Obama and the Gay Military...

[zooterkin]

DADT is intended to give homosexuals more equal rights in the military, not take them away.

DADT was intended to give homosexuals in the military more equal rights than they had. The rights they have are less than those of heterosexuals in the military, and less than those of homosexuals in the general population. it was a compromise, because some people did not want homosexuals in the military at all. It's a ridiculous compromise, and needs to be removed now.

Thinking it works -- meaning that believing it give liberty to gays in the American military culture and environment -- does not make someone a bigot or a homophobe or any other narrow minded insults that you hurl at me or IM me.

Liberty? It's hardly freedom if you have to watch what you say, or be careful who you're seen with.

Your goal is to hurt me personally for reasons I do not understand.

You seem to have a general problem with comprehension.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I'm guessing you didn't thoroughly read the link you posted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_Movement

Buddhism and Jainism are also atheistic religions.

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be exclusively irreligious or unspiritual. However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have also been described as atheistic.

It could be considered confusing as the meaning of the term Atheism has changed over time and encompasses a varying set of secular and non-secular structures. Perhaps it would be easier if you understood the use of "atheistic religion" as "non-deistic religion" or "materialist religion."

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

As strange as it may sound, whatever the Generals decide is pretty much law. Since I am not a mind reader, I cannot answer those questions.

I do not live in a dream world that focuses on what should be and what ought to be. In a perfect world of fairness and universal human rights, there would be no need for a military at all. And then this whole discussion would not be happening.

I would agree that a world in which the necessity for militaries is not something that I expect to see in my lifetime, I think think affecting the general attitudes of the military and its generals towards homosexuals is something we generally can affect. I think we can do so without creating a level of debilitating upheaval as well.

 

[Alan]

In a perfect world, we'd have equality for LGBT and heterosexual people.

 

[Bill Thompson]

In a perfect world, we'd have equality for LGBT and heterosexual people.

Then you should support DADT because that is its aim.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Then you should support DADT because that is its aim.

I do not know about Alan but I personally tend to favor actual results over intended results. DADT may have been useful as a temporary stop gap. In my opinion the time is long past where such a stop gap is necessary. Though in my opinion that time was before the passage of DADTDP. Why not fully bring the ship to working order? Admitting a mistake was made and a better law could be drafted is not shameful.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I would agree that a world in which the necessity for militaries is not something that I expect to see in my lifetime, I think think affecting the general attitudes of the military and its generals towards homosexuals is something we generally can affect. I think we can do so without creating a level of debilitating upheaval as well.

A disarmed world is what World War I was fought for, by the way. It was called "The War To End All Wars".

Are you aware of the term "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If the customs in the military -- regardless of how absurd they are -- seem to be good enough to keep the machine running, there will not be anyone of authority stepping forward to demand change.

We are not talking about an Accounting frim here, respecting what they call "The Outside World" calls human rights of the servicemen is not on the mission statement of the United States military.

 

[MikeMangum]

DADT was intended to give homosexuals in the military more equal rights than they had. The rights they have are less than those of heterosexuals in the military, and less than those of homosexuals in the general population.

I fully support allowing homosexuals in the military. That being said, it isn't a right to serve in the military, and when you are inducted into the military, you check alot of your civil rights at the door. The purpose of a military is to protect a country, its people, and its polity; it is not an institution for social engineering or even for righting societal wrongs.

 

[Alan]

It has already been established that DADT does not treat heterosexuals and homosexuals equally.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I fully support allowing homosexuals in the military. That being said, it isn't a right to serve in the military, and when you are inducted into the military, you check alot of your civil rights at the door. The purpose of a military is to protect a country, its people, and its polity; it is not an institution for social engineering or even for righting societal wrongs.

While true, the policy against homosexuals is damaging to the military on multiple fronts. It robs us of valuable men and women in needed fields and damages unit coherency. Morale is weakened. Bigotry is encouraged and intensified. Money is wasted. The performance of serving homosexuals that are fully following the policy is upset by the possibility they may be inadvertantly outed by the simplest of slip ups. Even without the issue of righting societal wrongs there is an issue of effectiveness. Note I am not personally attacking whatever your views may be, just proposing that allowing homosexuals to openly serve is actually to the benefit of the military.

Of particular relevance:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gao_report.html
....
Studies of Homosexuality in the Military
DOD and the services have commissioned two major efforts that focused o whether homosexuals were more of a security risk than heterosexuals and concluded that there was no factual data to substantiate that premise. The Navy's 1957 Crittenden Report (1) (Which did not question the underlying premise of DOD's policy) stated, "A third concept which persists without sound basis in fact is the idea that homosexuals necessarily pose a security risk." A more recent draft report, prepared by DOD's Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center (PERSEREC), commented that the DOD policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military was based on the same rationale used to limit the integration of blacks (2) Specifically it stated:

The order to integrate blacks was first met with stout resistance by traditionalists in the military establishment. Dire consequences were predicted for maintaining discipline, building group morale, and achieving military organizational goals. None of these predictions of doom has come true.

The PERSEREC effort, initiated in 1986, has been packaged as several interim products with the final report issued in late 1991.

In addition, nations organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, familiar with the extensive research conducted on homosexuality in the general population and with military veterans, disagree with DOD's policy and the policy's implied characterization of homosexuals.

