We talked about this a few months back, and it looks like Obama is moving on this now. He ordered the policy to cease, but there is a hitch...
Turns out the authority to get rid of it lies with Congress.
Stay tuned for more news.....lol....
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well realistically from what I am reading there are not any contemporary studies with serious funding behind them designed to predict how repealing this policy will effect the social structure of the military. While I am for this decision, it feels counter-intuitive to predict that there will be no difficulties with this decision.
I think Robert Gates is right to insist on new studies as well as recycling some of the older studies attempted in the past.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
It's a safe assumption that there will be difficulties with this decision. I foresee an increase in the already annoyingly high number of sexual harassment/fraternization type powerpoints I have to sit through. The price of doing business.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No difficulties? Of course not. Manageable difficulties? Probably, just like every other country that allows it.
Furthermore, ultimately it doesn't come down to study. If you were to study the impact of blacks in non-segregated military units before it became permissible, I am sure you would have found significant adverse effects on unit cohesion by including blacks in units with whites. That would not have been a good reason in the least to exclude them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No difficulties? Of course not. Manageable difficulties? Probably, just like every other country that allows it.
Furthermore, ultimately it doesn't come down to study. If you were to study the impact of blacks in non-segregated military units before it became permissible, I am sure you would have found significant adverse effects on unit cohesion by including blacks in units with whites. That would not have been a good reason in the least to exclude them.
Certainly not, but it's something worth investigating. But then again, I've always assumed the reason women were excluded from combat roles was based on definitive studies, and yet I've never read said studies. That is something I ought to remedy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:But then again, I've always assumed the reason women were excluded from combat roles was based on definitive studies
Nope.
edit: it is also pretty easy to see that those calling for more studies are not acting in good faith. If they just wanted it studied more thoroughly, they very much had the power to make certain that was done -- it wasn't like it was at all unclear that somebody was going to revisit Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What's more, if they were really interested in basing the conclusion off of studies, they would have called for a revisitation after doing studies.
No studies were done until it was a convenient way of attempting to fend off a change of policy. The calls for studies are not about basing policies off of evidence, they are tactics to preserve a position based in bigotry.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And of course the argument is...dubiously honest right from the get-go, since it hinges on, "It'll be bad for the unit right now, so we can't do it." The problem is that it will likely always be bad for the unit in the short term, but they said the same thing about racial integration, and about gender integration-some are still saying it, in fact, though as time passes it proves to be less and less dreadfully bad for the unit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, this was never something Obama could just DO. DADT is the law, and Congress has to change it, but the fact that he's pushing for it is good. It was a major campaign promise, or at least, major to the gay community.
Lots of different opinions on this one, but I think they could scrap together support in Congress if they can enough military people together to back them up. Thus far, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs supports ending DADT, as do many former Secretaries of Defense. Either way Obama will probably win a larger political battle. If he can blame Congressional Republicans yet again for failed legislation, he'll secure the gay community's support for some time to come, even if he fails.
But I actually think Obama might have a decent chance of getting this through. I haven't seen any unofficial head count thus far of what the vote will look like, but I think this will depend on what Republicans decide to do as far as the filibuster goes.
The fact that the military is involved might actually work in Obama's favor. If the military supports him, Republicans, and conservative Democrats, will have a much harder time arguing against it. Playing politics with the military is playing with fire, and Republicans know that midterms are almost here.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No difficulties? Of course not. Manageable difficulties? Probably, just like every other country that allows it.
Furthermore, ultimately it doesn't come down to study. If you were to study the impact of blacks in non-segregated military units before it became permissible, I am sure you would have found significant adverse effects on unit cohesion by including blacks in units with whites. That would not have been a good reason in the least to exclude them.
Certainly not, but it's something worth investigating. But then again, I've always assumed the reason women were excluded from combat roles was based on definitive studies, and yet I've never read said studies. That is something I ought to remedy.
They are, and my Aunt helped conduct some of them, although it was years ago. I would imagine that that will continue to change as well. Women are non-combat in name only most of the time these days.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Props to Obama on this one.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I just hope they strengthen the sexual harrassment procedures to go with that. I still don't really get how the military functions without a human resources department. Is there something in place to let folks go past their supervisor if they're the problem?
