This is topic Don't Ask Don't Tell in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=055687

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
There's an episode of Independent Lens tonight that deals with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/asknot/

I haven't seen it, but I heard one of the people featured in the program interviewed on Fresh Air this week. The interview was pretty enlightening, so I've got the show set to Tivo tonight, and I'm looking forward to seeing it.

This is one of my major "glass-half-full" issues when it comes to Obama. For all the things that I'm concerned about, there are other issues like this that I'm optimistic that he can sort out while he's in charge.

I know there are a lot of people here that oppose gay marriage, and there's no point opening that up again. But is there still any real controversy about openly gay people serving in the military? I know Obama is moving slower than some people expected on this, which is reasonable--changing laws takes time, and there are a lot of high priorities right now. But are there any significant blocks of voters, legislators or Jatraqueros who still really think it's okay to reject or discharge people from the military for being openly gay?
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Speed, I searched out the Fresh Air interview you mentioned, and listened to it just now. I feel the same as you about the issue, and about Obama's neglect so far. I thought the one line he said was very telling. He mentioned that the first African American president has ignored the largest civil rights issue of our time. That's very sad, isn't it?

I hope he's able to do something soon. I hope someone is.

The thing that jumps to my mind is Alan Turing in Britain solving the Enigma code during WW2 giving Britain a huge advantage in fighting the U-boats in the Atlantic. The whole war could have been turned because of that. Who knows? Anyway, if we exile our potential Alan Turings from the fight, how are we different from Hitler kicking out all the Jewish physicists before WW2? (I know, Godwin's law, but this time it really applies.) Who knows if that won't completely turn the tide of the war?
 

---

Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
 
I served in the Navy for six years, and I'd say that there are some significant problems with openly gay servicemembers, albeit most are logistic. But the fact is, a military fighting unit works most efficiently when sex isn't part of the equation: heterosexual or homosexual.

Allowing openly gay servicemembers is a great idea in theory, but serving in the military isn't a day camp. Take a Navy ship for example. Men are berthed in certain cabin areas and women in others. Generally, members of the opposite sex aren't allowed in these areas. Enlisted are stacked three bunks high in rows. In just one row of the small bunk area that I stayed, there were 24 sailors. There are group showers, and there are literally dozens of naked / half-naked people during massive dressing or showering times (after physical training). I don't know if Army camps are quite so limited in space, but there isn't a lot of room on a ship.

Beyond birthing requirements, a majority of servicemembers are between the ages of 18 and 21. Many of these kids are from rather restrictive backgrounds, and this is their first time away from home. A good many people in this category try new things: drinking, sex, and smoking are prevalent. And as much as its frowned upon, people try to have sex as frequently as possible. No matter how strict the punishment or supervision, kids are hiding everywhere and . . . you know. That's one of the reasons why men and women are berthed seperately.

Where would you berth openly gay servicemembers? Would they use group showers with the men? It would cause more problems for them to be with the opposite sex. And you couldn't berth all of the openly gay crewmembers together in their own berths either. But they couldn't be exempt from these type of duties, they'd have to serve the hard stations like anyone else.

Defining an independant identity would be detrimental. Sex shouln't be out in the workplace, whether heterosexual or homosexual. People can face punishment in the military for open sexual behavior of many types, open homosexuality is only one of them. When you trust your life to other people, you have to remove sex from the equation: whether its someone screaming gay pride in your ear or teenagers humping in an equipment cabinet --- both are detrimental to a cohesive fighting force.

There are countless gay servicemembers. Everyone knows they are gay, everyone treats them fairly, and nobody talks about it.. Some people would would get punished almost as readily for heterosexual displays. And there are certainly exceptions to this rule, as the military can certainly be bawdy, but for the most part it holds true. Gay people are accepted, they are our friends and co-workers. We attend movies with them, eat with them, shower with them after physical training. And if they don't talk about it, there is no recrimination, discrimination, or violence.

But if we seperate them, we need to address the deeper issues. If I'm actively declaring my sexuality, how can I live in such close intimacy with people I declare to be attracted to? When I define sexuality as part of the logistical equation, how do I orchestrate the logistics to prohibit sexual behavior?

But the law does need to be changed. No statistics of homosexuality should be tracked, no questions asked. Currently, you have to fill out a form swearing that you've never engaged in a homosexual act. That requirement should be removed. And punishments need to continue to be enforced for ANY openly sexual act while in uniform.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I'd argue that most gay men from years of showing with other men in school probably have more control with other men than straight men would have with women.
Plus it's not as if gay men are attracted to EVERY MAN THEY SEE anymore than lesbians want all the women.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I wonder if there is something to learn from looking carefully at how other countries' militaries structure daily routines in those contexts when there is neither deliberate exclusion based on sexual preference nor a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Syn -

I don't think that's necessarily the point. Not all discomfort comes from overt sexual overtures. If several women were forced to take group showers with several men, I suspect the men wouldn't have to make any sort of active effort to make the women uncomfortable. They would be just based on the situation. While I don't think it'd be exactly the same with gay men or women in a same sex shower, I suspect it'd be similar, and I suspect that the argument is that such discomfort radiates beyond berthing areas and could affect combat readiness.

Some of that I buy, some I don't. A lot of white people had problems serving with blacks when integration was first mandated, but they got over it. I think a lot of the problems being listed, with some, like Herblay says, logistical changes being made, can be gotten over with time and effort.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
It might help to remember that the term "openly gay" in this context doesn't mean putting on a thong and a pink boa and throwing a gay pride parade in the middle of the ship.

It means being able to mention your partner back home without having to change the pronoun you use, being able to date someone you're attracted to on your time off without constant paranoia that you'll run into someone you know, and generally just not having to be completely asexual from the time you enlist until you retire.

Sure, it's worth talking about things like showering and berthing situations. But I strongly believe the solutions to these problems will have a lot more to do with acclimating the straight people to the situation than getting the gay people to keep in in their pants.

And in any case, I strongly believe that the benefits (both moral and practical) of allowing compitent gay people to openly serve in the military will far outweigh the benefits of letting some of the more sheltered straight people pretend that it isn't happening.

Just my opinion, though. And keep in mind these are opinions I've formed without ever having served a day of my life in the military, so even if I don't completely agree with Herblay and our other people in uniform, I do value your input.
 

---

Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Speed:
It might help to remember that the term "openly gay" in this context doesn't mean putting on a thong and a pink boa and throwing a gay pride parade in the middle of the ship.

---

quote:

---

In 1976, the Canadian Forces issued Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 19-20, which allowed members suspected of being homosexual to be investigated and then subsequently released. This order was repealed in 1992, after a challenge by then CF Member Michelle Douglas, thereby allowing gay, lesbian and transgendered people to serve in the Canadian Forces free from harassment and discrimination.

A series of provincial and territorial Supreme Court decisions beginning in 2003 ruled in favour of the legality of gay marriage, and a national law to that effect was passed by Canada's parliament in 2005 by the Paul Martin Liberal government. In May 2005, Canada's first military gay wedding took place at Nova Scotia's Canadian Forces Base Greenwood. Officials described the ceremony as low-key but touching. A similar wedding has since taken place between two male Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers.

Today, the Canadian Forces recognizes same-sex marital and common-law unions, and affords them the same benefits offered to all married or common-law serving members.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ricree101:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Speed:
It might help to remember that the term "openly gay" in this context doesn't mean putting on a thong and a pink boa and throwing a gay pride parade in the middle of the ship.

---

I don't think there's a single person in here making that argument.

---

It wasn't intended as a direct rebuttal to anyone's argument. I was just entering it as part of the discussion.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
Just to make it a little more clear (and maybe cool down the powder keg), none of my post was intended as a smack-down to Herblay. I know you're the only person to take up a real devils-advocate position so far, so my post (and my possibly unintentionally snarky demeanor) may be interpreted as trying to beat you back.

I read your post as reasonable and realistic points to consider from someone with experience. So if I sound like I'm responding snarkily to someone who was making a rabidly homophobic defense of the status quo, #1: that's not how I intended it, and #2: that person wasn't you.

Hope that helps.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
[Edited to add: I understood you the first time, Speed, but that strikes me as a terrific clarification to add.]

---

Mind you -- in continuing on with the line of thought I am pursuing -- just because something works somewhere else in the world, doesn't mean it would work in another given place. Cultures differ. Contexts differ.

However, if the concern is deal with succesfully in other national militaries, or if it indeed is not even of concern in some such places, then there is not something peculiar to the military context and the military way of life that precludes it from being dealt with as a matter of course. It may be precluded to some extent and for some time by the American military context, but -- if it works elsewhere, in other militaries -- that isn't impossible over time. That is, it is something which can be changed without destroying the ability of a military to remain a functional force.

