quote: Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties that required years of training and expertise, including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and 49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists.
Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven Arab language specialists.
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place.
"We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," Donnelly said. "There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual."
What do you think?
(Hey, at least this isn't a gay marriage thread)
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
The arguments for homosexuality being incompatible with military service mostly make sense in combat situations, or at least when said soldier is somewhere near the front lines. If the gay guy's working a desk job, what's the problem? Also, I wouldn't dismiss an Arab linguist if he admitted to being a ten-year-old hermaphrodite Martian. However, the rules are the rules, especially in the military.
Edit to add: Okay, the guy in the article was apparently in combat zones. My point about the Arab linguists still stands, though. People are expensive to train, especially the specialists.
[ June 21, 2004, 04:34 AM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
What exactly are the arguments against homosexuals in the military?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
They whine about the camouflage clashing with their boots.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
The major one I've heard was that sexual relationships would be too distracting during combat. This is also one of the reasons that women aren't allowed to fight.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Men in the battlefield are supposed to make extremely difficult choices under high-stress situations. Triage and the like. Romantic relationships do a good enough job of screwing things up for civilians ... I'd personally prefer that soldiers weren't distracted or influenced by them.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
There already are THOUSANDS of gays in the military and have been for years. I was one. I knew of at least 5 others in my own unit. We have been serving in the US Armed Forces for a long time without the country falling apart.
"Don't ask, Don't tell" simply underscored that the government recognizes the bullshit nature of most of the arguements against gays in the military but is too chickenshit to appear to "endorse" homosexuality by letting it out of the closet.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Pretty much. As long as the army has the fraternization rules, they should be able to handle the potential conflicts of interest/distraction issue.
Both the ban and don't ask don't tell increase the possibility for horrible abuse and exploitation, just as illegal aliens can be much more easily enslaved because they have no recourse to authority. Frankly, with an all-volunteer army, I don't want to discourage otherwise qualified people from enlisting. They're doing a job we should all be grateful to them for.
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Romantic relationships do a good enough job of screwing things up for civilians ... I'd personally prefer that soldiers weren't distracted or influenced by them.
Worrying about your family back home can really distract a soldier and make him less effective. Should we ban married men from serving in the military? We already have men and women serving together in the military, and regardless of the "fraternization rules" they date and have sex ALL THE TIME. Why do you believe that these issues are more critical when gay men are involved? In what way are gay men less able to deal maturely with sex/relationships in military situations than straight men?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Exactly. And the only "security issue" is with people still in the closet, since any secret is possible blackmail material. And this policy encourages people to stay in the closet, so it's probably detrimental to security.
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The "Shouldn't be in those jobs in the first place" quote really is naive. I was a Korean Linguist in the USAF and served honorably for 6 years. Who is this "holier-than-thou" person to tell me that I "shouldn't be in that job in the first place"?
When I went in the Air Force, I was celebate. I considered myself a normal guy who was tempted by homosexual thoughts, but didn't believe I was "gay". After about 4 years in the Air Force I came to accept my sexuality. Also by then I pretty much hated military life and my job was intensely boring. I could have just waived my hand, declared myself gay, and opted out. Saved myself 2 years of trouble. But I decided to stay active and finish my term of duty.
My former job is second only to pilot in expense of training (or so we were constantly told). I belive what I did by finishing my term of duty was the more honorable thing to do, even though it required me to completely hide an integral part of myself. Nothing about me made my unit less effective. I never had a problem with a single bunkmate. I probably saved taxpayers at least a couple hundred thousand dollars by staying in. I was honorably discharged at the end of my term of duty. The only injustice here is that at any given time during this part of my life, the US government didn't have to show me the same kind of respect and honor and duty I showed to it.
[ June 21, 2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Romantic relationships do a good enough job of screwing things up for civilians ... I'd personally prefer that soldiers weren't distracted or influenced by them.
