"...instead of continuing to swear up and down that they will not reinstitute the draft, political leaders should instead show that they are serious about tackling whatever personnel problems may exist in the United States military. And the best way to do that is to finally and completely reverse the ban on gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the United States military. Not only would the reversal of the ban go a long way towards remedying any recruiting problems that may exist, it is the right thing to do to let gays, lesbians and bisexuals serve their country in the armed forces should they wish to do so."
Agreed. We're facing an enemy whose main debate re: gays is literally whether to throw them off a cliff, stone them, or drop a wall on them. This is their fight, too, and it's wrong to keep them from it.
To offer an analogy with past experience, this war has also shown us that female soldiers (a) can hack it when the fighting starts; and (b) their presence in the force mix has advantages we had never considered when we were debating the issue 20 years ago. Now think... societies where gays are repressed and persecuted means there are ready-made networks of people used to acting clandestinely, intrinsically unfriendly to the islamists, with complete knowledge of their culture and good connections. Um, hellooooo????
This is not exactly about the main point in the article, but just because a few female soldiers "can hack it" doesn't mean women should be put in combat roles. Last time I checked, men and women are, in fact, different. Women may be able to drive five-ton trucks, but need a man's help if they must change the tires. , etc, etc. You can't base policy for the many on the abilities of the few.
Clever
I didn't say women should be put in all combat roles (though the Israelis offer an interesting example). And there have been downsides to gender integration.
But we have found that women don't fall apart in combat if forced into it, and that combat cohesion in mixed units remains. Meanwhile, having them in the force has done interesting things re: offering a different portrait of what women can be to a lot of young Muslim girls; and also doing inspections etc. of women without offending the populace. As I recall, no-one had really thought of those things when we were all debating women in the military 20 years ago.
In a similar vein, I'm inviting our readers to step outside the box for a sec and think about the 'unexpected' benefits of having gays in the armed forces.
Not only would the reversal of the ban go a long way towards remedying any recruiting problems that may exist ...
Really? Is this really so? Is this a practical measure, or a symbolic thing? I got nothing against symbolic gestures, except when they pretend to be practical measures.
Does this mean that gay and lesbian organizations who push for the reversal of the ban will back our miltary and back the War on Terror politically? Let me ask that again: DOES THIS MEAN GAY ORGANIZATIONS WILL BACK THE WAR POLITICALLY?
Failing that, will they at least oppose the inanity of the anti-war left? Are we trying to buy some patriotism here, or is somebody trying to sell us some?
In my opinion, the army should accept everyone qualified, and even combat operations should allow women if they meet strigent requirements in strength and endurance. Unfortunately we know from experience that the politically correct will never allow women to fail in large numbers or differ in any way from men at any task, and therefore the bar will inevitably be lowered to get the required results. Sadly that is the exact opposite of the original goal which is the best possible military with the best people. Gays should be the same. The army should (and theoretically does) have a policy where no-one is allowed to express their sexuality on duty, no matter their persuasion. The military has been an important integrater of the races, though the identical arguments were made vis-a-vis morale. Personally I have no doubt that the current popular conception of gays as flamboyant is largely a self-fufilling prophecy, created by giving homosexuals the choice of either staying in the closet or living an 'alternative lifestyle'. Treat gays like ordinary Americans and that behavior will reveal itself to be the exception and not the rule. The military should be in the business of bringing in the best and making them the best soldiers, anyone who cant check their individual behaviors at the door should be given their walking papers.
How misleading can you get? I'm beginning to wonder if Pejman Yousefzadeh even knows what the regulations and UCMJ have to say about the issue. Gays and lesbians are not banned from military duty what so ever. Lets get to the root of the complaint which is they can not live the life style they choose while serving in the military. That is the real complaint isn't it?
I expect a lot better from you Joe, what gives?
"Does this mean that gay and lesbian organizations who push for the reversal of the ban will back our miltary and back the War on Terror politically? Let me ask that again: DOES THIS MEAN GAY ORGANIZATIONS WILL BACK THE WAR POLITICALLY?"
Would allowing women into combat would cause NOW to back the war? Is that the test of whether its a good idea?
I've got some mixed opinions on this as an army brat, based largely on my memories of when Clinton tried to do this (based, I would submit, largely on social engineering grounds) and all the crap that came out of it as well some of very real concerns regarding enemy propaganda (and please don't tell me these concerns are misplaced, we just had riots in South Asia over what was done to a book are concerned). There certainly aren't the same biological differences that occur with regard to women, however.
That said, I would submit to Glen's point that there are certainly gay organizations that have backed the war and I believe that some of them continue to do so. The whole idea that one's opinion on a very complex political issue is based solely on who they have sex with is I think a very unfair characterization, as is the idea that the concerns of anyone who has concerns about changing the status quo are motivated solely by bigotry.
I have no problem per se with gays serving in the military. Afterall, there are gays already serving in the military.
What I have a problem with is politicizing the issue. My suspicion is that if given an inch on this, the gays activists not in the military will demand a mile. It's not the gays that serve that will for the most part be a problem, but the activists that will use this to advance a sexual agenda. There will always be one clown who serves who will join with the expressed purpose of having obtained a commission, to very publicly engage in conduct unbecoming an officer in order to make an issue of it. At that point, when the same standard that the US military would apply to an soldier engaging in an open hetrosexual relationship with another soldier, the gay activist community is going to declare that that is discrimination.
In fact, I can definately see the gay activist community claiming that the problem is then that gays are not allowed to marry.
There have already been serious sexual problems related to the integration of women into the military. These problems aren't sufficient to exclude them from serving IMO, but reality forces us to admit that they have occured. The integration of gays into the military would in my opinion cause even bigger problems, and frankly I'm not sure that it is worth it. Frankly, soldiers have to have the appearance of asexuality in order to serve professionally. The last thing we need in units is soap opera relationships. The gays that can serve under a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy are mature enough to serve without thier sexuality becoming an issue. I'm not sure that opening the policy further would actually produce the influx of quality soldiers that you suppose it would, and I suspect if thier was an influx at all the first wave of it would be deliberate troublemakers.
Lastly, you have to remember that soldiers come into the army as kids. The US army is an expert in dealing with large masses of young men. If the army was to openly embrass gays, there would almost certainly have to be some sort of tolerance training that would need to be provided to both non-gays (who'd need to be taught not to hit thier buddy in the head with a rifle butt) and gays (who'd need to be taught that thier unit was not a group of potential sexual partners). I can scarcely imagine what would happen if that training was influenced by the PC forces in our society. Likewise, if the army tried to force value judgements ('its ok to be gay') on its force of fundamentalist Catholics, Southern Babtists, etc. there would almost certainly be a certain ammount of rebellion against that statement. To a certain extent, I'm sympathetic to that. It's one thing to tell me that its right and good to serve alongside my homosexual buddy and to treat him just like any other soldier. It's quite another thing to tell me that his homosexuality is something I have to accept as a good thing. As good as the army may be, with all the politics involved in this issue I suspect that its going to be initially bad for unit cohesion.
USMC, Pejman understands the details of the issue, he's just oversimplifying it for the purposes of brevity.
Joe: no-one had really thought of those things when we were all debating women in the military 20 years ago.
Joe, that debate was pure unadulterated moon juice. Patricia Schroeder and a gaggle of ignoramuses, pushing for combat roles for women because they thought it was a "rights" thing that they could bag and put on their resumes. When it came time to debate the possible consequences, they would say "Well, we're opposed to sending anyone to war."
That debate didn't rise to the seriousness of a Spinal Tap press conference.
Recall that there was a parallel effort at the same time to reintroduce the draft, led by all the usual clowns, on the theory that if we had a draft there would be no more war.
So it makes a huge difference in the present argument if this a sincere effort on behalf of people who want to serve their country, or another fit of opportunistic military-bashing.
That's not over simplifying Robin it's an out right lie and deception on his part. How dumb does he think the public is?
Bingo, if you wish to make an argument for letting openly G&L’s serve in the military by all means try to make it. But the argument about the draft and military recruitment was an obvious smokescreen.
So Joe, now that USMC has properly clarified with the real situation is (e.g. that G&L’s can serve in the military so long as they’re not open about their orientation/lifestyle choice/whatever), please enlighten us about what the benefits of changing that policy would be.
Look stylistically, one might wish that Pejman had included a couple of lines explaining what "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means. And one might wish that he added "serve openly" instead of just "serve".
But Pejman isn't lying about the policy, as his implication about gays and lesbians being retained in the service in later paragraphs shows.
I don't think that the accusation of dishonesty is appropriate here.
Mark Buehner: Would allowing women into combat would cause NOW to back the war? Is that the test of whether its a good idea?
Recognizing that military action is an occasional duty of responsible national leadership, and that this will have consequences for women in uniform -- honest acknowledgement of that would have been a test of NOW's seriousness about the subject. They failed miserably, as they have at everything else.
I suspect that Joe's argument includes the idea alluded to at the end of his post that we should enlist the support of homosexual networks in the Islamic world that already operate clandestinely and as such could be of value to us when it comes to intelligence-gathering (which seems, at least to me, to be a different topic altogether).
Agreed, allowing open gay and lesbian individuals to serve in intelligence services is indeed a different topic.
Robin
His words not mine and I understand them very well.
USMC, I agree that the language Pejman used is inaccurate. And you are completely right to point that out.
However, there comes a point where one wonders why you are arguing over his incorrect language and avoiding discussing his point. And that point would be right about .... hmmm, oh, here >x<.
TW:
Which gets into a different topic altogether with regard to the current policy, namely the problem concerning linguists fluent in Arabic and other key languages being dismissed at a time when they are desperately needed. Of course, if we are truly serious about addressing the linguist issue then I don't think that focusing on the homosexual aspect to it goes well enough. I would submit that the type of individuals who are now being paid taxpayer funds on national security grounds to teach Arabic and Middle East classes are the ones least likely to instill their students with a deep desire for public service under a Republican administration, especially not one headed up by Bushitleretardespotheocrat.