So, hope. Hope and evidence and trackable outcomes and, possibly, indications of some paths others have trodden before.

---

Also added: Israel strikes me as having a more active military than the US, at least in the sense of the average soldier dealing with a greater percentage of time in active duty, including dealing with terrorism at home or abroad. (I could well be wrong on this; it's just an impression.)

Given that one might expect having openly gay members to be more of an issue in wartime than peacetime (e.g., because time and location constraints would make separate accomodation more difficult to maintain in the field), the question of how other very active militaries sort things through might be even more useful than numbers at a whole.

Interestingly, according to the Wikipedia link above, Russia "excludes all gays and lesbians during peacetime but allows some gay men to serve in wartime ...."

And as for Israel:

quote:

---

Israel Defense Forces policies allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and without discrimination or harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation.[13] This was put into effect in 1993 after an IDF reserves officer testified before the Knesset claiming that his rank had been revoked, and that he had been barred from researching sensitive topics in military intelligence, solely because of his sexual identity. Homosexuals serve openly in the military, including special units, without any discrimination.[14][15] Moreover, gays in the IDF have additional rights, such as the right to take a shower alone if they want to. According to a University of California, Santa Barbara study,[16] a brigadier general stated that Israelis show a "great tolerance" for gay soldiers. Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York, who was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times, said, “It's a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”[17]

...

-----------------------------

[13] [New York Times article] Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military, By JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI, January 2, 2007.

[14] Eichner, Itamar (2007-02-08). "Follow Israel's example on gays in the military," US study says. Ynetnews. Retrieved on 2008-09-30.

[15] The chief of staff's policy states that it is strictly forbidden to harm or hurt anyone's dignity or feeling based on their gender or sexual orientation in any way, including signs, slogans, pictures, poems, lectures, any means of guidance, propaganda, publishing, voicing, and utterance.

[16] Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces: Did Lifting the Gay Ban Undermine Military Performance?

[17] Follow Israel's example on gays in the military, US study says, by Itamar Eichner, February 8, 2007.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Synesthesia:
I'd argue that most gay men from years of showing with other men in school probably have more control with other men than straight men would have with women.
Plus it's not as if gay men are attracted to EVERY MAN THEY SEE anymore than lesbians want all the women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Synesthesia:
I'd argue that most gay men from years of showing with other men in school probably have more control with other men than straight men would have with women.
Plus it's not as if gay men are attracted to EVERY MAN THEY SEE anymore than lesbians want all the women.

---

I don't want every woman I see, so should I be allowed into the womens showers?

I realize that this issue hits home to you, but trying to portray it as a simplistic issue belittles the issues involved, as well as the people involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Speed:
Just to make it a little more clear (and maybe cool down the powder keg), none of my post was intended as a smack-down to Herblay. I know you're the only person to take up a real devils-advocate position so far, so my post (and my possibly unintentionally snarky demeanor) may be interpreted as trying to beat you back.

I read your post as reasonable and realistic points to consider from someone with experience. So if I sound like I'm responding snarkily to someone who was making a rabidly homophobic defense of the status quo, #1: that's not how I intended it, and #2: that person wasn't you.

Hope that helps.

---

quote:

---

There is big news today on the gays in the military front: the Palm Center commissioned the first-ever statistical study of whether the presence of known gays in a unit has any impact on unit cohesion and the results are in: "The data indicated no associations between knowing a lesbian or gay unit member and ratings of perceived unit cohesion or readiness. Instead, findings pointed to the importance of leadership and instrumental quality in shaping perceptions of unit cohesion and readiness."

The new study was conducted by Drs. Bonnie Moradi of the University of Florida and Laura Miller of the Rand Corporation, a think tank with longstanding ties to the Pentagon started after World War II by former military officers. The study is under review at Armed Forces and Society, the nation's leading peer-reviewed journal of national security and civil-military relations.

---

quote:

---

Integrating the military will affect morale and unit cohesion. People in the military tend to be socially conservative, and this is a change that undeniably will make them uncomfortable.

But that doesn't make it a valid reason for keeping 'don't ask don't tell' in place.

Look at the logic. Gay advocates say 'the military ban on homosexuals represents a denial of rights to a recognized minority group'. Right-wing legislators respond with 'but letting gays fight in the military is hard.'

This is like telling your Senator that your brother has been imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit, and the Senator responds with 'Well there aren't any buses that go to the prison to take him home, so he'll just have to stay.'

I have no doubt that racially integrating the military in 1948 negatively affected morale and unit cohesion. The military was socially conservative in the 1940s, too. That shit was hard. But it was the right thing to do, so America sacked up, dealt with the consequences and waited for the new normal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Synesthesia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Synesthesia:
I'd argue that most gay men from years of showing with other men in school probably have more control with other men than straight men would have with women.
Plus it's not as if gay men are attracted to EVERY MAN THEY SEE anymore than lesbians want all the women.

---

I don't want every woman I see, so should I be allowed into the womens showers?

I realize that this issue hits home to you, but trying to portray it as a simplistic issue belittles the issues involved, as well as the people involved.

---

No, I don't think I even want to shower with a group of anyone, and it doesn't totally hit home to me being only semi-gay and not totally gay, but bi leaning towards men and not really wanting to join the military. I'm against portraying issues as simplistic and think that if gays and lesbians want to serve, especially in a time like now where there's a lot of conflict, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to serve and have a choice about how open they want to be.
I can't understand why it's an issue when there's a need for as many people to serve as possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Synesthesia:

... anymore than lesbians want all the women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dabbler:
I expect any military person (and high hopes for any person in general) to be able to behave appropriately and would not confer any caveats or extra considerations in the specific situation of bathing in a co-ed environment. If I were in the military and showered in a communal shower of both genders, I would have expected respectful behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herblay:
Allowing openly gay servicemembers is a great idea in theory, but serving in the military isn't a day camp. Take a Navy ship for example. Men are berthed in certain cabin areas and women in others. Generally, members of the opposite sex aren't allowed in these areas. Enlisted are stacked three bunks high in rows. In just one row of the small bunk area that I stayed, there were 24 sailors. There are group showers, and there are literally dozens of naked / half-naked people during massive dressing or showering times (after physical training). I don't know if Army camps are quite so limited in space, but there isn't a lot of room on a ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herblay:
But when people drop the professionalism and start talking about their sex lives in a military environment, it's going to draw criticism regardless of orientation. Under the current policies, people just don't talk about it.

---

I suspect that's not true, Herblay. You're saying that no heterosexuals in the military ever mention having a girlfriend? A wife? How is that any different from a lesbian in the military, for example, mentioning her girlfriend or partner.

And pardon me for saying so, but men talk about sex a lot. I find it really hard to believe it's that different in the military.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Watching this documentary now. It's just ridiculous to lower the standards to include convicted felons and to not recruit openly gay people. I imagine how frustrating it must be to have to lie so much about your sexuality. That could get in the way of being a good soldier I think.

Also, it's my opinion that women in the military probably face more sexual harassment from straight men than straight men from gay men, but this is probably just a guess.

Seems like a pretty messed up culture from my biased point of view.

Also, these two guys are so romantic together.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
I Tivoed the show, but since it's been such a crazy morning I've only been able to see about half of it.

I guess I shouldn't give my opinion until I finish, but so far I thought the Fresh Air interviews were much more enlightening and persuasive. Not that Ask Not was bad, but if you're going to spend an hour of your life considering the issue, you'll probably get a greater density of facts and analysis here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=06-16-2009&view=storyview

Of course, I might change my mind when I finish the show. But I just thought I'd put the Fresh Air link up, in case anyone wants to compare.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

But when people drop the professionalism and start talking about their sex lives in a military environment, it's going to draw criticism regardless of orientation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Synesthesia:
...
Also, it's my opinion that women in the military probably face more sexual harassment from straight men than straight men from gay men, but this is probably just a guess.

---

quote:

---

Between 2006 and 2008, some 40 women who served in the Iraq War spoke to me of their experiences at war. Twenty-eight of them had been sexually harassed, assaulted or raped while serving.

They were not exceptions. According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.

The Department of Defense acknowledges the problem, estimating in its 2009 annual report on sexual assault (issued last month) that some 90% of military sexual assaults are never reported.

---

quote:

---

Reports of sexual assault by US military personnel against both fellow troops and civilians rose by 8% last year to 2,923, the Pentagon says.

The number of incidents reported in Iraq and Afghanistan rose by about a quarter on the previous year to 163.

