Obama and the Gay Military...

[ProbeX]

I think shutting down the need for a military will come long before GI's will embrace open gays in their ranks.

No one is asking that anyone "embrace". But trends in US civil rights do not follow a clear and predictable trajectory to equality. One could argue that GIs still don't embrace a lot of people who aren't White or male, for example. But minorities, including gay people, aren't looking to be embraced - they seek equality. We now have a half-Black president, for better or for worse. If someone had predicted the possibility of such a thing twenty years ago, many of us would have laughed cynically, with gusto.

Attitudes toward gay people are likewise shifting. Many people in the older generations don't quite get that. They were some of the same folks saying America isn't ready for a Black president. So you have to be very careful about these types of predictions.

Israel has one Hell of a bad-ass army and they - along with many other countries these days - have an open policy as it regards gays in the military. Like it or not, a new generation with new ways of thinking are influencing everything, including gay politics. In the US young ppl of both genders are far more tolerant of gay people than their predecessors.

 

[funk de fino]

Israel has one Hell of a bad-ass army and they - along with many other countries these days - have an open policy as it regards gays in the military.

This is one point Bill will never address.

 

[ProbeX]

This is one point Bill will never address.

It starts with their airport security screening process .

 

[Bill Thompson]

As far as human sexuality goes what is proper and what is improper is determaned in many ways by culture. If you want to change the world, you should target Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is punished by death. It would be a crime to kill a homosexual in the US military, but not so much in the Saudi military.

Something else, your petty attacks shows me that you do not how to discuss topics maturely and intelligently. You do not like what I have to say so you attack the messenger and not the message. This goes against the nature of this discussion forum.

Knowing what I know (and what Obama does not know) about American culture, taking away DADT is not going to work. He does not have a good read on American culture. This is seen in the backlash to his Health Care overhaul project.

 

[Bill Thompson]

This cultural issue puzzles me. I mean, it puzzles me that I have to exemplify time after time that is a NON SEQUITUR argument that homosexuals are embraced in such-and-such culture and so the USA should have no problem with it. This logical fallacy is often made by someone in another country or in a blue state in the USA.

Gay marriage is legal in all provinces in Canada. It is still illegal in most states in the USA. Add to these facts the fact that the Mormons paid 10 million dollars to take away the right in California and they succeeded and you can get the idea that reality is starker than you might imagine.

I think you follow the herd of political correctness. It is easier than thinking for yourself or thinking that just because something is right, does not mean it will work. As they say, there is the right way and there is the wrong way and then there is the military's way. I am not saying it is fair. I am just saying that it won't work.

Consider the idea that I am right. Is it worth risking what might be lost to do this cultural experiment?

For about the twentieth time, the US military's mission statement does not have a fair clause. Life is not fair. War is even less so. Conducting a war is even less so.

 

[zooterkin]

This cultural issue puzzles me. I mean, it puzzles me that I have to exemplify time after time that is a NON SEQUITUR argument that homosexuals are embraced in such-and-such culture and so the USA should have no problem with it.

I think you mean "explain". What you exemplify is something else entirely.

 

[Sledge]

Does anyone know who Bill's talking to now?

 

[cwalner]

I don't think even Bill knows

 

[luchog]

People arguing for gays openly serving in the military I think cannot imagine what the military is really like.

Your comments make it quite clear that you cannot imagine what the military is really like. I served in the US Army before DADT; alongside open homosexuals. There were never any problems until DADT was instituted. Their homosexuality was treated as an open secret by both their peers and superiors; and never became an issue until DADT made it impossible for homosexuals to be open about their lifestyle and still serve.

Many here cannot legally serve in the military because they are in a different country.

Only the US has a military? Weird.

 

[luchog]

The problem is the the LGBT community is very much behind the Dems now because the alternative is a party that supports and passes anti-gay legislation (ie DOMA).

Which is stupid, since the DOMA was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats in both the House and Senate; and was signed into law by a Democrat president.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Your comments make it quite clear that you cannot imagine what the military is really like. I served in the US Army before DADT; alongside open homosexuals. There were never any problems until DADT was instituted. Their homosexuality was treated as an open secret by both their peers and superiors; and never became an issue until DADT made it impossible for homosexuals to be open about their lifestyle and still serve.

Why did DADT suddenly make it not an open secret? Before they had to openly lie about their sexuality. I just don't see why the ignoreing their sexuality would be ok before DADT when homosexuals were expliticly forbidden from serving, to DADT where they are supposted to be able to serve but not talk about it.

Why is DADT enforced so much more stringently than the previous ban on homosexuals in the military?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Why is DADT enforced so much more stringently than the previous ban on homosexuals in the military?

Before it was a tradition and UMCJ regulation. DADT made it a Congressional enacted Law. Anal and oral sex is against the UMCJ even for heterosexual users, but there is no special funds set aside to investigate and hunt out analizers and oralizers, nor are these acts specifically called out by Congressional law as something that needs to be dealt with. From what I understand people are quite open about engaging in anal and oral sex in the military and do not fear retribution, despite the regulations against it.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm

 

[Bill Thompson]

Your comments make it quite clear that you cannot imagine what the military is really like. I served in the US Army before DADT; alongside open homosexuals. There were never any problems until DADT was instituted. Their homosexuality was treated as an open secret by both their peers and superiors; and never became an issue until DADT made it impossible for homosexuals to be open about their lifestyle and still serve.