What about ordinary friendships? How can anyone say the influence of an ordinary friendship is any less strong than a romantic relationship? I don't think this is a particularly viable argument.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And in the military, especially in combat areas, friendships become much more than "ordinary." Soldiers bond together tightly, as close as many married couples.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Discharging a translator specilizing in Arab languages...sheer idiocy. We need that service urgently right now, and have far too little of it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: How can anyone say the influence of an ordinary friendship is any less strong than a romantic relationship?
I'll go ahead and say it. Sex is one of the strongest things that can affect our thoughts/feelings. Take any relationship, add sex, and it will make the effects of the relationship bigger, for good or for ill.
Personally, I think the current status of gays in the military is idiotic. Either it's bad for homosexuals to serve, or it's not. Make up your mind, and stick with it.
[ June 21, 2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'll grant Geoff's point a degree of validity, but only a degree. And if it's a question of "triage and the like", you'll have to grant Chris's counterpoint a degree of validity too.
And my point, too, for that matter. The same issues exist for straight relationships currently in the military. Why is it that straight men and women are expected to deal with the situation maturely and professionally, but it is assumed that gay men and women can't?
(Please note that there have been women in combat positions increasingly since 1992).
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Would it be sexual harassment for a woman to be forced to shower with men?
Why wouldn't it also be sexual harassment for a straight man to shower with a gay man?
There are serious privacy issues in a field situation and which can't be rectified easily when homosexuals are introduced (is it sexual harassment for a gay man to be forced to shower with another gay man whom he doesn't like?). Put some effort into solving those, and I can probably go along with it.
However, I disagree with the premise that military service is somehow a right. The military should exist to be as effective as possible and if the resulting exclusion forms a good ol' boys club that seems a small price to pay.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
ARatNamedDog's point is valid, but also disinformed. The Achilles-Patroclus relationship was romantic, which is why Briseis could only be a minor diversion.
And also why wives were financial&political rather than romantic partners. The Greek paired fighting-style of LeftHand and RightHand demanded absolute confidence by the RightHand that his LeftHand would die to protect him from attacks from the left, and absolute confidence by the LeftHand that his RightHand would die to protect him from attacks from the right.
Romantic love being the strongest guarantor of an adult's willingness to die for the other, Greek boys were given the ideal of finding another male as their chosen one, as their lover and fighting partner.
While there's a lot of foomfarah about "For God, Queen, and Country", the bottom line has always been that, in battle, men stand&fight* for their buddies, not for the "Honor of the Corp".
* instead of running from battle
[ June 21, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Why is it that straight men and women are expected to deal with the situation maturely and professionally, but it is assumed that gay men and women can't?
Good point, Karl, that has only been a problem recently (as you said, since 1992). My uninformed opinion is that both are as likely to cause problems as the other (potential heterosexual partners together vs. potential homosexual partners together).
[ June 21, 2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
You know, this is also a serious problem with blacks in the military. And Jews. And really smart people. And the rich.
They all know each other (well, not the Jews and the Black people, but the Blacks and the Blacks, and the Jews and the Jews, etc.)!
How can we expect them to make rational, critical decisions if all they're going to do is try to help out their fellow blacks, or Jews, or really smart people, or rich, or whatever, all the time?
We need to go back to the good old army of old:
Poor, white, stupid, gentiles.
Like in the World War II movies.
Now there's a victory just waiting to happen! [/irony]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Mocking a problem doesn't make it go away.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Then what does?
I always thought that exposing morons to ridicule was a good approach. Certainly one of the more fun ones.
More "Queer Eye" shows?
Less George W. Bush and the religious right?
More information, less fear?
More open discussions of sexuality in our society?
Pick one. Or state your own.
Up to this point, I thought we were delineating the problem. I thought we'd start posting solutions on the second page of the thread, and have it all solved by the third.