Pentagon officials say the jump in reports suggests the department's policy of encouraging victims to come forward is bearing results.

But they estimate that no more than 20% of attacks are actually reported.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
Actually, I think it is a simplistic issue.

Are gays full citizens, or not? Answer that question, and you've answered the question as to whether or not they should be able to serve openly in the military.

There might be logistic issues in terms of preventing sexual harrassment. But those aren't reasons to prevent gays from being full citizens, and preventing them from serving in the military is denying access to full citizenship.

---

quote:

---

full citizenship requires the ability to serve in the military.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"Not really. There are a ton of issues that such a simplistic view ignores or marginalizes."

I'm sorry, but full citizenship requires the ability to serve in the military. If you value all those other issues as much or more than the question of full citizenship, and say those other issues preclude gays from serving, you also have to answer the question of citizenship with a "no."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Herblay points out possible detriments--the uncomfortable feeling many of the less worldly soldiers will feel when they knowing shower with a homosexual member.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"Not really. There are a ton of issues that such a simplistic view ignores or marginalizes."

I'm sorry, but full citizenship requires the ability to serve in the military. If you value all those other issues as much or more than the question of full citizenship, and say those other issues preclude gays from serving, you also have to answer the question of citizenship with a "no."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Herblay points out possible detriments--the uncomfortable feeling many of the less worldly soldiers will feel when they knowing shower with a homosexual member.

---

An awful lot of "less worldly soldiers" probably believe that Jews have horns. And btw, I've met numerous people who really did believe that; it's bizarrely not a rare thing. So should Jews be barred from the military? Or maybe just allowed to serve if they keep their Jewishness under wraps? After all, religion shouldn't have any place in the military.

I'm going to ask again, how is it that other countries seem not to have any problem with this.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
We seem to have bigger issues with it than some other countries, to be sure. That doesn't change the fact that those issues exist.

I imagine it will happen, but just mandating it without regard to the possible consequences is not very smart.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Thing is, as evidenced by the number of Arabic translators that have been removed from the military, this is damaging our military ability.

An officer who assaults a female recruit gets slapped on the wrist (see the many examples of that in the links above), possibly promoted. A gay serviceman with a clean record and a vitally needed ability gets cashiered out, no questions, no review. How is this in any way fair, just, or intelligent?
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Therefore, handicapped people need not be considered full citizens? "

Handicapped people are not automatically disqualified from the military. They are disqualified from positions that required them to perform duties they cannot because of their handicap.

"Women still can't serve in Combat Arms..."

And I think that says something about how we think of women in this country.

" Ignoring issues in favor of a simplistic response doesn't make those issues go away, nor does it solve anything."

It does redirect the question, though.

"And I don't have to answer something I don't believe, regardless of how many times you say I do."

Its a general "you."

"There are a few populations that don't have the right/ability to serve"

I can only think of two populations that are automatically excluded from all military service regardless of ability to serve: Children, and gays. Are there others?

"and in MY mind that doesn't make them any less citizens. If it makes YOU consider them less, perhaps you need to reconsider why.""

I don't consider them less. I think its blindingly freaking obvious that disqualifying people from military service based upon membership in a group indicates that the group is not considered to be full participants in the polity. One of the major reasons for the existence of a state is to defend the territory, resources, and citizens of the state. If a group of people is not allowed to participate in that function of government, then they are barred from serving the state in a very fundamental realm of state authority.

"But I am not a fan of social experimentation in combat zones,"

*Shrug* It actually seems to work well. Regardless, we're not talking about dropping gays into the military in such a way that there first service is in the heat of action, so this is a strawman.

"And for the record, while serving in Armed Forces, any NUMBER of "rights" are curtailed, per the UCMJ. This is just ONE of them. "

Yup, rights are curtailed. One of the rights curtailed is the right to be gay. One of the rights not curtailed is the right to be straight. This tells me a lot about the citizenship we accord to gays.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Do you know WHY women aren't allow there? I do..my AUNT, a full Col in the Marines, helped make that decision. It has nothing to do wiht WOMEN'S abilities to carry out missions, although there are some concerns in specific types of missions.

It has to do with the other soldiers reactions, and how that compromises missions. It may not be "fair" to a civilian, but in the service the most important consideration is can the mission be completed.

We are rapidly approaching the point where women WILL be allowed to serve in these types of units. But it will never be fair, because I doubt women will EVER be COMPELLED to serve.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
my fav arbitrary sex-based limitation is: if you a womman, you can't work on a submarine
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
You'd think there'd be more women on a submarine since we're smaller and small is a plus in such a cramped environment.

What's the rationale, Samp?
 

---

Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
 
I would think that submarines would work best with all female crews. As to gays serving openly in the military I can't understand why those who oppose them serving think it's fair to heterosexual men. They have to serve if there is a draft but gay guys get out of it.
 

---

Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Ok. Here is a practical question.

If I was handicapped, I would be able to serve up to the point where my handicap becomes a detriment.

If I am a woman, I would be allowed to serve up to the point where my gender becomes a detriment.

If I am a person of faith, I would be allowed to serve up to the point where my faith becomes a detriment (you are not allowed to evangelize in many posts that you serve, nor are you allowed to distribute Bibles and other literature to the native population. Such evangelism would anger the native clerics.)

Why can't a person who finds their own sex attractive be able to serve up to the point where it becomes a detriment. I would think that having any Arab translator in your unit would be a much bigger plus to morale than their sexuality would be a negative.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Subs go out for months at a time, and there is simply NO room for alternate accomidations. There is literally no privacy.

As far as being fair....hell, NOTHING about a draft is EVER fair, and nothing will ever made it fair. Besides, there are a lot more women than gay men who are exempt.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Check this out... interesting develpment regarding subs though....
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

Are gays full citizens, or not? Answer that question, and you've answered the question as to whether or not they should be able to serve openly in the military.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:
Check this out... interesting develpment regarding subs though....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:



Why can't a person who finds their own sex attractive be able to serve up to the point where it becomes a detriment. I would think that having any Arab translator in your unit would be a much bigger plus to morale than their sexuality would be a negative.

---

It depends...trust is perhaps the most important issue in battle. If you don't trust your bunkmate then nothing else really matters.


That being said, I think we will find ways around this issue, and I hope to see the day where it won't affect mission objectives.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"and I hope to see the day where it won't affect mission objectives. "

Do you have proof that including gays in combat units NOW reduces military effectiveness? Because I certainly haven't seen it. This is literally the same thing that racists were saying prior to desegregation of the military. It never turned out to be a problem in terms of completing mission objectives... and some of that desegregation DID happen on the fly. And how about branches of the service that don't see active combat? In what way does excluding gays from signals intelligence reduce mission objectives?

"Actually, Paul, 'are you a full citizen, or not?' is not - nor should it be - the only test one must pass before being allowed to serve in the military."

I agree. I'm not arguing it is. I'm arguing that excluding a group, without performing any other tests to determine fitness for military service, is indicative of lack of full citizenship for that group.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Yes...there have been at least 3 major studies done my several branches of the service (Army, Marines and 1 combined study done in 1994) that bear this out. The armed forces have looked at this issue several times in the last decade as well, but my aunt retired so I am less familiar with it.


And you can draw a parallel between almost anything and racism...it's almost as tired an analogy as drawing comparisons to Nazis or to WWII Germany. It doesn't mean it's true, just that there are surface similarities.

And how would you now if it had or had not affected mission objectives, particularily when it first happened? It most assuredly DID....and that was with NO sexual issues involved.

Integration made the armed services stronger, but it didn't happen overnight. And it wasn't without serious issues at the time. Add sex into the mix and it is just as volatile of an issue, perhaps even more so these days. It makes people insecure, and insecure and distrustful in a combat zone often means dead.

I think the day where this changes is not far away, but that doesn't mean these issues don't exist.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
A couple years ago I did a fairly big hunt for problems arising from integration of gays into the military, and from what I could find, you're wrong. If you'd like to point me to the studies you're talking about, I'd love to read them. They'd fly against the dozen or so that I've previously read, as well as much of the testimony before congress when don't ask don't tell was enacted by military personnel.

You created the parallel between this and racism by using the same arguments that were used 70 years ago.


"It makes people insecure, and insecure and distrustful in a combat zone often means dead."

Again, this whole line of reasoning is a strawman.

"And how would you now if it had or had not affected mission objectives, particularily when it first happened? It most assuredly DID....and that was with NO sexual issues involved. "

In fact it didn't. Military units that come from diverse backgrounds, and train together before heading into the field, perform at a higher level than units that are from homogenous backgrounds.

