quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Im pretty sure a blind man can still join the military albeit a non combet role, I know in canada if they really want to they can.
No, they can't. They can be employed the federal goverment, but are not (and never will be) a member of the Armed Forces.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All of this will hopefully take time to implement, because I don't think we can gauge the effects right away. I think it needs to be done in stages, at least if we want to do it safely.
What danger to safety is there in integrating non-combat and front-line units, Kwea? Danger that won't be forever present until there is zero cultural prejudice against homosexuals, that is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I'm considering the safety of the gay service members who might serve in live fire areas. Lest we forget that people are still murdered for being openly gay in this country- the military seems to do a fairly decent job of bonding together members of different races and cultural backgrounds into units, but it as yet has no formal system for bonding homosexuals into fighting units. I think it should be done from the training on up, if it's gonna be done right. What extra training or steps that might take are unclear to me, but I think it would be something.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention that one of the biggest concerns regarding this is the effect it will have on retention of skilled personnel and recruitment of the Armed Forces in general. Until we KNOW that it won't adversely affect those issues, which are very crucial, we won;t know what the true impact is.
It's easy to say that is people don't want to serve with gays then we don't need them, but that isn't true. There are a number of honest concerns even among people kile me who wouldn't mind serving wiht gay people that could cause people who are on the fence about joining to choose not to join. We can't afford to have the service numbers drop any lower, IMO.
Recruitment/reenlistment is at a very low point right now, and the only reason we haven't had a huge drain of people already leaving the service is our horrible "stop-loss" program. You can't "stop-loss" people forever though.
And I can think of few things that could impact our safety more.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly, I'm considering the safety of the gay service members who might serve in live fire areas.
Well, OK, but I was also asking, 'Why don't we integrate outside life-fire areas?'
As an additional possible point, I don't know the numbers - if there are any on this - but I wonder what a majority of homosexuals serving or wishing to serve in the armed forces would say about being barred from live-fire areas on the basis of their safety? Particularly since the route to faster advancement generally comes from combat. I don't know what they would say, but I suspect it would be something like, "We know the risks, let us get started now," rather like African-Americans were saying back in the 40s and 50s.
----
Kwea,
quote:Not to mention that one of the biggest concerns regarding this is the effect it will have on retention of skilled personnel and recruitment of the Armed Forces in general. Until we KNOW that it won't adversely affect those issues, which are very crucial, we won;t know what the true impact is.
First of all, how will it ever be possible to know what the impact on retention will be until we actually start integrating?
Second, won't that problem gradually begin to correct itself anyway, as the services become more accustomed to homosexual integration?
quote: It's easy to say that is people don't want to serve with gays then we don't need them, but that isn't true. There are a number of honest concerns even among people kile me who wouldn't mind serving wiht gay people that could cause people who are on the fence about joining to choose not to join. We can't afford to have the service numbers drop any lower, IMO.
Well, again, when will this cease being a concern, first of all? The trouble with your objections is that they all appear to have a timeframe of, 'Who the heck knows?' That's a serious problem when you're discussing segregation and systematic intolerance like this.
Actually, with the job market being what it is right now, retention will perhaps improve in the short-term, heh. Furthermore, given that homosexuals comprise >1.5% of our population, that's a not inconsiderable bump itself either, Kwea. We'll lose some in the short-term, sure, but we also potentially gain a lot of new recruits. That 1.5% number is probably very soft, too, considering how likely it is that out homosexuals are a majority of homosexuals in this country.
quote:And I can think of few things that could impact our safety more.
Here's the problem. You're talking about continuing a policy of systemic segregation and oppression of a minority for arbitrary reasons (ultimately), but your plan for addressing this problem appears to be 'wait for it to solve itself'. I understand your safety concerns, but your time frame is unacceptable. All of the concerns you're citing, they will never be addressed except by pushing. There will always be some serious logistical reasons why it's risky. There will for the indefinite future always be concerns about the safety of those homosexuals who serve.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: but your plan for addressing this problem appears to be 'wait for it to solve itself'. I understand your safety concerns, but your time frame is unacceptable. All of the concerns you're citing, they will never be addressed except by pushing. There will always be some serious logistical reasons why it's risky. There will for the indefinite future always be concerns about the safety of those homosexuals who serve.
Hear hear! I couldn't agree more. At some point action must occur beyond discussions in public and internet forums.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops, accidentally deleted part of my previous post. To finish my last post....
We are participating here in the discussion 'phase' of societal change.
But at some point, some part of society must press the issue with action. I am aware of no major cultural/political shifts that occurred with unilateral consensus.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess it doesn't matter is YOU think my time frame is unreasonable.
As far as how to know....ASK people. The problem is that we have, and it looks like it will have a big impact. 1.5% of the population may be accurate, but I doubt the numbers will offset the amount of people who will leave, not enlist, or not reenlist. I bet it isn't even close.
I said start doing it on a limited basis and see what happens. Considering the possible outcomes I'd say that is pretty fair.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I guess it doesn't matter is YOU think my time frame is unreasonable.
Really, is there call to get snarky? That read snarky to me. Yes, obviously I'm aware that it doesn't matter what I think, beyond any other individual private American citizen.
quote:As far as how to know....ASK people. The problem is that we have, and it looks like it will have a big impact. 1.5% of the population may be accurate, but I doubt the numbers will offset the amount of people who will leave, not enlist, or not reenlist. I bet it isn't even close.
1.5% is, first off, a minimum. That's people who identify as homosexual for the US Census.Here's an example. The actual number of homosexuals is bound to be at least a little higher than that, unless you think that a) all gays are counted and b) all those counted identified themselves.
Anyway, the point was not that that >1.5% would make up the potential loss of personnel, but to make clear that it wouldn't all be loss. As for asking people...how exactly should we go about that? What survey would be accurate and trustworthy?
And here's the most important question: how long shall we permit the bigoted and prejudiced (those who would not serve alongside homosexuals, and would in fact leave the military) be the guiding light of when we let those same homosexuals serve in the military? It's akin to suggesting we ought to have been asking whites, "Are you ready to have black folks have an equal vote with yours in elections yet?" I'm not saying the situations are equivalent, just that there are some very clear similarities.
quote:I said start doing it on a limited basis and see what happens. Considering the possible outcomes I'd say that is pretty fair.
So you do support integration in non-combat non-front-line units? I've asked that question more than once now, and you haven't quite answered it.
As for fair...I think it's language like that, Kwea, that might make folks question your politics and intent on this issue. It's not remotely fair at all. Your argument is founded on necessity and expedience, certainly not fairness. It's by no means fair to restrict access to the armed services from homosexuals just because some heterosexuals can't take it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on your perspective, then, I guess. If there is one thing in our country that isn't just about being fair, it's the military. Honest. Some of what happens there wouldn't even be CLOSE to fair in the outside world.
I have been very clear about my personal feelings regarding this issue.
I have also been very clear that I think immediate integration (or whatever you want to call it) is a horrible idea with far reaching consequences.
If they people actually in charge of our military (not you, not me....quite frankly neither of us is qualified) were to support it, I would be glad to see it change.
I just strongly disagree with the premise that the people making this choice in the past were ignorant, misguided, or simply homophobic. I think they did what they thought would be in the best interest of the armed forces.
Things change......attitudes change. Maybe not as fast as you might like it., but change happens. The people in the service are highly educated, which was not always the case in the past. They are probably more tolerant than they were 20 years ago, because our society is more tolerant as a whole.
I don't know if their attitudes have changed enough to matter in this situation, I really don't. But I know from experience that people were talking about this in the early 90's, and had Clinton followed through with his original plans it would have been an unmitigated disaster.
I think it is a command decision, and should remain one, but I personally wouldn't have an issue with them relaxing the standard, or even removing it.
Slowly, though, probably even piecemeal.
Is that clear enough? I can post many quotes I have made, in this thread and the other, supporting my personal beliefs, as well as what I do and do not think is a good idea....I thought I was being fairly clear, given the complexities of the situation.
(not trying to be rude, sorry...tone is everything, and hard to convey online...to be honest it seemed snarky when you said "but your time frame is unacceptable". )
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Depends on your perspective, then, I guess. If there is one thing in our country that isn't just about being fair, it's the military. Honest. Some of what happens there wouldn't even be CLOSE to fair in the outside world.
'Fair' isn't something subjective, you know. The only thing that changes are the circumstances surrounding the situation and the degree of expedience and necessity they require.
My point was not to suggest that we should guide our military decisions by what was 'fair', but rather to point out that your reasoning on this isn't guided by what's fair, but rather by what is necessary. And I don't even think there's anything wrong with that. Just...don't call it fair is all I'm saying, because it's not. Necessary is a different discussion altogether.
quote:I just strongly disagree with the premise that the people making this choice in the past were ignorant, misguided, or simply homophobic. I think they did what they thought would be in the best interest of the armed forces.
I think that to a degree, the people in the past were ignorant, misguided, and possibly homophobic - just like the rest of the country - and for that reason, their decision was in the best interest of the armed forces. It's the kind of thing where if enough people believe something, it doesn't always matter if it's actually true or not. Especially when we're talking about human societies.
quote: (not trying to be rude, sorry...tone is everything, and hard to convey online...to be honest it seemed snarky when you said "but your time frame is unacceptable". [Razz] )
Well, as your time frame really seemed then and seems now to be, "Wait until it's no longer a problem," I suppose you can call it snarky if you like. It's unacceptable because changes like this never, ever happen on their own...but you appear to be suggesting that's just what we ought to do here.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Depends on your perspective, then, I guess. If there is one thing in our country that isn't just about being fair, it's the military. Honest. Some of what happens there wouldn't even be CLOSE to fair in the outside world.
Yeah, we're all crazy for thinking that discipline and honor and stuff like that actually MATTER in the armed forces.
quote:I have been very clear about my personal feelings regarding this issue.
Absolutely. You've bemoaned the idea that skilled soldiers who are profoundly homophobic might leave the armed forces rather than served with gay people a number of times. You've never once expressed any concern that good gay soldiers with critical experience and skills might be leaving the army. It's pretty obvious where your personal feelings lie there.
quote:I have also been very clear that I think immediate integration (or whatever you want to call it) is a horrible idea with far reaching consequences.
If they people actually in charge of our military (not you, not me....quite frankly neither of us is qualified) were to support it, I would be glad to see it change.
Do you relize how this sounds? You are claiming that you will be glad when something that you think will have horrible consequences will happen? Or is it that when the brass decides that black is white, night is day, and that openly gay soldires will be an asset to the service, you will jump to agree with them?
quote:I don't know if their attitudes have changed enough to matter in this situation, I really don't. But I know from experience that people were talking about this in the early 90's, and had Clinton followed through with his original plans it would have been an unmitigated disaster.
I odn't know how someone so unsure of everything can be so sure of this.
There was virtually no war in the 90's! Battlefield readiness wasn't an issue. No one could have fragged a gay soldier under enemy fire. It would have been over and done, everyone would have realized that the sky didn't fall, and then we would have had more Arab linguists and other trained personnel that we don't have now.
quote:I think it is a command decision, and should remain one, but I personally wouldn't have an issue with them relaxing the standard, or even removing it.
Slowly, though, probably even piecemeal.
Is this really the moral fiber of the military? That you don't have to do the morally right thing if it's inconvenient?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, we're all crazy for thinking that discipline and honor and stuff like that actually MATTER in the armed forces.
You can't reasonably infer that from what Kwea said, though I'm coming to expect such misinterpretations from you.
quote:Absolutely. You've bemoaned the idea that skilled soldiers who are profoundly homophobic might leave the armed forces rather than served with gay people a number of times. You've never once expressed any concern that good gay soldiers with critical experience and skills might be leaving the army. It's pretty obvious where your personal feelings lie there.
Actually, all Kwea has done is worried (not bemoaned, which implies something quite different) that there are more skilled soldiers who would leave than there are skilled soldiers who are leaving now. That's also quite different.
And just because he hasn't, in this discussion, torn his hair and gnashed his teeth to your satisfaction at the plight of homosexuals in the military doesn't mean he's apathetic to it.
quote:Do you relize how this sounds? You are claiming that you will be glad when something that you think will have horrible consequences will happen? Or is it that when the brass decides that black is white, night is day, and that openly gay soldires will be an asset to the service, you will jump to agree with them?
Do you realize how your response sounds? Kwea has said he supports waiting or at most limited integration until the consequences aren't horrible. So the first part of your post is complete bull@#$t, because it's not based on anything he said.
The second is the same, because what Kwea has said is that he'll support the decision when those in command positions have judged the decision will be either neutral, or a gain personnel wise. That's also very different from what you said.
quote: There was virtually no war in the 90's! Battlefield readiness wasn't an issue. No one could have fragged a gay soldier under enemy fire. It would have been over and done, everyone would have realized that the sky didn't fall, and then we would have had more Arab linguists and other trained personnel that we don't have now.
Wait, so battlefield readiness isn't an issue unless we're already in a major war? That's just plain stupid, swbarnes. Slightly less stupid is your claim that there was 'virtually no war'. There weren't any big Vietnam-scale wars. It's also absurd to suggest that the only danger involved is in battlefield 'fragging', and your use of the term suggests you don't actually know what it means in this context.
And I'm only speculating, but I think it's also quite stupid to suspect that cultural prejudices against homosexuals would have been 'over and done with' in a decade.
quote:Is this really the moral fiber of the military? That you don't have to do the morally right thing if it's inconvenient?
And that's another thing he didn't say. He's saying we shouldn't do the morally right thing if it's dangerous, with respect to our military. Not 'inconvenient'.
You really ought to make more of an effort to have a good faith conversation with someone you disagree with, swbarnes, because right now you're just a hack.
quote:Depends on your perspective, then, I guess. If there is one thing in our country that isn't just about being fair, it's the military. Honest. Some of what happens there wouldn't even be CLOSE to fair in the outside world.
'Fair' isn't something subjective, you know. The only thing that changes are the circumstances surrounding the situation and the degree of expedience and necessity they require.
My point was not to suggest that we should guide our military decisions by what was 'fair', but rather to point out that your reasoning on this isn't guided by what's fair, but rather by what is necessary. And I don't even think there's anything wrong with that. Just...don't call it fair is all I'm saying, because it's not. Necessary is a different discussion altogether.
quote:I just strongly disagree with the premise that the people making this choice in the past were ignorant, misguided, or simply homophobic. I think they did what they thought would be in the best interest of the armed forces.
I think that to a degree, the people in the past were ignorant, misguided, and possibly homophobic - just like the rest of the country - and for that reason, their decision was in the best interest of the armed forces. It's the kind of thing where if enough people believe something, it doesn't always matter if it's actually true or not. Especially when we're talking about human societies.
quote: (not trying to be rude, sorry...tone is everything, and hard to convey online...to be honest it seemed snarky when you said "but your time frame is unacceptable". [Razz] )
Well, as your time frame really seemed then and seems now to be, "Wait until it's no longer a problem," I suppose you can call it snarky if you like. It's unacceptable because changes like this never, ever happen on their own...but you appear to be suggesting that's just what we ought to do here.
I disagree, of course. Fair is completely subjective, depending on what standards are used, what values those standards are based on, and which of those values take precedence. I don't think that making straight guys bunk with gay guys is fair to them if it makes them uncomfrotable, or making them shower with them. Not because I think gays guys can't contain themselves, or anything moronic like that, but for the same reason we don't shower with the women. It isn't worth the problems it would cause, and it would prevent people from entering the service if that was the standard.
I am confused...you say change doesn't happen on it's own, but admit that the populace is less "misguided" that it was 20 years ago. I think that in order for true change to happen it has to happen at the right time, and the people have to be receptive to the change.
Here's the thing.....attitudes DO chage over time. My grandma was a very forward-thinking woman for her time, and fought to be able to teach black kids because they deserved a chance to learn way before it was acceptable for someone like her to do that. But by todays standards she would be considered horribly prejudiced, and wouldn't be allowed in the classroom.
But if it weren't for people like her back then, of all races, we wouldn't be where we are today.
We are closer to making something like this work now than 20 years ago, and AS I POSTED BEFORE (swbarnes)the brass is looking very seriously at relaxing the standards, and possibly lifting the ban. Right now.
I also said I thought it was a good thing, and that if it CAN be done without compromising our safety it SHOULD be done.....but that if it does, it should be stopped. Plain and simple.
Rakeesh, thank you. While you are I disagree on things at times, I appreciate the effort you have put in, both in trying to understand my points and in restating them when others try to attribute their arguments to me.
I have no issue with people disagreeing with me, I kinda like it some of the time. But when I disagree with someones points I don't automatically dismiss their argument, or their thoughts and feelings. At least not until they prove I should, anyway.
It is possible for there to be some truth on BOTH sides of this issue, without either person being a moron, a liar, or a bigot.
quote:I disagree, of course. Fair is completely subjective, depending on what standards are used, what values those standards are based on, and which of those values take precedence.
Our interpretation of what's fair is subjective, certainly, changing from person to person and circumstance to circumstance. It's just that fairness, like justice...there's a highest degree of fairness, and justice, in any given situation. We just have to get as close as we can.
quote:I don't think that making straight guys bunk with gay guys is fair to them if it makes them uncomfrotable, or making them shower with them. Not because I think gays guys can't contain themselves, or anything moronic like that, but for the same reason we don't shower with the women. It isn't worth the problems it would cause, and it would prevent people from entering the service if that was the standard.
Precisely this same objection could have been used with respect to integrating along racial lines. It would have (and did, in fact) make whites 'uncomfortable' living with, eating with, sleeping near, working with, etc., black men.
If you don't believe gays can't control themselves, why is it 'fair' to restrict their access to what they should be permitted on the basis of an unfounded discomfort of those prejudiced against them?
quote:I am confused...you say change doesn't happen on it's own, but admit that the populace is less "misguided" that it was 20 years ago. I think that in order for true change to happen it has to happen at the right time, and the people have to be receptive to the change.
Do you think the change that's taken place over the past generation has happened anywhere close to 'on its own'? It's thanks at least in part to the efforts of people constantly agitating, constantly demanding that we truly exhibit a free and equal society now, not twenty years from now.
Naturally when considering such huge issues, they fail to attain their complete goal...but the ball is closer to the end zone when they're done than when they started, so to speak.
quote: Here's the thing.....attitudes DO chage over time. My grandma was a very forward-thinking woman for her time, and fought to be able to teach black kids because they deserved a chance to learn way before it was acceptable for someone like her to do that. But by todays standards she would be considered horribly prejudiced, and wouldn't be allowed in the classroom.
Here's the thing: right now, you're the person telling your grandma it's unacceptable to teach black kids right now, that it's too soon, that we're not ready for it. The change you're talking about happened in spite of viewpoints like the one you're advocating, Kwea, not because of them.
quote:I also said I thought it was a good thing, and that if it CAN be done without compromising our safety it SHOULD be done.....but that if it does, it should be stopped. Plain and simple.
Here's the problem: how much compromise of safety is acceptable? I think we can agree that, until prejudice against homosexuals is completely gone from our culture, that some soldier somewhere will feel sufficiently discomforted that their military service will be negatively impacted by integration of homosexuals, thus compromising in some small way our safety.
I'm not saying you're suggesting that would be enough, I'm saying that we're talking about a systematic denial of rights to completely law-abiding minorities, and we need to have real ideas of our whens and wheres.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, I have to state that serving in the military is not, never has been, and probably never will be a right of citizenship. The Armed Forces will always be allowed,,even required, so set their own standards in who they accept and do not accept, and citizenship is not determined by who does and does not serve there.
I'd say the people in charge would have the best idea of what those standards are, so they should make the decision. That's not to say we can't prod them along the path we think is best, but we don't have all the information they do. Not about the missions, not about the capabilities of the armed forces, and not about the condition of morale.
There will always be people who don't like gays, or blacks, or whites, or whatever. Some of the absolute worst bigotry I experienced in the Army was from a large portion of the black soldiers I served with, and it was pretty clear they could get away with it, as our 1st SGT was black AND was involved in several of the incidences himself.
But most of the time we worked together well enough despite that.
However, across the racial line, almost every person I knew in the service was against the TADT policy because it allowed gays to serve as long as they didn't proclaim they were gay.
That's right.....the same policy we are complaining about today as too restrictive was viewed as too free back then, in 1992.
I say we start trying it, and see what happens. Just don't expect it all to change at once, just because some law is passed.
quote:Once again, I have to state that serving in the military is not, never has been, and probably never will be a right of citizenship. The Armed Forces will always be allowed,,even required, so set their own standards in who they accept and do not accept, and citizenship is not determined by who does and does not serve there.
Insofar as the reasons against permission to serve aren't arbitrary...I say right to serve is a portion of citizenship. I'm not making a blanket statement here, I'm saying 'social prejudices and the people in the military who share those prejudices won't like it' is a totally insufficient reason to bar an entire segment of the population from service.
In the short-term, for reasons of necessity, it can be acceptable. As a status quo, though, absolutely not. And ultimately, again, it's us, not the Armed Forces, who sets the standards. They choose those standards at our leisure, we don't accept their standards at their leisure.
quote: I'd say the people in charge would have the best idea of what those standards are, so they should make the decision. That's not to say we can't prod them along the path we think is best, but we don't have all the information they do. Not about the missions, not about the capabilities of the armed forces, and not about the condition of morale.
It's bad policy to so blindly trust anyone in a position of authority, Kwea. There must be oversight for everyone. And you and I don't have all that information, no...but someone on the civilian side of the chain of command, or a group of someones, ought to have that information, or someone - civilians or soldiers - ain't doing their jobs.
quote:That's right.....the same policy we are complaining about today as too restrictive was viewed as too free back then, in 1992.
This is at least the second time you've cited this sort of thing, Kwea, but the problem is that those changes you're saying indicate we ought to let things happen on their own didn't happen on their own. It's not reasonable to say, 'Don't address the problem because it's taking care of itself,' then point to ways in which it's taking care of itself that only ever occurred because others were also addressing the problem.
quote:I say we start trying it, and see what happens. Just don't expect it all to change at once, just because some law is passed.
Who expects that? Certainly not me.
However, you do say 'start trying it' which is sufficient for me. My disagreement with you is more general, more related to some overall themes of your arguments.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On July 26, 1948 President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981. The order brought an end to racial segregation within the ranks of the United States military forces. Despite much gnashing of teeth from his Generals they managed pretty well I'd like to think. I'd like to think todays military would have no problems doing the same today.
Obama doesn't even need approval from Congress for this, a simple Executive Order will do. The precedence is already there.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is civilian oversight. It's called the SCOTUS, and so far they agree with the military's right to set those standards.
I don't blindly trust ANYONE, Rakeesh. I do trust the people I know who were involved in some of the decisions that were made in the past, even if I disagree with their conclusions.
And I never said we shouldn't tell our representatives what we think about it. However, the other side is free to let them know as well.
My main problem in the last thread was more because I felt the arguments against my points were very dismissive of the other sides concerns. I don't think this is a simple issue, nor do I think that it is one that will be easily decided.
I understand the allure of simplifying things, but more often than not it doesn't solve anything. All it does is dismiss everyone on the other side as idiots.
Rakeesh, I am fine with our conversation. You seem to at least understand where I am coming from, and you have expressed your arguments fairly and clearly. I know YOU haven't suggested an immediate phase-in, but it has been suggested more than once, by more than one person.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Wowbagger, it's a bit more complicated than just issuing a new General Order, if you really want it done. Pres. Truman didn't just issue a General Order, either.
quote:1. Signing an Executive Order banning further military separations based on DADT and sending a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress
2. Forming a presidential panel on how to implement the repeal
3. Repealing DADT in Congress and changing the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMS
4. Changing other necessary military guidelines to conform to the new policy
5. Following-up to ensure that the armed forces implement the policy changes
-----
Kwea,
quote:There is civilian oversight. It's called the SCOTUS, and so far they agree with the military's right to set those standards.
I'm unfamiliar with any SCOTUS decision that grants the military the right to make these determinations independent of civilian authority.
quote:I don't blindly trust ANYONE, Rakeesh. I do trust the people I know who were involved in some of the decisions that were made in the past, even if I disagree with their conclusions.
OK, not blindly but 'completely'. And the folks who made the decisions a generation ago aren't the ones making the decision now.
quote: Rakeesh, I am fine with our conversation. You seem to at least understand where I am coming from, and you have expressed your arguments fairly and clearly. I know YOU haven't suggested an immediate phase-in, but it has been suggested more than once, by more than one person.
Well, actually I do suggest immediate integration-it's just that for compromise, I'd be willing to settle with immediate integration of rear-echelon sorts and administration, logistical, etc., jobs, with stuff out on the sharper end getting integrated more gradually.
Within half a dozen years or so of Truman's ordering racial segregation ceased in the military, something like 90% of the military was integrated. I think you're overestimating the potential difficulties involved.
ETA: Whoops. Insert 'exec order' in place of 'general order'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
And it has upheld the military's right to set it's admission standards, more than once, including a ruling on the gay issue IIRC.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not quite the same thing, Kwea:) All it's really saying is, "We don't disapprove of this," because I can safely say that if SCOTUS started disapproving, and a case got to them, I think they'd make themselves known.
And just because something has been done in the past is no reason to continue to do so in the future.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has it ever ruled that civilian authority cannot set admission standards for the military? I think that's the more relevant question.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? I can't think of a worse way of doing it, and quite frankly it will never happen. That's not to say that their wouldn't be some sort of input possible, but you don't let your public hire your employees for you, particularily when it's a job that is vital for your national security.
It will never happen. That's why it is so vital to have a President who is on board with any changes, as he is the CIC, and without his support there isn't any chance of change at all, at least not change from the outside of the military ranks.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? I can't think of a worse way of doing it, and quite frankly it will never happen. That's not to say that their wouldn't be some sort of input possible, but you don't let your public hire your employees for you, particularily when it's a job that is vital for your national security.
Here's the thing, Kwea. I'm not suggesting that the military should have its standards determined by civilian authority. I'm saying that the military sets its standards with by the consent of civilian authority. As long as that consent exists, the military makes its own rules. The very second it's gone, though, the military isn't making its own rules anymore...and never was, really.
Put another way, you don't let the public hire your employees, but when you're a government entity, you're damn well answerable to that public for your hiring practices, plain and simple.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It can be, but as always the military is an exception. Always has been, probably always will be.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not actually an exception, it's just granted more leeway than other parts of the government.
The proof of my point is that the determination of whether or not the military's hiring practices were acceptable here was made by a civilian authority. In determining whether it was answerable to the people, the military had to answer to the people:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for the curt answers, I am in class now and typing during 5 min breaks. I have to leave SOME time to hit the bathroom. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Absolutely. You've bemoaned the idea that skilled soldiers who are profoundly homophobic might leave the armed forces rather than served with gay people a number of times. You've never once expressed any concern that good gay soldiers with critical experience and skills might be leaving the army. It's pretty obvious where your personal feelings lie there.
Actually, all Kwea has done is worried (not bemoaned, which implies something quite different) that there are more skilled soldiers who would leave than there are skilled soldiers who are leaving now. That's also quite different.
And just because he hasn't, in this discussion, torn his hair and gnashed his teeth to your satisfaction at the plight of homosexuals in the military doesn't mean he's apathetic to it.
I read what is written. If he chooses to only write about the plight of poor bigoted straight soliders, and not a word about innocent gay soldiers, that's his choice, and it does say something about him.
quote:
quote:Do you relize how this sounds? You are claiming that you will be glad when something that you think will have horrible consequences will happen? Or is it that when the brass decides that black is white, night is day, and that openly gay soldires will be an asset to the service, you will jump to agree with them?
Do you realize how your response sounds? Kwea has said he supports waiting or at most limited integration until the consequences aren't horrible. So the first part of your post is complete bull@#$t, because it's not based on anything he said.
History shows that racial integration happened without any half-measures. We're talking about a group of people who have signed up prepared to be horribly wounded, or killed in service of their country. And the argument is that the being killed or maimed isn't the dealbreaker, but serving with openly gay people is? (Since everyone seems fine with signing up to serve alongside closeted ones)
quote:And I'm only speculating, but I think it's also quite stupid to suspect that cultural prejudices against homosexuals would have been 'over and done with' in a decade.
That's not the issue. But what would have been over in a decade was the notion that the sky would fall if gay people were allowed to serve openly. In the first year you'd punish a few people who assaulted their fellow soldiers for being gay, or who insulted their superior officers, and people would learn pretty quick that living and serving with gay people was just as mandatory as living and serving with black people and Jews. And if you didnt like it, you knew where the door was, and what the consequences of taking it would be.
This "we'll always have prejudice" is an espeially stupid argument in light of the increasing numbers of neo-nazis that are entering the armed forces. Surely you aren't going to argue that their presence means that racially integrated armed forces are unwise, are you? Surely Kwea isn't going to argue that the wonderful brass, who are so all-knowing and wise about what's best for the armed forces, aren't putting the forces in jeopardy by allowing people with obvious racial prejudice to serve alongside non-white people.
It's not about prejudice. It's about respecing one's fellow soldiers and following orders. I understood that this was supposed to be a strong point of the armed forces, but perhaps I was mistaken, as people who claim to know far better than me seem to think that this is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, and absolutley unrealisitic.
quote:
quote:Is this really the moral fiber of the military? That you don't have to do the morally right thing if it's inconvenient?
And that's another thing he didn't say. He's saying we shouldn't do the morally right thing if it's dangerous, with respect to our military. Not 'inconvenient'.
