0
   

A picture is worth a thousand words

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 07:44 pm
Geeze, whodathunk . . . wasn't a problem for Alexander III of Macedon, nor for Iulius Caesar, nor for Richard Coeur de Lion . . . i guess ya learn something new every day . . .

(Insert rolling eye emoticon of choice here.)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 07:48 pm
I wasn't aware that any of those people were signing up for the United States Armed Forces in 2005.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 07:51 pm
I wasn't aware that you purport that openly homosexual members of the armed forces would only be a problem in this day and age, regardless of what may once have been the case. References to the past are so inconvenient, aren't they?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 08:29 pm
They are only inconvenient when they are meaningful. In this case, they are meaningless.

I was not speaking of past military organizations, I was referring to current military organizations, specifically American military organizations. Being openly gay in today's Americian military is not acceptable. Is it acceptable in the Canadian armed forces?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 08:32 pm
Beat's hell out of me, i'm not in the Canadian armed forces.

You speak as though you were an authority, but i know you're only spouting your personal prejudices. The concept is unacceptable to you, which is meaningless to society at large.

I will give you this though, that the hatefulness of the religious loonies on the right make it likely that homosexuals will experience more and more discrimination.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 08:42 pm
Setanta wrote:
Beat's hell out of me, i'm not in the Canadian armed forces.

You speak as though you were an authority, but i know you're only spouting your personal prejudices. The concept is unacceptable to you, which is meaningless to society at large.

I will give you this though, that the hatefulness of the religious loonies on the right make it likely that homosexuals will experience more and more discrimination.


Sometimes you make me think you only know two things. Jack and sh!t.

Historically, the military did not officially exclude or discharge homosexuals from its ranks, although sodomy (usually defined as anal and sometimes oral sex between men) was considered a criminal offense as early as Revolutionary War times. In 1778, Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin became the first soldier to be drummed out of the Continental Army for sodomy. Throughout U.S. history, campaigns have purged military units of persons suspected of engaging in homosexual acts.

As the United States prepared for World War II, psychiatric screening became a part of the induction process and psychiatry's view of homosexuality as an indicator of psychopathology was introduced into the military. Instead of retaining its previous focus on homosexual behavior, which was classified as a criminal offense, the military shifted to eliminating homosexual persons, based on a medical rationale. In 1942, revised army mobilization regulations included for the first time a paragraph defining both the homosexual and "normal" person and clarifying procedures for rejecting gay draftees.

Homosexual Americans were allowed to serve, however, when personnel shortages necessitated it. As expansion of the war effort required that all available personnel be utilized, screening procedures were loosened and many homosexual men and women enlisted and served. This shift was temporary. As the need for recruits diminished near the war's end, antihomosexual policies were enforced with increasing vigilance, and many gay men and lesbians were discharged involuntarily. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, acknowledging a homosexual orientation barred an individual from military service (see Bérubé, 1990, for a comprehensive history of the U.S. military's response to homosexuality during the World War II era).

In the 1970s, however, a new movement emerged in the United States that pressed for civil rights for gay men and lesbians. The military policy was one target of this movement, dramatized by the legal challenge to the policy mounted by Leonard Matlovich. Similar challenges continued throughout the 1970s. Although largely unsuccessful, they highlighted the wide latitude of discretion allowed to commanders in implementing existing policy, which resulted in considerable variation in the rigor with which the policy was enforced.

In 1981, the DOD formulated a new policy which stated unequivocally that homosexuality is incompatible with military service (DOD Directive 1332.14, January 28, 1982, Part 1, Section H). According to a 1992 report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO), nearly 17,000 men and women were discharged under the category of homosexuality in the 1980s. The Navy was disproportionately represented, accounting for 51% of the discharges even though it comprised only 27% of the active force during this time period. Statistical breakdowns by gender and race revealed that, for all services, White women were discharged at a rate disproportionate to their representation. Overall, White females represented 6.4% of personnel but 20.2% of those discharged for homosexuality.

By the end of the 1980s, reversing the military's policy was emerging as a priority for advocates of gay and lesbian civil rights. Several lesbian and gay male members of the armed services came out publicly and vigorously challenged their discharges through the legal system. In 1992, legislation to overturn the ban was introduced in the U.S. Congress. By that time, grassroots civilian opposition to the DOD's policy appeared to be increasing. Many national organizations had officially condemned the policy and many colleges and universities had banned military recruiters and Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) programs from their campuses in protest of the policy.

By the beginning of 1993, it appeared that the military's ban on gay personnel would soon be overturned. Shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to prepare a draft policy to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he proposed to use the interim period to resolve "the real, practical problems that would be involved" in implementing a new policy. Clinton's proposal, however, was greeted with intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, the political opposition, and a considerable segment of the U.S. public.

After lengthy public debate and congressional hearings, the President and Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise which they labeled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. Under its terms, military personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation and would not be discharged simply for being gay. Engaging in sexual conduct with a member of the same sex, however, would still constitute grounds for discharge. In the fall of 1993, the congress voted to codify most aspects of the ban. Meanwhile, the civilian courts issued contradictory opinions, with some upholding the policy's constitutionality and others ordering the reinstatement of openly gay military personnel who were involuntarily discharged. Higher courts, however, consistently upheld the policy, making review of the policy by the U.S. Supreme Court unlikely.

The policy has remained in effect since 1993, although the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and other organizations monitoring its implementation have repeatedly pointed out its failures. Discharges have actually increased under the policy, and harassment of gay and lesbian personnel appears to have intensified in many locales.

The failure of the policy was dramatized in 1999 by the murder of Pfc. Barry Winchell at the hands of Pvt. Calvin Glover, a member of his unit. Glover beat Winchell to death with a baseball bat while he slept. Prosecutors argued that Glover murdered Winchell because he was a homosexual. Glover was sentenced to life in prison. Subsequent inquiries by civilian groups revealed an ongoing pattern of policy violations and antigay harassment that had been ignored by higher-level officers. However, a report by the Army Inspector General exonerated all officers of blame in Winchell's murder and found no climate of homophobia at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the base where Winchell was bludgeoned to death.

In the wake of the Winchell murder, Hilary Rodham Clinton, then-Vice-President Al Gore, and even President Clinton labeled the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy a failure. Campaigning for the Democratic Party's 2000 presidential nomination, candidates Gore and Bill Bradley each promised to work to reverse the policy if he were elected. Meanwhile, candidates for the Republican nomination reaffirmed their support for the current policy (McCain, Bush) or declared that they would seek to completely prohibit military service by homosexuals (Bauer, Keyes, Forbes).

With the beginning of the new century, the White House and Congress were controlled by Republicans who were on record opposing service by openly gay personnel. Prospects for eliminating the ban appeared slim.

In 2002 and 2003, however, calls for changing the policy gained new momentum. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the war on terrorism and U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq created a renewed need for personnel. In that context, many objected when nine military linguists - including six who were fluent in Arabic - were discharged in 2002 after their homosexuality became known. In 2003, three high-ranking retired military officers publicly disclosed their homosexuality and challenged the DADT policy's legitimacy.

Throughout this time, public opinion appeared to favor allowing service by openly gay personnel. A December, 2003, Gallup poll registered 79% of US adults (including 68% of self-described conservatives) in favor of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly.

Thus, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy - and the broader issue of whether and how gay men and lesbians should serve in the military - remain a volatile issues with great symbolic potency.
source
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 09:46 pm
Why McG, you old charm school drop-out . . .

You're very tedious, you know? You have yet to give one cogent reason why homosexuals cannot openly serve in the military.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 03:18 am
McGentrix wrote:
People that are openly racist are also not allowed in the military.

You're fooling yourself.

McGentrix wrote:
People that are openly addicted to heroin are not allowed in the military. People that are openly handicapped are not allowed into the military.

But apparently the military is just fine with letting in people who are openly homophobic.

McGentrix wrote:
I feel that I must now say that I am in no way comparing being a homosexual to being a drug addict, handicapped, or racist.

Oh but you are, McG, you are.

McGentrix wrote:
Just that the military also discriminates against many types of people. They do this because the military unit must have as few problams as possible. Being openly gay in the military will create problems.

For whom? Homophobes?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:53 am
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
People that are openly racist are also not allowed in the military.

You're fooling yourself.

McGentrix wrote:
People that are openly addicted to heroin are not allowed in the military. People that are openly handicapped are not allowed into the military.

But apparently the military is just fine with letting in people who are openly homophobic.

McGentrix wrote:
I feel that I must now say that I am in no way comparing being a homosexual to being a drug addict, handicapped, or racist.

Oh but you are, McG, you are.

McGentrix wrote:
Just that the military also discriminates against many types of people. They do this because the military unit must have as few problams as possible. Being openly gay in the military will create problems.

For whom? Homophobes?


Fishing Joe? You'll need better bait.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 10:07 am
McGentrix wrote:
Fishing Joe? You'll need better bait.

You needn't worry, McG. I throw the minnows back.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 05:19 pm
McGentrix wrote:
People that are openly handicapped are not allowed into the military.


Quote:
... reports of recruiting improprieties have begun to appear around the country, with recruiters, local officials and families questioning how the army finds its new soldiers. A family in Ohio reported that its mentally ill son had been signed up, despite rules banning such enlistments and readily available records about his illness.

David McSwane, a 17-year-old high school student outside Denver, Colorado, also recently caught one recruiter on tape, advising him on how to create a fake diploma, and another helping him buy a product that purportedly would cleanse his system of illegal drug residues.


Which is why ...

Quote:
U.S. army recruiters to get a day of ethics retraining
By Damien Cave The New York Times

FRIDAY, MAY 13, 2005
Responding to reports about widespread abuse of the rules for recruitment, army officials said that they would suspend all recruiting on May 20 and use the day to retrain its personnel in military ethics and the laws that govern what can and cannot be done to enlist an applicant.

Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the recruiting command at its headquarters in Fort Knox, Kentucky, said Wednesday that every member of the command, including about 7,500 recruiters nationwide and senior officers, would take part in the day of instruction, called a "values stand-down."

Smith said the army would reintroduce recruiters to the rules that prohibit them from lying to applicants or hiding information from the military that could make them ineligible. He said the focus of the day also would be on reminding recruiters to take advantage of counseling services that might alleviate stress.

"It's ethics-under-pressure training," Smith said. "We want to emphasize that bending the rules is not the way to make mission."

In the past, the army has used stand-downs to re-emphasize safety precautions after serious accidents. In 20 years, Smith said, the army has never set aside a full day specifically to address recruitment abuses.

"It's reflective of the current climate," Smith said. "Some of it is simply part of an army-wide re-affirmation of ethics. It also is directly related to the allegations that we've seen of recruiting improprieties."

The one-day suspension comes at a time when the army has been reporting monthly shortfalls in replenishing the ranks of the all-volunteer military. The army has missed its target three months in a row. The Marines have been falling short since January.



http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/12/news/army.php
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 11:35 am
Fascinating discussion of the recruiting difficulties by the Freepers including this marvellous assessment of the problems facing the U.S. military



Quote:
"Are things really that bad recruiting-wise?"

Bear in mind that we have a whole generation of young folks now who will be living off of their parents until they're in their mid-to-late twenties because their parents will enable them to do so, as well as having many youth raised by liberal, single mothers or two lesbians or two gay men who have brainwashed them against doing ANYTHING for their country, and equate "keeping the peace" with "killing people for fun!" (Just an observation from my own life.)


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1407714/posts

Can I get all of that on a t-shirt?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 06:31:48