Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 324

Thread: Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

  1. #41
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    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.

  2. #42
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default Study: Gays in military would not be disruptive

    A new study from the Palm Center (PDF File). Here are the key findings:


    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

  3. #43
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    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!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  4. #44
    Council Member jkm_101_fso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    325

    Default ...will be a hard change

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    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.
    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.
    Sir, what the hell are we doing?

  5. #45
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post

    I will admit to declining the penis shaped ice lolly though!
    Aww! When in Rome....

    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.

  6. #46
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    From CBC.ca

    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

    ....

    "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...
    See also

    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...
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  7. #47
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default Don't Ask, Don't Tell ....

    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

    Nice jpeg, Marc !
    Last edited by Stan; 07-08-2008 at 04:33 PM.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  8. #48
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    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.

  9. #49
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    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.
    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.

  10. #50
    Council Member jkm_101_fso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    325

    Default selil, you are a human thesarus

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    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?
    Sir, what the hell are we doing?

  11. #51
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Exactly, Schmedlap

    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.

    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.

  12. #52
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso View Post
    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?
    Don't worry I'm just waiting for marct to yell at me for the inappropriate use of zealot.
    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.

  13. #53
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Don't worry I'm just waiting for marct to yell at me for the inappropriate use of zealot.

    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).
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  14. #54
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yes, however...

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    ...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.
    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.
    ...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.
    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
    ...A threat supposedly to good order, good discipline, and morale based wholly on an egregious pseudo-religious moral rectitude.
    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.
    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 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.

    I reject both those concepts. Strongly.

  15. #55
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default The bottom-line

    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:

    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.
    Politics being what they are, the probability of their adoption seems remote.

  16. #56
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Don't worry I'm just waiting for marct to yell at me for the inappropriate use of zealot.
    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    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).
    LOLOL - hey, it works for me! I'm just getting worried that Sam has been reading a touch too much Sociology !

    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.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  17. #57
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    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?

    What's State look like? Must sleep around since Trudeau said bedrooms..

  18. #58
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Din't he do a cartoon?

    What's State look like? Must sleep around since Trudeau said bedrooms..
    I think you can get the background here .
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  19. #59
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    I just want to say that I enjoyed the ads in the "single in Baghdad" thread much more than the ads in this one.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  20. #60
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    ... really care about whether some guy in a four-man stack is aroused.
    Are you saying that you are not? Perhaps you don't appreciate CQC enough.


    SFC W

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •