Army Sgt. Robert Stout, who was wounded in Iraq, wants a chance to remain in the military as an openly gay soldier. Obviously, this desire brings him into conflict with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
My take is simple: discard the policy, then let him serve. How many language specialists, soldiers, and other talented individuals will the U.S. military waste - in the middle of a recruiting crunch yet - before it acknowledges the obvious and approaches Congress to get the policy changed?
Joe, do you assume that this is the military's decision to make alone?
Of course not. Discarding the policy will require Congressional cooperation. Having said that, the DoD should go to Congress and ask for that cooperation.
It will be a tough fight Joe. But perhaps now is the time to wage it.
Some thoughts:
Could it be Aaron Belkin disclosed his sexual preferences? What does being wounded in Iraq have to do with being gay?
Who made this a predicament for Sgt. Stout? Sgt. Robert Stout has lived with this policy since he enlisted in 2000 and has accepted a pay check every pay day for his services knowing the consequences of the military policy. The military does not go poking into peoples sexual habits (male or female) without cause. These issues are normally brought about by unlawful or deviant behavior of the accused such as rape or sexual harassment. Could it be Sgt. Robert Stout was willing to live to with this policy until eligible for retirement? Could it be a study and the press has mucked everything up for him and now he has to be the spokesman?
There are a multitude of offenses that cause courts martial, dishonorable discharge, reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay. None of these will be the punishment of Sgt. Stout. He is in the service of the military at military discretion. These people serve at the pleasure of the military. Have we forgotten about the reduction in forces of previous years where service members were told to leave because of job performance or elimination of military occupational specialty? I guess next we'll be unionizing the military?
I have a problem with advocating the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the US Military solely because the military is so desperate for personnel at this point. Its offensive in the extreme to "allow" America's gays and lesbians to die on foreign soil while insisting that they remain second class citizens at home.
Pass ENDA, repeal DOMA, AND change military policy at the same time, but don't ask people like myself to bleed for you, then tell me that I'm too "sinful" to teach your children.
In response to "Joe"http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006666.php
My take is even simpler. Distribute a secret ballot to every active duty member of the military, asking whether to maintain the existing policy or to permit open service, and set the policy according to the results.
These issues are normally brought about by unlawful or deviant behavior of the accused such as rape or sexual harassment.
another homophobic liar.
here is what the military itself said about the discharges in its study of "don't ask, don't tell"
First, we found that the large majority of the discharges for homosexual conduct are based on the statements of service members who identify themselves as homosexual, as opposed to cases involving homosexual acts. The Services believe that most of these statement cases -- although not all of them -- involve service members who voluntarily elected to disclose their sexual orientation to their peers, supervisors or commanders.
http://dont.stanford.edu/casestudy/appendixG_short.pdf
oh, and btw, Stout outed himself, it wasn't done by Belkin ... and insofar as Stout's sexual preference isn't a national security issue, there is no legitimate reason for the military to muzzle him.
First of all last time I checked military service is voluntary as are enlistments into many other organizations. Secondly no one is forcing you or anyone else to bleed for this country. Finally I don't believe anyone here has stated that alternative life styles are "sinful".
P. Lukasiak, as usual, misses the point. The current crunch is not the reason to repeal the ban, just a further illustration of its foolishness IMO.
In response to USMC, I agree that Stout knew the terms under which he served. He is still entitled to speak from inside experience and advocate a change. Realistically, despite my call to "let him serve," Stout's career will at the very least be interrupted. No matter which way we slice it, that isn't going to change. But Stout can help change current policy for the benefit of those who come after, and that's worth something.
As for: "What does being wounded in Iraq have to do with being gay?"...
It means gays can be excellent soldiers who can and will stand up with their buddies in difficult situations and serve with honour.
At which point, one might legitimately wonder exactly what useful purpose is being served by continuing to exclude them on the grounds of operational interests.
But then, we've known that for a while. Does the name Mark Bingham ring a bell? No? Then how about the Spartans (no, not the football team)?
I have no issue with discharging people when force cuts are necessary on the basis of performance ratings, or need for their specialties. I just want those to be the criteria used, so that excellent soldiers serving in needed specialties aren't excluded on the basis of something silly like sexual orientation.
All in the middle of:
Maybe someone else can explain to me how this exclusion policy makes sense, because it sure eludes me. It has eluded me (and interestingly, Trent Telenko too) for a while now.
The military isn't a social sciences lab, and shouldn't be used as one. But society has evolved, and it's time.
Stout's case isn't a breakthrough demonstration, just the latest evidence.
So now I'm a homophobic liar?
Why did they join in the first place? Just to tell the military they were gay and they got in? - or - They don't like the military now and they want out? They could have avoided the issue up front and not enlisted could they not?
Yep it's the military's fault for telling or giving orders to their troops. Now I could disclose all kinds of data concerning my employer, trade secrets or just plain belittle them in the press. Doing these things does not give me immunity from dismissal from my employer or does it?
"How many language specialists, soldiers, and other talented individuals will the U.S. military waste...?"
According to the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer in last night's broadcast about Sgt Stout an estimated 10,000 personnel.
Here's a link to the NewsHour site. You'll have to scroll down and listen to a crappy audio version. For some reason they don't provide a transcript.
We agree that this is not a valid argument concerning gays in the military. What is of importance is the capability and performance of the military service member. Matters not what sexual orientation, gender, race etc..
Yes he is and I'll not deny him that right but Sgt. Stout also realizes and must accept any consequences that might follow simply because he is still subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else within the organization. By the same token he could have advocated for change from without the organization. Unfortunately at this point it doesn't matter how Sgt. Stout feels about the situation. He will no doubt be dismissed and have to advocate for change from the out side. One must also consider the fact he could have waited till he got out to push for change. IMO one who retires from the military and pushes for change afterwards would carry much more weight for the debate.
Sorry, let's try that again. Link to NewsHour here.
So now I'm a homophobic liar?
yes. you said that discharges under don't ask don't tell were "normally brought about by unlawful or deviant behavior of the accused such as rape or sexual harassment." That's a lie. And insofar as the implication is that there are over a thousand gay and lesbian sex criminals thrown out of the service every year, its a homophobic lie.
Why did they join in the first place?
to serve their country. Let me give you a clue here...
homophobic scum like yourself discourage teens from dealing with their sexual identity --- even though they may feel homosexual desire, many of them will go into denial or tell themselves that its "just a phase". So they consider entering the military, because people like you have never allowed themselves to admit that they were gay to anyone, including themselves.
But as they enter adulthood, denial is no longer an option for many of them --- especially since the military gives them the self-confidence and self-esteem that they lacked in high school. They no longer feel ashamed of who they are, and hide their sexual identity merely because the military requires them to do so --- indeed, as Stout shows, many of them don't even bother to hide the fact that they are gay, they simply don't make a big deal of it. (this is confirmed by lots of people in the military, where gays and lesbians serve 'openly' and nobody gives a damn as long as they are good soldiers.)
People like Stout become "important" because they are willing to publicly proclaim that people like you are homophobic scum who are more concerned with promoting your own hate than with ensuring America's security.
P. Lukasiak, as usual, misses the point. The current crunch is not the reason to repeal the ban, just a further illustration of its foolishness IMO.
no, I don't miss the point. You miss the point --- its hypocritical of you to restrict your call for equal rights to letting gays and lesbians die for America. The fact is that the people who support this misbegotten war are overwhelmingly opposed to equal rights for lesbians and gays --- those "red staters" and "evangelical christians" that form the core of support for Bush's murderous policies toward Muslims.
When warbloggers like yourself start demanding full equal rights regardless of sexual identity --- in other words, saying that gays belong in the military because they deserve equal rights throughout our society --- rather than just calling for cannon fodder from the gay and lesbian communities, you will have gotten the point.
Set up a gay unit. In the past there was a Japanese unit, and black units. In civil war times, communities raised units.
Let the homosexual community raise a unit within the army. I'm sure it will serve the purpose to show the world the vigor of the gay soldier.
I'm sorry. Can you clarify which rights are now denied to lesbians and gays?
in most of the united states, it is perfectly legal to deny someone employment because they are gay, to refuse to sell them a home or rent them an apartment because they are gay ---- indeed, it is perfectly legal for anyone to deny any service to someone who is gay solely because they are gay.
50 years ago, in those states where discrimination against homosexuals is most prevalent and acceptable (the RED states) it was perfectly legal to deny someone employment because they were black, to refuse to sell them a home or rent them an apartment because they were black ---- indeed, it was perfectly legal for anyone to deny any service to someone who is gay solely because they were black.
Set up a gay unit. In the past there was a Japanese unit, and black units.
and the Red State right wingers will still tell you there is a qualitative difference between racism and homophobia....
In case you misread what I typed here it is again.
The military does not go poking into peoples sexual habits (male or female) without cause. These issues are normally brought about by unlawful or deviant behavior of the accused such as rape or sexual harassment.
It says nothing about discharges nor does it say anything about those who make the claim of being gay while serving on active duty. It says and I state it again - The military does not go poking into peoples sexual habits without cause.
If the cause is that these people are affirming and voicing their sexual orientation then they themselves have provided the cause by deviating from policy.
Now if you want homophobic I'll give you a homophobic reason. How does anyone know the reason wasn't simply for a free beef cake show in the showers? The fact is only those that serve can say why. My questions were aimed at knowing the implications and restrictions before you even joined up.
As far as my views on alternative lifestyles my opinions are well known in other threads on this BLOG. You might want to go read them before you make such blanket accusations and take words out of context to suit your needs.
USMC doesn't deserve that "homophobic scum" crack. He's merely said the policy is the policy and the consequences of violating it had to have been known to Stout.
I would like to see the policy changed, but if Stout wants to make a civil rights protest, then he's not to good to sit in the jail cell with past protestors.
Query: What exactly are the consequences of outing oneself? Stout believes he may face jail time and early discharge.
Patrick
There is an issue here that I believe needs some clarification.
The issue of personal sexual preference is exactly that. Personal. I personally don't go out in public and tell everyone I meet on the street what my sexual preferences or habits are. For the most part the majority of the people I work or associate with don't either. The issue of gays / lesbians coming out of the closet in my opinion does not give them the right to advertise and subject everyone on this planet to their sexual preferences and habits either. I have the choice of watching, buying and even participating in adult oriented activities. This does not however give adult oriented activities blanket authority to advertise on my door step. This is a major issue with me and possibly many others as well.
If the cause is that these people are affirming and voicing their sexual orientation then they themselves have provided the cause by deviating from policy.
being a homosexual is not illegal. Engaging in homosexual acts is not illegal (in most states.) The majority people who are being discharged are being discharged NOT for homosexual acts, but for admitting to being gay.
As for "deviant acts" --- if you get blowjobs from your wife/girlfriend, you are engaging in "deviant acts" and are as much of a "pervert" as I am.
I'll cop to being homophobic scum, but even I favor leaving them alone as long as they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. Except for a few sexually confused and/or neo-nazi lunatics, I think you'll find most of the country feels the same way. So I think P.l. is way off base on gays in the military and gay rights in general. As long as they stay in the closet, no one will care. And race and sexual orientation are qualitatively different. Race is an is. Sex is a does. Shall we accord official victim status to foot fetishists? Sado-Masochists? Pederasts? People who f**k sheep? Arguably those are all genetically determined. Where does it stop?
Military policy never said it was crime nor does military policy invoke a punishment for such preferences or beliefs. Military policy only says keep your mouth shut and if you don't you will be discharged from service. If you consider discharge a punishment I'll state again that the contract is voluntary, it is at the discretion of the military and the service member understands and adheres to the UCMJ as a requisite for service.
As with many employers there are requirements that must be met to retain employment. If my avocation is a truck driver for a company and I lose my license to drive it stands to reason I lose my job. Have I committed a crime? No. Am I being punished for not having a license? No. Am I being discriminated against for not having a license? Yes. I'm simply being told I don't meet the requirements for the job and will not be hired or I will be fired for not meeting them.
USMC doesn't deserve that "homophobic scum" crack. He's merely said the policy is the policy and the consequences of violating it had to have been known to Stout.
bullshit. USMC lied about the reason that gays are discharged for the military --- trying to assert that it was because of "rape and sexual harrassment" when the large majority are based SOLELY on admissions of homosexuality, and not even homosexual activities, let alone sexual harrassment or rape. The very IDEA that a significant number of gays are discharged for RAPE is so pathetic and disgusting that only an absolute bigot would even suggest such a thing.
That USMC tried to claim that what he meant was "illegal and deviant acts" when homosexual acts are NOT illegal in most states --- and "deviant" acts are perfectly acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans, shows what a liar he truly is.
Query: What exactly are the consequences of outing oneself? Stout believes he may face jail time and early discharge.
from people I have corresponded with, there are very often NO consequences from "outing" oneself, because a lot of the military isn't full of bigots like USMC, and as long as a soldier does his job well, people don't give a damn what they do when they are off duty.
In other words, "steps are taken" only if someone requests a discharge because they are gay, or some idiot raises a fuss about someone being gay. Under normal circumstances, the serviceperson is given an honorable discharge, and that's about it. (I'm trying to find out if they still retain some 'military' status --- in the past, those who had an outstanding Military Service Obligation and discharged for "personal conduct" reasons were placed in the "standby reserves", which meant that they could be recalled to service if Congress authorized it because of a national security emergency. )
I personally don't go out in public and tell everyone I meet on the street what my sexual preferences or habits are.
the fact that you can't find a wife or girlfriend who will appear in public with you is not really relevant to this discussion.
Race is an is. Sex is a does.
when did you decide to become a heterosexual?
That USMC tried to claim that what he meant was "illegal and deviant acts" when homosexual acts are NOT illegal in most states --- and "deviant" acts are perfectly acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans, shows what a liar he truly is.
State law has nothing to do with what USMC was saying - the armed forces policy on homosexuality has nothing to do with state law, either. HELLO? We're talking about military matters here.
the fact that you can't find a wife or girlfriend who will appear in public with you is not really relevant to this discussion.
The fact that you do nothing but sling insults at the other commenters here marks you as a troll. Get a life.
USMC said:
Military policy never said it was crime nor does military policy invoke a punishment for such preferences or beliefs.
of course, he also said
The military does not go poking into peoples sexual habits (male or female) without cause. These issues are normally brought about by unlawful or deviant behavior of the accused such as rape or sexual harassment. It says nothing about discharges nor does it say anything about those who make the claim of being gay while serving on active duty. It says and I state it again - The military does not go poking into peoples sexual habits without cause. If the cause is that these people are affirming and voicing their sexual orientation then they themselves have provided the cause by deviating from policy.
please make up your mind....
either "most cases" are the result of illegal acts like "rape and sexual harrassment" or they aren't. Either we are talking about "deviant behavior" or "deviating from policy" -- and face it, Shrub and his entire Texas Air Guard chain of command would have been summarily court martialed if "deviating from policy" was a serious problem.
The fact that you do nothing but sling insults at the other commenters here marks you as a troll. Get a life.
get a brain.
Fred proclaimed that he didn't "don't go out in public and tell everyone I meet on the street what my sexual preferences or habits are."
Guess what.... holding hands and kissing your wife, or taking your kids to the park, "tells everyone what your sexual preferences or habits are."
The sheer stupidity of Fred's statement --- the suggestion that having a WIFE and KIDS doesn't tell you about an individual's sexual identity --- deserved the crack I made.
don't go out in public and tell everyone I meet on the street what my sexual preferences or habits are
why don't you just explain what you meant by "unlawful and deviant behavior" then?
why don't you just explain why you claimed that "these issues are normally brought about by unlawful or deviant behavior of the accused such as rape or sexual harassment."
because that's why I'm talking about what is legal and illegal. YOU are the one who LIED about the nature of "these issues". YOU are the one who claimed it was because of "unlawful and deviant behavior."
I proved you were a liar, citing the government's own reports, and rather than admit it, you keep trying to change the subject.
I had the guts to come out as queer years ago. You should at least have the guts to admit that you made up homophobic lies to support your argument.
The sheer stupidity of Fred's statement --- the suggestion that having a WIFE and KIDS doesn't tell you about an individual's sexual identity --- deserved the crack I made.
Your point being? You do absolutely nothing to further your argument by making a "crack" about someone else's sexuality. Are you so assured about your own sexuality that you're gonna make yourself look like an absolute fool with all of the crap you're throwing at the other people here? At least they're in it for the discussion and not for promoting an agenda like you're doing. For the second time, get a life.
p.lukasiak
I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that your reading comprehension is about third grade level and your logic skills may be far worse. You have managed to take everything I have written and twist it for your cause and now for some reason you believe you must attack and degrade me for personal gain. Where all this leads and what you gain from it is unknown to me. What is clear to me though is that you consistently show your adversarial colors when it comes to those that differ with your opinions.
Where in any of my statements did I make that claim?
It's hard for me to imagine working day in and day out with someone and not having a reasonable guess what their sexual preference is, unless they're hiding it. No phone calls from the significant other? No date for the picnic? No picture on the desk? OK, I'm not saying that it's obvious in every case, but let's get serious. I'm reminded of my 20th High School reunion, where most of us were talking about our spouses and kids. Except my classmate S., one of my 12th grade friends, whom I hadn't see in over 10 years. It was pretty weird, since I knew (from other sources) that S. is the lesbian partner of a minor (and barely closeted) former political figure. (No, not HRC.) It would, from my Berkeley perspective, had been less conspicuous if they had shown up as a couple and necked on the couch.
Where in any of my statements did I make that claim?
when you wrote:
The military does not go poking into peoples sexual habits (male or female) without cause. These issues are normally brought about by unlawful or deviant behavior of the accused such as rape or sexual harassment.
the context of the use of the word "normally" (in opposition to what the military "does not" do) makes it clear that "normally" is what happens in the "majority of cases". The facts is that there is no evidence whatsoever that a significant number of discharges based on homosexuality is based on "deviant behavior such as rape or sexual harrassment."
You may consider homosexual acts between consenting adults to be "deviant behavior" when "deviant" is defined solely as "not what the majority of people do", but under that definition driving a Chevrolet is "deviant" because most people don't do it. Its only homophobic scum who would place homosexual acts between consenting adults in the same class of "deviant behavior such as rape or sexual harrassment", where "deviant" is defined as not merely non-majoritan, but designed specifically to cause harm to others.
Your point being? You do absolutely nothing to further your argument by making a "crack" about someone else's sexuality.
I didn't make a crack about his sexuality. I made a crack designed to show how stupid his comment was by pointing out that the only way his statement could be true is that if he never appeared in public with a girlfriend/wife.
If that is too complicated for you to understand, read Andrew Lazarus's comment above.
The issue of gays / lesbians coming out of the closet in my opinion does not give them the right to advertise and subject everyone on this planet to their sexual preferences and habits either.
and I suppose you support civil rights for African Americans as long as they only appear in public in whiteface?
P.luk,
I shouldn't get involved. I really shouldn't.
But I'll say just this: I'd rather be gay in 2005 than black in 1955. There is simply no comparison in the level of discrimination, and to make the comparison 1) makes you look like a hysterical fool, and 2) shows tremendous disrespect to the suffering of blacks under Jim Crow.
Now that I really think about it, I'd probably prefer being gay to being black in 2005, too.
I don't know who made the comment about announcing his/her sexuality, but it wasn't me. And I may not have chosen to be heterosexual, but I do choose to have sex or not and to have sex with women. Heterosexuals in prison often choose to have sex with men. Whether homosexuality is genetic, environmental, inborn, created, or chosen doesn't in the least affect my point. Sex is a DOES. If we start according people special status for their behavior (regardless of the origin of that behavior) we open a can of worms better left closed. All we need is murderers playing the sexual orientation card (remember OJ?), hiring quotas for homosexuals, etc. I think we have quite enough official victims already.
P. Lukasiak
Let me break it down for you. The first sentence should be obvious. As a matter of fact the UCMJ states they must have cause to do so. The second sentence says that the issues concerning the military poking around in peoples sexual behaviors are caused by unlawful or deviant behavior such as (examples) rape or sexual harassment.
