Page 15 of 24 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 236

Thread: Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

  1. #141
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    you are incorrect; there is currently, for example, a pilot who is known to be homosexual and serving because he was forced to divulge that information at trial; he was falsely accused of rape of another male. the edges of the policy have alot of room for waffling by leaving specifics up to command discretion.
    Except that leaving that discretion in the hands of command only opens the door to greater abuses.
    wrong. you have to have proof, and you have to have proof that it has occurred multiple times to establish a pattern of behavior.
    But it only takes one incident to trigger an investigation. Any evidence at all that one is gay (even an offhand remark made to someone before one enlists) can count. Supposedly, the DADT policy was supposed to allow gay people to serve so long as they were circumspect. Unfortunately, as it has been enforced, the policy is actually MORE intrusive than the one that preceded it, since more gays and lesbians were dismissed under the policy than before. That trend has reversed in the last couple of years (I'm curious as to why THAT might be), but under DADT, the only way a gay person can serve without fear is to 1) never have sex, 2) never talk about sex, either before or after enlisting, and 3) never evince any offense at anti-gay remarks/jokes/harassment that one sees. According to a recent DoD survey, 87% of military personnel report hearing derogatory speech about homosexuals, 85% report that such speech is tolerated, 37% reported experiencing or witnessing anti-gay harassment. Source: History of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
    exactly; and the reasons that ban is in place apply to not repealing DADT
    Not sure what you mean by this. If the policy would be the same no matter, what, what is the problem?
    one who needs team success to come far and away ahead of individual success.
    Consider this: Someone who objects so strongly to gay people that he/she cannot serve with them--such a person is bad for unit cohesion, isn't he? Is the problem the gay person, or the one with the bad attitude against them? A person is a person is a person. Military personnel (at least those with similar training) are supposed to be interchangeable, no?


    there you are incorrect for two reasons:

    1. it's not just "the next bunk" in the combat arms. in the middle of cax out in the desert in the winter i've slept three Marines to a sleeping bag, huddled in a pile, spooning with your buddy.... the proximity almost literally can't be overstated.

    2. everyone seems to assume that the source of tension will be strictly hetero-homo sexual. there is no reason to suspect this is the case; the main source of tension (for example) in the mixed-gender units is between the sexually compatible. i'm unaware of a single mixed gender unit that has deployed without having issues that stem from that basic of human drives.
    I see your point here, but does the military not have means of dealing with opposite-sex attraction within units? Could these methods not also work for LBGT soldiers/sailors/marines? We earlier had a thread about the problem of pregnancy by female soldiers--at least that problem is avoided, so the problem of sexual tension between same-sex personnel is arguably less complicated.

    It also seems to me that the ordinary barriers to military service also take care of much of the problem some people fear. I mean, there's no way I could be a marine. I'm simply not masculine enough (this isn't about sexuality, just personality). I wouldn't survive the first week of boot camp. Five AM PT keeps the riff raff out.
    Last edited by Rassales; 02-15-10 at 08:27 PM.

  2. #142
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

    On a side note, I notice two things whenever a draft is mentioned.

    First, its always the people who DONT have to go who are advocating for a draft.

    Second, the people who would actually have to go and fight dont get to decide if there should be a draft.

    Does this seem screwed up to anybody else?
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  3. #143
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

    Quote Originally Posted by Rassales View Post
    Except that leaving that discretion in the hands of command only opens the door to greater abuses.
    not really; the harshest a command can get is to enforce the UCMJ to the letter.

    But it only takes one incident to trigger an investigation.
    again, that depends on the chain of command, the vast majority of whom are far too busy to care about a claim that some guy put in saying that they heard off hand that jones may or may not have been engaging in behavior that might possibly be viewed in a homosexual light.

    Any evidence at all that one is gay (even an offhand remark made to someone before one enlists) can count.
    well you will be glad to know that you are 100% incorrect in this one, else virtually my entire infantry company would have, at one point or another, had to have been investigated.

    Supposedly, the DADT policy was supposed to allow gay people to serve so long as they were circumspect.
    and at that it has succeeded quite admirably. it was a good compromise and i can't frankly think of any reason (other than an activist desire to use the military as a tool) we would want to get rid of it.