As I said, another discussion altogether.
Robin
I am arguing the point. If Joe wishes to change the topic then by all means let's do so and lets start with DoD Directive 1332.14 (sorry it's a pdf) as the basis for discussion.
By not being open about one's lifestyle, do you mean that when a soldier is asked:
A soldier can't answer:
If so, it sounds like a silly rule to reject otherwise qualified soldiers.
I don't think Pejman is trying to deceive (Deceive us? He'd have to be nuts). I think he's padding the argument. He's also padding it with arguments about "hardwired" sexuality, which don't help, either. After all, the point of chemical damnation is not that "gays, lesbians and bisexuals are just like straight people" but that they're fundamentally different, albeit (the claim goes) in a highly specific way.
Be it true or false, dragging that into the picture just makes me think that this is another pretext for accusations of discrimination.
I would also suggest a review of Public Law 103-160, Section 64, Title 10 as an integral part of the discussion as well.
Dan, that's no way to fight.
Actually I think you have it backwards, it was Pejman Yousefzadeh’s who avoided discussing what was supposed to be his point i.e. that the “best way” to “tackle[]personnel problems may exist in the United States military” was to change our supposed “ban” on letting homosexuals serve in the military.
USMC correctly pointed out that Yousefzadeh mischaracterized the military’s actual policy. You seem to think that it was inadvertent. However if you read the rest of the article, Yousefzadeh doesn’t even attempt to support his original claim that changing this policy would serve to “tackle[]personnel problems may exist in the United States military” which suggests that the argument was thrown out in bad faith and the mischaracterization was deliberate. The crux of his actual argument (as opposed to the lead in) seems to be that gays are born that way, they’re not really disruptive (which may be a function of restrictions on behavior), and it’s “unfair” to keep them out.
Glen
I'm in agreement with you on the discrimination count.
Mark
You raise a valid concern about support regardless of the gay / lesbian issue. My opinion says those that are against will remain so regradless of change in venue.
Colt:
You're almost certainly right as far as how to fight is concerned. I'll comment later when I can be more articulate on the subject.
DoD Directive 1332.14 bans certain statements and certain types of conduct, but it also bans one from being in a homosexual marriage. So is it proper to say that the military bans married homosexuals, but not unmarried homosexuals?
PD Shaw
You bring up a valid point and one that should be open for discussion. As the law currently on the books would not allow for the situation you bring to light. Currently I would say by law your assessment is correct. In that military will ask about marital status since the family members and active duty member will receive additional benefits based on such a status. A Gay / Lesbian marriage or civil union will certainly disqualify anyone with that status from serving.
The legality of Gay / Lesbian marriages is still being debated on state and federal levels. The legality of Gay / Lesbian marriage will most likely be determined on a state by state level. I'm more of the opinion that civil unions may be the federal course of action. None the less the military policy of don't ask don't tell will have to be addressed when these issues are resolved. The military issue can only be addressed at the federal level by congress and the senate. So yes there is a long row to hoe concerning this issue.
[quote]By not being open about one's lifestyle, do you mean that when a soldier is asked:
"Hey, Joe. You got a steady girlfriend back home or something?"[/quote]
First of all, a soldier can't be asked that question. That's what 'don't ask' means. A soldier can't be asked questions about his sexuality.
[quote]A soldier can't answer:
"No, I have a steady boyfriend."[/quote]
He can't and shouldn't provide any information beyond the, "No.", and maybe not even that. That's what 'don't tell' means. It means that a soldier's personel sexual life should not ever come up in conversation.
I have no doubt that in practice, these questions are asked and answered off the record, privately, in a bar over a beer between peers and friends and the Army trusts those soldiers to use that information responcibly and keep it private, and only intervenes when they don't do so. If these questions ever appear in the soldier's professional life or if they are ever asked between soldiers of unequal rank, then its a clear violation of the intention of 'Don't ask. Don't tell' policy.
The issue revolves around the point of whether ones private behavior becomes a matter of public knowledge. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” isn’t exactly oppression of the masses. I really wouldn’t care to hear the particulars of your morning constitution and anyone who promulgated the matter would be an @sshole in my book for making it the center of unending agitation and public discourse. The whole “gay agenda” is about protesting the legitimacy of “straight lifestyles”. It is a form of agitprop that is innately bound to leftist ideologies. It is a unique victim class that is open to new members. Hey everybody, look at me – I’m a victim! Corporal Maxwell Klinger.
If sexual agitators are hell bent on serving the world they can join Peace Corp. Meanwhile this discussion meshes with the Dems who are pushing for a draft so they can cry about racism and unfairness whenever US troops are actually deployed. (Provided it’s a war that they find unpopular)
No soldier wants to worry about how Mr. and Mrs. General are getting along. If you want to publicize your sexual life you should become a porn star.
USMC is correct to note that Pejman is wrong to assert a ban on gays and lesbians serving. But he's missing some important things himself.
