grounds that have no rational connection to their ability to do the job. Our constitution provides, in effect, equality of opportunity, not necessarily equality of result. Any person (subject to limitations based on bona fide occupational requirements, such as those detailed earlier) can volunteer to serve, and if they've got what it takes to get in and to make it.
We exist to protect democracy, not practice it. My troops don't get a say in the orders I write. We don't pick the missions we deploy on. We don't staff our military by referendum, and bona fide occupational requirements aren't dictated by the shallow preferences of other soldiers. Again- at one point in time I've no doubt that a majority of soldiers would have secretly voted against letting women in. Earlier still, against blacks or natives. Preferences of that nature are irrelevant to the question at hand. You either accept that your fellow Canadian is a professional serving their country, or you don't. If not, you'd best be able to point to why that's the case- and if you fail to do so, the problem probably isn't him (or her).A test of overwhelming support is only proven through a secret ballot. Was one held? Doubt it.
The proof, of course, is ultimately in the pudding- and our years of fighting with distinction in Kanadahar seems to suggest things are going quite well overall. Had any substantial issues arisen to have indicated that there were significant problems with women or homosexuals serving, you wouldn't have had to go as far back as the Somalia inquiry to dredge up a link that you can argue supports your view now, would you?
No just responding to Brihard's comment on how improved the Canadian military is now as compared to the past. I suggest that when one reads some of the 1,000 pages of the Somalia Report one gets the impression that more than just the CAF should have been disbanded.You may have set a new standard for muddying the waters, JMA
In fact "... the Somalia Inquiry cited problems in the leadership of the Canadian Forces." That is why I responded with the Somlia Report in response to Brihard's comment that the modern Canadian military is much improved on the performance of the past forces. His contention is clearly is not correct.The Somali Affair--in which a few Canadian soldiers beat and killed a Somalia teen--took place in 1993, before women served in the infantry, and only a year after gays were allowed to openly serve. I doubt that there were any openly gay men in the Canadian Airborne Regiment at the time.
Too selective in your choice of problems the inquiry found. This is what the report found:If you read the actual report, you'll see that poor pre-deployment discipline, racism, and an excessively macho attitudes in the field led to most of the mistakes and abuse that occurred at the time.
So we are back to Napoleon who said..."There are no bad soldiers, only bad officers."The failure was profoundly one of leadership. (my emphasis) Although in this report we have identified some individual failings - primarily in relation to the pre-deployment phase of the mission - the failings that we have recounted in the greatest detail have been those that concern organizational or group responsibility for institutional or systemic shortcomings. The CF and DND leaders to whom this applies are those who occupied the upper tier of their organizations during the relevant periods. The cadre of senior leaders who were responsible for the Somalia mission and its aftermath must bear responsibility for shortcomings in the organization they oversaw.
Agreed... but (as you know) that was not my point. My point (in posting a reference to the Somali Inquiry) was in response to Brihard's statement that the modern Canadian army is better now than it ever was. From all the evidence that contention is pure nonsense.It had nothing at all to do, of course with women or gays in the military. Indeed, the word homosexual only appears twice in the five volumes of the report. In both cases, it is simply highlighting that poor predeployment cultural awareness training led some soldiers to believe that casual Somali male physical contact (touching during conversation to emphasize a point, holding hands) was an outward sign of homosexuality--which, as anyone who knows Somalia would know, is not the case. Again, this had nothing to do with the incidents, and rather was being offered as evidence of the Regiment's weak preparation for the mission.
...oh yes and on the African males holding hands... that the Canadian troops were so ill informed on such an obvious matter leads one to wonder what else their officers failed to brief them on? RoE?
No Rex the report made it clear... at the heart of the problem was a profound failure in leadership.Indeed, given that excessive macho behaviour was partly at the root of Canada's Somalia problem, it seems logical that more women on deployment might have made the operation more effective, not less.
So your comment re more women is laughable...
Only the CAF? I suggest the military got off lightly.As a result of the inquiry--and to send the signal that abuse and racist behaviour was unacceptable in the Canadian Armed Forces--the entire Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded.