    Unfortunately, as it has been enforced, the policy is actually MORE intrusive than the one that preceded it, since more gays and lesbians were dismissed under the policy than before.
    intrusive? man i can't think offhand of a single time i've ever seen a "homosexuality" investigation, or frankly even heard of one actually going down. the reason you usually get people put out is that they decide they don't want to finish out their contract and so they insist on forcing their chain of command to accept that they are gay and admin sep them.

    the only way a gay person can serve without fear is to 1) never have sex, 2) never talk about sex, either before or after enlisting, and 3) never evince any offense at anti-gay remarks/jokes/harassment that one sees.
    1 is crap; you just don't have sex in the barracks; which isn't allowed for hetero's either.
    2 you can talk about sex all the time, most will assume that you are joking
    3 if people think you are homosexual, you are unlikely to be harrassed; far more likely you will just never become part of the family. and if you take offense then even then that can't be held as evidence against you; for all we know a brother, sister, or best friend is gay and you're offended on their behalf.

    According to a recent DoD survey, 87% of military personnel report hearing derogatory speech about homosexuals,
    and the other 13% are lying.

    85% report that such speech is tolerated
    and the other 15% are either lying, or work in as liaisons in civilian workplaces.

    37% reported experiencing or witnessing anti-gay harassment. Source: [url=http://www.soulforce.org/article/808]History of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
    i'd like to see how they defined that; since I'd bet it fell under the "derogatory speech" part.

    Not sure what you mean by this. If the policy would be the same no matter, what, what is the problem
    it's not the policy that's the same; it's the problem that is the same. when you introduce sexual tension into a unit that must live, work, and function in extremely close proximity for months on end in stressful conditions, you are throwing one helluva monkey wrench into what you need to be a finely-tuned engine.

    Consider this: Someone who objects so strongly to gay people that he/she cannot serve with them--such a person is bad for unit cohesion, isn't he?
    not currently, no.

    Is the problem the gay person, or the one with the bad attitude against them?
    desire to maintain unit cohesion along with good morale and discipline by enforcing dont' ask don't tell isn't a bad attitude, it is willing obedience to the uniform code of military justice

    A person is a person is a person. Military personnel (at least those with similar training) are supposed to be interchangeable, no?
    no. for example, all Marines receive basic infantry training; part of our "every Marine a Rifleman" approach. However, females cannot be interchanged for infantry, nor are they allowed in any combat unit. for a variety of factors, some of which would apply to homosexuals, and some of which would not.

    I see your point here, but does the military not have means of dealing with opposite-sex attraction within units? Could these methods not also work for LBGT soldiers/sailors/marines?
    given that they do not work with opposite-sex attraction, i highly doubt it.

    We earlier had a thread about the problem of pregnancy by female soldiers--at least that problem is avoided, so the problem of sexual tension between same-sex personnel is arguably less complicated.
    yes, but consider; why would a CG have to have such a policy against pregnancy? because measures to end the problems caused by sexual tension among deployed units have all failed abysmally, and opposite-sex affairs are rampant.

    It also seems to me that the ordinary barriers to military service also take care of much of the problem some people fear. I mean, there's no way I could be a marine. I'm simply not masculine enough (this isn't about sexuality, just personality). I wouldn't survive the first week of boot camp. Five AM PT keeps the riff raff out.
    i really don't see that as any kind of barrier to homosexuals.

  4. #144
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    not really; the harshest a command can get is to enforce the UCMJ to the letter.
    Actually, the worst a commander can get is to commit a kind of extortion.
    again, that depends on the chain of command, the vast majority of whom are far too busy to care about a claim that some guy put in saying that they heard off hand that jones may or may not have been engaging in behavior that might possibly be viewed in a homosexual light.
    If this were true, the number of persons forcibly put out would have gone down with DADT. The opposite has been true.
    well you will be glad to know that you are 100% incorrect in this one, else virtually my entire infantry company would have, at one point or another, had to have been investigated.
    It is a cause of action.
    and at that it has succeeded quite admirably. it was a good compromise and i can't frankly think of any reason (other than an activist desire to use the military as a tool) we would want to get rid of it.
    Again, it has succeeded, the disturbance to military personnel issues would have been reduced by the policy, but the opposite happened.
    intrusive? man i can't think offhand of a single time i've ever seen a "homosexuality" investigation, or frankly even heard of one actually going down. the reason you usually get people put out is that they decide they don't want to finish out their contract and so they insist on forcing their chain of command to accept that they are gay and admin sep them.
    Well, that's an old ruse used, usually without success, by an endless line of Maxwell Klingers. There have been over 11K forcible removes of people from service since the policy was instituted.