Gays and lesbians should be able to serve on the exact same terms as their heterosexual compatriots.
And this they most certainly cannot do, and claiming that they can would be a bigger distortion than anything Pejman has said. The military will punish people if it finds out, but won't actively attempt to find out. This policy has lost us capable people, good soldiers who were wounded in combat, translators, and others we ought to be proud of. People who wanted to stay, who should have stayed, and whose conduct as soldiers was not the issue.
No, the issue here is not behaviour - that is already covered. Inappropriate sexual conduct is fraternization, assault, or harassment. Don't do those things. Whomever you are. (Additional benefit that comes to mind as I consider Trent's various articles on sexual harassment - maybe integrating openly gay soldiers will improve the seriousness around such issues).
Marriage benefits? That would have to be worked out, but one can't give marriage benefits unless it's recognized as a marriage. Show proof of marriage that meets required criteria, get benefits. Can't get the accepted paperwork? Gotta take that one up with society at large, not our jurisdiction.
Don't ask? Don't tell? How about this policy... DON'T CARE.
I'll add that these policies need to be changed at the political level (it isn't the military's discreton). But it's a dumb policy, and it would be nice to see the services waking up and making proactive recommendations to have the policy changed.
Thanks to Joe for linking to and approving of my article. I was informed of this comment thread and want to make some points:
First of all I find it bizarre that someone thinks I threw out the issue of addressing personnel problems in the military as a "smokescreen." My argument is simple: To the extent that there are personnel problems in the military, they may be remedied in part by removing the ban on gays, lesbians and bisexuals serving openly in the military. I don't know how much it would help--and did not speculate other than saying that it would "go a long way towards remedying any recruiting problems that may exist." And I stand by that claim. After all, if the military now feels that it should try to get high school dropouts to serve, surely it would be better served by having gays, lesbians and bisexuals who are not high school dropouts serve as well. And serve openly. This not only may help solve the numbers problem (though I don't maintain that it would solve the numbers problem by itself), but would also give the military the benefit of better qualified personnel.
Now, the second objection is that I said that there is a ban on gays and lesbians instead of saying that they just can't serve openly. Forgive me, but what, pray tell, is the difference? As pointed out by Robin Roberts, I noted the Washington Post article stating that the military--to its credit--appears to not be trying as hard to get rid of gays and lesbians in its ranks. My citation to and discussion of this article should make clear that I know that gays and lesbians already do serve in the military and that they will only get themselves in trouble if they openly announce that they are gay or lesbians. It should also make the point clear to readers. Indeed, I have a hard time seeing how the point could have been made any plainer absent me spoonfeeding my reading audience.
The crux of the objection against my language seems to be that I somehow thought that the military possessed an Infallible Gaydar Device and that it was using said Device to preemptively root out homosexuals. Not so, and as mentioned above, I pretty much made clear an entirely different point by noting that despite the ban on open homosexuality, the military was not working as hard as it may have been in the past to eliminate gays and lesbians from its ranks.
But given that the overwhelming number of discharges appear to have happened when a gay or lesbian member of the armed forces came out to a superior, I have trouble understanding how it is that anyone can claim that a ban on gays and lesbians in the military does not exist. To be sure, gays and lesbians may serve in the military, but only if they do not come out. If they do come out, they run the serious risk of being discharged. It cannot be more clear that this is a ban and if the definition of a ban on gays in the military must involve some kind of mechanism similar to the use of the Infallible Gaydar Device which eliminates gays and lesbians from the ranks before they have even come out and that absent such a procedure (or something similar to it) we do not have a ban on gays in the military, then we wander into the realm of the ridiculous where a whole host of bans really aren't. By the logic used against me by my interlocutors, I am not "banned" from using the women's facilities so long as I don't come out in public dressed like a man. I am also theoretically not "banned" from the Papacy and could very well be a candidate to succeed Benedict XVI when he shuffles off this mortal coil . . . if only I keep under wraps the fact that I am actually Jewish and/or I am married but convince my wife to keep news of our marriage on the QT.
And of course, such claims are absurd because in fact and in name, I am banned from using the women's facilities since I am a man and cannot use the women's facilities while appearing in public openly as a man. And I am banned from the Papacy because I am Jewish and would have another strike against me when I eventually marry. Similarly, gays and lesbians are banned from the military since they cannot come out as gays and lesbians. By contrast, heterosexual members of the armed forces can shout their sexual orientation from the rooftops and barring any additional circumstances, nothing will happen to them. If this does not constitute a "ban" on gays in the military, I do not know what does.
1. The issue of married gays is moot.
Marriage is the bond between a man and a woman.
This again goes to the agitprop.
2. Gays have served honorably in the U.S. Military
since its beginning
3. Mr. Katzman lost much purchase with his "highly recommend" ation of that antique and poorly researched Average Liberal article on nuclear bombs and their affects.
Inflamatory subjects should be well researched before being offered least one be considered same.
