Obama and the Gay Military...

[Alt+F4]

That is simple. Straight people should just say "my partner" and if someone asks, "you mean, your wife" it should be perfectly acceptable to not clarify out of respect for our homosexual brothers and sisters.

I guess your workplace would also ban the wearing of wedding rings and having photographs on one's desk. You would also have to ban the carrying of wedding photographs in one's wallet or pursue. Those photos might be accidentally seen by a co-worker when opening said wallet or purse.

 

[Aitch]

So you have no idea which of your coworkers are married or not then. I am sure you would never mention anything like that. Especialy to the HR department or something.

Presumably, no-one wears wedding rings either.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Presumably, no-one wears wedding rings either.

And no family heath insurance packages.

I guess their policy is if your kids want insurance they should get a job.

 

[Bill Thompson]

This report exemplifies that serving in the military can not be equated to just any other job.

No other job puts service over the care of your children.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_soldier_mom_deployment

....one of Hutchinson's superiors told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care.

It is serious business.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I guess your workplace would also ban the wearing of wedding rings and having photographs on one's desk. You would also have to ban the carrying of wedding photographs in one's wallet or pursue. Those photos might be accidentally seen by a co-worker when opening said wallet or purse.

No but I never ever ever saw anyone put photos of wives on their desks or work space in the Navy. It was not the kind of job were you can take a break and gaze memorably at a photo.

Sill, a loved one does not have to be someone you are having sex with. A family is a family. It is the group you are familiar to.

I do not think having a family photo can be considered to violate Don't Ask Don't Tell. Your argument is a stretch.

 

[gumboot]

They were just as much under the stress, and in fact probably more so, than the traditional military. The fact that they were acting in a military capacity in a war zone is what is important. The fact that by name they were not the standard armed forces is minutia.

Methinks you're having some reading issues. The point, and the relevance, is that a mercenary force can be distinguished from a national military force because it lacks the discipline and training of an army. It is the discipline and training that is the primary factor in any military force retaining control of the battlefield. This has been the truth of warfare since it first began.

If mercenaries become savage beasts under pressure, this is merely strong evidence that they lack the training and discipline of a military force - which is incidentally one of the primary reasons mercenaries are banned under the International Laws of Armed Conflict.

The entire point of military training and discipline is to prevent soldiers cracking under the strain of conflict. Therefore your claim that you can't have homosexuals or women in frontline combat situations is really just a bold statement that the USA's military is severely lacking in discipline and training - a position that I don't personally agree with.

For the record, many military forces around the world don't have anywhere near the sort of restrictions on private relationships that the US military appears to have. Many military forces around the world allow women and homosexuals in frontline combat roles. Not only is this true today, but it has been true throughout human history. Funnily enough these military forces don't seem to have any problems with the performance of their forces.

Try to justify it all you want, when it comes down to it, the only actual objection there is to homosexuals or women in the military is good ole fashioned yankee bigotry.

Given that the military's primary symbolic duty is to defend the ideals and values of society, it stands to reason that the military should be the first place to abandon immoral, out-dated, and unjustified discrimination. Not the last. If the US military can't handle treating women and homosexuals the same as straight men, what does that really say about America? Nothing good.

 

[gumboot]

It is the same sort of thing thing with Don't Ask / Don't Tell. It is a step in the right direction. To remove the policy is to go back to the old days when you could openly ask someone what their sexual preference is.

Well that's a false choice fallacy, if ever I saw one. Your argument assumes that the policy is the end of the road as far as equal treatment of homosexuals. It isn't, of course, as many other national military forces have clearly demonstrated.

Something else is this. Don't Ask/Don't Tell should be the policy in every work place. Noone has the right at work to know what your sexual preference is, no matter what it is.

I don't think you actually understand what the policy is. It's not about giving someone the right to know your sexual preference. It's about taking away the right for an individual to share their sexual preference if they wish.

I was a military brat, and I grew up on military bases surrounded by military families. For me, the single most distinguishing and memorable aspect of that experience was the close-knit communal feel of that life, in stark contrast with the unfriendly unwelcoming nature of the civilian big-city world.

My family were on very close terms with every other single family on our street. The serving family members worked together, and the families socialised together. Concealing the nature of your personal life would have been impossible and would have been severely detrimental to the functioning of the unit.