[ June 23, 2009, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Wrong. In the end it made us far stronger, but there WERE problems, and it did affect specific missions and campaigns.

I'll let my aunt know that the congressional report she helped produced was wrong. I'm sure she will be glad to hear it. She worked on a large number of issues, including but not limited to the "don't ask don't tell" policy, women in combat areas, and other issues affecting integrating armed forces as a whole.

She was also the Marine expert teaching Rapid Mobilization for all of Desert Storm, so I'd say she was more than competent even if she wasn't my aunt. Never mind that she has her PhD in education, has published several papers on education that are used even today to develop learning programs across the country, and served as a Marine for 30+ years. (can you tell I am proud of her?)

Several studies by the armed forces are not available for the public, or they weren't when I last checked. I'll see if my aunt can recommend some resources. She should be able to, since so much of her work the last few years before retiring was related to these issues.

I remember being shocked to learn that she didn't feel that women should be included in combat specialties, as she was in the very first class of women officers to graduate, ans she spent her whole career proving that women could be great officers. She faced prejudice herself constantly from those in the Marines (and other armed forces) who didn't want women officers or even woman marines, so I thought she would of COURSE be in favor of full rights for women.

She said it wasn't about rights, it was about mission integrity. It wasn't that women (or gays)couldn't do the jobs...most of the time they could. It was about how volatile the situations were, and she listed 4-5 ways that it could affect mission integrity. And that was just the stuff she knew off the top of her head, based on her own experiences.

In the future I believe it won't be an issue, but as of right now I don't thin it is in our best interests to change things abruptly.

You are free to disagree, of course.

[ June 23, 2009, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
*Shrug* I don't believe you, Kwea, because the evidence that I have been able to find suggests that you, and your aunt, are wrong. Both on gays in the military, and blacks in the military.

And, of course, "in the end it made us far stronger."

Fine. Do it yesterday, so we get to the point were we are stronger sooner than if we keep putting it off.

And, really, the final point: Excluding people who are fit to serve, because allowing them in makes other people uncomfortable, is not the right answer.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Feel free to enlist and try to change it, Paul.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Why should I need to enlist to work to change bigoted policy?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
You might understand a little more about mission integrity, and see how close you have to be to your unit?

(It was pretty much a joke, though...my fault, I forgot the smiley)

There are a lot of issues that aren't as clear when people are shooting at you, Paul. Even if you won't want to believe that.

Hell, even if they MIGHT shoot at you.

I for one wouldn't have an issue serving with a gay guy (I think I already did, actually), but the living conditions make things problematic even stateside.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"You might understand a little more about mission integrity, and see how close you have to be to your unit? "

I get that.

But:

1) The concern is misplaced, for the following reasons: a) Our military, as you say, is stronger because of integration. b) Gays have served in the military, sometimes openly, in the past with no, or minimal problems. c) Not all service members are in combat or combat ready units. d) The evidence I can find indicates heterogenity is better than homogenity. e) Other militaries do not have this problem that our military seems to anticipate.

2) The policy mis-places blame for any assumed lack of unit cohesion. We shouldn't be kicking out gays for being gay. We should be kicking out people who are unwilling to serve with other people who are capable of performing their duties. They at least have demonstrated they are not capable of performing their duties.

3) The concern is backwards. Fear over surmounting difficulties should not be a barrier to lifting unjust policy.

"but the living conditions make things problematic even stateside. "

This isn't a good enough excuse to bar people from participating in a fundamental function of the state. Its not even remotely close to being a good enough excuse.
 

---

Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 

quote:

---

It depends...trust is perhaps the most important issue in battle. If you don't trust your bunkmate then nothing else really matters.

---

How is Trust an issue?

How is Trust lost by being open and gained by being secretive?

Open gay people are not a security risk, but closeted ones are. Similarly, an openly gay bunk-mate, who has proven himself in basic not to be one who will rape you in the night, not to be one to force his sexuality on you, but being one that has proven his loyalty to the unit, his skill, and all the other areas where "trust" is an issue in combat, should not be a hindrance to unit cohesion.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Except that it isn't, and a lot of the young men in the service don't trust a gay guy to shower with them, or bunk with them. I am not going to rape any woman, but I am not allowed in the womens barracks or showers for the very same reason.

I think in the next 5-10 years we WILL see gays serving openly in the service, and I for one will be glad. However, there will still be areas where it won't work, such as Subs, and that is just the way things are, IMO. Being in a Sub is hard enough wihtout bringing sex into the equasion, and by the end of a mission half the crew is already ready to kill the other half most of the time.

I know some people who have already spent some time trying to figure out the logistics of a change in policy. It isn't going to be cheap, or easy, but I have faith that it will happen eventually.

To be honest, if we kicked out all the service members who are against gays serving, we would probably lose at least a third (if not more) of our armed forces, and THAT isn't good for our national security. We are already having a hard time meeting our mission objectives, so we really can't afford to lose more people at this time, IMO.

And once again, Paul....I don't see it as a fundamental right of citizenship. I don't think people who don't, or can't serve are any less citizens. You may (although I don't think that's what you meant), but there are plenty of examples to prove my point. Some have already been given in this very thread.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"And once again, Paul....I don't see it as a fundamental right of citizenship. "

Please construct the logical argument that defends the proposition: "People forbidden from participating fully in the most important functions of the state are full citizens of that state" without diving headlong into absurdity.

" I don't think people who don't, or can't serve are any less citizens."

Not "don't" or "can't" but "forbidden from."

"Some have already been given in this very thread."

Actually, no they haven't. No current analogues exist in the United States exist.
 

---

Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
 
I've served in the Air Force over the last six years, in the joint service intelligence community, and there are a lot of gay service members in our shops. A much higher percentage than I would have ever guessed. Most of us know this because most of us really don't care what orientation any of them are. There isn't a "don't ask don't tell" policy between us, and it's completely their risk to do so. If someone doesn't like it (and I'm sure there are plenty who don't) they've never said anything out loud about it in my presence.

I can't speak for every unit, but most of the folks in my unit would have no problem bunking with any of them for several reasons:

(1) Gay service members have plenty of options to chose from among themselves because there are plenty of them around, even within their units. In fact, if they were allowed to be open, that would make this point that much easier.

(2) Most of them are not interested in me or most of the other straight folks. I've heard one of my gay friends describe what it was like going through boot camp in the Navy, and he said he was quite turned off by the other sailors, especially in group showers. Straight guys are apparently just nasty. Yes, you cannot guarantee this in every scenario, but what's the point of hiding it? It doesn't magically go away just because you say they can't be open about it. Nobody is fooled into thinking "the accent" (for some, not all) is just about where they came from.

(3) They aren't any more likely to harass anyone than a straight member is.

(4) You can be openly gay without making any references to sex. Straight relationships are obvious. Nobody is fooled by what "might" be happening behind closed doors.

(5) Keeping it a silent policy only perpetuates discrimination. We don't tolerate any other kind of discrimination in the service, and especially not harassment. Anyone who's not comfortable bunking with a gay person ought to change rooms. The percentage of paranoid straights isn't high enough to make this unfeasible.

I think it really is only a matter of time. I really hope this policy changes while most of my gay friends are still in the service.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Paul, people are not allowed into the service for any number of reasons. They are not allowed to engage in specific behaviors are are acceptable in civilian life on a regular basis.

You are the one who wants to frame military service as a major part of citizenship. Yet many people, by far the large majority of American's never even come close to serving, and quite a few of them are not allowed to do so for many reasons.

Your argument is specious, and just because you fail to admit this doesn't make it any less true. Regardless of how confrontational you try to make it, how ignorant/inexperienced you are, or how many times you state it as true, the fact is that people who HAVE the experience, have BEEN in combat, who have POLLED ACTUAL service members (enlisted and officers), all disagree with you.

But I am sure they don't know what they are talking about either.


People who are too old to serve, who are disabled while IN the service (although this is starting to change), who aren't fit mentally or physically....all of them are productive members of our society despite not being able to serve. So are felons who have rehabilitated. Yet none of them can join the service, or stay in if they are critically injured while serving.

People who cheat on their wives can (and a=often are) prosecuted in the service as well, people who sleep with their commanders or subordinates, people who engage (and get caught) in sexual harassment or sexual behaviors have been thrown out as well. It isn't JUST gay men who have restrictions placed on their behavior, you know.

And all of this also ignores the fact that I am in favor of allowing gays in the service. LOL. And have said so more than once. What I DON'T support is making a half-assed change in policy without figuring out how to do it, and IF it will work.