Nat Pierce
Its all about a stable institution of raising kids, and the conflict is about the leftist attack on the family.
the left lib line is that kids are the wards of the state, and his/her irresposibility is offloaded to the state, course, this logic dont go very far when you follow it.
All they are focused on is license to be irresponsible hedonistic bums looking for "others" to fund and clean up after thair endless sex and booze binge.
Just another part of the leftist war against reality.. and their demand that the normals accept the perverse ... tolerance Yes, acceptence no.
Tolerance is the respect of the freedom of others, forced acceptance violates it.
The abnormal will never be normal.
.
And our military is not the place to express sexuality, nor is it the place for sensitivity training. ... its about killing people and breaking things.
Raymond,
The Spartans didn't seem to have any trouble in the "killing people and breaking things" department. The Athenians were justly feared themselves. And does the Name "Alexander of Macedonia" ring a bell?
Or, in a more recent vein, how about Mark Bingham?
There is no conflict.
As for "the normal accepting the perverse", consider that a lot of liberal types in cities think people who have guns and like to hunt are cruel and perverse (they're also deluded enough to think their starbuck-and-latte set = "normal", but that's their problem). The constitution forces them to accept such people, however, because sound political reasoning values the benefit of widespread firearms owndership among a sovereign citizenry more than liberals' personal feelings about the matter.
I am arguing, in like vein, that it would be a wise political decision in this case, for a number of reasons, to value the benefit of allowing gay and lesbian members of a sovereign citizenry to exercise and stregthen that sovereignty by defending the USA against our Islamofascist enemies (so long as they can meet all other required qualifications to serve). I am also arguing that the value of this benefit exceeds people's personal feelings about the matter, and that both time and circumstances make this a good time to ditch the present policy.
Not to be harsh, but there are evil people out there trying to kill us - I haven't time for the trivialities of your views re: the personal lifestyles of people who are willing and able to pick up arms and defend us all.
Especially under the circumstances, you have to give me a better reason that that.
"Don't ask? Don't tell? How about this policy... DON'T CARE."
Is that too much to ask from you pervs?
Why should 95% of the population have to accept the behavior and lifestyle preferance of 1 to 5% of the population? I'm speaking of those that just have this utter problem with being with someone of the opposite sex?
All this lib nonsense is very degrading to our country. And gays can fight against terrorism, but I don't think that they would be fighting for anal sex, they would be fighting against corruption, and in the end they would have to look at themselves and correct their own behavior and attitudes.
I'm down to #8 or so.
What all you are forgetting is that all the problems you mention are there in civil society. We have managed to deal with them, not perfectly but adequately.
I have had gay guys put the moves on me.
A gentle rebuff has always been adequate.
I can't speak for women but from my observation it seems like the problem women have dealing with unwanted advances of men is similar.
The gay guys I have met may have been avid for sex. They are not rapists. They want willing partners as much as any normal hetero man does. It is more fun if the pleasure is mutual. This transcends sexual preference.
The Israeli Army manages OK. Are Americans incapable?
BTW the JCC in our town is headed by a transsexual. It is not a problem. S/he is well liked and effective.
"and all the crap that came out of it as well some of very real concerns regarding enemy propaganda (and please don't tell me these concerns are misplaced, we just had riots in South Asia over what was done to a book are concerned). "
Dan, IIUC, the militaries of some of our Coalition of the Willing partners with troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq allow gays to serve openly. That has not served to spark riots as far as I know. Why would it do so when the US army allows it? It would be gays serving in OUR army, NOT theirs. I think the analogy would be to muslims rioting over someone pissing on the vulgate bible. Not too likely. (and a lot more benefits from letting gays serve than from pissing on the vulgate bible, I might add - how about we divert all NEA money devoted to pissing on Christian holy objects,and use it to recruit gays instead - is that a compromise all could accept? :) )
I said that there is a ban on gays and lesbians instead of saying that they just can't serve openly. Forgive me, but what, pray tell, is the difference?
It may be a distinction without a difference for most discussions, but for some issues, the distinction matters.
For instance, if I join up and after about six weeks decide I can't take it, I can let it "slip" that "I am gay" and be discharged even if I am heterosexual. True, I run the risk of prison time and the stigma of a dishonerable discharge, but neither seemed likely from the stats I recall reading (correct me if I'm wrong). This policy certainly couldn't hold together a conscripted army.
That's actually a pretty good point, LH, and after re-reading your and some of the others I have to acknowledge that you make some very good and persuasive points.
Would Joe or Pejman be open to amending his proposal to cover LH idea? It seems like a win-win for everybody ...
Joe,
I like your fascination with incrementalism. Hey, let’s not be exclusive, how ‘bout transgendered and transsexual…calling Cpl Klinger!