Deviant behavior and sexual offenses are defined in the UCMJ. The case of homosexuality relates to DoD Directive 1332.14. Commonly know as "Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Pursue". The statement is not a lie it is fact. This directive also includes the admission of Armed Services personnel declaring themselves as gay or lesbian. From a military point of view "UCMJ" this is deviant behavior concerning standards and ethics for uniformed personnel and as such is grounds for dismissal.
As to your link concerning homosexuality Review of the Effectiveness of the Application and Enforcement of the Department's Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Military dated April 1998 it might have been more appropriate had you included the full detail of your quoted passage. But then I can understand why you wouldn't as it diminishes the force of your agenda.
For the case study it might help if make all the data is available. What is interesting though is you site information for your argument that spans a 4 year period from 1994 to 1998. Possibly less than 4 years due to the amount of time required to produce the report.
As if my discussion of the subject at hand should be dismissed you decided that a personal attack was a better venue. Again I'll ask where have I made the claim you suggest. I've used nothing more than the data you have provided and outlined the Military's argument for the policy and it has nothing to do with what you think or perceive to be my personal beliefs.
p.lukasiak
#38 - Yet again you choose to ignore the context of my statements in #22 and slice and dice for your own aggrandizement. Not only did I include gays and lesbians I included the entire adult oriented industry. Somehow or another the relevant pieces seem to escape you.
Deviant behavior and sexual offenses are defined in the UCMJ. The case of homosexuality relates to DoD Directive 1332.14.
the word "deviant" does not occur in the punitive articles (i.e. the list of actionable offenses) of the UCMJ. Furthermore, the word "homosexual" does not occur in the UCMJ. Sodomy is specifically listed as a crime, but applies to both same sex and opposite sex couples.
The DOD directive you site does not describe "homosexuality" as deviant behavior either. Instead, the "homosexuality" is the fourth reason listed for a discharge....the others are "patterns of misconduct" etc, failure to show up for rehab, parenthood, being too fat, and harrassment of/violence toward other service members.
Now, personally, although neither parenthood nor being fat is a personal lifestyle choice for me, I don't consider them "deviant behavior."
In other words, your defense is looking even more lameass than it did before.
Oh, and in case you are wondering, "sodomy" is not the same thing as "homosexual behavior." I'm not that big a fan of ass-f*cking myself, and I could easily give it up. But I'd still be having sex with other men, and if I was in the military and I admitted it, I'd be thrown out.
But I'll say just this: I'd rather be gay in 2005 than black in 1955. There is simply no comparison in the level of discrimination, and to make the comparison 1) makes you look like a hysterical fool, and 2) shows tremendous disrespect to the suffering of blacks under Jim Crow.
get real.
I've seen too many of Red State bigots make the same kind statements to think that you are anything other than just another homophobic scum looking to score points in an argument.
#38 - Yet again you choose to ignore the context of my statements in #22 and slice and dice for your own aggrandizement. Not only did I include gays and lesbians I included the entire adult oriented industry. Somehow or another the relevant pieces seem to escape you.
obviously, the fact that that has escaped you is that simply being openly gay is no more an "adult oriented activity" than being openly straight.
The fact that you don't even KNOW how stupid it is to equate the MERE FACT of being gay with the "adult oriented industry" is all anyone needs to know to affirm my initial characterization of you.
One suspects that every time you see a gay person, you immediately imagine them having sex. That is your problem, because gay people don't imagine straight people having sex when they see them.
P luk,
Now I'm homophobic scum, because I point out that your analogy is wildly overstated and discredits you?
That's a really weird thing to say to a guy who supports gay marriage, thinks the discharge of capable gay soldiers is deeply stupid, things sodomy laws are fundamentally illegtimate and unjust, etc.
Now maybe there are bigots who agree with me. That doesn't make me wrong. Nor does it make them wrong on this particular point.
I was looking for Argument; apparently I found Abuse.
p.lukasiak
Yet again comprehension seems to escape you or you can't read the 1332.14 directive. Lets start with enclosure 2 and definitions, specifically sections E.2.1.5 - E2.1.7, E2.1.10, E2.1.15 - E2.1.16 which define homosexual, homosexual acts, homosexual conduct, propensity, sexual orientation and statement that a member is a homosexual or bisexual or words to that effect. Sections E2.1.6, E2.1.7 and E2.1.16 define the deviance from acceptable norms within the military service. (Obviously you didn't read the definition of deviant in my previous post.) Which is again a thorough misunderstanding of the English language on your part.