[/smart ass response]
[edited for spelling]
[ June 21, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Thanks for the name calling... you really helped your cause, there.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
If there was a serious war on, I doubt they'd care who their soldiers slept with. I'd fear more for the sort of harrassment straight men would give to gay guys...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One way to judge the depths of a prejudice is the extent to which people are willing to inconvenience themselves or act against their own interests to uphold a policy based on it.
Here's a perfect example. We don't require soldiers in general to live up to any strict sexual morality - in fact, there's a wink-wink approach to soldiers getting laid in many cases. When it starts affecting the troops, they pass out condoms and give VD lectures; they don't kick the soldiers out. The security concerns are pretty easily demonstrable as bogus, and could be overcome by requiring soldiers to state if they are straight or gay. The only possible one left is the distraction issue, which seems weak to me, given the other distractions, and doesn't even apply to the instant case.
I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to civil gay marriage opponents that many are not acting out of prejudice. This is a much harder BotD to extend. Self-interest is sacrificed to keep gays out.
Dagonee
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I am in army. I want to leave without any damage to my record. I say I'm gay. I get kicked out.
Works like that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My understanding is that there is damage to your record. Karl?
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Jim-me,
Name calling?
I hope you know I was refering to the military wonks who espouse this policy as "morons," not MPH.
Other than that, I think the only other name-calling I refered to was in calling myself a smart-ass.
I didn't call GWB a name at all--a particular rarity for me!
--Steve
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
it implies (to me) that those who support the policy are equally moronic, or ignorant enough to be considered so.
Syn has a very good ppint in that there is a lot of anti-gay bias among military types, but there is less than you might think.
So, does anyone have any suggestions for how to work the group shower thing?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
When I was in the AF gays were given an "Administrative" discharge, which, while not exactly dishonorable was not an "Honorable Discharge" and thus held the stigma of not receiving an Honorable discharge. I believe that may have changed in these increasingly enlightened times.
quote: Would it be sexual harassment for a woman to be forced to shower with men?
Why wouldn't it also be sexual harassment for a straight man to shower with a gay man?
There are serious privacy issues in a field situation and which can't be rectified easily when homosexuals are introduced (is it sexual harassment for a gay man to be forced to shower with another gay man whom he doesn't like?). Put some effort into solving those, and I can probably go along with it.
Jim-me, is it sexual harrasment for a man to be "forced" to shower with a gay man at the local gym? How about for straight men to have to use the same public restroom? Locker room at the public pool? Changing room at the beach? Well it happens ALL THE TIME in the free world and guess what? We gays have a remarkable ability to keep our hands to ourselves.
Straight men are already "forced" to shower with gay men in the military. The only difference would be knowing who is gay and who is straight, and that still wouldn't solve the problem of those who consider themselves straight upon enlistment and "come out" while enlisted. Or those who simply think their sexuality is no one's business and choose to remain closeted for whatever personal reasons. And what about all the bisexual servicemen/women? They already exist, too.
If showers are the worst worry a commander has to face then he/she can set up a shift schedule.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Sorry, Jim-Me, but you were right, after all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Plus, men have this whole urinal ettiquette thing from a very early age. With women, keeping your eyes up doesn't help.
Dagonee
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
For me, it comes down to how you choose to enforce the rules against fraternization.
If you think it's a good idea to leave it up to the honor system and risk more problems for the sake of showing trust and egalitarianism, then yeah, there's no reason to bar gays from the military.
If you think it's a good idea to make the rules more enforceable by limiting membership in combat units to individuals who are highly unlikely to fraternize with one another, then gays should be restricted the same way women are, because both represent the same level of risk. Restricting gays is far less enforceable, but on principle, it seems the only fair way to handle it.
If women are restricted from joining combat units because of their potential to have sex or pursue romances with men, it would be silly to say that gays shouldn't face the same restriction.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Would you support an all-woman combat unit, Geoff? What about a woman-and-gay-man unit?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Karl, it sounds like a good argument for re-thinking our ideas on modesty, yes, but since we haven't yet done that, the rotating shift plan sounds workable... any ideas on how to do that without labeling people?