I have little doubt that you fully support the ACLU attack on the Boy Scouts. After all, men who enjoy having things and other men up their keister and subsequently want the world to know about it have a constitutional right to take young men camping. Despite your bold assertions, membership of the new “Gay” Boy Scouts is on the decline and the Gay issue is, as it is meant to be, corrosive to society. I would not want to serve as dog catcher with someone who couldn’t keep their pecker envy out of daily conversation. If I had to sit around and get sensitivity training about some jack@sses sexually proclivities, than forget it. Meanwhile, the ACLU is supporting NAMBLA’s right to publish “how-to” manuals for abducting, raping, and disposing of prepubescent boys. So let us make room for pederasts too. Now, I can hear you thinking, “that’s different!”. Bullsh*t! It’s the same agitation propaganda and there is no end to the parade of victims. Just the G&L’s are on the top of the list right now.
Now that we have established your interests, perhaps you create a new, strictly sexual deviant, guerilla army to take over the US government and have your way.
I know plenty of straight guys who are - to put it bluntly - girly-men. They spend a lot of time on their hair and actually enjoy clothes shopping.
These people would make terrible soldiers.
Most of the gay guys I know and have met fall in to that category. Unfortunately, an increasing number of straight guys do, too. Effeminate men do not make good soldiers. I consider that question to be quite apart from where you like to put it, and in whom.
Whoah, that's just uncalled for.
Look I don't speak for Joe, but this is a matter of public policy, not private organizations. You run a private group you can exclude or include whoever the hell you damned well please. The army is public, which puts it in a whole different category than the Boy Scouts.
LOL! Like gay guys stand there, and say, 'you know, I like cock - I don't care what anyone says - what do you think of cock?'
Honestly, WTF?
Well… perhaps over the top. Maybe there is no similarity at all about the two organizations and the relentless onslaught against them by left wing gays evangelists. But what this topic seems to take as an article of faith is that service in the armed forces is a right and not a privilege. Driving on the road is a privilege, not a right and some people are less inclined to the life of a soldier, to be sure. I wholly reject the premise of the article that “inclusion” would shore up recruitment of the military, conversely, less show trials against soldiers doing their duty, less hand-wringing about the treatment of captives, and less pussy footing with an avowed enemy would do wonders for the ‘esprit de corp’ and to recruitment drives.
Well, all of this will be moot when the biological basis of homosexuality is established. We may as well develop protocols for dealing with it now.
AM:
You want to argue that the military shouldn't be some activist's social engineering project (and you can guess from that what I think of "sensitivity training"), I'm with you there. That was the thrust behind Clinton's efforts in the early 1990s and I can tell you right now that it was most certainly not supported by the majority of the troops at the time.
As far as the fact that the nuttier gay activists have both the army and the Boy Scouts (of which I am an Eagle member) in their crosshairs, let me just say that these same activists hate an awful lot of people. Joe, however, is arguing on the basis of what he thinks will make the military a more effective force, not on some faux inclusionary basis.
The fear I see expressed on this thread is simply amazing.
It is not unusual though.
It seems quite similar to me to the fear you see in some places of Jews.
Why the need to hate folks? Haven't we seen where that kind of unreason leads?
And from people who in other contexts are quite reasonable and intelligent.
Who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men?
"They spend a lot of time on their hair and actually enjoy clothes shopping.
These people would make terrible soldiers."
Hmmm. Thinking of Napoleon, Wallenstein, and a helluva lot of other distinguished soldiers from a more aristocratic age. Not every killer has to be a Borderer tough, ya know?
Heck, how about Jeb Stuart?
Dan
The thrust behind Clintons efforts had nothing to do with sensitivity training. WhereTF did you get that? It was naked politics. He had promised gay groups, I think back in the primaries, that he'd abolish the ban. As it was they considered "dont ask, dont tell" a betrayal. It was lose-lose for Clinton on that issue once he was in office. Being Clinton, he compromised and lost twice over.
as for the gay groups pushing it, it was the same motive its been for them upto now - recognition of equal citizenship.
LH:
I wasn't referring to Clinton regarding the "sensitivity training" comment, but the basic opinion of the troops at the time was that Clinton's efforts were part of a social engineering project and I can speak from experience as saying that they didn't appreciate it.
"That was the thrust behind Clinton's efforts in the early 1990s"
Really means "that was the thrust behind OPPOSITION to Clintons efforts in the early 1990's"
Thats kewl, I mistype in haste also.
I’ll concede that my retort to Joe was savage, uncalled for, and for that I apologize, I have not read much in the way of Joe’s posts, have no insight into the mans’ thinking nor do I hold any personal grudge or disrespect of the man. It shows that the issue struck a nerve with me and caused a somewhat emotional reaction on my part.
As far as fear or hatred is concerned, I don’t go around asking people to be more accepting of me, and as far as my personal proclivities are concerned, see no reason that we can conduct ourselves in society with a little strategic ambiguity. What purpose does it suit to label oneself or others in terms of their private pursuits? Bringing the issue to the forefront, constantly, on all issues and fronts, is a distraction from more important matters and is itself what I abhor most. Chalk that up to behavior. Now if I don’t appreciate some ones behavior, which is advertising their private behaviors, that makes me a hater, an intolerant bad person? Please. Let’s all be victims. Maybe it’s time to start the nose pickers club.
#51 liberalhawk
Most of the killing was left to soldiers - and still is.
56 colt
Wasnt it Nappy who lined up cannon in front of the Tuileries and shot into the mob,as a young officer - maybe he didnt light the fuse, but we he was hardly removed in a staff tent. He wasnt the high up general yet.
And Im quite sure Jeb Stuart had the occasion to kill with his own carbine at some point - though I cant think of an occasion off the top of my head.
I really, really, doubt there any correlation between concern for personal appearance and an ability to kill.
(BTW this isnt a personal thing - Im not metrosexual, but I doubt Id be a great infantryman either)
#57 liberalhawk
Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. I just get the feeling that they're... weak. Not that I'm especially tough or anything. I just get the impression that they don't have the same mental strength as their grandfathers.
"Bringing the issue to the forefront, constantly, on all issues and fronts, is a distraction from more important matters and is itself what I abhor most. Chalk that up to behavior. Now if I don’t appreciate some ones behavior, which is advertising their private behaviors, that makes me a hater, an intolerant bad person? "
I dont bring up my hetersexuality constantly, etc, etc. ANd i dont advertise it either. But then Im not excluded from serving in the army, marrying, etc cause Im heterosexual. Suppose the army had a dont ask,dont tell policy for heterosexuals - if i objected, would that be advertising my behavior? Would I be bringing the issue to the forefront?
I dont think so.
Look. Its not appropriate for soldiers to be flirting in the barracks or whatever, whether theyre straight OR gay. I would suggest that our STRAIGHT troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been forced to learn a level of sexual self-restraint that few US troops in previous wars have - no Saigon bar girls, no English girls looking for a wartime romance, etc. Its Iraq. I presume gay soldiers would exercise common sense. They wouldnt like, ask Abu the fellafel seller where the local bathhouse is. But why should there be a POLICY that says theyre not allowed to be soldiers?
#58
No, i think i got that, Colt.
and what im trying to say, I think, is that is a very modern, culturally limited kind of thing. At some point, say mid-victorian era, it was decided in the UK and US that excessive concern with personal appearance was effeminate - you should still look good, but male attire, hair styles, etc were designed to look good with minimal effort - a short haircut, and a business suit. So it may be true that a modern metrosexual wouldnt be a good soldier - but that was hardly the case throughout our history, or in other cultures. Its got a lot to do with the rise of the upper middle class vs the aristocracy.
LH,
“Suppose the army had a dont ask,dont tell policy for heterosexuals - if i objected, would that be advertising my behavior? Would I be bringing the issue to the forefront?
I dont think so.”
I do thinks so. My behavior in the service is entirely asexual. Why would I care if I was not allowed to be openly “blank” in the service. You aint your own any more you belong 100% to the US government.
Yes you would be advertising your behavior. It’s obviously more important to you that you are able to identify yourself (openly)with your private behavior regardless of whether your catching or pitching. If you have such a hard time with not being able to openly identify with your behavior, it is clear that you want the nature of that behavior to be known to all, you are advertising.
Nose picking is an inherited trait. My uncle was a nose picker and I have to admit that I have enjoyed it from time to time myself. But I am tired of doing it in the privacy of the bathroom. I am proud to be a nose picker and anybody who has a problem with it is a proboscisophobe.
Somebody cut me off in traffic today and my response was that I would like to kill them. In fact, there have been a lot of people who have pissed me off and I have fantasized about killing them. At least 10% of the population has fantasized about killing someone. Does that make me a murderer? No. Killing would make me a murderer. Now you would think that being a killer would make one a good soldier, but you can be damned sure that if I told my superiors that I was a killer and wanted to kill they would wonder what my major malfunction was. No need to advertise, if you’re lucky your time will come.
You have deftly avoided the question about where does it all end. Gay men? Lesbian women? Bisexual? Cross dressers? Transgendered? Pedophiles? Sadists? Beast buggerers? Whirling Dervishes? No the circle gets larger and larger and you know it does because we are having this frank discussion now and it would have never taken place or even been given serious consideration a generation ago.
It boils down to narcissism.
The debate for gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military has been a topic of discourse since the inception of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. The policy was passed by congressional consensus in 1993 and implemented in 1994. The action was taken in response to President Clinton's threat of executive order which would have ordered by fiat that gay's and lesbian's be allowed to serve openly in the military.
In lieu of the topic I have several questions at this point given our discussion as it relates to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals serving in the military. We can argue the morality / immorality factor of the policy all we want but we can not ignore possible and potential implications to change at this juncture.
What would be the benefit of introducing a change in policy and what effects would it have on our current situation concerning our military fighting force? Is it worth it to upset the apple cart now? If so and things get worse instead of better would we be willing to go back to the status quo?
Unfortunately I created some nice tables but am not savvy enough to have them appear as such in the post. I apologize in advance for causing any hardships on the readers.
