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.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Oh well, I tried.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wouldn't give up right away. I hadn't even noticed this thread.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
the idea is not to BE a protected class but to have the same EQUAL rights as everyone else.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
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.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
a wheelchair bound man can do still paper work and file checks.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
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.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
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.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
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 ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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 ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Not only that, but Paul addressed that at least a half dozen times in the last thread.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
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."
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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 ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
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
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
If not for dont ask dont tell, apperantly the government would be to make sure its completly hetero.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...apperantly the government would be to make sure its completly hetero.
Errr...what?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Orincoro,
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.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
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.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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". )
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
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.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
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?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
swbarnes,
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.
[ July 12, 2009, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Kwea,
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.
[ July 12, 2009, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
[ July 12, 2009, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
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.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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'.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
SCOTUS IS the civilian authority, Rakeesh.
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
True, but it does make a legal precedent. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Has it ever ruled that civilian authority cannot set admission standards for the military? I think that's the more relevant question.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Congress is the civilian authority, and DADT came from congress.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not in this case. Not on most of them, actually.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Really? So the government isn't answerable to the people for its hiring practices?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It can be, but as always the military is an exception. Always has been, probably always will be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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:)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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. Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
swbarnes,
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
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'.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I hope so as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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.
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I'm not at all.
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. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
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 !
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)