In testimony before the House Budget Committee, the Secretary of Defense in July 1991 and the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff in February 1992 backed away from security concerns as a major basis for DOD's policy. However, both officials continued to support the policy on the basis of their belief that it is needed to maintain good order and discipline.
...

Considering that the DOD itself was claiming the DOD's remaining claim of discipline and morale were the same as those opposition racial integration that racial integration is both relevant and possibly predictive of the results. Plus there are generals who supported the law when first implemented that currently oppose the law.

 

[funk de fino]

I know the word ethnic is often used this way, but you realise that everyone is "ethnic", right? Everyone has an ethnicity.

Yes, and it was used in a specific way in the information I used.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Strawman units too. You would fit in.
There are no religious nut groups that are out to kill someone just because of the color of their skin or their gender. Apart from the Methodists and maybe some small groups, every religious group in the USA is intollerant towards homosexuals.

Again this was not true when Truman integrated the military, so you would have been against it. Your rational here applies perfectly well to Truman's integration of the military.

So when by your view would have been the right time to integrate the military?

1950?
1955?
1960?
1965?
1970?
1975?
1980?

When? Clearly 1948 would be untenable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then you should support DADT because that is its aim.

Also the aim of all the separate but equal laws. And they were fine to as they were better than slavery so why be all that opposed to them anyway?

 

[MikeMangum]

While true, the policy against homosexuals is damaging to the military on multiple fronts. It robs us of valuable men and women in needed fields and damages unit coherency. Morale is weakened. Bigotry is encouraged and intensified. Money is wasted. The performance of serving homosexuals that are fully following the policy is upset by the possibility they may be inadvertantly outed by the simplest of slip ups. Even without the issue of righting societal wrongs there is an issue of effectiveness. Note I am not personally attacking whatever your views may be, just proposing that allowing homosexuals to openly serve is actually to the benefit of the military.

I think you are misunderstanding what I was trying to say. I agree with almost everything you said above. Like I said, I fully support allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. My problem is with people using the language of civil rights as a means to advance their policy goals when the issue may not really involve rights. I support foodstamps, but that support does not require me to view foodstamps as a right. I support paying the government paying for medical care for those wounded during military service for life (at least those expenses related to service) even though I do not believe they have a right to have the government pay for that medical care.

The language of rights gets so overused that there is a non-trivial danger of the very concept of rights being diluted. I would argue that we have already passed that point.

 

[Cleon]

There are no religious nut groups that are out to kill someone just because of the color of their skin or their gender.

Ah. The KKK doesn't exist, then. News to me.

Apart from the Methodists and maybe some small groups, every religious group in the USA is intollerant towards homosexuals.

That must come as quite a shock to the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarian Universalists, United Church of Christ, and non-Orthodox Jews.

people start accusing me of this crazy racist bull and then after a while some new guy picks up on it as if I really true.

You're using arguments that could equally be used to argue against integration. It's nobody's fault but your own that these arguments make you look like a small-minded bigot.

The amusing thing is that some white hate groups would accuse me and my woman as being "non-white".

No, the amusing (albeit sad) thing is that you seem to believe your own bull****.

You probably think I am a white guy. You have only your imagination as your window to reality.

I don't think anyone really gives a damn.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it and regret getting it.

I have seen a number of stories of gay men in the military who are victims of hate crimes. But what is important to note is the fact that they were victimized when they were on leave when they could be more themselves. The attacks did hot happen in the military where the rules demand that they keep quiet about their orientation.

One such case was even mentioned here in this discussion thread.

===================

I would also like to address my being chastised for mentioning that when men are fighting for their lives, their personality change and psychologically they become something that you would never imagine that they become. There are plenty of cases in Vietnam of men in combat snapping and becoming monsters but I would also like to point to a case where a passenger boat in India was over loaded and had capsizes. SOme female survivors told stories of being groped and sexually attacked as the men around them were fighting for their lives. For some reason, when you live in a nightmare many people become nightmarish. I do not pretend to know why it happens but I know it happens.

The human animal is not this noble, thoughtful, respectable and fair creature we would like to think it is.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Ah. The KKK doesn't exist, then. News to me.

It is funny you mentioned them. They preach political change now days.

 

[Bill Thompson]

You're using arguments that could equally be used to argue against integration. It's nobody's fault but your own that these arguments make you look like a small-minded bigot.

If you are all about "it should change" because it would be ethical, that is a no-brainer. But you need to consider how it would change and if it would work and if it is worth the risk.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Also the aim of all the separate but equal laws. And they were fine to as they were better than slavery so why be all that opposed to them anyway?

That does not make any sense and is not applicable. DADT is not about seperation.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Again this was not true when Truman integrated the military, so you would have been against it. Your rational here applies perfectly well to Truman's integration of the military.

I do not think so. With Truman, you are not talking about something that makes people different only in skin color.

Google the science of gaydar. This can be thought of as real physical differences. Even if it is just brain chemistry, it is still physical difference.

We are also talking about human nature. It can be argued that people are taught to be racist. But being repulsed by what one might consider a sexual oddity is something people are born with. People are born with how they view sexuality. No stroke of a pin or a passing of a law can change that.