No I won't Rex... because I don't need to throw a distraction to get a few laughs and take the eye of the real issue of my response to Brihard and that was that I question his contention that the modern Canadian army is better now than it has ever been.Next you'll be telling us that (snip)
No he didn't... he tried to make light of a very serious situation.
You said: "I would say that the situation facing the Canadian military today is better than it has been in decades..." If you are talking about post-Korea then you may have a point because it was all downhill from Korea and probably bottomed out in Somalia. Prior to Korea apart from the Terrace Mutiny the Canadians stood back for no one.
Yes you list them and it shows that all is not as fine and dandy as some would like the world to believe. I don't want to rub it in as much of the stuff is available online and tells a sorry tale of the current Canadian military.Of course there are problems- there always are.
[snip]
Actually you said two things. One was as you mention above and then the comment about the Canadian forces being better now in many years before.None of this is attributable to an outbreak of 'the gay' in the C.F. You've not listened to what I've said; this is not a social experiment. It's simple: every Canadian has the opportunity to volunteer to serve, so long as they're fit enough, smart/educated enough, have a clean enough history, and aren't drug users. Gender, sexual preference, race, colour, religion etc don't matter so long as an individual can do the job.
Well the question is what defines "so long as an individual can do the job"? This has been discussed but not answers. You have an answer?
Also as much as racists are rejected for the distraction they cause (and correctly so) should not thought be given to distractions other minorities may cause with the resultant loss of cohesion to the infantry in a combat setting?
You are entitled to you opinion. It is your opinion and by no means a universal truth... you do realise that don't you?There is no argument I've seen yet raised objecting to homosexuals in the military that stands the test of reason.
[rant snipped]
You are missing the point. My position is not a judgement of gays it (like for women) is a statement on the potential for the distractions occurring which Gen Amos (USMC) speaks of. You closer to understanding the argument now?There is nothing about homosexuality that makes it any more inherently objectionable to a person who applies their sense of reason to their professional interactions with others.
You miss the point again. My position is that women and gays in infantry sections/platoons/companies in combat create the kind of distractions Gen Amos speaks of and as such should they apply to join be politely directed to an area of service (not necessarily in the military) where the distractions they cause do not offset any potential benefit they may bring through their service.You refer to a 'constitutional inclusion of these groups and minorities'. That's incorrect. There's no quota system- I don't get assigned my token gay, chick, and minority when I take command of my section. What it is, is a refusal to [i]ex[i/]clude people on grounds that have no rational connection to their ability to do the job. Our constitution provides, in effect, equality of opportunity, not necessarily equality of result. Any person (subject to limitations based on bona fide occupational requirements, such as those detailed earlier) can volunteer to serve, and if they've got what it takes to get in and to make it.
Again you miss the point. My comment re the holding of a secret ballot was in response to Rex's contention that "you'll find overwhelming support for women and gays in the military". Unless you have a secret means of testing this the contention is laughable. How was this arrived at? After a propaganda session with the unit political commissar a show of hands was called for? Blanket unsubstantiated statements like that made by Rex are a joke... you do see that, don't you?We exist to protect democracy, not practice it. My troops don't get a say in the orders I write. We don't pick the missions we deploy on. We don't staff our military by referendum, and bona fide occupational requirements aren't dictated by the shallow preferences of other soldiers. Again- at one point in time I've no doubt that a majority of soldiers would have secretly voted against letting women in. Earlier still, against blacks or natives. Preferences of that nature are irrelevant to the question at hand. You either accept that your fellow Canadian is a professional serving their country, or you don't. If not, you'd best be able to point to why that's the case- and if you fail to do so, the problem probably isn't him (or her).
Quite well? The Canadians used to be able to hold their heads up high and be up there with the best.The proof, of course, is ultimately in the pudding- and our years of fighting with distinction in Kanadahar seems to suggest things are going quite well overall. Had any substantial issues arisen to have indicated that there were significant problems with women or homosexuals serving, you wouldn't have had to go as far back as the Somalia inquiry to dredge up a link that you can argue supports your view now, would you?
... and remember that a force of 2,800 odd with the odd female and openly gay person is merely and interesting case study for the US which has 50 times that number deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And of course the little Canadian army is merely 5% the size of the US military... and as such is merely an interesting social experiment to be observed.