I don't think that all people in the service hate gays, or would be unable to serve wiht them. But I also think we need to look at our service levels, our world-wide commitments, and our retention plans before we change anything. As it stands now we are already screwed....and changing this could very well threaten our safety and our ability to complete our nations objectives.

And I don't care if you disagree. Your opinions aren't informed enough to matter, to put it bluntly.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/gender/a/bosexpreference.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9v2uk99o2E
 

---

Posted by flyby (Member # 3630) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Ok. Here is a practical question.

If I was handicapped, I would be able to serve up to the point where my handicap becomes a detriment.

If I am a woman, I would be allowed to serve up to the point where my gender becomes a detriment.

If I am a person of faith, I would be allowed to serve up to the point where my faith becomes a detriment (you are not allowed to evangelize in many posts that you serve, nor are you allowed to distribute Bibles and other literature to the native population. Such evangelism would anger the native clerics.)

Why can't a person who finds their own sex attractive be able to serve up to the point where it becomes a detriment. I would think that having any Arab translator in your unit would be a much bigger plus to morale than their sexuality would be a negative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:
What I DON'T support is making a half-assed change in policy without figuring out how to do it, and IF it will work.


I don't think that all people in the service hate gays, or would be unable to serve wiht them. But I also think we need to look at our service levels, our world-wide commitments, and our retention plans before we change anything. As it stands now we are already screwed....and changing this could very well threaten our safety and our ability to complete our nations objectives.

And I don't care if you disagree. Your opinions aren't informed enough to matter, to put it bluntly.

---

quote:

---

1) The concern is misplaced, for the following reasons: a) Our military, as you say, is stronger because of integration.

---

quote:

---

"I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change... Problem with that is, that's what they were saying about me 50 years ago. Blacks shouldn't serve with whites, it would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Beat that with a stick."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KarlEd:
... What do you think it is about the US military that makes it so frail it's likely to collapse ...

---

Why must you tempt me with these rhetorical questions?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Rakeesh, that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking, although I didn't get it from a TV show. Although now that you mention it, I think I remember that one, it was a great show almost always.

I know that the gay guys I served with did have a lot of issues serving, but most of those were problems within the service, not those guys themselves.

While I was in the Army, one of the guys I roomed with in the barracks (we were 2 to a room until we hit the rank of at least E-4) was bisexual, but even though we were friends he didn't talk about it. I had no issues...in fact I offered to room with him because we talked AROUND the issue. We both agreed to not ever bring anyone home without warning, and we both stuck to it.


I also saw some of the shit he went through, even when he didn't talk about his choices, so anyone saying that it won't affect missions is full of it.

Eventually I hope to see the policies change, but I am not sure when they will.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Your opinions aren't informed enough to matter, to put it bluntly. "


Kwea, your opinions are too distorted by being too close to this issue to matter, to put it bluntly.

And, to put it bluntly, by comparing the ability of old people (or who are physically unfit, etc) to serve, and the ability of gay people to serve you are demonstrating you are so foolish that your opinion doesn't matter.

And, to put it bluntly, if you think "everyone," in the service disagrees with me, your opinion is too uninformed to matter.

And, to put it bluntly, your reading and logic as demonstrated by the counter-arguments you use to my posts, are too underdeveloped for you to have an opinion that matters.

Edit much later: From what I have read, social cohesion in the military has zero correlation with task completion. If you'd like to convince me I'm wrong in my position, you need to demonstrate that social cohesion negatively impacts task completion. In the military studies I've read, it is ASSUMED this is true, but never demonstrated. In the non-military studies I've read, this is looked at, and no correlation presents itself (some suggest that social cohesion is inversely related to task completion, actually). The military often does not distinguish between task and social cohesion, and this makes those studies much weaker than they could be.

[ June 27, 2009, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Not everyone, Paul, but almost 80% of all enlisted members, and over 75% of all service members, as of 2005. I think part of the problem is that depending on who is doing the polling there seems to be fairly different results. I know that a very recent study, I think in 2008, found that it was down to 65%.....but I haven't read that report yet. It also found that there is a strong case to be made that gays serving openly would NOT affect mission coherence or mission objectives.

I think his is a positive thing, and as I said before, I hope that I will see this change in my life time. However, I also think that the fundamental change has to happen to our society as a whole, and that forcing these changes on the services before people are ready for them could cause a huge amount of issues not easily resolved.

Paul, since you are so fond of personal attack when you can't make your point any other way, feel free to continue to post them. So far all that you've demonstrated is that I was correct in dismissing your opinion. You are not well informed, and I doubt the services cares what your opinion is on this topic.


Which is funny, considering my own experiences while enlisted. But those would be the experiences you discount. Anyone in the service is probably too close to it to make a decision, I bet, according to you. At least if they disagree with you.


Keep in mind that nowhere did I completely equate age with sexual orientation. I used that to show YOUR lack of logic, because military service in and of itself does not confer a special class of citizenship (you called it "full citizenship") ...and therefore the lack of it doesn't take any such thing away. There are many reasons why people can't serve...and since you don't know this I should probably tell you...I wasn't talking about OLD AGE either. LOL

IF we required service in the armed forces from all people to be awarded citizenship, you might have a point. In case you didn't notice, we don't. Nor is there now, or ever have been, a constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

The armed services restrict enlistment based on age. Not old age...I think the cutoff age when I was in the Army was 32, which is not OLD at all. Just too old to enlist. According to YOUR OWN assessment, I guess we are treating 33 year olds as second class persons, denying them the right to serve. Most people are fit enough (or could be) at that age, but there are a number of other reasons why they can't serve at that point.

I never said that ALL service members disagreed with you. Read it again. I can break it into smaller words if you need me to.

I said the people who HAD served, been in combat, and who had polled service members disagree with you. And they did so on the strength of more than one opinion, more than one poll, and for more than one reason. Not every service member (speaking of strawman attacks), but the ones who spent a few years actually researching it for the armed services.

I care far more about their opinion than yours, at least as far as this anyway. Hell, after your attitude in this thread, I can't think of why I should care about your opinions on anything, to be honest.

But don't let my actual statements and facts stop your personal, insulting, and incorrect assumptions of me, or interfere with your posting style.

I guess we have to disagree on this one, Paul, and I am fine with that.

[ June 28, 2009, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS
In a series of statutory findings, Congress affirmed that:
· "There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces;
· "Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life;"
· There are "numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian life;"
· Conditions are often "spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy;"
· Standards of conduct apply to members of the armed forces "at all times...whether the member is on base or off base…on duty or off duty;" and
· "The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons...who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, [which] would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order, and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
( an analysis of 10 U.S.C. Par. 654

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corwin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:
Check this out... interesting develpment regarding subs though....

---

Heh, the first comment under the article (from 28.11.08, 2:26pm) is from a woman who serves on a submarine in the Australian Navy. Strangely, they seem to manage having women included...

---

Yeah, that's why I said interesting. Didn;t mean to ignore that, Corwin, just didn't see it until right now.

Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Kwea, I didn't start the personal attacks. You want to make the claim that making personal attacks means that you can't defend your position? Fine. Then you have argued that you can't defend your position.

I don't care what military people believe, or how they would feel about serving with gays, I care about what can be demonstrated. People believing they would be uncomfortable serving with gays tells me nothing about whether they would be less effective soldiers. From the evidence available to me as a civilian, there is no reason to believe that task completion or military readiness will suffer by allowing gays to serve openly in the military. In fact, there is much reason to believe our military will be stronger, immediately.

Again, if you think comparing the situations of people who are able to serve but choose not to, or have an inability to perform the duties required for their jobs with people who are unable to serve ever without individual examination, then you are making a faulty analogy. Looking at age as an example of why, everyone in the US is eligible to serve in the military for a period of 17 years of their life under these requirements. No person is forbidden from serving because of this restriction. Old people are not lesser citizens because of this restriction, they had the opportunity to serve should they have chosen to exercise that option.

"You are not well informed,"

I do not believe that you understand the relevant practical question, which is "Is there evidence that demonstrates allowing gays to serve openly in the military would prevent task completion?" Proving that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would disrupt social cohesion doesn't get you there. You would also have to prove that disrupting social cohesion would disrupt task completion.

And, as I implied above, I don't think you can make an argument that a group forbidden from serving in the military is a citizen at the same level as a group not forbidden from serving in the military without diving headlong into absurdity. Its equivalent to arguing that women were denied full citizenship before they had the right to vote.

And, in case its not clear, a group being forbidden from serving means "a group disqualified for reasons other than ability to meet the job requirements, and that never has the opportunity to serve."