And what's unquestionably dangerous is losing trained arab translators, and other skilled people. You can pretty much count on the fact that some people have lost sons, brothers, and husbands because a trained and skilled gay soldier was replaced by a less experienced one.
Heck, the brass are talking about loosening enforcement of the rule. Surely Kwea would agree that the all-knowing brass are doing that becasue they know at actually enforcing their rules would get people killed?
So, judging by the actions of the military, in which we see DADT dismissals decrease during times of war, what does the military actually show by their actions is more dangerous... enforcing their rules, or ignoring them when convenient?
quote:You really ought to make more of an effort to have a good faith conversation with someone you disagree with, swbarnes, because right now you're just a hack.
A good faith conversation requires both sides to take into account all the availible evidence (the relative ease of inter-racial integration beign a highly salient point, as is the point that soldiers sign up expecting to follow orders, even orders that might make them a little uncomfortable), and to accept all the consequences of one's arguments. The consequence of arguing in favor of DADT is that one is arguing in favor of forcing out honest gay people with crucially needed skills, and is in favor of forcing gay people to lie about themselves to the people they live and serve shoulder to shoulder with.
If the argument really is "Yes, DADT is like shooting ourselves in the foot, but since we are helpless to stop bigoted soldiers from shooting us in the knee in homophobic panic, we have to keep it", then that argument should be made straightforwardly.
One shouldn't hold a position if one is unwilling to accept the ugliest consequences of that position. And the first step of accepting them is to at least demonstrate that you know what they are. I think there will be some very small ugly side-effects of repealing DADT, and they will be almost exclusively directed at the gay soldiers themselves, (if the armed forces really are built on a large number of people patriotic enough to die for their country, but only if there are no gay people around, then that's a completely different problem) but if gay soldiers who will suffer the brunt of the ugly consequences think that they are acceptable, then there's almost nothing more persuasive than that.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes, the more I read what you post, the less I care about what you think of me. If you want to lie about what I've said, ignore what I clarified, or cast bullshit accusations at me, feel free.
I could dissect your post line by line, But I don't feel the need to. Your arguments, and confrontational attitude, do a better job of discrediting you than I could do.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a homophobe. Not everyone in the Army is a moron, and not every person who thinks it MIGHT be time to revisit this issue is doing so because of threats or because "the all-knowing brass are doing that becasue they know at actually enforcing their rules would get people killed".
But don't let me get in the way of your rant. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I read what is written. If he chooses to only write about the plight of poor bigoted straight soliders, and not a word about innocent gay soldiers, that's his choice, and it does say something about him.
Oh, I see. So someone is only thinking precisely what they put down on e-paper, eh? The entirety of their mind on a complicated matter must be portrayed in a specific discussion about narrow issues.
Twit.
quote:History shows that racial integration happened without any half-measures. We're talking about a group of people who have signed up prepared to be horribly wounded, or killed in service of their country. And the argument is that the being killed or maimed isn't the dealbreaker, but serving with openly gay people is? (Since everyone seems fine with signing up to serve alongside closeted ones)
Now you're completely avoiding the subject I addressed. You said: "You're saying you'll be happy when something you think is horrible happens." That's not what Kwea ever said. As I pointed out, he supports waiting until what he suspects will be horrible consequences don't happen. You were radically misinterpreting his statement.
And no, history does not show that integration happened without any half-measures. I'm not going to bother to educate you on this. You can do so yourself if you like. Hell, there's even a frickin' movie about some of the half-measures that paved the way for Pres. Truman's executive order.
quote:That's not the issue. But what would have been over in a decade was the notion that the sky would fall if gay people were allowed to serve openly. In the first year you'd punish a few people who assaulted their fellow soldiers for being gay, or who insulted their superior officers, and people would learn pretty quick that living and serving with gay people was just as mandatory as living and serving with black people and Jews. And if you didnt like it, you knew where the door was, and what the consequences of taking it would be.
Now that you've been called out on what nonsense your first statement was, it's not the issue, eh? You said this would all be 'over and done with' if we'd just gone ahead with it ten years ago. That was a nonsensical idea. Or were there suddenly an awful lot of black generals back in the late 50s?
quote: This "we'll always have prejudice" is an espeially stupid argument in light of the increasing numbers of neo-nazis that are entering the armed forces. Surely you aren't going to argue that their presence means that racially integrated armed forces are unwise, are you? Surely Kwea isn't going to argue that the wonderful brass, who are so all-knowing and wise about what's best for the armed forces, aren't putting the forces in jeopardy by allowing people with obvious racial prejudice to serve alongside non-white people.
Who is making the 'we'll always have prejudice' argument? Are you just incapable of reading posts of those you disagree with, or are you in a hurry, or what?
quote: It's not about prejudice. It's about respecing one's fellow soldiers and following orders. I understood that this was supposed to be a strong point of the armed forces, but perhaps I was mistaken, as people who claim to know far better than me seem to think that this is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, and absolutley unrealisitic.
No one has claimed either of those things. I challenge you to cite someone who did.
quote:A good faith conversation requires both sides to take into account all the availible evidence...
Another requirement is neither party radically distorting what the other party says, something you seem incapable of doing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My class is heading back in, Rakeesh. Gotta go again....
Thanks for bring up the point of the actual path of racial integration in the services. I wasn't up for a remedial history lesson today.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are several nations (just over 10 at the moment I believe) which integrate gays allowing them to serve openly without restrictions (Britain and Israel perhaps being premier among them in military effectiveness). Each nation had its own historical lead-up journey to the change in policy to allow gays to serve without restriction. Each nation at some point 'opened the gates' allowing equal and open service of gays.
In most cases, the concerns about gay integration prior to the policy change proved to be greater than the actual effects, with respect to military cohesion and effectiveness.
Perhaps it is fair to use this insight to hasten a similar policy change here in the US. So, maybe we DO have a good indication of how much effect such policy would have here. However, some argue that the US military and culture are different enough that such comparison to other nations' armed forces is not wise.
Here is a reasonably balanced article regarding the subject with 3 other nations: Israel, Australia, and Britian.
Personally, I believe that it will be similar here in the US: that concerns prior to allowing open service of gays will prove to be very exaggerated over actual effects after we 'open our gates'.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't that impact your thinking on the subject at all, Kwea? That even in quite similar cultures (Britain especially), the feared repercussions turned out to have been greater than the reality?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. That's why I think it might be time to try it and see.
But not all cultures are similar, and sexuality has ALWAYS been a sensitive issue here in the USA.
Just because it worked out in another country doesn't mean it will here. But it does mean that we should try it. I do think that the chances of success are far greater now than they were in the past.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How dissimilar do you really think England's culture is with regards to sexuality than America, Kwea? Israel, for that matter, has its share of far-right religious politicians too, just like we do.
Just because it worked out in nearly all other countries is a pretty darn good indicator it'd work out here.
Looking at the situation logically, taking into account all the overblown hype about homosexuality in this country, the complete lack of the destruction of family and moral values taking place now that homosexuality is becoming less of a stigma, the success in implementing racial integration, the success in implementing homosexual integration in other nations - particularly Israel, who certainly has more very short-term concerns about readiness than we do here in the United States - logically, it's quite likely that concerns over the damage homosexual integration would do to our military are exaggerated.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] How dissimilar do you really think England's culture is with regards to sexuality than America, Kwea? ...
A bit less than 20% on homosexuality in general in the latest cross-country poll I can find on Gallup.
quote:In a Gallup Poll conducted from August-September 2004, 60% of Canadians and 61% of Britons said they felt "homosexual behavior" was morally acceptable. Only 42% of Americans say the same, according to a May 2004 poll.
posted
I'm a bit dubious as to how that statistic would actually play out in real life. I'm credulous of the idea that more Britons are accepting than Americans of homosexual behavior as "morally acceptable"- they have been for centuries after all, but I can see how that particular statistic might belie actual behaviors. We have a fairly prominent example on this board of someone who is ardently anti-gay rights, but strongly in favor of social acceptance of gays. Now, if these types of people are to be believed (which is always arguable and individual), there are probably quite a few people who would answer this question with a "no," but act in exactly the same fashion towards gays as a Briton who answered "yes." The objection could, at least for some people, be largely a political one. In England these days, sexuality is less of a political issue than in the states, so I think some people who are accepting of homosexuals would nonetheless oppose gay rights as a political position. I could be wrong, that's just a bit of speculation on my part.
Also, none of this is going to matter in 30 years because a lot of the older people who still have some political sway today will be dead, and my generation will be middle aged. If we're still having this conversation then, I'll feel embarrassed about my caution now.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I agree that 30 years from now we should all be thinking how silly we were worrying about that. That's the best case scenario, IMO. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... there are probably quite a few people who would answer this question with a "no," but act in exactly the same fashion towards gays as a Briton who answered "yes."
I'm not particularly convinced on this point. See, I'm sure some of these people *think* that they act in exactly the same fashion towards gays. But I'm not particularly convinced that, say in a confidential test, that gays would necessarily agree that they do. Even in Canada we have a large bloc of people that will publically say they're all comfortable with, say, Asians until they actually move-in next door.
Nor am I particularly convinced that the group, even when self-identifying would be all that large or decisive. For example, linked to that Gallup poll, the latest numbers suggest that while 48% of Americans think that homosexuality is morally unacceptable, 40% of Americans think that homosexuality should be illegal. Thats only a 8% group on the outside that can separate their morality from supporting having the law go at people for what they do in their bedrooms.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Israel, for that matter, has its share of far-right religious politicians too, just like we do.
True, but extremely misleading. The primary feelings of the far-right and much of the mid-right (for lack of better terms) in Israeli politics regarding the army is that it should continue to be made up (primarily) of the left. Including women and homosexuals is only to be expected.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps we could PROMOTE homosexuality in the U.S. military; you know, actively recruit LGBT members in a similar way as filling race/gender equal opportunity quotas? This would certainly change the sentiment away from the current trepidation of trying to determine when (or whether at all) to accept openly gay soldiers.
...We could even adopt an official mascot for all branches of the military: Spartans ! Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