At no point did I say that our army is 'better than it has ever been', so you're arguing a strawman of your own construction. My exact words were "the situation facing the Canadian military today is better than it has been in decades", and I stand by that. I will agree with you on a single point- Somalia was most definitely a 'low point', but it was not the low point. It was early on in roughly a decade of time that formed a plateau of low capability and morale within the C.F.
The situation in 1993 is not indicative of the situation in 2010. Our current chief of defence staff and chief of land staff had not even commanded battalions yet. Most of our current battalion and brigade commanders were very junior officers. If you honestly think that you can take 1993 as a metric for the current state of our armed forces, you clearly have an ill-attuned ear to the ground on Canada's national defense.
Our military has undergone both literally and figuratively a generational change since the early 1990s. At that point in time we'd hit pretty close to rock bottom- a period colloquially known as the 'decade of darkness' where we were eviscerated materially by the peace dividend, had our public image shattered by Somalia, had many of our best take early retirement force reduction plans. We crawled out of that in the late '90s/early '00s. The wholesale change in military culture - particularly the culture of leadership has been more recent, with Afghanistan as the raw fuel and General Rick Hillier as the catalyst. His book 'A Soldier First' is excellent, and is essential to understanding the changes that have undergone the CF both materially and in our culture. I unreservedly state that our military is better focused and better equipped than it's been since the end of the Cold War, and that our leadership is significantly better than it has been since earlier still. I will reccomend that if you have an earnest interest in the modern Canadian military at all, that book should be at the top of your list. Leaving that, we will now get back to the subject at hand.
This seems to be the main thrust of your argument, most of the rest of it failing tests of reason or logic. That soldiers will be 'distracted' by the possible presence of gays or women in their midst.distractions
As I stated earlier, I've worked with a number of people I didn't like to a variety of reasons, each one in and of itself as distracting as any other thing might be. I sucked it up and dealt with it. The 'distractions' argument is fundamentally no more sound than, again, the argument raised against letting blacks into the military, and then into the combat units.
I'll tell you the same thing I would tell my soldiers: deal with it. If, while doing the job, you are unable to focus yourself on being a member of my infantry section for no better reason than the personal life of the person next to you, then you have no business in my team. We have soldiers deployed overseas facing impending divorces at home. Sick family members. Kids who are getting in trouble. Hell, friends getting killed from time to time during the length of their tour. Soldiers have proven themselves remarkably good at shoving distractions aside and carrying on. There are more than enough people capable of doing so that if someone can't, tough cookies for them. A soldier who cannot compartmentalize themselves enough while on the job to focus wholly and solely on the mission at hand, the commander's intent, and the bigger picture within which he fits frankly lacks, in my opinion, the emotional maturity to be worth the risk. A soldier who cannot focus on their job is a liability. Shall I kick the black guy out of my section because my closet racist finds him 'distracting' or unpleasant to be around? No. So why would I any more cater to homophobes?
You ask 'What defines the ability to do the job'?
You have abundant experience in the combat arms as part of a small unit and as a leader. You don't need to ask me that- but since you have, I'd say some things such as the ability to carry and fire a rifle or other small arm accurately, to respond calmly and decisively under stress, to carry a heavy load on bad ground in crappy weather, to communicate clearly and proactively, to navigate by day or night, to know the job of the man or woman beside you, to know, as best as you're able, the job of the next two people in the chain of command, to maintain and employ your weapons with a great degree of speed or skill, to exercise sound judgement ('strategic corporal'), to appreciate to some extent the myriad factors influencing contemporary operations (cultural, religious, etc), to be possessed of a high degree of physical fitness and motivation, to be willing to take over and lead when your boss goes down... I could go on, but I think you get the point.
I see not one of these that inherently excludes any human being motivated to serve who is possessed of normal physical and intellectual abilities, and somewhat above normal drive to serve their country.
There is frequent talk from your side of this debate about 'distraction' and 'cohesion', but it's always relying on a select number of quotes or anecdotes form a small number of high ranks who've weighed in on the subject. I contrast this with discussions I've had with other people on other sites, currently or recently serving NCOs or officers. The prevailing opinion I see is 'whatever'. Most of those I speak to on this - Americans included - care much more about their soldiers accomplishing the mission.