"In a series of statutory findings, Congress affirmed that:
· "There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces;"

Congressional acts are often idiotic. This one is.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Funny, SCOTUS agreed with them on more than one occasion.

You are the only one who has claimed that not being able to serve make you less of a citizen. You are the one who claimed that there is a fundamental right to serve, and denying that to someone
One study. Two.
The counter-rebebuttel of link 2

Yet another...
An article siting some interesting view of unit cohesion and continuity of service.

Paul, there is a difference between doubting if someone is informed enough to debate something...particularily in this situation, where the person is a fairly sheltered individual who has never served in the armed forces, and who tends to disregard the opinions of those who have simply because they disagree with his views.

If you can't see the difference between that and what you said, it would explain a lot about both your posting style and your interactions here at Hatrack with other people.

Take a look at my first few posts in this thread. The funny thing is that we don't disagree as much as you seem to think we do. I just don't think that not serving makes anyone less of an American, nor do I see any sort of second class citizenship being set up for those who don't. You seem to see exactly that, yet you have not been able to even address that point, let alone prove it.

Making a statement doesn't mean you have proved anything. You may feel it's OK to use your beliefs to change the way our military operates, regardless of the consequences, and I understand that.

After all, it's not like you will have to deal with the consequences.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Hmm. Seems like a gay man is in more danger from straight men than vice versa. It seems to be a very anti-gay establishment.
The folks who want to serve despite that are extremely brave, I think. Even braver than non-gay soldiers who face a war, but these guys want to serve (and girls) and face a WAR from people they serve with and from hostile outside situations.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
" I just don't think that not serving makes anyone less of an American, nor do I see any sort of second class citizenship being set up for those who don't. You seem to see exactly that, yet you have not been able to even address that point, let alone prove it."

You don't understand my position. I think I've been fairly clear in explaining the difference between what you write here, and what I believe. To clarify AGAIN, however,

Being permanently barred from performing an essential function of government or the state (state: group who may legitimately use force), for reasons other than individual ability to meet the job requirements, sets up a differentiation between groups of citizens. In the same way that women were not full citizens before being allowed to vote, gays are not full citizens because they are not allowed to serve in the military.

People who choose not to perform a given function of government or state are not lesser citizens under the law than those who do choose to perform the function. However, those who are barred by law from some functions do not have the opportunity to choose to serve or perform the function, and thus have their level of citizenry reduced, because they do not have equal access to the government or state.

"You seem to see exactly that, yet you have not been able to even address that point."

This, kwea, is ****ing hilarious. You haven't addressed my argument because you've refused to understand it. Its not about performing the job or not. Its about access to the choice of whether or not to perform the job or function.


And, on a more personal note, I've read over this thread again (third time today from start to finish) and I'm fairly confident that I've been more polite than you. If you don't like how I'm interacting with you, you should try to refrain from making personal remarks. I've always been easy to provoke on hatrack, and that is definetely a failing of mine. Being provoked, though, means there is a provocoteur. In this case, that is you.

I also believe I have addressed several times why being barred from service creates distinctions in citizenship, and that these have gone unanswered: only the repeated refrain that saying it doesn't make it so, which is true of course. But that applies more to your statements on the matter than mine.

[ June 28, 2009, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
 

---

Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
 
Well, I've read the entire topic and was about to just step out because it looks like it was getting a bit too heated in here. However, I've had a thought, and me being who I am, am going to submit it to your perusal.

*Note: I am in Army ROTC at the Virginia Military Institute, I don't believe in Gay Marriage, I am morally against homosexual acts, and when it comes to gays in the military I believe that in most cases and areas they should be allowed to serve.

Anyway, my thought is that (and this is a very very long reach) perhaps they are afraid of letting gays into the military for some of the same reasons that women aren't allowed in the Combat Arms Service (Infantry, Armor, etc.) I'm not talking about a lack of privacy on the battlefield. As soldiers we're trained to always put the mission first. Psychologically speaking would a soldier who has grown romantically attached to a member of the opposite (or same) sex, be able to put the mission first? This wouldn't just have to be in normal circumstances, this would have to be in EVERY circumstance. If you were on a high priority mission that had to be accomplished and your partner was wounded, killed, or placed in a situation that put them in extraordinary danger, would you be able to put it to the back of your mind and continue to follow the mission parameters EXACTLY as ordered to do so.

This situation seems like a bit of a reach, and I'm not saying that it is going to come up automatically, very often, or even often. But if you allow openly gay members into the same unit, or desegregate the sexes in combat arms units, eventually that situation would come up. (Please do not infer that I'm saying gay people fall in love with any other gay person that they see.)

I'm not saying that this is the reason for DADT, but it may have been thought of.

What do you think, does anyone find this situation likely, unlikely, realistic. I am not super committed to this position, so I promise that I will be coolly rational and open to any argument.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I don't know, can a soldier who has formed a lifelong bond with his companions be trusted to put the mission first over their lives?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Yes. As a matter of fact, it makes them more likely to do so. If they are willing to risk their lives, to die for the mission, then most of their fellow soldiers would respect that, and try and complete the mission in honor of them. There is hardly any difference between mission cohesiveness and unit cohesiveness, other than to ivory tower theorists.

Of course there is no study to back that up...just the personal testimony of thousands of soldiers who have done just that.

Good question, though.


Paul, I don't believe that it creates any such thing, no does Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, any number of panels that have been formed to look into these issues....it's hardly my own argument I have been advancing. Stating that you feel it created another class of citizenship doesn't make it so, and there has never been a "right" to serve in the service.

I had no issue in the 90's serving with people who were gay, male and female, and I felt sorry for them that they had to hide who they were. But I also know beyond a doubt there there WOULD have been huge issues had they come out while serving, even if the laws had changed. I know it would have affected our mission stateside, where no one was even shooting at us.

It shouldn't. Really, it shouldn't.....but what should be is often not the same as what actually is.

Paul, let me take a different approach with this, and I really am interested in your opinion. I really don't think IRL that our personal interaction with people are that different.

Why do you think that the people in charge of making these decisions don't want this to change? Do you think they come into this with their minds made up? Are they all ignorant of the actual situations?

It's not a trap, I promise. I am just trying to understand something....not why we disagree, but why your seem so dismissive of the very people who would have to deal with the changes. And if you aren't dismissive of their opinions, why does it seem like you are?

My original point was that this is a complex issue, with far reaching ramifications. You disagreed, saying it was simple.

One way or another, I think I made my point.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Kwea: exactly. In many ways my question was a response to Philosofickle's.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Part of the issue I have with this topic is that my personal beliefs vary greatly from the actual stance of the Armed Forces. I know Paul has a point....one I personally agree with, mostly.

But I have met people who were involved in making this decision, and they weren't ignorant, dismissive, or hateful. They were fearful of the consequences of changing this policy, in large part because a lot of the people in the service have expressed very strongly that allowing gays into the military would affect them.

I know that my own personal experiences in the service indicate that there is still often friction between races in the service, years after integration. And not just from the whites, either.

So while I think that the current policy sucks, I don't think that as a society we are ready to change the policies. At least not in the armed forces....and we need the armed forces to stay strong to protect us. Their mission is tough enough as it is.

It's a form of cognitive dissonance that bothers me, and makes me testy. Particularily when the person "discussing" it with me seems to have a complete disregard for any opinion that varies from his own, and is completely dismissive of the opinions of those who actually are serving in those forces.

I mean, by that standard no one who has ever served should ever be allowed to discuss it. LOL

It may be right, it may be wrong... The one thing it is not is simple.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Paul, I don't believe that it creates any such thing, no does Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, any number of panels that have been formed to look into these issues....it's hardly my own argument I have been advancing. Stating that you feel it created another class of citizenship doesn't make it so, "

You haven't advanced an argument. You've stated an opinion, with zero argument to back it up. I guess there's an appeal to authority in there, but that's a logical fallacy, so lets not use that.

I've stated my reasons why I believe it creates another class of citizenship. There are functions of the state that certain people are barred, permanently, from participating in, because of their membership in a group, said group being perfectly capable of performing the duties required of the job (other than not belonging to the group).

Full citizenship requires that you be capable of making the choice to participate in all the functions of government and the state that you are capable of carrying out. If you do not have access to all the rights, responsibilities, and privleges that another person in the same community has, then you are not equal citizens. That's pretty basic social contract theory. Gays are barred from active citizenship through military service. Means they may not be active citizens in the same way as straights.

Insofar as anyone disagrees that being permanently barred from being an active citizen of your country, by virtue of group membership rather than ability to perform the task, that person doesn't understand what the word "citizen," means.