Cause while my sister's problems weren't sexual, they were definitely hostile work environment issues that wouldn't have been tolerated in a private company. She seemed to think if the guy running the base wouldn't do anything, there was nothing to be done without causing bigger problems than she already had.
Even if that's not true, the military might want to address that sort of perception going forward. Cause we know harrassment's going up in the short term. It would be really stupid not to be prepared for it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, the JAG office, while NOTHING like the TV show, operates outside of the normal chain of command. Also, it's not like a regular company in that there is always someone higher ranking than the guy harrassing most of the time, so you can always follow the chain of command.
An HR department would be one of the worst things that could happen to the Army, IMO. It's a different world with different needs, and the chain of command is the only reasonable way to run it to be honest.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Well, the JAG office, while NOTHING like the TV show
Ah man, that totally ruins it for me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:But then again, I've always assumed the reason women were excluded from combat roles was based on definitive studies
Nope.
edit: it is also pretty easy to see that those calling for more studies are not acting in good faith. If they just wanted it studied more thoroughly, they very much had the power to make certain that was done -- it wasn't like it was at all unclear that somebody was going to revisit Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What's more, if they were really interested in basing the conclusion off of studies, they would have called for a revisitation after doing studies.
No studies were done until it was a convenient way of attempting to fend off a change of policy. The calls for studies are not about basing policies off of evidence, they are tactics to preserve a position based in bigotry.
I personally was never in a position to alter the amount of studying done on this issue, when I feel like more studies ought to be done it's more because I do not have a solid grounding in military sociology or dynamics, and for fear of having an opinion without any grounding, seek to obtain evidence.
It's definitely not so that some sort of status quo can be preserved, nor is it born out of some sense of bigotry, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In this case, the 'those' was the people in the upper echelons of the military.
I maintain that, given the broad history of military organizations with no particular problem integrating homosexuals (including several large militaries with homosexuals serving openly for over fifteen years), and the limitations (indeed, near impossibility to untangle effects that would be ongoing from effects that would be temporary, among many difficulties) of any attempt to do controlled studies, and the importance of military service as a foundational capacity of American citizens, there is no reasonable cause for the exclusion of homosexuals. This is like calling for the study of whether blacks can lead white people when there are numerous military organizations where they have been successfully for many years! It does not make sense.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I am torn on this issue.
I have absolutely nothing against gays in the military. If someone wants to fight for and serve their country, I think everyone should have that opportunity, regardless of sexual orientation.
The thing is the policy does not ban gays in the military. They are allowed to serve just like anyone else. They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen. As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.
I don't believe homosexuals should have to hide their sexual preference for fear of being discharged from the military. I think the policy was partly put into effect to protect homosexuals from being treated badly. There are quite a few cases in which military servicemen have been beaten or killed for disclosing their sexual preferences.
I don't understand the argument that a people in a squad with a homosexual member have lower morale. Really? I know they shower together and that may be uncomfortable, but other than that I fail to see how it has anything to do with morale.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen.
This is blatantly false; heterosexual servicemen cannot be kicked out of the military for showing their coworkers pictures of their significant others, or for talking about their romantic weekend.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Also, let's say I was gay and wrote a personal letter to my partner, where I mentioned personal aspects of our relationship. Or even say, a letter to my mom saying how great my homosexual relationship was going. Imagine that a fellow soldier picked that up. They could take it to the commander and I would get kicked out. I know someone was outed and kicked out of the army because of a letter they wrote that was never intended for anyone else's eyes, but someone else did see it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.
I'm wondering how many regs I helped break when I dated the Navy band.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's seriously a dumb policy. Why can't the military concentrate on preventing sexual harassment of women in the military and worse instead of going on and on about gay people? It's so... old fashioned in a bad way. You got two wars going on.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
My dad told me the other day that this was a good policy for avoiding a potential draft. If a draft was issued, the percentage of homosexuals would skyrocket.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.
I'm wondering how many regs I helped break when I dated the Navy band.
You dated the entire band?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I exaggerated. I only dated the brass section.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I only dated the brass section.
Sheesh! Talk about discrimination!!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I hear they're a bunch of blowhards.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It was all about the embouchure.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The timing seems a bit odd to me. I wonder if Obama feels in need of a victory after the health-care thing? And I also wonder if he can get it. This does seem like it will be more popular with the Democrats' constituents than healthcare reform ended up being.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder then, how is that timing odd? It would seem to be perfect, no? Here's an issue that liberals have been hammering him on since the first day he took office, he needs a win, it's, at the moment, probably the second most viable piece of legislation he has to offer (behind banking reform, which he should be hammering like crazy), it's far more popular, especially in energizing his base and wooing moderates...