    1 is crap; you just don't have sex in the barracks; which isn't allowed for hetero's either.
    2 you can talk about sex all the time, most will assume that you are joking
    3 if people think you are homosexual, you are unlikely to be harrassed; far more likely you will just never become part of the family. and if you take offense then even then that can't be held as evidence against you; for all we know a brother, sister, or best friend is gay and you're offended on their behalf.
    Any suggestion that someone is gay can be used to trigger an investigation. Frankly, I can't imagine how any legal sexual conduct someone engages in before they serve or out uniform and five miles from base has any bearing on their service. Could someone explain that to me? You can say the policy isn't meant to hurt someone who is quite circumspect about their private lives, but it does.



    and the other 13% are lying.

    and the other 15% are either lying, or work in as liaisons in civilian workplaces.

    i'd like to see how they defined that; since I'd bet it fell under the "derogatory speech" part.
    Usually the person answering the poll is left to define the term for themselves, but to me harrasment means something aimed at a particular individual who is aware that the speech or conduct is going on. That's different from pointing and saying "psst....look at the queer!" from some distance.
    it's not the policy that's the same; it's the problem that is the same. when you introduce sexual tension into a unit that must live, work, and function in extremely close proximity for months on end in stressful conditions, you are throwing one helluva monkey wrench into what you need to be a finely-tuned engine.
    And yet there doesn't have to be. People are remarkably good at keeping their sexual appetites in check. It's unwarranted fears of people that gay's can't do so (and you've seen that false premise wafted on the internet) that stokes this problem.
    not currently, no.
    And here is the crux of the issue. Your judgment falls to protect the person who is limited by their own prejudices. That's what people (like the Col. whom NP quoted in another thread) mean when they warn that the US military is stocked with young "traditional" men. What you are then saying is that protecting the sensibilities of those young men is more important than having a truly meritocratic, volunteer system. That's a bad choice for any employer.
    desire to maintain unit cohesion along with good morale and discipline by enforcing dont' ask don't tell isn't a bad attitude, it is willing obedience to the uniform code of military justice
    This reasoning is circular. It should be against the law because it IS against the law?
    yes, but consider; why would a CG have to have such a policy against pregnancy? because measures to end the problems caused by sexual tension among deployed units have all failed abysmally, and opposite-sex affairs are rampant.
    I thought the policy against pregnancy came from the fact that pregnancy impairs a woman's ability to perform her duties.

  5. #145
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

    This is very interesting on how the military people feel:


    Center for Military Readiness | Homosexuals in the Military

    Results of the survey did not make news until July 2009. Washington Times Base News Editor Grace Vuoto reported that the MOAA survey revealed strong support for current policy (16%) or an even stronger law excluding homosexuals from the military (52%). The same combined percentage, 68%, expressed the belief that repeal of the 1993 law would have a very negative effect (48%) or a moderately negative effect (20%) on troop morale and military readiness.

    Contrary to stereotypes about the views of younger men and women, the MOAA survey of 1,664 respondents included a significant number of younger, active-duty or drilling reserve/guard personnel who were largely tolerant of homosexuality in other situations.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  6. #146
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    This is very interesting on how the military people feel:


    Center for Military Readiness | Homosexuals in the Military

    Results of the survey did not make news until July 2009. Washington Times Base News Editor Grace Vuoto reported that the MOAA survey revealed strong support for current policy (16%) or an even stronger law excluding homosexuals from the military (52%). The same combined percentage, 68%, expressed the belief that repeal of the 1993 law would have a very negative effect (48%) or a moderately negative effect (20%) on troop morale and military readiness.