When your father was overseas he knew he didn't have to worry if your mother got sick because his work mates' partners were there to look after the wife and the kids. And he knew them, could trust them.

In my personal experience the Don't Ask/Don't Tell Policy is in direct contradiction of one of the strongest and most vital features that distinguishes the military from the rest of society.

Having said that, it would explain why the US military has such disastrous problems with their returning vets and their busted relationships.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Methinks you're having some reading issues. The point, and the relevance, is that a mercenary force can be distinguished from a national military force because it lacks the discipline and training of an army. It is the discipline and training that is the primary factor in any military force retaining control of the battlefield. This has been the truth of warfare since it first began.

If mercenaries become savage beasts under pressure, this is merely strong evidence that they lack the training and discipline of a military force - which is incidentally one of the primary reasons mercenaries are banned under the International Laws of Armed Conflict.

The entire point of military training and discipline is to prevent soldiers cracking under the strain of conflict. Therefore your claim that you can't have homosexuals or women in frontline combat situations is really just a bold statement that the USA's military is severely lacking in discipline and training - a position that I don't personally agree with.

For the record, many military forces around the world don't have anywhere near the sort of restrictions on private relationships that the US military appears to have. Many military forces around the world allow women and homosexuals in frontline combat roles. Not only is this true today, but it has been true throughout human history. Funnily enough these military forces don't seem to have any problems with the performance of their forces.

Try to justify it all you want, when it comes down to it, the only actual objection there is to homosexuals or women in the military is good ole fashioned yankee bigotry.

Given that the military's primary symbolic duty is to defend the ideals and values of society, it stands to reason that the military should be the first place to abandon immoral, out-dated, and unjustified discrimination. Not the last. If the US military can't handle treating women and homosexuals the same as straight men, what does that really say about America? Nothing good.

Nom'd

 

[Soapy Sam]

I love the expression "The Gay Military".
I imagine Hitler's Wehrmacht mincing down the Champs Elysees; The Royal Navy- Rum, sodomy and false eyelashes... Kenneth Williams, we have need of you now.

I recently read "The Devil's Paintbrush" by Jake Arnott, a fictionalised account of the last days of "Fighting Mac" MacDonald- a Victorian General who shot himself after the publication of accusations of homosexual liasons. Interesting book- he makes it seem half the British High Command (mostly ex-public schoolboys) were homosexual.

Changed days indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_MacDonald

 

[cwalner]

No but I never ever ever saw anyone put photos of wives on their desks or work space in the Navy. It was not the kind of job were you can take a break and gaze memorably at a photo.

Sill, a loved one does not have to be someone you are having sex with. A family is a family. It is the group you are familiar to.

I do not think having a family photo can be considered to violate Don't Ask Don't Tell. Your argument is a stretch.

That depends. If the picture were of the soldier with arms mutually over the shoulder of an adult civilian of the opposite gender standing behind two smiling children, it would defenitely not be. However, if the only change to the picture was that the adult civilian is of the same gender as the soldier, than it would violate the Don't Tell portion of Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

As you said, there is nothing in the picutre that explicitly states that the two adults are having a sexual relationship. However, the nature of the photo being a family photo clearly implies this. Just as everybody would assume that the first picture depicts mother, father and children, equally everyone would assume that that the second implies gay couple and children. I would hazard a guess that in both cases the assumption would be correct over 90% of the time.

The fact that one is acceptable and the other is a violation of military regulations is an intollerable double standard that hurts the military (by depriving it of good loyal soldiers) as much as it hurts the individuals ostracized due to the policy.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

There was a protest here in Seattle last year where some peaceniks came out and blocked some tanks on their return trup back from Iraq. That is right, they were RETURNING. And protesters were stopping their movement back to the base. They were too stupid to know that they were going in the right direction if they wanted peace and the war to end.

After the Massacre of the Students in 1989 in Beijing, some peacenick decided to block a whole column of tanks with his body and shopping bags! That's right, after the massacre. He was too dumb to realize that the shooting was ending! Idiot should've been laughed out of town!

Oooor maybe it doesn't matter which ways tanks go when you demonstrate against them. That's another possibility.

The policy of "Don't Ask /Don't Tell" is an unwritten rule in many work places. Open discussions of sex, sexuality, sexual orientation and religion are grounds for reprimand and dismissal where I work. And I work in a civilian organization that is not connected directly to the military.