As I've said, perhaps it's a generational thing. I'm 24. More people my age just don't seem to care if someone's gay, and as we're increasingly fleshing out the ranks of the military, perhaps it's inevitable. Military composition typically lags but does track social trends. But at the end of the day, I have a section of soldiers to lead and command, and any soldier who can meet my expectations and contribute to the accomplishment of the mission has a place in my section.
Decide the Strategic Issues Then Talk Small Unit Tactics
We're mired in details and wording of the implications of DADT and haven't, IMHO, answered two key strategic questions:
1. Is it proper for a society or military to regulate or prohibit adult, consentual sexual behavior?
2. What is the basis of individuals rights and law? The U.S. Declaration of Independence states the source of rights is: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." and similarly the source of law is "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" Are human rights endowed by a "Creator" or just what society decides they are? Likewise is law just based on the tastes and feeling of a society at a particular time or are they or should they be based on "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" ?
Get the strategy right and the tactics will follow?
I'll bite ...
on the two questions:
Yes. E.g., a prohibition vs male-female fornication on the sidewalks of Hancock's 200 block. Gee, maybe even a prohibition vs male-male and female-female "fornication" on the same sidewalks.1. Is it proper for a society or military to regulate or prohibit adult, consentual sexual behavior?
In the US: "We the People of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Always start with the People and Their Constitution.2. What is the basis of individual's rights and law?
Where you go from there, to establish a constitutional basis for gay rights, is not one of my priorities. I'd suggest that, so far as as "original understanding constitutional theory" is concerned, gay rights are definitely out there amongst the constitutional "umbras" and "penumbras".
Regards
Mike
I don't think it's edge, no. That opinion is based on my definition of the term "edge", though, so I won't bother trying to defend it.Motorfirebox - overweight/overfat but can pass the PT test is "edge" but homosexuals in the military is not "edge"? Statistics or other evidence to support this contention?
Release on health risks from that bastion of right wing extremism, the Center for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Press...STDGay2000.htm
Again, I enjoy the candid exchange.
But it doesn't matter, frankly. There is an inherent reason to try to keep soldiers fit, and both the fitness tests and the BMI standards are attempts to reach that goal. If there are edge cases where the fitness tests and BMI standards conspire against a particular soldier, well, there are ways to deal with that and one of those ways is to remove the soldier from service. But being an 'edge case' is not enough reason to boot somebody from the military. I doubt there are many, say, six-foot Filipinos who speak fluent German and were born and raised in Wisconsin. I certainly don't know any, much less any who want to serve in the military. Should we keep such soldiers out, just because there aren't many of them? I don't see any reason to do so, and this logic applies to gay soldiers as well. There is not an inherent reason to keep gay soldiers out of the military, which means there's no reason to keep gay soldiers out regardless of how many of them there are.
The military's standards for body shape occasionally screw up and exclude people who are fit for combat. The fact that the military screws up in one area is not carte blanche to screw up anywhere else. (This is probably what I should have said to your first post about BMI/fitness.)
Last edited by motorfirebox; 01-05-2011 at 10:16 PM.
Not sure where Hancock's 200 block is, but it must be an "interesting" place.
Sex in a public place would seem to be close to the ultimate expression of one's identity, if that is determined by whom one has sex with. After all, there is no conclusive data that sex in public causes physical harm and do we really want servicemembers to have to hide who they love in order to serve their country?
I would propose that the Declaration of Independence's Preamble is best understood as establishing the basis and purpose of human government. The Constitution builds on that and in a government by the people, of people, for the people, is best understood as the contract between each and every citizen and each and every other citizen on how the federal government was to operate.
It seems many of the Founders had a very dim view of homosexual behavior, then called sodomy or buggery. Hard to see them acknowledging it as a basic human right or anything but a disqualification for military service http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissue...les.asp?id=101. If it is in the penumbra of Constitutional rights, it is so far in the penumbra as to make it in a different galaxy from the intellectual space or worldview that the Founders operated in.
Bookmarks