    Contrary to stereotypes about the views of younger men and women, the MOAA survey of 1,664 respondents included a significant number of younger, active-duty or drilling reserve/guard personnel who were largely tolerant of homosexuality in other situations.
    That would be a very newsworthy poll, if it actually portrayed "how the military people feel." This line from the link is very important:
    MOAA invited readers of their magazine Military Officer to participate in an online opinion survey on gays in the military.
    No matter how well it was drawn up, the poll is only represents the opinions of one organization. (The "MOAA" is a VETERANS group, so it does not actually represent the views of active duty military personnel.) And the poll is not even a valid representation of that group, since the survey group it was not all inclusive and randomly selected. I also wonder if the results of the entire poll are there, or whether any questions have been left out. Polling is a tricky thing, and while figures don't lie...well, you know the rest.

    I'm sure there WILL be polls of military personnel, but it's not surprising that the media generally ignored a voluntary internet poll of a private organization.
    Last edited by Rassales; 02-15-10 at 11:51 PM.

  7. #147
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,122

    Re: Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    This is very interesting on how the military people feel:


    Center for Military Readiness | Homosexuals in the Military

    Results of the survey did not make news until July 2009. Washington Times Base News Editor Grace Vuoto reported that the MOAA survey revealed strong support for current policy (16%) or an even stronger law excluding homosexuals from the military (52%). The same combined percentage, 68%, expressed the belief that repeal of the 1993 law would have a very negative effect (48%) or a moderately negative effect (20%) on troop morale and military readiness.

    Contrary to stereotypes about the views of younger men and women, the MOAA survey of 1,664 respondents included a significant number of younger, active-duty or drilling reserve/guard personnel who were largely tolerant of homosexuality in other situations.
    So do you think that opinion polls should be used to dictate military policy? Should the military be a democracy? Should the attitudes of veterans dictate matters of national security?

    If not, then what is the relevance of such a poll?

  8. #148
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    This is very interesting on how the military people feel:


    Center for Military Readiness | Homosexuals in the Military

    Results of the survey did not make news until July 2009. Washington Times Base News Editor Grace Vuoto reported that the MOAA survey revealed strong support for current policy (16%) or an even stronger law excluding homosexuals from the military (52%). The same combined percentage, 68%, expressed the belief that repeal of the 1993 law would have a very negative effect (48%) or a moderately negative effect (20%) on troop morale and military readiness.

    Contrary to stereotypes about the views of younger men and women, the MOAA survey of 1,664 respondents included a significant number of younger, active-duty or drilling reserve/guard personnel who were largely tolerant of homosexuality in other situations.
    I wonder what they thought about women and blacks in the service way back when too.

  9. #149
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

    Quote Originally Posted by Rassales View Post
    That would be a very newsworthy poll, if it actually portrayed "how the military people feel." This line from the link is very important: No matter how well it was drawn up, the poll is only represents the opinions of one organization. (The "MOAA" is a VETERANS group, so it does not actually represent the views of active duty military personnel.) And the poll is not even a valid representation of that group, since the survey group it was not all inclusive and randomly selected. I also wonder if the results of the entire poll are there, or whether any questions have been left out. Polling is a tricky thing, and while figures don't lie...well, you know the rest.

    I'm sure there WILL be polls of military personnel, but it's not surprising that the media generally ignored a voluntary internet poll of a private organization.
    Thanks for checking. This is not even remotely a scientific poll and can't be said to represent the military as a whole at all.

    Zogby did a real poll in 2006.

    http://www.palmcenter.org/files/acti...ogbyReport.pdf
    Last edited by misterman; 02-16-10 at 09:58 AM.

  10. #150
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' to trigger draft

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    So do you think that opinion polls should be used to dictate military policy? Should the military be a democracy? Should the attitudes of veterans dictate matters of national security?

    If not, then what is the relevance of such a poll?
    Hell yes, it tell how the men feel that the change in policy actually affects snd not how bleeding heart liberals who are clueless about military life feel......
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

Page 15 of 24 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •