FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Citizenship and gays in the military (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Citizenship and gays in the military
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm starting a new thread because the other one is no longer productive, for which I take part of the responsibility.

My position is that the issue of whether or not gays should be legally able to serve in the responsibility, conditional on being capable of performing the duties required for all service personnel, is answered completely by the question “Do we have a different level of citizenship for gays and straights in this country?” If yes, then gays should not be able to serve. If no, then there should be no additional barriers for gays to serve than for straights.

What is citizenship?

–noun
1.
the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen.
2.
the character of an individual viewed as a member of society; behavior in terms of the duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen: an award for good citizenship.

From dictionary.com, citizenship.

On a legal level, citizenship is established by meeting certain requirements, usually of location of birth. What differentiates a citizen of a place from a non-citizen is the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that the citizen has in comparison to the non-citizen.

Different levels of citizenship, as understood by the term “second class citizen,” means that different people have different levels of access to the rights, privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. Wikipedia notes “Typical impediments facing second-class citizens include, but are not limited to, disenfranchisement (a lack or loss of voting rights), limitations on civil or military service (not including conscription in every case), as well as restrictions on language, religion, education, freedom of movement and association, weapons ownership[1], marriage, housing and property ownership.”

Whether or not one agrees with that understanding of what a second class citizen is, gays in this country do not have the same access to the rights, privileges, and responsibilities as straights when it comes to military service. Whether one looks upon military service as a right of citizenship, a responsibility of citizenship, or a privilege of citizenship, gays do not have it. Gays, therefore, have a different type of citizenship which has fewer rights responsibilities and privileges as compared to straights since they do not have the same stable of rights privileges and responsibilities.

An individual ability to perform the duties required by the job, or choice not to perform a particular, does not reduce a person's level of citizenship in the way that barring a group of disliked people from service does. The difference is the difference between systematic, malicious, legal discrimination against a disliked group of people, versus individualized discrimination based on capacity to meet requirements, applied equally to all groups, which are established based on the duties of the job rather than arbitrary dislike.

Gays are excluded from the military, not because they are incapable of performing the job, but because of the fear that others might not be able to perform the job if they come into contact with gays. The non-malicious, non-systematic solution to this problem would be to bar people from service who cannot serve with all people who are able to perform military duties. This is an individual approach to the problem of job performance, as opposed to an approach that makes negative assumptions about a group of people. Nor does it deny access without regard to individual merit.

The approach taken to confront the fear that an integrated military would be a less effective military was to bar gays from service in the military which is simply a continuation of the same legal and social discrimination against gays, as a group, that has been around for thousands of years. This is exactly the type of situation that the term "second class citizen," addresses.

Thurgood Marshall wrote that justice too long delayed is justice denied. Gays have been denied service in the military, under one policy or another, for far too long. Justice has been delayed to the point that justice has been denied to gays, and frankly, I see that as a much more important issue than whether or not some people are uncomfortable performing a job, a job which could basically be described as "doing uncomfortable things for the greater good."

Our military today is stronger because we integrated blacks, because we integrated women. Whether or not the military performed less effectively for a short time immediately following integration (I do not think the evidence shows it did, but the point is largely irrelevent), it became stronger. The military will become stronger by integrating gays, a point made starkly clear by the demand for Arabic translators in the military, and the number of Arabic translators dismissed from the military because they are gay. And the only way to benefit from that increased strength is to actually integrate.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh well, I tried.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I wouldn't give up right away. I hadn't even noticed this thread.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HollowEarth
Member
Member # 2586

 - posted      Profile for HollowEarth   Email HollowEarth         Edit/Delete Post 
What do you want here Paul? Being gay doesn't at present make you a member of a protected class as recognized by the federal government. So the government is free to make not being gay a provision of service. End of discussion.

Perhaps you would like to argue that being gay should make you a member of a protected class or that this is a particular case where even though the government is free to make this a provision it shouldn't for whatever reasons?

The real argument to be making here is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation shouldn't be allowed just as discrimination on hte basis of race or gender is not allowed. This military thing is far to narrowly focused and frankly distracts from the real issue.

Also I should add that you basically posted a short essay in the OP. Posting an essay almost never gets any responses.

Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
the idea is not to BE a protected class but to have the same EQUAL rights as everyone else.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Hallow if you switch the word "gay" for "black" or "jew" or any other minority and it makes just as much sense, no more no less.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
How about if you switch in "disabled"? You presumably do not argue that the wheelchair-bound are equally qualified to be soldiers, and should be protected from discrimination. Now, you and I believe that being gay is not in fact a hindrance to being a soldier, any more than being Jewish or black is; but the US military disagrees with us, at least officially. (Whether this disagreement is based on actual thought, or on repulsion for teh buttsecks, is not relevant here.) Therefore the question very much is whether gay is a protected category that cannot be discriminated against.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Paul, I'll refrain from commenting here beyond this, because I don't want this to repeat the last thread for either of us.

I wouldn't give up on this thread, let people have a chance to see how the conversation goes. Some people my be intimidated by the OP, and some people probably saw the last thread and not this one yet.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
the idea is not to BE a protected class but to have the same EQUAL rights as everyone else.

this makes sense.
Currently the military is desperate for people to join and fight in these intense fights all over Iraq and Afghanistan. They are taking criminals and folks they normally wouldn't take.
but they refuse to take openly gay people, which makes no sense...
No, I don't think it's really logical to refuse able-bodied and able-minded people in the military because they are gay. But, ages ago homosexuality was considered a mental affliction. Perhaps the military is outdated and outmoded.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
Kwea, its actually targeted largely at you, because I know I wasn't entirely clear in what I was trying to say to you.

KoM-Sure, but someone in a wheel chair can't pass the physical tests while a gay person can. The official military stance has, for a long time, not been that gays cannot perform the job. Rather, the official military stance is that gays make other people not able to do their jobs.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 11808

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen         Edit/Delete Post 
Sometimes the armed services lead the way in social change. For example, President Harry S. Truman’s Executive Order 9981, issued on July 26, 1948, declared that “there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.” This made some sense because the armed services employed many persons paid by the United States as a whole. But at the same time Jim Crow laws often separated people of color from whites in schools, housing, jobs, and public gathering places. Forcing the armed services to lead the way in this manner most likely caused extra deaths in Korea when soldiers who despised one another refused to fight together against their common enemy. Saying they were wrong - black or white - does not bring those dead back to life. So military efficiency does matter.

Anyway my entirely unscientific observations suggest this proposal arouses even stronger passions than same sex marriage. So it seems unclear whether this issue should be addressed while gays in much of the United States still suffer from legal discrimination comparable in extent to the Jim Crow laws. The dispute seems to me less about rights than about how a political hot potato should be handled to avoid creating a backlash which leads to a reversal of other gains. And I shall leave it to the politicians to figure that out, observing only that it could be unwise to make the hardest change first.

Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
a wheelchair bound man can do still paper work and file checks.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Cool.

Paul, I do understand where you are coming from better, but the main function of the military is our defense. Anything that impacts our ability to defend ourselves is a concern.

We actually have more in common than would have been obvious from the first thread. [Big Grin]

Did you see my links about the two sides in the other thread? There have been some interesting developments lately, particularily the relaxing of the stance on DADT. It seems like they are trying to phase the restriction out in phases to see what the impact will be. I know that isn't ideal, but at least it seems to be a step in the right direction.


Blayne, that would make them a civil servant, but would not allow them to be a soldier in the US. The physical standards, at least for admission, are not likely to change at all.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post 
There are many limits on military service that are not related to citizenship. General Rules:

quote:
qualified, effective, and able-bodied persons who are not less than seventeen years of age nor more than forty-two years of age
While exceptions can be made, you are also not allowed to enlist if:

- your spouse serves and you have dependents
- you are a single parent regardless of the custody arrangement
- you do not have a high school diploma


The Supreme Court has already decided that the first amendment does not universally apply in the military in Goldman v Weinberger

quote:
when evaluating whether military needs justify a particular restriction on religiously motivated conduct, courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest
Limiting freedom of speech (not being able to tell people you're gay) for reasons of safety and morale seems well within the military's jurisdiction and not an invalidation of citizenship. I look forward to the day that people can be openly gay in the military, but I think the court's precedence is right that it's up to those who run the military to know when the military is ready for that day.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
Slightly weirder:

The U.S. military is now offering a fast-track method of gaining citizenship to residents who have been in the country for two years. This is specifically targetted towards native speakers of languages they feel may be strategically useful in current and future engagements and those with higher levels of education and other skills (the same article notes that only 82% of U.S. Army recruits last year had a high-school diploma.)

All well and good, I suppose. But it's my understanding that at least some of the 9/11 hijackers, prior to the event, would have looked like excellent potential recruits for the program. Arabic-speakers with flight training? Sign them up!

To me, the bottom line is that the policy is causing the military to lose qualified people, many with excellent records, at a time when they can least afford to lose them. And the number of sexual abuse scandals that have plagued the military in recent years somewhat put question to the idea that unbecoming sexual schenanigans would get worse for not having an all-heterosexual fighting force. That there will be pains from a change of the status quo, I do not doubt, but I think in five to ten years we could be past them if we started now; attitudes are changing, and the military has weathered other integrations. The other option is to continue to hemmorhage dedicated men and women and replace them with those drawn from a pool of those who meet increasingly low standards.

[ July 09, 2009, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
HollowEarth,

quote:
What do you want here Paul? Being gay doesn't at present make you a member of a protected class as recognized by the federal government. So the government is free to make not being gay a provision of service. End of discussion.
This simply doesn't follow. You're not supposed to be a part of a 'protected class' of people in order to have equal rights with other citizens. Legally that's accurate (it's just that in our country, 'protected classes' now number an overwhelming majority of the population), but ideologically that's a distinctly unAmerican notion.

quote:
The real argument to be making here is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation shouldn't be allowed just as discrimination on hte basis of race or gender is not allowed. This military thing is far to narrowly focused and frankly distracts from the real issue.
But you can't win causes like this by saying 'equal rights on all fronts now'. That's not how it works. On other fronts, such as marriage, adoption, health benefits, insurance, being teachers, being students, etc., this particular cause is also being fought out.

----

Kwea,

quote:
...but the main function of the military is our defense. Anything that impacts our ability to defend ourselves is a concern.
This is accurate, but how much of a concern is it, is the necessary question? For how long will it be a concern? Will it be a greater or smaller concern if enacted sooner or later?

The truth is, permitting homosexuals to serve in the military openly will always be a short-term concern up to the moment there is zero social stigma in our culture about being homosexual. Given that that moment's arrival is, shall we say, unknown...it seems to me the appropriate response is to do it as quickly as possible at a time when there aren't going to be very dire and measurable consequences.

Rip the band-aid off, as it were.

----

Amanecer,

quote:
Limiting freedom of speech (not being able to tell people you're gay) for reasons of safety and morale seems well within the military's jurisdiction and not an invalidation of citizenship. I look forward to the day that people can be openly gay in the military, but I think the court's precedence is right that it's up to those who run the military to know when the military is ready for that day.
Except that the military doesn't also restrict on the basis of, say, religion. Particularly unpopular religions, for example Islam in the immediate wake of 9-11? Surely there were not insignificant safety concerns with being an open, practicing Muslim on 9-18-01, right? But we never said that the military could say, "All you Muslim soldiers, no facing Mecca until all this blows over, `kay?" Of course not.

Furthermore, we have a civilian-run military, as it should be. The military is not solely in charge of its own destiny. Elected officials also have a role too, especially as impacts social policy within the military. So you can't just say, "Let the military decide," because we're supposed to be deciding for the military. Let the military advise, on the other hand, is valid.

----------

Sterling,

quote:
All well and good, I suppose. But it's my understanding that at least some of the 9/11 hijackers, prior to the event, would have looked like excellent potential recruits for the program. Arabic-speakers with flight training? Sign them up!
That danger needs to be measured against the very real impact that would be felt by having more personnel actually familiar with foreign cultures in our government's service.

In other words, we need to be learning more from people than from satellites in some conflicts.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Except that the military doesn't also restrict on the basis of, say, religion.
They do however put limits on the exercise of religion. Religious practices that interfere with military protocol are not allowed. The point of Don't Ask Don't Tell is that homosexuals can be in the military, but there are limits on their free speech.

quote:
So you can't just say, "Let the military decide," because we're supposed to be deciding for the military. Let the military advise, on the other hand, is valid.
Fair enough.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
A blind person can't be a fighter pilot, but that doesn't mean he's not a citizen. Thus being a citizen does not mean you have the right to do or be everything any other citizen can do or be.

So, the initial assumption is wrong. We have to go back to the question of "What is a citizen?" Being a citizen doesn't by itself give one the right to be a soldier. It does give one the right and responsibility to contribute to the nation in some way, though - in accordance with whatever one's abilities and gifts allow.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
A blind person can't be a fighter pilot, but that doesn't mean he's not a citizen. Thus being a citizen does not mean you have the right to do or be everything any other citizen can do or be.
Paul's dealt with that multiple times. A blind person or handicapped or morbidly obese person is restricted from the military because they are physically unable to do the job. This is not the case for able bodied "out" gay people, who are restricted because...well, in large part because some people don't like gay people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Amanecer,

quote:
They do however put limits on the exercise of religion. Religious practices that interfere with military protocol are not allowed. The point of Don't Ask Don't Tell is that homosexuals can be in the military, but there are limits on their free speech.
The problem with this objection is that there is no functional difference between the military having a problem with sexual practices (unless, say, between a private and their sergeant, which is an entirely different matter) and having a problem with religious practices that also don't directly impact military service.

In other words, the only real difference between praying to Mecca five times a day and engaging in a homosexual relationship with a private citizen on your own time is that 'military protocol' has no problem with the first, but has a problem with the second. It's an entirely arbitrary decision. We ought to insist on better reasoning for that for discrimination. Like, for example, no blind fighter pilots.

quote:
Fair enough.
Fair enough indeed. Really, that's the decisive objection to be made against arguments of 'listen to the military'.

----

quote:

A blind person or handicapped or morbidly obese person is restricted from the military because they are physically unable to do the job. This is not the case for able bodied "out" gay people, who are restricted because...well, in large part because some people don't like gay people.

Mr. Squicky, the rest of Tresopax's post (and it's strange for me to be agreeing with Tresopax) deals with this. He's not saying there is no difference. He's objecting to the idea that the right to serve in the armed forces is a key component of citizenship. That idea is simply incorrect, because we don't treat handicapped or obese people as second-class citizens, therefore right to armed service cannot be considered fundamental to citizenship.

If the idea were modified, however, to something like, "The right to serve in the armed forces, unless physically incapable of doing so, is a fundamental component of citizenship," well, I don't see how there can be any objection to that statement. It seems self-evidently true to me.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh,
Here's a quote from Paul's first post in this thread:
quote:
My position is that the issue of whether or not gays should be legally able to serve in the responsibility, conditional on being capable of performing the duties required for all service personnel,
The discussion has included the idea of being physically capable from the beginning, which Tres seemed to be ignoring.

---

Incidentally, I disagree with Paul's assertion. You don't as a able bodied citizen capable of doing the job have a right to join the military. In a trivial though unlikely example, what if they are full? Let's say they've got 60,000 capable people applying for only 30,000 open positions. Yes, it's silly in light of the current state of the U.S. military, but in different conditions, we're not going to expand the number of positions just because citizens want to join.

I think that the military is not fully about...well our euphemism is defending the country, which is not true, but you get the idea nor fully subordinate to the citizenry and fairness. Much like other public service aspects of the government, it carries both duties, of getting the job done and of treating people fairly, etc. Because the job of the military is so dangerous, the getting the job done portion bears a lot more weight than many other parts of the government, but it is still a balancing act and it is wrong to treat it like one concern completely overrides the other.

That being said, for me it is obvious that gay people should be able to serve openly. I agree with the quote from the West Wing. It will probably lead to some short term impairment of functioning, but we'll get over it, much faster than I think the opponents say we will and will be stronger in the long term.

[ July 09, 2009, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
Not only that, but Paul addressed that at least a half dozen times in the last thread.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Gays, therefore, have a different type of citizenship which has fewer rights responsibilities and privileges as compared to straights since they do not have the same stable of rights privileges and responsibilities.
He also said that, Mr. Squicky. Very clearly in that statement is the notion that full citizenship clearly entails the right to serve in the armed forces.

Yes he addressed it, Xavier. And did other things as well.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If the idea were modified, however, to something like, "The right to serve in the armed forces, unless physically incapable of doing so, is a fundamental component of citizenship," well, I don't see how there can be any objection to that statement. It seems self-evidently true to me.
I don't think this is true anymore than it's true to say "I have the right to be an economist for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unless physically incapable of doing so." A position in the military is like any other government job in that the government should only hire people it actually needs, based on the skills and requirements it thinks are necessary to perform the job. In fact, I think the military should even be free to hire nobody at all, if the military doesn't think it needs more soldiers. It's a job more than a civic right.

Of course, I'm in favor of our government being a good employer - and a good employer understands what requirements are actually truly necessary for the job (like being able to see, or not being lazy, etc.), versus characteristics that are trivial (like skin color, or favorite football team, etc.) But that's not an issue of citizenship rights; it's an issue of having a government that hires fairly.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Very clearly in that statement is the notion that full citizenship clearly entails the right to serve in the armed forces.
Yes, the right to serve in the armed forces "conditional on being capable of performing the duties required for all service personnel". Or do you think that Paul switched away from this point he made explicitly multiple times to talk about an unconditional right?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Nope. And in an ordinary post, I wouldn't have considered the omission in this context noteworthy. It's just that this post seemed a lot more deliberate and, as someone else said, essay-like to me is all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
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.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
That danger needs to be measured against the very real impact that would be felt by having more personnel actually familiar with foreign cultures in our government's service.

In other words, we need to be learning more from people than from satellites in some conflicts.

Oh, I agree. Hopefully, by this point, the military is taking sufficient steps in checking the backgrounds of potential recruits that the benefits far outweigh the dangers (though I don't have any information on hand regarding that.) Certainly having native speakers familiar with cultural customs could be invaluable in some of our current operations, never mind future ones.

But I do find it ironic and more than a little sad that at face value an Arabic-speaker who intends violence to our country might be coveted as an asset while an Arabic-speaker who admits to being homosexual would be shunned.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QB] Amanecer,

quote:
They do however put limits on the exercise of religion. Religious practices that interfere with military protocol are not allowed. The point of Don't Ask Don't Tell is that homosexuals can be in the military, but there are limits on their free speech.
The problem with this objection is that there is no functional difference between the military having a problem with sexual practices (unless, say, between a private and their sergeant, which is an entirely different matter) and having a problem with religious practices that also don't directly impact military service.

In other words, the only real difference between praying to Mecca five times a day and engaging in a homosexual relationship with a private citizen on your own time is that 'military protocol' has no problem with the first, but has a problem with the second. It's an entirely arbitrary decision. We ought to insist on better reasoning for that for discrimination. Like, for example, no blind fighter pilots.


But in the service, particularily in combat, 5 times a day at the proper times, in the proper manner isn't allowed. It would impact mission integrity.

I think that we would have fewer problems now than we would have had had the military allowed gays in 20 years ago. That being said, I still think it would impact a number of things vital to mission integrity far more seriously than you expect that it would.

I just don't believe that they are ready for it yet. I think that looking at the policy is a good ting, and that it will be revamped reversed in time, but I am far more comfortable letting the people in the military make the decision when to change it. They know their men, they know their state of readiness, and they have the best idea of what could go wrong (and how much that would affect their missions).


In a perfect world this would be a non-issue. Then again, in a perfect world we wouldn't need a military at all.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
I just don't believe that they are ready for it yet. I think that looking at the policy is a good ting, and that it will be revamped reversed in time, but I am far more comfortable letting the people in the military make the decision when to change it. They know their men, they know their state of readiness, and they have the best idea of what could go wrong (and how much that would affect their missions).

quote:
Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from [discrimiation]. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!"...This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never."

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"Very clearly in that statement is the notion that full citizenship clearly entails the right to serve in the armed forces.
"

Not necessarily right. Right, privilege, or responsibility. However you look at military service, it is a part of the package of citizenship.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:

My position is that the issue of whether or not gays should be legally able to serve in the responsibility, conditional on being capable of performing the duties required for all service personnel, is answered completely by the question “Do we have a different level of citizenship for gays and straights in this country?”

I've no compulsion to argue over this issue. I'm 100% in favor of equal rights for gays in all aspects of private and public life.

That said- I'm quite conflicted over this issue. The way you state it precludes one element that I think is important. Some people believe that gays are incapable of functioning as a part of an all male military unit. The plain fact of the matter is that this *might* be the case- no always, not for everyone, not as a rule, but someone's "gayness" or if you could call it a "level" of gayness or "type" of gayness, can affect the way he relates to other men. Whether that is the problem of the military or society or the individual is to me a totally open question- unlikely to be answered.

Just like some straight men have personalities that preclude them from being acceptable in the military, I think someone's sexuality could be a big enough roadblock to keep them from bonding properly into a military unit. That said, I think the issue should never be whether a person is gay, but rather whether that person is suited to life in the military, or if the military is suited to deal with that individual. Of course the military in practice has the power to decide that for itself, and it always should have. We can only work to increase the military's effectiveness in using and relating to homosexuals, but we can't change the shape of a round hole overnight to fit a square peg- we have to include room for flexibility on both sides here. In a way the problem of not fitting in is no different from many others- some people are too tall for the military, some too short, some don't have the language skills required, some have learning disorders, some are too passive and some too aggressive. An unfit person (and I mean that from the perspective of the military as it actually functions, and not how it *ought* to function), has all the rights of a fit person- yet the military also has a right to reject them.

Is that unfair really? Honest question.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"Some people believe that gays are incapable of functioning as a part of an all male military unit."

These people have been demonstrated to be wrong by militaries around the world, including our own.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Definitely true. But I bet in some cases, just like in any case where someone's fitness is questioned, a man's sexuality has been a problem in maintaining cohesion of a unit. I think that flat denial of fitness on the grounds of homosexuality is obviously wrong- it's not classified as a disease or disability in our laws, and is not recognized as such by enlightened society. That said, the military should be able to define its own needs, somewhat. I'm just approaching this from the standpoint of what we can actually accomplish. We can continue to work to make sure that the military is better educated and sensitized to the needs of gays, but we must first allow the military to control its own policy decisions today. I know that doesn't fit with, say, Truman desegregating the military in the 50's, but sexuality is just a different issue in that regard. We aren't talking *entirely* about personal freedom or class struggle here- and anyway the military did *have* blacks and Hispanics and Asians, just segregated. So far we don't even have gay units, or a gay corps.

I'm with you on it being a mistake, but I'm not convinced that forcing the issue with the military now, rather than allowing the changes to occur over a longer period is the wise thing to do. Just practically speaking, the downside of maintaining the policy is the exclusion of a few fit personnel, whereas the suggested change has unknown consequences. We're talking about a small segment of the general population, and I would think an even smaller segment of the military- and they shouldn't be used as pawns in the great public debate over equal rights.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"but we must first allow the military to control its own policy decisions today"

No. The military is subject to civilian command. The military should not be making ANY of its own policy decisions.

"and they shouldn't be used as pawns in the great public debate over equal rights. "

Unfortunately, bigots and idiots long ago made sure that gays don't HAVE equal rights. It's not "being a pawn," if you join the military and then get kicked out because someone finds out you are gay, and then you try to change bigoted and idiotic policy so that you can serve your country the way you choose.

Those who want to serve should be able to, if, on an individual level, they are capable of serving. Just like everyone else. And we CAN actually accomplish that. Pass a law, and its done. Military is subject to civilian command.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Kwea,

quote:
But in the service, particularily in combat, 5 times a day at the proper times, in the proper manner isn't allowed. It would impact mission integrity.
Well yes. Though it should be noted that within Islam, it isn't required either if it will impact life-or-death matters either.

quote:

I think that we would have fewer problems now than we would have had had the military allowed gays in 20 years ago. That being said, I still think it would impact a number of things vital to mission integrity far more seriously than you expect that it would.

Well, maybe not than I expect it would. I expect it would have quite an impact as well. I just don't think that potential is sufficient to continue denying homosexuals equal rights and responsibilities. Put bluntly, they pay taxes, and it's an arbitrary discrimination against them that is causing the problem. These two things mean that, in my opinion, the potential impact would have to be very, very and measurably dire in order to justify continued denial of equality.

quote:


I just don't believe that they are ready for it yet. I think that looking at the policy is a good ting, and that it will be revamped reversed in time, but I am far more comfortable letting the people in the military make the decision when to change it. They know their men, they know their state of readiness, and they have the best idea of what could go wrong (and how much that would affect their missions).

When do you think they will be ready for it, first of all? Five years, ten, twenty? How long must homosexuals continue to be considered less than heterosexuals before our government, by of and for the people, must - pun intended - man up and take care of business?

Another problem is that the military has a poor track record of judging its own readiness to successfully weather these sorts of shifts in recruiting and personnel. See segregation by race for an older, very clear cut example. See integrating women into the military service for a more recent example.

Finally, as others have said, ultimately we - not the military - is responsible for this sort of decision.

quote:
In a perfect world this would be a non-issue. Then again, in a perfect world we wouldn't need a military at all.
We'll never get to a perfect world anyway, but we'll also never get closer if our policy is, "Wait until it gets better."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:


Finally, as others have said, ultimately we - not the military - are responsible for this sort of decision.

FTFY.

Only because you've poked fun at my typos in the past.

[ July 09, 2009, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:

Those who want to serve should be able to, if, on an individual level, they are capable of serving. Just like everyone else. And we CAN actually accomplish that. Pass a law, and its done. Military is subject to civilian command.

I'd be for it if I thought it would work. I really would. I'm for it, but I'm also for caution. As you said, the issue should be settled on an individual level, just like it already is for every soldier that has to pass muster. What we must do is take away all the artificial and useless policy that stops that real evaluation from taking place- so in that regard I'm not in favor of the current policy. I'm also against the blanket ban of gays. Obviously you're right, the issue should be dealt with with openness, but it should be the prerogative of the soldiers themselves to not disclose their personal details.

In sum, I'm against "don't ask don't tell," and I'm against a ban on gays in the military, but I'm not against the military being able to exclude individual soldiers on the basis of lack of fitness regarding their sexuality, at least, I haven't been convinced that I should be against that yet. I'm also against the military being able, should DADT be abolished and the blanket exclusion be abolished, to exclude soldiers on the basis of non-disclosure of their sexual preferences.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No. The military is subject to civilian command. The military should not be making ANY of its own policy decisions.
I disagree with this emphatically. The military should be making almost all of the decisions that deal directly with warfighting. They have the training to do that, whereas the only necessary requirement for the politicians commanding them is to be able to successfully persuade a plurality of voters to like them at a given election.

Gays in the military, however, is something of a gray area. Certainly will impact warfighting, but it's also just as much if not more a measure of social policy.

quote:

Unfortunately, bigots and idiots long ago made sure that gays don't HAVE equal rights. It's not "being a pawn," if you join the military and then get kicked out because someone finds out you are gay, and then you try to change bigoted and idiotic policy so that you can serve your country the way you choose.

I disagree with the characterization of everyone in your opposition as bigots and idiots, Paul. It's that sort of deeply insulting blanket generalization rhetoric that starts fights. Do you want to start another fight?

quote:

Those who want to serve should be able to, if, on an individual level, they are capable of serving. Just like everyone else. And we CAN actually accomplish that. Pass a law, and its done. Military is subject to civilian command.

Talk about oversimplifying things. Pass a law and what is done? It becomes law, and the military must comply. That's the only given. What will happen when they comply is the pertinent question, and what can be done to impact that outcome?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"Very clearly in that statement is the notion that full citizenship clearly entails the right to serve in the armed forces.
"

Not necessarily right. Right, privilege, or responsibility. However you look at military service, it is a part of the package of citizenship.

Not according to the Supreme Court, among others. No one has the RIGHT to serve in the Armed Forces, because such a right has never existed. according to our Constitution or any of our laws.

As far as a time frame....well.I don't know. I do think that it should happen in stages, and we may be getting ready to see some of that in action. It would work that way....it would allow more freedom of choice while allowing the people in charge of the military to gauge how it is affecting morale.


Paul, I don't think that everyone who disagrees with you is a moron, or a bigot. I have nothing further to comment on this subject, because it is heading once again in a bad direction.

And once again, you seem to be leading the way.


Enjoy your discussion.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As far as a time frame....well.I don't know. I do think that it should happen in stages, and we may be getting ready to see some of that in action. It would work that way....it would allow more freedom of choice while allowing the people in charge of the military to gauge how it is affecting morale.
I don't think it should happen that way, though necessarily it will. I can't think of an oppressed minority that ever won equality all in one go, after all.

As for allowing the people in charge of the military to gauge things, as has been said, we are in charge of the military. How it affects morale is for us to determine. And the truth is, there is a whole lot of the military whose morale will almost certainly never come into contact with combat, if we're going to use past history as a gauge.

So is there any reason in your mind why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed, immediately, to serve in the military and be openly homosexual in non-combat or front-line roles? Something similar to female participation in the military, currently. That would seem to address your objections rather neatly.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 11808

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen         Edit/Delete Post 
Doing a little digging on DADT, which was approved after my time in the Army, I find the military studies have consistently said allowing gays to serve would have no significant effects. For heaven's sake, the studies estimate 60,000 are serving now, with only about 700 being discharged each year. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - Admiral Mullen as I remember - said the armed services were ready to permit gays to serve as soon as the law changed to allow them to do so. The opposition in the early 1990s came largely from Senator Nunn of Georgia, not from the military; and the roadblock continues to be in Congress today. Any Congressman who votes for repealing DADT can count on an organized group of voters specifically targeting him for defeat in the next and future elections. For some that will not matter, but for others it could mean finding a new career, depending on the makeup of the districts they serve. And expecting politicians to risk political destruction over this issue is perhaps too much, as probably few of them care. What any professional politician knows in his bones is that voters more often vote against candidates than for them, and this hot button issue could cost him votes which he will never get back again. The opposition is lessening, so more may be willing to risk it, but with slim margins of victory even a few votes can make the difference.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Not necessarily right. Right, privilege, or responsibility. However you look at military service, it is a part of the package of citizenship.
Serving your country in some capacity is a part of the package of citizenship, but people are called to serve in different ways depending on how they specifically are most needed. Military service, particularly on the front lines, is not necessarily what many people are best suited for.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
Not necessarily right. Right, privilege, or responsibility. However you look at military service, it is a part of the package of citizenship.
Serving your country in some capacity is a part of the package of citizenship, but people are called to serve in different ways depending on how they specifically are most needed. Military service, particularly on the front lines, is not necessarily what many people are best suited for.
So.... if I were to join the military, would I have to alert them to the fact that I own a leather and chain leash/collar, or that I have several recreational uses for rope? mind you my circumstances only involve women, but when does my sex life become my mind or training? Do you really believe that someone who is gay cannot cope with war or perform as a straight soldier? If so you need to learn your world history, the men of Sparta had wives for breeding, not for love.

To believe that a gay person is most definatly differant in every way from a straight person, especially in the capacity of soldiering, is to say that women cant be a wartime soldier because they would worry about thier hair or be distracted by handsome male soldiers. Or to another extreme, how could you possibly expect black soldiers to stay mentally stable without marijuana rap music and chicken (obviously using this offensive view as a reflection of how many expect all gay people to be without exception). If you can meet the physical demands, expected work ethic, and perform the duties of thier job whatever it may be THEN WHAT YOU DO IN YOUR PERSONAL TIME IS PERSONAL. How about whoremongering and marital infidelity become crimes with possibility of fines and jail time? that would do some good, atleast stop a couple of the politicians. Maybe

Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
To believe that a gay person is most definatly differant in every way from a straight person, especially in the capacity of soldiering, is to say that women cant be a wartime soldier because they would worry about thier hair or be distracted by handsome male soldiers.
What? That doesn't follow at all. Y'need to calm down and slow down a bit, man. Your post reads like only somewhat coherent yelling. Not to mention I doubt if anyone is interested in knowing your purported sexual kinks.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post 
If not for dont ask dont tell, apperantly the government would be to make sure its completly hetero.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
...apperantly the government would be to make sure its completly hetero.
Errr...what?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
As far as a time frame....well.I don't know. I do think that it should happen in stages, and we may be getting ready to see some of that in action. It would work that way....it would allow more freedom of choice while allowing the people in charge of the military to gauge how it is affecting morale.
I don't think it should happen that way, though necessarily it will. I can't think of an oppressed minority that ever won equality all in one go, after all.

As for allowing the people in charge of the military to gauge things, as has been said, we are in charge of the military. How it affects morale is for us to determine. And the truth is, there is a whole lot of the military whose morale will almost certainly never come into contact with combat, if we're going to use past history as a gauge.

So is there any reason in your mind why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed, immediately, to serve in the military and be openly homosexual in non-combat or front-line roles? Something similar to female participation in the military, currently. That would seem to address your objections rather neatly.

I think it would be a great start, of course....but I don;t agree we control what the morale of the Armed Forces is at any given time. If we did, morale would never be an issue at all, but it most certainly is, in the front lines and elsewhere.


AH, Those are already crimes according to the UCMJ.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Kwea,

I didn't say we controlled what morale was in the Armed Forces, just that how it is affected is for us to determine. Now, again, in my mind this becomes a much hazier issue when the military we're speaking of is engaged in an actual war at the present time.

For example, I would certainly be willing to compromise that while we should move towards full integration promptly, we also shouldn't just drop that full integration into, say, Afghanistan and Iraq promptly either.

Anyway, so are you saying you would support integration of non-combat and non-front-line units right away?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
I would...but I am hardly in command. I'd go for it, on a trial basis, as long as it had command support.

I would say that the far more likely situation is one that MAY already be underway...a general relaxing of enforcement in non-combat situations. If that goes well, then we will see orders come down regarding the status of DADT....either a reversal right away, or more likely a time frame for change.

If things go well, we will have what we have been talking about, complete equality.

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.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2