DoD Strength - Active Duty
Year Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard Totals
FY 2004 499,543 373,197 177,480 376,616 1,426,836
FY 2003 499,301 382,235 177,779 375,062 1,434,377
FY 2002 482,462 380,776 173,733 364,093 37,109 1,438,173
FY 2001 476,640 373,509 172,934 349,272 35,043 1,407,398
FY 2000 478,081 369,021 173,321 351,379 34,890 1,406,692
FY 1999 475,920 368,718 172,641 356,487 34,905 1,408,671
FY 1998 479,686 378,119 173,142 363,482 1,394,429
FY 1997 487,642 391,468 173,906 373,356 1,426,372
FY 1996 419,103 416,735 174,883 389,001 1,471,722
FY 1995 508,559 434,617 174,639 400,409 1,518,224
FY 1994 541,343 468,662 174,158 426,327 1,610,490
Discharges - SLDN Annual report
Year Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard Totals
FY 2003 378 186 63 142 18 787
FY 2002 429 218 109 121 29 906
FY 2001 638 314 115 217 14 1298
FY 2000 573 358 114 177 19 1241
FY 1999 271 314 97 352 12 1046
FY 1998 312 345 77 415 14 1163
FY 1997 197 413 78 309 10 1007
FY 1996 199 315 60 284 12 870
FY 1995 184 269 69 235 15 772
FY 1994 136 258 36 187 No Data 617
Totals 3317 2990 818 2439 143 9707
The following links for gays and lesbians are the best I can do at the moment when talking about numbers. Unfortunately there is not enough information from a census stand point to identify single gays, lesbians and bisexuals. The following links are telling though concerning age bracket which is a requirement for eligibility of military service.
Gay and Lesbian Census
Same Sex Couples Facts
Same Sex couples - Military Service
Gays in the Military a mock scenario. Is it far fetched?
I can certainly provide many more links concerning pundits and their views from both the military and civilian sector. I'm positive anyone else here can do the same but the issue that remains is that we a dealing with an organization that is not in any shape form or fashion relevant to any public / civilian organization on the planet. The military organization's rules and regulations would never be acceptable to any public / civilian institution regardless of gay, lesbian, and bisexual policy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pejman Yousefzadeh
If I run the numbers it's a drop in the bucket and the argument isn't strong enough to produce the man power levels one would perceive from allowing high school drop outs (2000 census) or prison inmates to join. I'll stand by that claim.
A ban is you can't serve at all period. There is no ban on gays, lesbians or bisexuals serving in the military. The ban is being open about one's gay, lesbian or bisexual lifestyle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Dan it may be funded by the public but it isn't public.
Pub. L. No. 103-160, § 546, 107 Stat. 1670 (1993) (codified at 10 U.S.C. A. § 654 (West Supp. 1995)).
(a) Findings.-Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
My only problem is IF we do make this change,what will happen with STRAIGHT recruiting?
My son is active duty in the Navy for 3 years now,he is very sensitive to the old saw about Naval "gay" jokes such as the song by the Village People,"In The Navy".
Would he serve in the Navy under the new rules? I honestly do not know. Maybe not. I think in that case he would choose the Air Force.
Further,OPENLY gay membership(we all know there are many excellent gay soldiers,that's not the question)leaves straight males subject to the same pressures of potential sexual harrassment/intimidation from superiors that females see from male supervisors at times. Remember,our military often are very young,naive folks,I know how naive my son was when he shipped out.
It would be NO more problematic literally than the straight male harassment of the straight female in the Army,BUT it affects the potential mentality and recruitment of your largest pool of soldiers,straight males.
Do not forget,Americans are not as socially liberal as say the Dutch and we might find more gay volunteers and less straight volunteers,which would add up to less overall volunteers.
IMO,this is a bad policy option for the USA in 2005.
1 more additional piece of info,the old confederate states offer to America close to 40% of her military,yet make up 25% of the population,they would be the LEAST likely to serve under openly gay leaders.
On balance,for America,not a proper answer,but a good try,IMO.
Getting back to: We're facing an enemy whose main debate re: gays is literally whether to throw them off a cliff, stone them, or drop a wall on them. This is their fight, too ...
I can appreciate that sentiment. But this is also the fight of those who believe in pluralism, freedom of religion, civil rights, equality of women, and all the bounty of post-medieval civilization. Some of the people who claim to be staunch supporters of these things are not only unwilling to fight for them, they are horrified at the thought of anybody else doing it for them.
Advocates of women in combat were not interested in seeing actual women in actual combat. They were interested in turning the military into an impotent social service program. We've already reaped some of the negative effects of that: Low morale and resistance among some reservists who say they joined the military for the money, not to follow orders.
Arguments about the effectiveness of otherly-sexual people as soldiers are all beside the point. The multi-sexual Lord Byron ended his days as a soldier in Greece, and T.E. Lawrence did okay, so let's take it as given. (On the other hand, neither Lawrence or Byron demanded that their sexual preferences be recognized or accomodated by the armies they served.)
So the problem is not gays, the problem is the politics that uses gays (among many other people) as pawns to attack the military, and you can count on every one of them jumping on board this bandwagon.