Enclosure 3 reasons for separation, specifically section E3.A1.1.8 deals with homosexual conduct protocols and limitations concerning separation. Section E3.A2.1.3.2 describes the characterizations and types of discharge from the service. Might help if you read section E3.A4 which deals with fact finding inquiries into homosexual conduct.
It might also be worthwhile to read PUBLIC LAW 103-160, SECTION 654, TITLE 10 which if you take the time to read lays out the reasons the congress chose to exclude homosexuals from military service. You might find of interest 654 a12 - a15 but be sure to read it all as other areas are highly pertinent to the thinking of our congressional branch and their reasoning for passage of the law.
Whether we like the law or not has little bearing on the fact that the military places certain rules, regulations and standards on its' service members as conditions of employment as do all employers. The only way to change the law is to convince the congress and the military that such reasoning (concerning gay / lesbian) is unwarranted and does not in fact create an environment that is detrimental to the Armed Services and it members.
Again your perception. You wrote it I didn't.
Again your perception you wrote it I didn't.
Interesting since I believe I have provided more than ample material for you to debate the issue concerning gays / lesbians in the military and you have provided nothing but rhetoric about your perceptions and condescending attitudes toward the general public and your perceptions concerning my beliefs in this matter. You care not to find out why or how those affected feel or think about the issue at hand.
USMC, You're confusing me with P.luk
Rob Lyman #46
My apologies I saw p.luk and didn't realize the post was not from him. I am sorry but my response concerning your comments were aimed at p.luk and not at you.
p.lukasiak #47
Please accept my apologies as it was my error to place credit for statements from Rob that are not yours. Last two indented italicized statements and responses.
Now I'm homophobic scum, because I point out that your analogy is wildly overstated and discredits you?
You are discredited by asserting that my analogy was "wildly overstated" in the first place, when I never said that there was an exact equivalence between racism in the 50's and homophobia in 2005. The point being made was that homophobia is not an isolated, discrete phenomenon, but part of a larger tendency toward bigotry and hate by a specific segment of the American people. That you immediately assumed, without evidence of any kind, that I was implying an exact equivalence told me everything I needed to know about you.
Sections E2.1.6, E2.1.7 and E2.1.16 define the deviance from acceptable norms within the military service. (Obviously you didn't read the definition of deviant in my previous post.)
obviously, you didn't read your own definitions, because in general "deviant" is not associated with PROHIBITED behavior, which is what the rules concerning homosexuality are concerned with. I've yet to find a law or military regulation that defines homosexuality as "deviant" --- that is a term that you have chosen to use, and you used it with specific reference to extremely anti-social behaviors such as rape.
Indeed, as I noted earlier, the regulations you are citing makes getting fat the equivalent of homosexuality. In essence, a fat person will be discharged because they engage in "deviant" behavior as well.
But no one in their right mind would describe getting fat as in any way comparable to rape.
Whether we like the law or not has little bearing on the fact that the military places certain rules, regulations and standards on its' service members as conditions of employment as do all employers. The only way to change the law is to convince the congress and the military that such reasoning (concerning gay / lesbian) is unwarranted and does not in fact create an environment that is detrimental to the Armed Services and it members.
in case you missed it in high school, I suggest that you look up a Supreme Court case called Marbury v Madison, and then look at other cases such as Brown v Board of Education.
Quite honestly, I don't really care if gays are allowed to serve in the military or not. If homophobic scum want to keep the armed services their exclusive playground, I really don't care.
My objection is to people who call for an end to discrimination in the military without calling for an end to legal discrimination in the rest of society. Its getting to the point where the military is so desperate for qualified personnel that they might actually be willing to let gays and lesbians serve openly, and the Red State homophobes will go along with it because they really don't care if queers are killed by muslims, or beaten and then crucified on fences in Wyoming.
But I won't stand by when homophobic scum try to compare the average homosexual to a rapist, or a porn star. I'm sure you'd take the exact same approach to someone who said that the average Marine is a baby-killer.
I'd bowed out of this thread since I didn't like the tone it was taking. This statement begs a comment though...