Prove it. I doubt it.

Besides, it is not about being gay as much as it is about behavior. The two cases I knew of where people were discharged it was not that they were gay it was their behavior while on base or on the ship.

 

[Toke]

I don't, people can be quite bigoted in speech, but when the subject of their bigotry gets up close as in workmate it tends to disappear. (there might be lengthy papers written about unfamiliarity breeding fear)

 

[Bill Thompson]

There are no guarantees that taking away DADT will improve the lives of gays in the military. It is a more complicated issue than gender or race. I know that in the work place sexual orientation is nothing to be concerned with. The US military is more than a work place.

There are no guarantees that taking away DADT will create a more favorable condition and environment for gays in the military.

DADT was intended to be an improvement. It was not as if things were once great for gays in the military and suddenly Bill Clinton created this evil policy that took away their rights. The opposite is true despite the perceptions of many here.

But it gets worse. There are no guarantees that taking away DADT will cause a backlash among personnel in the military. Citing other countries who have gays serving openly is non sequitur. Every country is different. And, no, we are not all equal around the world. In some cultures, gays are hung only for the "crime" of being gay.

It is interesting that people cite the civil rights movement and the integration of the military as examples. Although they do not compare, I could cite those examples as well in my argument. Integration DID cause a backlash and integration, for a time, DID make the United States military less effective and stable. If something as minor as skin color to create such instability, it is not beyond the realm of imagination to assume that forced integration of sexual preferences would cause a greater uproar.

It is not worth the risk.

It is not worth the risk if there is a debate. There is a debate.

 

[Cleon]

Integration DID cause a backlash and integration, for a time DID make the United States military less effective and stable.

And yet, it was still the right thing to do.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There are no guarantees that taking away DADT will improve the lives of gays in the military. It is a more complicated issue than gender or race.

Why? Race seems to be much more complicated as it is so much harder to define than sexual preference.

It is interesting that people cite the civil rights movement and the integration of the military as examples. Although they do not compare, I could cite those examples as well in my argument. Integration DID cause a backlash and integration, for a time, DID make the United States military less effective and stable.

So when would you have integrated the US military? 1950? 1960? 1970? 1980? 1990?

If something as minor as skin color to create such instability, it is not beyond the realm of imagination to assume that forced integration of sexual preferences would cause a greater uproar.

Why are you assuming skin color is so much less problematic than sexual preference? The problems with both are the same, bigots who hate those who are different(or hate those who are like them in ways that they will not admit to).

 

[cwalner]

It is interesting that people cite the civil rights movement and the integration of the military as examples. Although they do not compare, I could cite those examples as well in my argument. Integration DID cause a backlash and integration, for a time, DID make the United States military less effective and stable. If something as minor as skin color to create such instability, it is not beyond the realm of imagination to assume that forced integration of sexual preferences would cause a greater uproar.

It is not worth the risk.

It is not worth the risk if there is a debate. There is a debate.

Based on this, I have to assume that you feel it was a mistake to racially integrate the military. Because there was a debate, so it was not worth the risk.

And yes, there was a backlash in the short term because of doing it. However, delaying would not have prevented the backlash. For something the size of the US military, any major institutional change system-wide will have a backlash and short-term inefficiencies as the organization adjusts to the new policy.

Delaying the change will not reduce or eliminate these natural consequences of change, it will merely delay them as well. Your argument can be used to oppose any change to the military. Your arguments would leave us with just two branches of the military. Army and Navy. Because such widespread changes cause disruption and inefficiencies, the Marines would never have seperated from the Navy to become its own branch and the Air Force would still be part of the Army. We are better at defending ourselves because of those changes, despite the hiccups endured during the changeovers.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Your comments make it quite clear that you cannot imagine what the military is really like. I served in the US Army before DADT; alongside open homosexuals. There were never any problems until DADT was instituted. Their homosexuality was treated as an open secret by both their peers and superiors; and never became an issue until DADT made it impossible for homosexuals to be open about their lifestyle and still serve.

Very Interesting. I saw a very different change in the US Navy when the DADT came on line. The witch hunt attitude changed, but I saw it from the Officer end, maybe at the enlisted end it looked different in the Navy.

I did know an O-5 who was sent packing thanks to his having a sexual affair with a subordinate, who was male. Want to know who "outed" him?

His wife. Not a pretty event, from any angle.

DR

 

[cwalner]

Very Interesting. I saw a very different change in the US Navy when the DADT came on line. The witch hunt attitude changed, but I saw it from the Officer end, maybe at the enlisted end it looked different in the Navy.

I did know an O-5 who was sent packing thanks to his having a sexual affair with a subordinate, who was male. Want to know who "outed" him?

His wife. Not a pretty event, from any angle.

DR

Yes, but wouldn't this have been bad news for the O-5 without DADT or if he had an affair with a female subordinate? Would he still have been sent packing?