It seems like a great idea, assuming he can rally support in the military establishment, and parlay that into support in Congress. He has a populist "republicans are obstructionist" mantra going on right now that might bear some fruit. We'll see.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The thing is the policy does not ban gays in the military. They are allowed to serve just like anyone else. They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen. As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.
You are either very confused about what constitutes active duty or seriously mislead. Anyone member of the armed forces that is employed full time by the military is on active duty. Those people, both men and women, date, marry and have children all the time. My SIL gave birth to two children while on active duty in the army. Heterosexuals do not get kicked out of the army for engaging in sex or getting pregnant while on active duty.
There was a recent case where a commander in Afghanistan announced he would court marshal anyone who got pregnant while deployed in Afghanistan. This was a completely new policy and to the best of my knowledge no one has yet been dishonorably discharged for getting pregnant (or getting someone pregnant) while on combat duty.
Even if that happened regularly, combat duty is not the even similar to active duty.
Many companies have policies that discourage people from pursuing romantic involvement with persons in their division. There are many reasons I think it would be wise for the military to forbid romantic involvement or sexual relations between members of the same unit. This would be doubly wise in combat situations. But that is entirely different than forbidding all romantic and sexual relations. Considering that both men and women serve in the same units in the military, that policy would seem as pertinent for heterosexuals as homosexuals.
Once such a policy was adopted, I can't see any reasons for restricting homosexual service in the armed forces that are any different from restricting people based on race. It simply isn't justified.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen.
This is blatantly false; heterosexual servicemen cannot be kicked out of the military for showing their coworkers pictures of their significant others, or for talking about their romantic weekend.
I didn't know showing pictures of your significant other or talking about your weekend qualified as sexual activity. I guess I should get rid of the picture of my wife on my desk.
As far as the sentence you quoted, I should have phrased it better to include only sexual activity in which servicemen are not to engage in with each other.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I didn't know showing pictures of your significant other or talking about your weekend qualified as sexual activity. I guess I should get rid of the picture of my wife on my desk.
Indeed, if you were operating by DADT rules, you would have to. Or lose your job. Would you like to admit that this is not, in fact, equal treatment of hetero- and homosexual, as you claimed in your first post?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I didn't know showing pictures of your significant other or talking about your weekend qualified as sexual activity.
It qualifies as the other condition in your statement: "disclosing your sexual preference."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... I can't see any reasons for restricting homosexual service in the armed forces that are any different from restricting people based on race.
Well, TWW brought up a good one. You can't pick your race to get out of a draft, but you can definitely choose to gay it up in order to get out of it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I am sure you would have found significant adverse effects on unit cohesion by including blacks in units with whites. That would not have been a good reason in the least to exclude them.
Well, of course that would depend on *how* adverse those effects would be. Something (personal experience for one) tells me that gays being open in the military will be on par with desegregation, if not easier. Clearly it's a win-lose scenario for some people, gay and straight, who would like to keep the status quo. Still, my gut tells me it won't be that difficult- I would only hope that the military can find the strength to adjust itself to the change without too many issues. If we're talking about "men of honor" among the higher ranks, then they will understand that their duties supercede any personal prejudices, and just do their jobs as they're ordered to do. That we haven't been convinced as a society thus far that this is possible is a comment on our lack of faith in these people, really.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... I can't see any reasons for restricting homosexual service in the armed forces that are any different from restricting people based on race.
Well, TWW brought up a good one. You can't pick your race to get out of a draft, but you can definitely choose to gay it up in order to get out of it.
But that is a compelling reason NOT to restrict gays in the military and certainly not a compelling reason for the restriction. Unless of course you trying to create ways for people to evade a hypothetical future draft. If you object to a draft, it seems more rational to avoid instituting a draft in the first place than to create a bunch of loop holes for people who oppose it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It was all about the embouchure.
I imagine that's what they said about you too. Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
quote:I just hope they strengthen the sexual harrassment procedures to go with that. I still don't really get how the military functions without a human resources department. Is there something in place to let folks go past their supervisor if they're the problem?
Military units have both an Equal Opportunity Office and an Inspector General's office (usually at the installation level, but there's also the DoD versions) to deal with harrassment and the chain of command being part of the problem.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Also, military members may date/engage in relationships (sexual and otherwise) with other military members, even in the same unit. What the policies and guidance prohibit is those relationships between officers & enlisted members, or between those (officer or enlisted) who are in the same chain of command (e.g., an enlisted person/officer can't date another enlisted person/officer if they are the person's 1st-level, 2nd-level, or really, any-level supervisor or vice versa).
Not that it doesn't happen, but when it does, those are the relationships that get the cease & desist treatment.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Unless of course you trying to create ways for people to evade a hypothetical future draft.
Bingo.
quote:If you object to a draft, it seems more rational to avoid instituting a draft in the first place than to create a bunch of loop holes for people who oppose it.
False dichotomy. You can always do both.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... I can't see any reasons for restricting homosexual service in the armed forces that are any different from restricting people based on race.
Well, TWW brought up a good one. You can't pick your race to get out of a draft, but you can definitely choose to gay it up in order to get out of it.
But that is a compelling reason NOT to restrict gays in the military and certainly not a compelling reason for the restriction. Unless of course you trying to create ways for people to evade a hypothetical future draft. If you object to a draft, it seems more rational to avoid instituting a draft in the first place than to create a bunch of loop holes for people who oppose it.
I guess it only really works as an argument against someone who hates gays and would support a potential future draft. Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fishtail:
quote:I just hope they strengthen the sexual harrassment procedures to go with that. I still don't really get how the military functions without a human resources department. Is there something in place to let folks go past their supervisor if they're the problem?
Military units have both an Equal Opportunity Office and an Inspector General's office (usually at the installation level, but there's also the DoD versions) to deal with harrassment and the chain of command being part of the problem.
That's good to know. I might have to pass that along to my sister.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:If you object to a draft, it seems more rational to avoid instituting a draft in the first place than to create a bunch of loop holes for people who oppose it.
False dichotomy. You can always do both. [/QB]
Its not a false dichotomy unless you think it is at least equally rational to do both, which I don't.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: guess it only really works as an argument against someone who hates gays and would support a potential future draft.
It could also work for your gay war hawk who would support a draft as long as he isn't in it.
During Vietnam there was no shortage of war and draft supports who were willing to exploit any and every loop hole to keep themselves and their sons out of it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I can't see any reasons for restricting homosexual service in the armed forces that are any different from restricting people based on race.
There is an element of desire, which I think is really under-appreciated in sexual harassment discourse. I think the issue is closer to the question mixed gender units. Being outed is slim comfort if you can't make passes. I think that not only should gays be allowed be able to be openly gay, they should be able to be sexual creatures, at least as sexual as the heterosexuals in the military.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Its not a false dichotomy unless you think it is at least equally rational to do both, which I don't.
I disagree.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You might be surprised by my opinion on this matter. Don't ask don't tell is stupid. I spent 12 years active duty. While some gays may be transparent, most are obvious. Despite don't ask, don't tell...service members know they are serving with gays. The policy prevents harassment and admission but we all know they are there.
Sexual preference should be a non-issue. Hetero sex is against military policy on a military vessel. PDA is not allowed. I feel sorry for people who define themselves by their sexual orientation. It's pathetic that some people define their lives by what they enjoy in the bedroom. I am not defined by what I prefer sexually. There is meaning in my life beyond my physical desires.
I agree with the "don't ask" part and no one should "tell". There are two sides to this policy. If rescinded, they can "ask". Even if homosexuality is accepted, it should remain a private matter. Unless of course they are seeking a "protected class" status as a disadvantaged minority. Maybe we'll set quotas for gay promotions.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think it is time to visit this, and make changes. We will see how it will work, and I hope it goes well.
For all of our sakes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
just jumpin' in to say
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The thing is the policy does not ban gays in the military. They are allowed to serve just like anyone else. They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen.
the bolded portion is remarkably and clearly false, but it is always a surprise to me how many people think it is true.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: While some gays may be transparent, most are obvious.
Buy a dictionary, please.
quote: It's pathetic that some people define their lives by what they enjoy in the bedroom.
Oh, it was too good to be true. You managed to turn your support for gay rights into a slam on gays anyway. Good job.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm really glad to see that President Obama is finally addressing civil rights for GLBT people. I think the DADT policy is harmful and was long overdue at the huge historical scrap heap of bigoted former laws.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The military should still never ask any military personnel nor should any military personnel have to tell their sexual orientation. The policy of discharging gays should be completely removed but I still do not want the military asking personnel to check a box for sexual preference.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Hey, the policy is identical for both homosexual and heterosexual.
Homosexual soldiers are not kicked out of the army unless they engage in actions that can lead to the discovery that they have had, or prefer to have, sexual relations with members of their own sex.
Heterosexual soldiers are not kicked out of the army unless they engage in actions that can lead to the discovery that they have had, or prefer to have sexual relations with members of their own sex.
Much like Marriage defined as the union of a man and woman is not unfair to homosexuals. Either are free to marry anyone they wish of the opposite sex. (age restrictions and mutual agreement aside)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The thing is the policy does not ban gays in the military. They are allowed to serve just like anyone else. They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen.
I'm curious. Do you really think this, or are you making it up? It's hard to imagine that anyone thinks this is true.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Hey, the policy is identical for both homosexual and heterosexual.
Much like Marriage defined as the union of a man and woman is not unfair to homosexuals. Either are free to marry anyone they wish of the opposite sex. (age restrictions and mutual agreement aside)
I'm sorry, I'm not canny enough to understand you if you're joking. Equal provision under the law for individuals with different needs is not equality. It's like saying dwarfs and tall people should have the opportunity to use normal sized stairs and doorways, so they shouldn't be provided or allowed different sizes. In fact, building codes in many states reflect exactly that attitude, leading to the ridiculous situation in which families of dwarfs are forced to build stairways in their houses that correspond to a building codes designed for the safety of people of average height. And unlike dwarfism, homosexuality is not even characterized as a disorder or genetic defect. So we should print signs and manuals and do all government business in English only, because speakers of other languages are free to speak English, if they choose. We should have a state religion, because Jews and Muslims and Catholics and Buddists can be protestants, if they choose. But it's no kind of choice.
It's that kind of passive aggressive crap that will get us absolutely nowhere. It's like you don't even pretend to try and understand people unlike yourself.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
I'm pretty sure Darth_Mauve is referencing this argument, used by many anti-gay bigots, but most famously on this site by OSC in one of his columns:
quote:Marriage Is Already Open to Everyone.
In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.
Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.
Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.
So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'm curious. Do you really think this, or are you making it up? It's hard to imagine that anyone thinks this is true.
Eh, it's not that hard to imagine. A lot of people fill in the outlines of the truth with what they *want* to be true. Wishful thinking (and alternately, paranoid thinking) is a pretty powerful thing. This kind of idea pops up when poorly informed people are seeking only to confirm some notion they need or desperately want to be true- it's basic to the human experience of bigotry, that when we come to understand the nature of our wrongs intellectually, we construct a wall of reasoning within which we can harbor our same distrust of others, but do so with a clean conscience. You do it all the time, just not about gay issues.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi: I'm pretty sure Darth_Mauve is referencing this argument, used by many anti-gay bigots, but most famously on this site by OSC in one of his columns:
I understood the reference, and recall the article. I had believed Dan was far above such idiocy, which is why I still suspected that he was writing tongue in cheek.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I'm pretty sure he was.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If so I would stand corrected criticizing him, but not the viewpoint.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The thing is the policy does not ban gays in the military. They are allowed to serve just like anyone else. They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen.
I'm curious. Do you really think this, or are you making it up? It's hard to imagine that anyone thinks this is true.
I wasn't making it up, nor was I saying I think this, I am stating it as a matter of fact. I was wrong on one thing however. Gay's CAN disclose their sexual preference without being automatically discharged.
Hell, here is a quote from President Clinton when he announced it.
One, service men and women will be judged based on their conduct, not their sexual orientation. Two, therefore the practice ... of not asking about sexual orientation in the enlistment procedure will continue. Three, an open statement by a service member that he or she is a homosexual will create a rebuttable presumption that he or she intends to engage in prohibited conduct, but the service member will be given an opportunity to refute that presumption.... And four, all provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice will be enforced in an even-handed manner as regards both heterosexuals and homosexuals. And thanks to the policy provisions agreed to by the Joint Chiefs, there will be a decent regard to the legitimate privacy and associational rights of all service members.