I don't think I implied, BTW, that gay people are predators, but rather that most people feel uncomfortable being naked around people who could potentially be sexually attracted to them. I certainly wouldn't expect a woman (or a gay man) to jump my bones because I am naked in front of them, but I would be embarassed and hestiant in that situation nonetheless.
To the group at large: Is there any way to provide the kind of privacy people have been used to in the past? especially given Karl's points about locker rooms at public gyms etc.?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The credible reason for keeping women out of combat units is efficiency. If women pass the physical tests much more often than men, and if the tests can't be administered without a lot of sunk costs (preliminary training, etc.), then it might make sense to save the sunk costs with a general rule. The other reason often cited is how women will be treated if captured. I don't see a big difference between how a gay man would be treated and a straight man, unless the army puts something on their dog tags.
The fraternization rule isn't really an issue. Besides, women are allowed in the military; gays technically aren't. At all. Even in non-combat positions they're highly qualified for, where the sunk costs factor goes the other way.
The arguments just don't make sense.
Dagonee
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*grumble*
*tries to formulate thoughts*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:rather that most people feel uncomfortable being naked around people who could potentially be sexually attracted to them.
I'm more worried about being naked around people I might find sexually attractive who don't consider me sexually attractive. And it's always better to be naked around someone with first-hand knowledge of shrinkage than someone who doesn't understand it at all.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
nice seinfeld reference Dag...
and an interesting though process I hadn't tried on-- is my desire for modesty a desire not to appear revolting to someone I'm attracted to? Interesting psychological question that I might even try to answer some day Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I thought women were kept out of combat for other reasons--Less Upper Body Strength, Lack of Killer Instinct/training, poor dainty creatures shouldn't be hurt. These are teh arguments I've heard before, not that sexual relations would complicate matters.
The biggest reason that my friends in the military don't want gay men in their units is because they are misinformed on what homosexuality is, and they fear the differences.
That fear and dehumanization creates its own reasons for denying gay people the opportunity to defend their country.
Here are the facts:
Some people are gay.
Not evil people or sick people or wrong people. Just people. (Although some evil, sick, and wrong people are also gay, just as some are Jewish or left handed or Hungarian).
The military has four choices:
It can diminish itself by not allowing these people to serve.
It can stick its collective head in a box and deny these people exist.
It can try to change those people into being something they are not.
or
It can train their people to accept these differences, as they have done with differences in race, religion, and even national heritage.
I have full confidence in our military that they can do this. I have full confidence in the members of our military that they can accept this. I have little confidence in our political system that they will allow this. Its too different, to easy to take a stand on.
It is a shame, we are back to diminishing the military for some politician's narrow mindedness.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You make a good point, Dan. The military had much less trouble integrating than almost any other institution I can think of. If anyone can do it, they can.
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Karl, it sounds like a good argument for re-thinking our ideas on modesty, yes, but since we haven't yet done that, the rotating shift plan sounds workable... any ideas on how to do that without labeling people?
and
quote: To the group at large: Is there any way to provide the kind of privacy people have been used to in the past? especially given Karl's points about locker rooms at public gyms etc.?
My point is that they have NOW the very same privacy they have had in the past. And it is done without labels. There are gays showering right next to straights in the military even as I type this. Somewhere in the world US military members are having sex with each other RIGHT NOW, and some of them are gay.
The very easiest way to integrate gays into the military is to stop singling them out for discharge. We're already there. We're showering with you already. We're bunking with you already. Ending the discrimination doesn't mean adding anything. You don't need to ask who's gay and whose straight. Why do you need to know? You don't know now, so why do you need to know then? Yeah, it will come out in the natural course of conversation among friends. Then the handful of people really too paranoid to shower with a known homosexual will either have to get over it or make other adjustments. And the ones who can't behave themselves like responsible adults in an environment where gays might be present can be disciplined just like racists and mysogynist are dealt with today in the military. Case solved. This is only a Big Deal because of the politics involved in appearing to support homosexual equality.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Instead of rehashing everything, I'll just put my vote with everything KarlEd said. Good job fellow Karl.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
quote:"We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," Donnelly said. "There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual."
