BREAKING NEWS! Senate Votes to Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell Bill 63 - 33!

@georgeob1,

Quote:

With this vote it will be difficult for the services to prevent or limit the creation of associations of homosexual servicemembers in the service academies and in fighting units. It was hard enough running a Battalion, Regiment or large ship like an aircraft carrier in operational situations: it will be much harder now.

Imagine what will happen if all the blacks get together?

Fear serves no purpose. Harder to run an aircraft carrier? Why?

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

I think you're missing the big picture here, Finn.

This is a very important issue. It is just one more strike against discrimination toward people who don't look, worship, or select partners in the same way as a majority. These issues should not and do not necessarily affect anyone's performance in the military or anywhere else for that matter. The arguments against discrimination are the same bad arguments that were used against racial discrimination. Refusing the right to serve their country to a whole class of individuals simply because of their sexual orientation is wrong. It is time for it to end.

And believe me, Fox News will select the best news events that support their political agenda of making the current administration look bad.

No I don't think I'm missing the big picture Irfrank.

I'm saying that the opinions of soldiers who have been in combat and who are currently in combat should not be blithely dismissed as the grunting of homophobic bigots.

It may very well be the right decision to risk tension on the battlefield in order to accomplish a goal of reducing discrimination in the armed forces, but it certainly doesn't serve that goal to treat opponents with legitimate concerns like they are a mob of black hearted villans, and it doesn't bode well for a successful implementation if concerns are ignored or denigrated.

Apparently, it is not enough for some folks simply to be happy or content that the repeal has succeeded, they have to castigate those who "lost."

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Apparently, it is not enough for some folks simply to be happy or content that the repeal has succeeded, they have to castigate those who "lost."

There is no need to castigate anyone. Hell, we've even built a physical fitness center and named it after Strom here in SC.

That still doesn't make their or his views defensible.

I'm sure Sen. McCain will have his buildings too.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

I don't know what the limits are for defending the views of McCain, the Army and Marines Chiefs of Staff, and an unknown number of US soldiers and marines, but I doubt they have anything to do with naming public buildings in SC after Strom Thurmond.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I don't know what the limits are for defending the views of McCain, the Army and Marines Chiefs of Staff, and an unknown number of US soldiers and marines,

Sure you do, Finn, you do it all the time and for you, there are no limits; war crimes, "they're freedom fighters"; mass murder, "damn commies deserved it"; rape and torture, "gee I wish I was younger and could get in on the good stuff".

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

In contrast Finn, if the opinions of soldiers are so valuable, then certainly it should be noted that gay service members could not share their opinion while still in the military without outing themselves. DADT was inherently flawed on the terms we've been forced to use.

Why did we ever have to prove that knowledge of homosexuals would do no harm to military readiness?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

In contrast Finn, if the opinions of soldiers are so valuable, then certainly it should be noted that gay service members could not share their opinion while still in the military without outing themselves. DADT was inherently flawed on the terms we've been forced to use.

Why did we ever have to prove that knowledge of homosexuals would do no harm to military readiness?

A
R
T

Has anyone proven that knowledge of homosexuals will do no harm to miltary readiness? It seems to me that the deciding position has been:

"We don't know whether or not it will do any harm, but we don't think so, and if does, well we're just going to have to deal with it now and eventually it will fix itself"

Certainly the opinions of gay soldiers and marines are valid and should be considered. For all we know, some of them may be among the ones who are not in favor on the repeal. Were they considered in the lead up to the repeal, and if so how?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Has anyone proven that knowledge of homosexuals will do no harm to military readiness? It seems to me that the deciding position has been:

Or allowing blacks into combat units it the same logic and it is the logic of bigots in the 1950s and in the 2010s.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

******* liberal bigots!

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Has anyone proven that knowledge of homosexuals will do no harm to military readiness? It seems to me that the deciding position has been:

Or allowing blacks into combat units it the same logic and it is the logic of bigots in the 1950s and in the 2010s.

It's quite possible that the introduction of blacks into white combat units during WWII would have had a detrimental effect on the units ability to function. It would be bigoted to assume that the effect was due to failings on the part of the black soldiers, particularly since it would almost certainly have been the effect of bigotry on the part of the white soldiers, but to altogether deny the possibility is foolish.

The proper course of action then and now may be to take the chance of temporary disfunction to serve a greater good. Whether or not I agree with such a decision, I would like to think that the peril was considered rather than dismissed outright.

The peril of dysfunction, albeit temporary, is of greater consequence on the front lines than it is in support units or stateside.

It's difficult for me to imagine how anyone can believe the peril and yet think it absolutely necessary to risk, and so I suspect that most of those in favor of the repeal being extended to the battlefield have simply dismissed it.

If there is a battlefield disaster that stems from tensions that have been heightened due to the repeal, it won't be the fault of gay soldiers or straight soldiers, and it won't be the fault of anyone other than the individuals involved, but someone will rightly ask the question if it could have been anticpated and prevented.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn, I don't remember - are you prior military? And if so, were you combat arms? I ask because it seems to me that the only way to make an informed statement about the greater or lesser effect on function "on the front lines" is if someone has actual knowledge of what is required of a combat-arms soldier.

2 Replies

@snood,

Well the survey the DOD recently conducted about the attitudes of currently serving military folks - the one used to rationalize repeal - showed a significant difference between the attitudes of those in combat units and those in support units with respect to the possibility of adverse effects on unit cohesion , with a decisive majority in combat units indicating a significant negative effect.

That takes Finn's experience or lack of it out of the picture. What do you make of that?

I spent a lot of time in Navy carrier squadrons, both in peacetime and combat operations - many long deployments to WESTPAC and the Indian Ocean.. I believe the effects of repeal will likely be negative, though probably not crippling to most units. I don't see military service as a right for anyone. The services have a right to select those they believe best suit their needs, and, in the absence of a serious shortage they should be enabled to select the best they can get.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The services have a right to select those they believe best suit their needs, and, in the absence of a serious shortage they should be enabled to select the best they can get.

Is there a test to determine those who are more willing to commit atrocities? It seems like it would be a valuable thing for the US military to have, though practically speaking, they haven't really needed it.

The historical record indicates that committing atrocities comes quite easily to a large percentage of American brass and troops.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Finn, I don't remember - are you prior military? And if so, were you combat arms? I ask because it seems to me that the only way to make an informed statement about the greater or lesser effect on function "on the front lines" is if someone has actual knowledge of what is required of a combat-arms soldier.

No I'm not but I'm not basing my opinions in this matter on my personal experience. I have not offered an opinion on whether or not the repeal will have an effect on the frontlines.

The people who have indicated that the repeal will have an impact on combat readiness certainly have both military and combat experience: McCain, the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Marines, and the polled soldiers and marines who currently are serving on the front lines.

Surely there opinion is as valid as any other combat veteran, and by your way of thinking, more valid than that of people with no military or combat experience. Your not suggesting that every member of congress and every member of A2k who is favor of the repeal has had military and combat experience are you?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't see military service as a right for anyone.

Do you see a government that doesn't discriminate as a right for anyone? And if so, do you see that this places the burden of proof on the would-be discriminators, not the would-be integrators?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

As you know the government discriminates among people routinely in most aspects of it's activities. It carefully examines tax returns and discriminates between those who willingly pay what it wants and those who don't. It likewise discriminates among a host of people in any of the increasing number of human activities it regulates. It considers the wealth (or lack of it) among individuals to determine who gets special benefits. It considers the age, racial background and health of people to determine their eligibility for certain specified benefits and protections.

Finally it carefully tests and examines young people to determine their eligibility for service in its armed forces. There are a host of criteria for making these determination, ranging from general health, visual & hearing ability, to education, mental capacity, certain psychiatric considerations, and behavior disorders - all of which change from time to time and some of which are routinely adjusted to meet their requirements for numbers with often varying numbers of applicants. Nearly all of these factors arise from practical considerations, administratively determined by the services, that make successful adjustment of admitted individuals to the constraints and rigors of military life more likely. The rights of applicants don't figure much in the process.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The people who have indicated that the repeal will have an impact on combat readiness certainly have both military and combat experience: McCain, the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Marines, and the polled soldiers and marines who currently are serving on the front lines.

McCain is a politician. He has dramatically changed his stance on this issue, and on a couple other important issues, in exchange for his 30 pieces of silver from the tea party right. James Amos is a fundamentalist Christian. Fundamentalist Christians have made fighting rights for homosexuals in any part of society one of the primary activities.

Of course there is nothing technically wrong with being a soulless politician or a fundamentalist letting your religious beliefs influence how you handle a position of authority.

But it seems like the people without one of these clear biases are OK (if not elated) with the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I said "knowledge of" homosexuals, Finn. Homosexuals are already in the military, so asking people for their feelings on knowing about the situation they are already in, is pointless.

What I've never understood about the resistance on this is that if homosexuals add sexual tension to a unit, then wouldn't those people who feel the most uncomfortable have a greater amount of tension when they did not know who was homosexual in their unit? Why would tension increase with situational awareness?

A
R
T

2 Replies

Ho-hum...

Quote:

As of 1992, lesbians, gays and bisexuals are allowed to openly serve in the military. A study of gays and lesbians in the Canadian military has found that after Canada’s 1992 decision to allow homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces, military performance did not decline.[6]

The study is the most comprehensive academic study by US researchers of homosexuality in a foreign military ever compiled and reflects an exhaustive inventory of relevant data and research. Its title is "Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces; Appraising the Evidence".

Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline. Self-identified gay, lesbian, and transsexual members of the Canadian Forces contacted for the study describe good working relationships with peers. The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment dropped 46% after the ban was lifted. While there were several reasons why harassment declined, one factor was that after the ban was lifted women were free to report assaults without fear that they would be accused of being a lesbian.

Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems.

None of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.

In the past 20 years, the Canadian Forces has gone from being a homophobic organization that actively hounded out gay and lesbian members to one of the world’s leading advocates of open integration. Rana Sioufi, a spokeswoman for the Forces, says after the abolition of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, the Armed Forces no longer has a specific policy for gay and lesbian members and uniformed personnel regularly march in Pride parades and marry in base chapels. “Members who are same-sex partners are entitled to the same respect and dignity as heterosexual married couples or common-law partners,” Sioufi says.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service

0 Replies

@failures art,

Good question. The answer lies in the many available examples of the behavior of our government and of "liberated or formerly oppressed" minorities.

For example, we abolished a patently unfair and unjust system of explicit actions of local governments, which, combined with local prejudices and a public willingness to support discrimination, prevented Blacks from voting in numbers proportional to their population in many areas of the country. Now we have a perverse form of retaliatory racism in the form of a "Black caucus" in our Congress - a sub group that gets designated government funds to pursue its own agenda, which has been primarily one of preserving and extending special favors and benefits for the formerly oppressed - a system that by now has extended past the lifetimes of most of those who were liberated by the various civil rights acts of the 1960s. The main results have been a continuation of expectations of dependency among some Blacks; a culture of patronage among their elected political leaders; and continuing resentment among many others.

Don't ask; don't tell permitted homosexuals to serve in the military if they adapted to military life and didn't make an issue of their sexuality in doing so. What will repeal accomplish in addition? Will we see the creation of "Gay Associations" in military units bent on making military culture more acceptable to their organized advocates? I expect we will. Will all this make for a better Marine Battalion or Fighter Squadron? I don't think so.

2 Replies

BREAKING NEWS! Senate Votes to Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell Bill 63 - 33!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know