It is impolite at best to discuss anything about sex, sexuality, and sexual orientation. It is no one's business. It does not belong in the work place. It has nothing to do with our job or the company.

Sounds like a cop-out to me. Anyone else?

 

[Toke]

Sounds like a cop-out to me. Anyone else?

Here.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Why do liberals and progressives protest unfairness without understanding that there is nothing that can really be done?
The Generals and Admirals can have their way even if it is something that is a whim or something that makes them mildly uncomfortable. The Generals and Admirals do not answer to the American people. The Generals and Admirals answer to The President of the United States. And The President -- more or less -- answers to the American people. So unless you completely turn the tide and attitudes of the majority of Americans, we are stuck with the way things are. Politicians are not in business to make the world fair. Politicians are in business to get reelected. We can all join hands and pat each other on the back for being so smart that we can see injustice in the world. Or we can accept reality regardless of how big a pill that is to swallow. Why do liberals and progressives protest unfairness without understanding that there is nothing that can really be done? Is it a kind of social club to you or something? A way to get together with like-minded folks? I never said that Don't Ask Don't Tell was fair. I just think it is the way things will probably remain for a long time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why do liberals and progressives protest unfairness without understanding that there is nothing that can really be done?

So the military is too entrechned in its ways, it will never be able to be intergrated?

Quick, build a time machine and tell Truman that.

 

[Bill Thompson]

That depends. If the picture were of the soldier with arms mutually over the shoulder of an adult civilian of the opposite gender standing behind two smiling children, it would defenitely not be. However, if the only change to the picture was that the adult civilian is of the same gender as the soldier, than it would violate the Don't Tell portion of Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

As you said, there is nothing in the picutre that explicitly states that the two adults are having a sexual relationship. However, the nature of the photo being a family photo clearly implies this. Just as everybody would assume that the first picture depicts mother, father and children, equally everyone would assume that that the second implies gay couple and children. I would hazard a guess that in both cases the assumption would be correct over 90% of the time.

The fact that one is acceptable and the other is a violation of military regulations is an intollerable double standard that hurts the military (by depriving it of good loyal soldiers) as much as it hurts the individuals ostracized due to the policy.

Ugh! GIve me a break!! THe spirit behind Don't Ask Don't Tell what to allow for Gays to serve in the military. That is it. That is all. End of story.

If you are so stupid as to put romantic photos all over your desk, maybe you should be booted out just for being an idiot.

 

[Bill Thompson]

So the military is too entrechned in its ways, it will never be able to be intergrated?

Quick, build a time machine and tell Truman that.

I did not say that. Read my whole post.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ugh! GIve me a break!! THe spirit behind Don't Ask Don't Tell what to allow for Gays to serve in the military. That is it. That is all. End of story.

If you are so stupid as to put romantic photos all over your desk, maybe you should be booted out just for being an idiot.

Yea, just like you would at work right? Personal lives are to be left at home. The army has no need of things like survivor benefits and things like such as that, it pointlessly injects their personal lives into their work.

 

[Toke]

Why do liberals and progressives protest unfairness without understanding that there is nothing that can really be done?

Because the protest is what can be done, and it is what sometimes* affects politicians.

*I don't think there are any campaign contributors involved here.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Something I find remarkable about this thread is exactlty how low Bills opinion of members of the military is. He has talked about how they are bigoted on a fundamental level, and prone to losing control and basicly raping people in combat.

 

[cwalner]

Ugh! GIve me a break!! THe spirit behind Don't Ask Don't Tell what to allow for Gays to serve in the military. That is it. That is all. End of story.

If you are so stupid as to put romantic photos all over your desk, maybe you should be booted out just for being an idiot.

Yes and No. It was a compromise between President Clinton, who wanted to end the military ban on gays and a republican congress that did not.

While it was an improvement from an outright ban that allowed superiors to out closeted gays and boot them, it still does not allow gays to serve openly in the military. It also had a slew of unintended consequences, that in some situations made it more precarious for military gays.

Also the removal of loyal, patriotic soldiers from the military, whose only breach of the rules was to be open about thier homosexual relationships deprives the military of the valuable services they provide and often the expenses spent to train the soldiers.

As such, the comprimise has shown not to live up its intentions and should be repealed in favor of allowing gays to openly serve in the military.