- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
- Reaction score
- 1,169
- Location
- Old Virginny
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Good, we don't need bigots like that in the military.
Yeah, the military will be getting enough bigoted gays.
Good, we don't need bigots like that in the military.
No one will care about the sexual preferences of the guy in the next bunk so long as they can count on him shooting the guy shooting at them.[/QUOTE]
Really? That's the problem. I'd be serioulsy worried if that guy in the bunk next to me, decided to get in my bunk. You sleep next to him, if you love gays so much.
6000 miles from home surrounded by an armed populace that hates you, and you'd be worried about the guy in the next bunk?
Those people who think that way can get out of our military for all I care, they're obviously not tough enough for the job.
Yeah as long as someone can fight and die for you, why not?
Exactly. People shouldn't be forced to fight if they don't want to. The military is only for those willing to put up with it.
So if your sibling admitted they were gay, you'd cut off all relations with them?
Did you ever think what it would be like if everyone felt like you and did not want to serve their country?
We would all be speaking German or Japanese
I have a job, so I'm serving my country :mrgreen:
Besides, there's no shortage of people wanting to join the military voluntarily; so your point is irrelevant.
Some people have morals and integrity..........
Lucky for you.........
Now you know how racists felt as they watched the world changed around them while they got old and irrelevant. You're getting old and irrelevant too. The military is going to let gays serve openly soon, nobody will care, and you'll die bitter.
Not me ..lucky for the idiots running this country who've overextended our military commitments.
What a cop out
I have a flash for you my left wing friend
I am not bitter anout anything
except I would love to see a draft and somehow you got drafted into the Navy and had to work on the deck force under a Boatswain Mate Chief........He would square your ass away......
That would make my day.........
Like they're going to find jobs.:roll:
Perhaps you don't understand the rule. Homosexuals in the military can be dismissed for any conduct that comes to light, no matter where they do it.
If someone keeps an apartment off base, and someone sees him coming out of it arm in arm with another guy, and that's reported to a CO, they can and will bounce him.
On the other hand, sexual conduct aboard ship is restricted for everyone, as I understand it. So looking for love on a Navy ship is against regs, and would be if they repeated DADT.
Society has changed. What private employer would give up the benefit of a skilled worker just because he's gay? Only a foolish one.
No one will care about the sexual preferences of the guy in the next bunk so long as they can count on him shooting the guy shooting at them.
Now you know more the the SECDEF..........
Except that leaving that discretion in the hands of command only opens the door to greater abuses.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.
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"wrong. you have to have proof, and you have to have proof that it has occurred multiple times to establish a pattern of behavior.
Not sure what you mean by this. If the policy would be the same no matter, what, what is the problem?exactly; and the reasons that ban is in place apply to not repealing DADT
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?one who needs team success to come far and away ahead of individual success.
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.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.... :shrug: 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.
Except that leaving that discretion in the hands of command only opens the door to greater abuses.
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.
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"
Not sure what you mean by this. If the policy would be the same no matter, what, what is the problem
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?
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.
Actually, the worst a commander can get is to commit a kind of extortion.not really; the harshest a command can get is to enforce the UCMJ to the letter.
If this were true, the number of persons forcibly put out would have gone down with DADT. The opposite has been true.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.
It is a cause of action.:lol: 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.
Again, it has succeeded, the disturbance to military personnel issues would have been reduced by the policy, but the opposite happened.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.
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.:lol: 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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.not currently, no.
This reasoning is circular. It should be against the law because it IS against the law?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
I thought the policy against pregnancy came from the fact that pregnancy impairs a woman's ability to perform her duties.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.
That would be a very newsworthy poll, if it actually portrayed "how the military people feel." This line from the link is very important: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.
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.MOAA invited readers of their magazine Military Officer to participate in an online opinion survey on gays in the military.
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.
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: 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.
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?