It has a lot of good information regarding the background and a bill introduced in 2009 that would repeal the policy.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Geraine, that is not how it works. People on this site who have been in the service have said that more than once.
Do a google search for the amount of people discharged just in the last 5 years because of their sexual preferences. It isn't hard to discover....
...unless you don;t want to discover it, of course.
Unless they are willing to swear that they will not have sex at all, on or off duty, in or out of their duty station, being caught or admitting their preferences means a discharge.
Even if they do swear that, they are STILL often discharged.
You have got to be the ONLY person I know, in or out of the service, who doesn't KNOW that.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Please point out where I said that I believe it worked exactly that way. I simply provided a information and a link regarding what is currently in effect. The current law provides that sexual preference is not grounds to discharge someone.
While in the service you are not to engage in sexual acts whether you are heterosexual or homosexual unless it is with your spouse. Because of this I would say it is more of a gay marriage debate.
Whether it is being enforced properly or not is the issue that needs to be looked at. I don't believe for a minute it is being enforced fairly, and I DO think something needs to be done.
Oh, and good game going off about the amount of people being discharged. The link I put in my previous post actually provides all of those numbers, as well as provides information behind them.
Next time, try this:
1) Actually read the posts I have typed. 2) Look at the information I provided in the post.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I assure you that heterosexual servicemen date openly and have sexual relations with people other than spouses.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I wasn't making it up, nor was I saying I think this, I am stating it as a matter of fact. I was wrong on one thing however. Gay's CAN disclose their sexual preference without being automatically discharged.
Hell, here is a quote from President Clinton when he announced it.
Why are you quoting Clinton when you could quote the law itelf? It's in your link, and as it's dated after your quote, it supersedes it.
"(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect,"
How can you claim with a straight face that it's safe to openly claim one is gay, when 10 United States Code §654 plainly says you can get kicked out for saying that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Indeed, in the same document there is a list of how many people were discharged for being gay each year.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Geraine: As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.
kmboots:
I'm wondering how many regs I helped break when I dated the Navy band.
This exchange was excellent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In truth, I dated the tuba player for a couple of weeks and we were not really compatible so he introduced me to his roommate a trombine player. I dated him seriously for a couple of years. The joke was the french horns were next and that I would have to date the trumpets two at a time.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I feel sorry for people who define themselves by their sexual orientation.
I don't know anyone, gay or straight, that does this. Who do you think is doing this?
[ February 05, 2010, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that because of our society and the persecution gays have faced, gays spend a disproportionate amount of time defending their right to love who they want to, which can come off as defining themselves by orientation.
I actually did not get why it mattered to not talk about your sexuality. One of my friends (who is out) is dating a guy who is not. A million little things you never really think about
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I wasn't making it up, nor was I saying I think this, I am stating it as a matter of fact. I was wrong on one thing however. Gay's CAN disclose their sexual preference without being automatically discharged.
Hell, here is a quote from President Clinton when he announced it.
Why are you quoting Clinton when you could quote the law itelf? It's in your link, and as it's dated after your quote, it supersedes it.
"(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect,"
How can you claim with a straight face that it's safe to openly claim one is gay, when 10 United States Code §654 plainly says you can get kicked out for saying that?
I LOVE how you blatently leave out the rest of that part of the code to meet your ends. Here, I'll post the entire thing here. Try to be more honest next time:
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex
I see you try to twist my words like you have in other threads. Can you show me where I said it was safe for them to reveal their sexual orientation? Let me look...Nope don't see it. I stated that according to the law they are able to without being automatically discharged.
Oh, and if you read my earlier posts on the issue, you would know that I think if someone wants to service they should be able to do so no matter what their sexual orientation is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, how does what you quoted prove your point?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Orin, sorry to leave you hanging, but yes, that was tongue in cheek.
As far as defining yourself by your sexual preference, this is not something most military folks do, of any sexual orientation. However, it is something done to bisexual and homosexual members of the military.
They can define themselves by the service they offer, the sacrifices they give and are willing to give, but when some bit of evidence is discovered the military defines them by their sexual orientation, and removes them.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Can you show me where I said it was safe for them to reveal their sexual orientation? Let me look...Nope don't see it. I stated that according to the law they are able to without being automatically discharged.
I don't see the practical distintion.
There is virtually no practical way for a military person who outs themselves to demonstrate that they have no 'propensity' for sex. Maybe if they had a physical impairment that prevented them, but there can't be a whole lot of personnel in active units that are so severely physically impaired. So those caveats won't ever be met.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miro: It's a safe assumption that there will be difficulties with this decision. I foresee an increase in the already annoyingly high number of sexual harassment/fraternization type powerpoints I have to sit through. The price of doing business.
ROFL Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Geraine: As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.
kmboots:
I'm wondering how many regs I helped break when I dated the Navy band.
This exchange was excellent.
This is NOT true. You can have sex, AND have a baby, while on active duty. You have the OPTION, as a women, to separate from service if pregnant, and I know a few women who got pregnant specifically to avoid shipping overseas, and 2 who did it specifically to get an honorable discharge.
In a war zone the rules are different at time, although I was never in one so I am not sure.
G- I read your post, and it was pretty much without substance if you didn't believe it yourself........what WAS the point to that link if it wasn't to back up your claim that they COULD openly be gay without being forced out of the service?
A large number of people, including Arabic translators which we need desperately, have recently been given General Discharges for homosexuality. In the past 3 years.
You know, while we are engaged in hostilities with Arabic speaking countries.
The UCMJ states the complete opposite of what you posted. Basically they have to completely divorce themselves from who they are to serve, far more so than heterosexuals serving do.
After reading your later posts, I see we actually agree on a lot of points. Hell, if anyone remembers the LAST discussion we had on this I was defending the status quo, at least to a point.
But I fail to see the point in that quote if it wasn't suppose to refute the dangers of stating their preferences.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I am far more hopeful about this issue than I am about anything else Obama is doing right now. It's a small step for gay rights, IMO, but it's an important one that has been a long time in coming. I would be very disappointed if a democratically controlled congress supported by a president advocating the policy couldn't get "Don't ask, don't tell" repealed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I actually think it's a pretty big step for gay rights, for a lot of reasons. It's tacit acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle by the United States government. Most of us on Hatrack don't have a problem with that, actually, I'd say more of us have a problem with the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" than we do with what that entails. But it'd be a major waypoint for the gay rights movement, and would provide major coverage for the acceptance and integration of gays into mainstream American life.
I also think it creates a big stepping stone for a lot of other pushes for increased rights. The service is one of those things that are incredibly difficult to mess with in modern American life. Especially in the public sphere, insulting any aspect of the military is, well maybe not unheard of, but it's a no-no, and people who try it are regularly punished. Having openly gay service men and women will help them get elected to office, and help them argue that they're part of mainstream society regardless of what conservatives might think or want.
It'll still happen gradually, but I think this will increase the momentum.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: We talked about this a few months back, and it looks like Obama is moving on this now. He ordered the policy to cease, but there is a hitch...
Turns out the authority to get rid of it lies with Congress.
Wow! I didn't think anything would happen this fast. That's 2 out of 3: the executive branch and the House (assuming that Pelosi's promise/prediction holds any water).
Anyone know anything about the Senate?
[ May 20, 2010, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Anthonie ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'd say more of us have a problem with the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" than we do with what that entails.
Not true for me. I have no problem at all with the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" or gay marriage, but when my gay friends start to talk about the details of what that entails it definitely squicks me out.
I'm sorry if its politically in correct, but any discussion that involves both ones love life and ones hemorrhoid troubles is one I'd rather not be involved in.
And none of that is to say I'm not delight to hear DODT is on its way out the door.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:when my gay friends start to talk about the details of what that entails it definitely squicks me out.
When my straight friends start to talk about the details of what that entails it squicks me out. I'm much more comfortable when the details of someone's personal sex life are kept private. It doesn't bother me nearly as much when people talk about sex generically, but "what I did to my partner last night" is just beyond the pale.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: While in the service you are not to engage in sexual acts whether you are heterosexual or homosexual unless it is with your spouse. Because of this I would say it is more of a gay marriage debate.
This is flatly untrue. It has NEVER been true. If it was then back in WW2 the military would not have supplied so many condom to the troops. Nor would they in WW1 operated whorehouses for the troops. Adultery is against the military code. Sex outside of marriage is not. Infact it's completely legal for servicemen and women to sleep with each other as long as they are not in the same chain of command unless one is an officer and the other enlisted.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)