This is an actually position. Thank you...
However, this all-or-nothing approach is not politically asute. Should Truman have waited to desegregate the military until a civil rights bill was passed? Many believe that Truman's actions broke the ice for the eventual adoption of the Civil Rights act some decade and a half later. Perhaps the incrementalist approach should be reconsidered?
The tone of this thread has degenerated largely due to your efforts, especially with your bile directed toward USMC. You know nothing about the man's personal beliefs and yet you insist that you do know and in the most insulting terms. Maybe it's because that each of you are trying to make completely different points. This is no refuge for you though. USMC has at least managed to keep his comments civil and in the realm of rational argument.
I do not wish to speak for our esteemed hosts, but the comments here are supposed to be about rational discussion and not personal attacks or innuendo. It is especially not about trying to shout down your opponent or intimidate him into silence.
From my perspective USMC is exactly the kind of ally that you need. He is not the irrational homophobe that you make him out to be. Listen,/i> to him and try to convince him. Insulting him will not gain you the objectives that you seek.
But no one in their right mind would describe getting fat as in any way comparable to rape.
Oh, my dear P.luk, he "never said that there was an exact equivalence between [rape] and [homosexuality]. The point being made was that [the ban on open gays serving] is not an isolated, discrete phenomenon, but part of a larger tendency toward [regulation of sexual conduct] by [the Armed Forces]."
After all, "no one in their right mind would describe [men being unable to marry men] as in any way comparable to [being firehosed and mauled by police dogs while peacefully asking for the right to vote]."
USMC's principal point is that if you're gay and you want in, you can get in. You won't be drummed out unless you 1) insist on proclaiming your gayness (which you know will get you kicked out--so don't do it!) or 2) do something (like rape or sexual harrasment) which means you deserve to get kicked out.
OK, I'm out of this thread permanently.
p.lukasiak
de·vi·ant - adj. - Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
And again you show your incompetence concerning the English language. Last time I checked I used the word properly as an adjective describing types of behavior.
The standards relate to military society as with the case you mention in obesity. Sexual crimes such as rape and harassment are also deviant and unlawful behavior in military society.
Absolutely in the sense they are not a crime and carry no criminal penalty but they are according to military policy reasons for dismissal. See definition of deviant.
And your point being?
Then your problem is with society in total? I don't want to put words in your mouth but from this statement are you saying Sgt. Stout misses the point all together because he is more concerned and focusing his efforts on the military and not society in general?
And you base this observation on a paragraph you took out of context and neglected to publish in total?
Here's some more to your referenced research so that others can decide.
And again you show your incompetence concerning the English language. Last time I checked I used the word properly as an adjective describing types of behavior.
no, you used it within the context of specific forms of deviant behavior "such as rape or sexual harassment"
Homosexual acts between consenting adults are in no way equivalent to either rape or sexual harassment.
"Deviant" in the way you used it is a meaningless term, because everyone is "deviant" to some extent under the interpretation of the definition you are using to evade responsibility for your homophobic statements.
Being a marine is deviant behavior such as rape or sexual harassment.
Do you find nothing objectionable with that statement?...Do you feel comfortable with being identified with rapists because only a small minority of Americans are in the Marine Corps?
In that sense that being a Marine means you are subject to the rules and regulations of society in general (the norm) as well as the rules and regulations of the armed services (which the norm, society in general, is not subject to) 24 hours a day seven days a week for the term of enlistment, yes. A Marine can be synonymous to deviant behavior as deviant behavior is synonymous to rape or sexual harassment.
My goodness, come late to the party and it has turned into a brawl.
I think some of the difference between USMC and P.l is the difference between the policy/law and actual practice. Servicemember Legal Defense Network (SLDN) (www.sldn.org) puts together an annual report on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and how it is actually implemented. While the policy looks nice on paper (if one is trying to let gay people serve without having to actually know about it), the implementation leaves much to be desired. There continue to be witch hunts and, as others have commented, imagine trying to live and work with people and never mention your S.O./spouse/date.
Recent work has shown that the discharges are coming from the MOS's where there are now shortages, so the national security of this country is being impacted as well.
Joe is right, the time is past to change this policy.