There, you see? We don't need a draft after all. There is no shortage of people in the military!
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I agree with Karl too, the current situation is a joke.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Agreed, well said, Karl. I *do* hope I'm not coming off as personal... I'm just exploring here and if anything I've said has been offensive to hear as a gay man (or lesbian, for that matter), I do sincerely apologize.
As for the level of privacy thing, people have been accustomed to pretending that they have it. This will shatter that delusion, and while, that's generally a good thing, it's also generally to be accomplished with great care. It takes time to adjust to these things, and Dan is very right to compare the situation to the integration of Blacks into military service. There will be headaches, there will be pain, there will be ugliness... maybe less in the military than elsewhere, but there *will* be some, and in an organization of a few million, "some" is a significant number.
I think we might be getting down to the *real* reason here... that "now" is always a bad time for a PR black eye... and there will be plenty when this process goes forward. I think this integration is probably inevitable, but no one wants to be in charge when it happens, because it will be hard.
Not an excuse, much less a reason, but a theory as to what may really be happening.
[ June 21, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
To Geoff,
quote: If you think it's a good idea to make the rules more enforceable by limiting membership in combat units to individuals who are highly unlikely to fraternize with one another, then gays should be restricted the same way women are, because both represent the same level of risk. Restricting gays is far less enforceable, but on principle, it seems the only fair way to handle it.
If women are restricted from joining combat units because of their potential to have sex or pursue romances with men, it would be silly to say that gays shouldn't face the same restriction.
So, you are OK with gays in the military but just not in combat positions?
Now what about Dan's arguement that sexual issues aren't the reason for the restriction of women in other combat positions (such as special forces)? If this is, indeed, the case and women are restricted from serving in these positions because of a general lack of the physical attributes associated with these positions, would you then be OK with gays being allowed to serve in those positions?
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
quote: I think we might be getting down to the *real* reason here... that "now" is always a bad time for a PR black eye... and there will be plenty when this process goes forward. I think this integration is probably inevitable, but no one wants to be in charge when it happens, because it will be hard.
I had a great post thought up (or atleast as good as I can do) and then I checked the updated thread and found that Jim-me had already said what I was going to say
quote: I don't think I implied, BTW, that gay people are predators, but rather that most people feel uncomfortable being naked around people who could potentially be sexually attracted to them.
quote: Jim-me, is it sexual harrasment for a man to be "forced" to shower with a gay man at the local gym? How about for straight men to have to use the same public restroom? Locker room at the public pool? Changing room at the beach? Well it happens ALL THE TIME in the free world and guess what? We gays have a remarkable ability to keep our hands to ourselves.
Speaking as a high school athlete who has showered with openly gay men, it's not that bad, i mean it's not like they even look at you, they just hop in, clean up, dry off, snap their towl at a freshman (which we all do) and get dressed. no staring at other mens gentials, or anything else.
Stryker
[ June 21, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: J T Stryker ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Jim-me, I haven't taken anything you've written as personally insulting. My response to your first post probably seemed like I did because this is a personal issue with me. Your subsequent posts have made it clear that you are participating in a discussion and not making an attack.
As a gay man the issue is very personal. It is offending to me to the Nth degree to read someone say that I had no business serving my country and that had I not done what I did it would be no loss because I never should have been there in the first place. People who think like that need to amend their "Support our troops!" bumper stickers to read "Support our troops (except the gay ones)!" so their genuine bigotry can be seen as easily as their bumper-sticker patriotism.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I just wanted to stick my head in the thread to thank KarlEd for taking the heat on this one. I agree.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Hear hear... And I apologize for not being more active on this topic which is also so personal to me. Just no energy for deep or rational thinking today....
Need more pop I think... *looks for a coke machine*
[ June 21, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's OK. Nobody can be smart and witty *every* day.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*hugs for Porterman*
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I say there's no reason at all not to allow gay people in the military. Gays grow up going into locker rooms filled with hostile men or women. They know how to control themselves in such situations. They probably think that gay men and women will run around with knives and folks trying to have a go at EVERYBODY. Which is amazingly, profoundly idiotic.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
yep yep... no thinking here... just burn them gays in hell... an' all them fornicators an' masturbators an' uther unnatural people too... that's what I been sayin' this here entire time...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How come I get the feeling that many of those most against serving with gay men in the military are straight men who are afraid of being raped.
Their thinking go, "If he likes boys, he's gonna rape me cause I like girls, and I rape them."
I say this because, despite not having women on the front lines, over 100 women in Irag and Afghanistan who are in our military have reported being forced into sex by thier brothers-in-arms.
From Tail Hook to now, sex in the military is almost a tradition, whether you want it or not.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Whoa, now this is getting personal to me, coming from an alma mater which has been scandalized and emasculated by a series of rape accusations.
I'm not even sure where to begin, except to say that I'll bet copious amounts of mine and other people's money that the incidence of Rape outside the military is as high or higher than in it.
While I think it's a pretty unfair mischaracterization of the points I was making, I can see how you got there
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:So, you are OK with gays in the military but just not in combat positions?
I'm okay with gays being just about anywhere, really. I can see some good reasoning behind the idea of keeping combat units free of potential sexual entanglements, so as far as that goes, I think gays and women should be considered equivalent. It seems to me that disallowing women on those grounds, but allowing gay men would be counterintuitive and unfair.
There are other reasons to keep women out of combat units. In the event of a catastrophic war with millions upon millions of casualties, men are generally more expendable than women. It's easier to recover from losing half the men in your country than it is to recover from losing half the women. I don't think women should have to register for the draft, on those same grounds.
Now, if that's the only consideration, and we ignore the sexual-relationship issue, then there is no reason to restrict gays from service, because they're just as expendable as any heterosexual man.
There are a lot of very different issues playing into this, and most of them are not prejudice. It's easy to jump right in and tell the military to be ashamed of themselves for not "integrating" the sexualities as quickly as they did the races. But I don't think this shows a lack of openmindedness and progressive thought on the part of the military or the politicians involved. They're just trying to reconcile a lot of conflicting issues, and they haven't yet landed in a place that satisfies everyone.
You know my stance on most homosexual issues — that I think politics is too quickly muddying the waters, and subjective self-evaluations by homosexuals have become gospel to one side, while narrow interpretations of scripture have become gospel to the other, and no one is able to do unbiased research without running afoul of someone's preset opinion. I personally wish there were some way to test these kinds of things short of altering the way our society works, even in a small, but vital, microcosm like the military.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uh, Jim-Me, are you implying that I am stating that people here are idiotic, because I'm not.. The policy is idiotic... Not the people who put it into place... *is reminded of a code breaker during ww2*
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
quote:It's easy to jump right in and tell the military to be ashamed of themselves for not "integrating" the sexualities as quickly as they did the races.
Since when is nearly 85 years, which is how long it took from the end of the Civil War to Truman's integration in 1949, in any way "quickly?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But when Truman said integrate, it integrated astoundingly quickly. I think that's what he was referring to.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: subjective self-evaluations by homosexuals have become gospel to one side, while narrow interpretations of scripture have become gospel to the other
Very, very true.
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
quote:But when Truman said integrate, it integrated astoundingly quickly. I think that's what he was referring to.
Got proof? Episodes of M*A*S*H really don't count as empirical data in this case. The only time they were "integrated" is when there was a need for grunts to go die. With only a few exceptions, that didn't change until the 70's.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Go, Karl, go!
This is, by the way, part of my brilliant plan for avoiding the draft that will never happen. If Bush feels the urge to invade Brazil or someplace, though, I'm gonna come out of the closet faster than a coat with legs. Or, yeah, something cleverer than that.
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
Link describing how Truman's policy did not make much of a difference, and adequate policy did not come through until 15 years afterward.
Link describing how blacks were only used in token integration, and during the draft were picked quite often for grunt assignments (draft was almost exclusively battle assignment for them).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: adequate policy did not come through until 15 years afterward.
Gross misrepresentation of what the link actually said:
quote:Segregation in the military services did not officially end until the Secretary of Defense announced on 30 September 1954 that the last all-black unit had been abolished. However, the president’s directive put the armed forces (albeit reluctantly) at the forefront of the growing movement to win a fully participatory social role for the nation’s African-American citizens.
The true fulfillment of the entire scope of Executive Order 9981—equality of treatment and opportunity—actually required an additional change in Defense Department policy. This occurred with the publication of Department of Defense Directive 5120.36 on 26 July 1963, 15 years to the day after Truman signed the original order. This major about-face in policy issued by Secretary of Defense Robert J. McNamara expanded the military’s responsibility to include the elimination of off-base discrimination detrimental to the military effectiveness of black servicemen.
I didn’t say racism ended, I said segregation ended. And compared to the “all deliberate speed” with which Brown was implemented (there are still school districts under Brown-era court orders), I still say it was impressive.
From the second link:
quote: Final casualty estimates do not support the assertion that African Americans suffered disproportionate losses in Vietnam, but this in no way diminishes the fact that they bore a heavy share of the fighting burden, especially early in the conflict.
Vietnam was the first war fought entirely w/ integrated troops. Note that draft policies heavily disfavored blacks, but because of the education deferment and racism and racial policies in education. Draftees in general were far more likely to be sent to combat.
In general, the integration of the armed forces happened very quickly - certainly with unprecedented speed. The effects of past and contemporary racism are not erased by integration, nor did I claim they were.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Considering that when, on issues relating to homosexuality (such as homosexual parenting) many people who profess an interest in "scientific studies" suddenly find scientific studies less than persuasive when presented with them, I tend to be skeptical when people say they merely want scientific studies . . . of something that's not really capable of being studied without (wait for it) a change in policies in the first place.
Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
Nice arguments, KarlEd. I'll vote for you.
People seem to think gay people are automatically complete perverts. My mom's cousin was openly gay. We stay at his house when we're in Florida. When I mentioned any of that to my friends, they immediately asked, "Has he, like, tried anything?"
He's my forty-year-old cousin, for God's sakes . . .
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Believe me people I know Gay people in the army and guess what... Everyone else knows there gay tooo!!! And no one really cares because he is an awesome infantryman and an awesome NCO. You can honestly be Gay in the military and not be punished for it. All you have to do is not go up to your commander and say, I'm gay. Its that simple, its literally illegal for them to ask you!
Now here is the thing, there are so many people that hate the army life that they will say they are gay to get out. I've met soldiers that literally kissed in front of a drill sergeant to get out. I'm not saying thats true of all those people, but I've seen it to be true in my experience.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I personally believe that the potential drawbacks to having open homosexuals and women in combat units are far outweighed by the benefits of gaining more dedicated, trained, and courageous volunteer soldiers.
Particularly since I think potential drawbacks will always be there, either similar drawbacks or different ones, but the presence of another soldier-particularly one that fights to get INTO a combat unit, look at what the Nisei did in WWII, and blacks did in the Civil War, and the Tuskegee Airmen-is a rare and valuable, and desperately needed, thing.
I also think arguments based on 'keeping hands to oneself' are unreasonable, as well. There isn't any basis for them in anything other than bigotry, misunderstanding, and fear. The only time that argument can apply is if it is applied to heterosexuals in mixed-sex environments, which clearly in the military it is not.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
*hugs for Porterman*
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)