I honestly think that the statement "barring a group from military service reduces the level of that groups citizenship," is tautological. You'd have to change my mind on what the definition of a citizen is in order to even start debating me on this particular point.

"Why do you think that the people in charge of making these decisions don't want this to change?"

Honestly? Because most people are afraid of hard change, many people are bigots, people defend their own turf, the military functions largely on an us vs them footing, and most of the military is socially conservative and I don't believe social conservatives want gays as equal members of society, and the people who are social conservatives in charge of looking at this in the military would have to deal with working alongside people they are uncomfortable with and think are their inferiors. And the military takes as axiomatic that social cohesion creates a better military. The "why they fight," bit that you linked before is a great example of how the military is looking at this issue all wrong.


"but why your seem so dismissive of the very people who would have to deal with the changes."

Because I am dismissive. Dealing with hard change is part of the job when your job has a bigoted policy that needs to change, and that should never have come into existence in the first place I don't give a flying crap if its tough for some, or even a lot, of people in the military to deal with the change. Almost exactly in the same way I wouldn't have given a flying crap about those men for whom it was tough to see their wives walk out the door to vote for the first time.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Particularily when the person "discussing" it with me seems to have a complete disregard for any opinion that varies from his own, and is completely dismissive of the opinions of those who actually are serving in those forces."

Yes, I am dismissive of the opinion that access to serving in the military is not a question of full citizenship. It is, by definition of the word citizen, a wrong opinion.

And once the question is answered "Are gays full citizens or not?" as a yes, I do not believe there are other issues that outweigh that answer in such a way as to continue to prevent gays from serving.

I am not dismissive of the position that allowing gays into the military might cause problems with social cohesion (it probably will), and I am not dismissive of the position that allowing gays into the military might cause logistic problems (it probably will), and I am not dismissive of the position that it will reduce military readiness and task compleition (I don't think it will, but its a very arguable point).

But the thing is, I don't think any of those things matter when placed alongside making sure all members of society are equal citizens. In terms of whether or not "don't ask don't tell," should continue, the question gets answered when we say "Yes, gays should be full citizens of our country."

But I don't trust military command to make that decision, in the same way I don't trust the teacher's union to make decisions about how to administrate schools.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

I am not dismissive of the position that allowing gays into the military might cause problems with social cohesion (it probably will), and I am not dismissive of the position that allowing gays into the military might cause logistic problems (it probably will), and I am not dismissive of the position that it will reduce military readiness and task compleition (I don't think it will, but its a very arguable point).

---

quote:

---

Do you have proof that including gays in combat units NOW reduces military effectiveness? Because I certainly haven't seen it. This is literally the same thing that racists were saying prior to desegregation of the military. It never turned out to be a problem in terms of completing mission objectives... and some of that desegregation DID happen on the fly. And how about branches of the service that don't see active combat? In what way does excluding gays from signals intelligence reduce mission objectives?

---

quote:

---

If you were on a high priority mission that had to be accomplished and your partner was wounded, killed, or placed in a situation that put them in extraordinary danger, would you be able to put it to the back of your mind and continue to follow the mission parameters EXACTLY as ordered to do so.

---

Isn't like every single war movie ever made about the grievously powerful and non-sexual bonds between heterosexual men made during war? I have an exceptionally tough time believing that these powerful friendships that must occur even if we ignore movie evidence ( ) are all that much less powerful than a romantic attachment.

If allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US armed forces causes them to implode due to any the scare scenarios mentioned in this thread, I'll eat my hat and my sunglasses to. The only way it would affect the armed forces is if the heterosexual homophobic men allow it to impede [i]their[i] judgment. Perhaps that's what everyone is actually worried about.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
And I don't think that possibly risking the safety of your armed forces is justified to make sure that everyone can serve. Not everyone can, for may different reasons.

We don't have a second tier citizenship....in this country you don't have to be in the service to get a tax break, to get elected to public office (well, most of them), to drive, to vote, or to work. If we did, the way that some of those other countries do, then perhaps you'd be right. But none of the privileged associated with citizenship have any service requirement attached to them at all.

And since you are a citizen regardless of if you served in the Armed Forces or not, I don't believe your arguments for a second.

Thank you for replying, BTW. As I said, I really wanted to know. You DID seem very, very dismissive of the concerns. I realize that you'd like this to be a simple question....to you it very well may be....but that's because at least in part you are the person tasked with keeping our military armed and ready for action.

I think I understand where you were coming from a little better now (although I still disagree in part), and I hope you understand my position better as well.

I still think it is complex, and that there is no easy answer. At least not one we should be ready to try tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teshi:

If allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US armed forces causes them to implode due to any the scare scenarios mentioned in this thread, I'll eat my hat and my sunglasses to. The only way it would affect the armed forces is if the heterosexual homophobic men allow it to impede [i]their[i] judgment. Perhaps that's what everyone is actually worried about.

---

Unfortunately, eating your hat wouldn't fix the problem if that happened....but thanks for the offer.


Your second point is right though...it isn't because of the actions of the homosexual men (or not completely) that this is a problem.

It would be a logistical nightmare. I mean, just in my own personal experience...I am not gay, or a homophobe, but I didn't shower with my gay roommate. I liked rooming with him because we both were private people, and didn't bring company home....but if he had I would have asked him not to do it again....and if he had I'd have moved out, or forced him to.

For the record, I did that to a straight guy I roomed with too. It isn't just about being gay...although I have to admit that does involve a squick factor for me as well.

I don't want to screw every female I see, but that doesn't mean I should be able to climb in the shower with them either.


I have an 18 year old guy in my class who keeps talking about his sex life. He is gay, and very "in your face" with his sexuality. I heard an entire conversation he had, at full volume in the middle of a classroom, about what his dates' sperm tasted like. I told him off, and he accused me of being a homophobe, and threatened me with a sexual discrimination complaint.

I told him to read his handbook, because if I heard one more thing about his sex life I'd file one myself, against him, and being gay wouldn't prevent him from being thrown out of the program....and I was right. I have every right to do so.

I don't talk about my wife's sexual preferences, or my own...not because I am ashamed or perverted, but because it isn't something to share with the public (you can all thank me later ). Simply talking about it in public can be cause for dismissal, and being gay doesn't give him a free pass.

Not every person who is gay is like that...and among friends, I have friends who are gay who are open about their sex life. As long as it doesn't go into detail....details I wound't want to hear even from my straight friends...I have no issues with it.

But battle is the last place I'd want to have to deal with that, particularily from people I don;t know or like, which is why I was fine with my roommate, but can still not want the policy to change yet. And let me tell you....there were a LOT of people I didn't particularily like while I was in the service. I don't think either side of this is mature enough to deal with it under the most stressful of situations, and I feel it would affect morale to the point that we would have trouble maintaining our fighting strength.

[ June 28, 2009, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

I have an 18 year old guy in my class who keeps talking about his sex life. He is gay, and very "in your face" with his sexuality. I heard an entire conversation he had, at full volume in the middle of a classroom, about what his dates' sperm tasted like. I told him off, and he accused me of being a homophobe, and threatened me with a sexual discrimination complaint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teshi:

quote:

---

I have an 18 year old guy in my class who keeps talking about his sex life. He is gay, and very "in your face" with his sexuality. I heard an entire conversation he had, at full volume in the middle of a classroom, about what his dates' sperm tasted like. I told him off, and he accused me of being a homophobe, and threatened me with a sexual discrimination complaint.

---

This is not a gay/straight thing, though. There are lots of indiscreet jerks in the world. I don't know what it's like in the bunkrooms (or whatever they're calling them these days) of the armed forces but I'm guessing it's not a terribly clean place in terms of conversation. A homosexual would no doubt be unable to join in the conversation.

I'm not sure it would be a logistical nightmare. I'm sure it could be *made* into one. If people are really that worried at being oogled naked, I'm sure the armed forces could spring for some curtains.

---

I know...its' more of an ignorant 18 year old thing. I heard a lot about my fellow soldiers sex lives too, and I never asked, that's for sure.

...but for a significant portion of the armed forces, it's more than that....and saying curtains will solve it is not only is dismissive, it's ignorant. Ignorant of their beliefs, their concerns, and their situations.

I guess I pretty much have said what I have to say. It's fine with me if people disagree with me.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
Insofar as anyone disagrees that being permanently barred from being an active citizen of your country, by virtue of group membership rather than ability to perform the task, that person doesn't understand what the word "citizen," means.

---

*raises hand* I don't understand the word the way you're using it.

I'm familiar with the basic dictionary version of the word: a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection. Heck, the dictionary even has a definition of citizen as differentiating a civilian from a serviceman or police officer.

Could you explain citizen the way you're using it? Because I at least am missing some of the nuance of your meaning.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
A citizen is differentiated from a non-citizen by the rights he has protected, and the responsibilities he has for his state and government.

Active citizenship means working towards the betterment of the community.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Different people have different responsibilities, but last I checked the all have the same rights. Seems to me that your definition is phrased just for this argument, and ones like it.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Paul,

The difficulty I see with defining (in part) 'full citizenship' with the ability to engage in military service is this: there are going to be, by necessity, some folks who just cannot serve in the military, just because of the sort of military we have.

Just as an extreme example, someone suffering from quadriplegia while simultaneously being not especially intelligent. Shall we manufacture work for them in the military? If we don't, does that mean this average-intelligenced quadriplegic is not a full citizen?

As a much less extreme example, because we have an all-volunteer military, some folks with certain criminal pasts are going to be barred entry as well, even if they've served their time. Are they no longer full citizens, even if all other rights and responsibilities are restored to them?

And as the least extreme example I can imagine, shall obese people be permitted to serve in the armed forces 'as-is', because to do otherwise is to deny them 'full citizenship'? After all, fat folks are full citizens in all other respects, aren't they?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
And I don't think Rakeesh is equating gays with any of those groups, just using them as other possible examples of other people who are not allowed to serve, just like I was.

What about people who are thrown out for infidelity, or other infractions of the UCMJ? There are other restrictions placed on behavior while you are serving, not just on gays.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Different people have different responsibilities, but last I checked the all have the same rights. Seems to me that your definition is phrased just for this argument, and ones like it. [Big Grin] "

You'd be an idiot if you think so.

Rakeesh-
You are talking about people evaluated on their individual merits as to whether or not they can perform the task required for the job. There is no blanket legal classification that limits them from serving, if they can demonstrate they can perform the job.

In the same way, (and to use another example of the responsibilities of citizenship), individuals are often excused from jury duty for a variety of reasons, such as an inability to be impartial for the case they've been called for. But we do not excuse asians from jury duty because they are asian.

Gays do not have the right to serve, nor can they meet the responsibility to serve, because of a legal distinction made that has nothing to do with ability to serve. A legal classification has been created preventing people perfectly capable of serving from doing so.

I am not sure what is so difficult to grasp about that distinction.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"Different people have different responsibilities, but last I checked the all have the same rights. Seems to me that your definition is phrased just for this argument, and ones like it. [Big Grin] "

You'd be an idiot if you think so.

Rakeesh-
You are talking about people evaluated on their individual merits as to whether or not they can perform the task required for the job. There is no blanket legal classification that limits them from serving, if they can demonstrate they can perform the job.

In the same way, (and to use another example of the responsibilities of citizenship), individuals are often excused from jury duty for a variety of reasons, such as an inability to be impartial for the case they've been called for. But we do not excuse asians from jury duty because they are asian.

Gays do not have the right to serve, nor can they meet the responsibility to serve, because of a legal distinction made that has nothing to do with ability to serve. A legal classification has been created preventing people perfectly capable of serving from doing so.

I am not sure what is so difficult to grasp about that distinction.

---

Paul, enough with the personal attacks, please. I am not an idiot, nor am I deliberately trying to twist your words. They are cumbersome, and don't seem to match any other definition of citizenship I can find, or that I have heard recently.

Considering your definition varies by a wide margin from the traditional definition, and that seems to be one of the main points of contention between us, it seemed contrived to be honest. I didn't actually think you had formulated it just for this argument, which is why I had the grin on it at the end, but it seems overly restrictive to me.

I know that isn't what I mean when I say the word.

But of course, everyone must accept YOUR definition of the word or be an idiot.

That's what I get for trying to actually discuss things with you. God forbid anyone actually dare to disagree with your brilliance. [/end irony]
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Paul,

quote:

---

You'd be an idiot if you think so.

---

quote:

---

You are talking about people evaluated on their individual merits as to whether or not they can perform the task required for the job. There is no blanket legal classification that limits them from serving, if they can demonstrate they can perform the job.

---

quote:

---

I am not sure what is so difficult to grasp about that distinction.

---

quote:

---

Are gays full citizens, or not? Answer that question, and you've answered the question as to whether or not they should be able to serve openly in the military.

There might be logistic issues in terms of preventing sexual harrassment. But those aren't reasons to prevent gays from being full citizens, and preventing them from serving in the military is denying access to full citizenship.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but full citizenship requires the ability to serve in the military.

---

quote:

---

Yes. But there's a BIG distinction between denying someone permission to serve because they can't do the job, and because the law just doesn't like a person. Same reason that being excused from jury duty because of an inability to be impartial on a particular case is different from being excused from jury duty because a person is asian.

---

quote:

---

If there is a law that says people who weigh over 250 lbs are forbidden from serving in any of the armed forces, regardless of whether or not they can do the job, then I would agree with the statement "heavy people are not equal citizens." I do not believe that is the case, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:


If there is a law that says people who weigh over 250 lbs are forbidden from serving in any of the armed forces, regardless of whether or not they can do the job, then I would agree with the statement "heavy people are not equal citizens." I do not believe that is the case, though.

---

quote:

---

Gates offered as an example "when we're given information from someone with vengeance in mind or blackmail, somebody who has been jilted.

"If somebody is outed by a third party, does that force us to take action?" he said.

"That's the kind of thing we're looking at -- seeing if there's a more humane way to apply the law until it gets changed."

---

quote:

---

Fine. It is what it is. I know that rakeesh is a liar, and kwea is a baiter. You guys should be at least as ashamed of yourselves as I am of myself.

---

Whew! Glad you cooled off, Paul.

That was baiting, btw. And seriously, what exactly were you hoping to accomplish with this post?* You claim you've calmed down and are now being reasonable, then with the insults. You cite authority, then hide it in anonymity. You claim to be ashamed of yourself, and though you later contradict yourself there, all the other contradictions make that a dubious claim at best.

What a joke, man.

*That was a rhetorical question, actually. You were last-wording.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Having re-read the thread now myself, I'll engage in some last-wording of my own now, Paul. For using an objectionable - to you - definition of 'a while', you called me a liar.

Yeah, my shame-quotient here is pretty damn low. It used to be enjoyable to discuss things with you, even in disagreement. I don't know what the hell happened, but you've certainly gotten a lot more bitter in the half-dozen years or so I've been on Hatrack. I'll try to just ignore you to avoid acrimonious discussions like this in the future. I say 'try' because honestly, I'm about as good at avoiding that sort of thing as you are.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
If by baiter you mean I disagree with you, you might be right.

You know, since you seem to have this problem with most of the people who do dare to disagree with you ... multiple times, with multiple people, over multiple subjects, through multiple years....


...here's an idea.

Grow up, take responsibility for your OWN actions and the way you react to people who disagree with you, and stop arguing things in bad faith. Stop making blanket statements that overreach, and stop getting pissy with people who object to those blanket statements.

No one can make you react like you do Paul, and it's no ones elses fault when you do.

I could care less what your hand picked friends think of my interaction with you.


Read it again. This entire disagreement started because I objected to you dismissing the opposite side of this issues by claiming it was a simple issue, clear as day.

I said I personally supported people I knew in the Army while I was in, that I didn't care what peoples sexual orientation was, and that I hoped this policy would change in my lifetime.

But I also said that you were wrong in assuming the Armed Services had not looked at these issues, and that you were overlooking a lot of the issues because of your lack of experience. I said that I had personal experiences with one of the people who helped make this decision, and explained SOME of the issues they had to consider that may have not been obvious to someone on the outside of this issue.

And I objected you your misuse of the word citizen, and gave examples of other, non-related situations where other people were not allowed to serve in the armed forces but still retained all rights of citizenship to show why I objected to your definition.

Paul, take responsibility for your own actions. You are going to meet all sorts of people who disagree with you in your life, and blaming them because they dare disagree with you isn't smart, honest, mature, or effective. Stop arguing in bad faith, and don't assume the people disagreeing with you are uninformed, ignorant, or stupid.

Maybe then you'd actually be able to have a conversation without looking like a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum.

At this point, we've said what we think, and anything further would just make things worse, so I am done with this conversation.....at least with you. I have posted links to BOTH sides of this argument since this started, and I would be glad to discuss this some more, particularily since I have mixed feelings about it.

Providing my opinion matters...you know since I am related to people who worked on this, and was in the Army myself, I might not be entitled to one.

[ July 05, 2009, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---