Alright ladies and gentlemen it's one of *those* threads.
The US Senate recently voted to deny debate on the DADT rule which essentially states that you cannot be openly homosexual in the military. i.e "We wont ask you if you promise not to tell anyone."
This issue divides my brain a little.
As far as I'm concerned the law is clearly discriminatory in the same vein as the lifetime ban on gays giving blood in the US.
However it is possible that having openly homosexual soldiers may negatively affect morale and therefore conceivably put lives at risk.
So my question is this:
Should a discriminatory law be struck down even if from a pragmatic perspective it is a bad idea?
I heard someone compare this to not allowing drunk people to drive because it endangers other people. Do you think thats a fair comparison?
Note: I'm not necessarily convinced that striking down the law *would* have negative affects on morale but it is possible that it would.
I think its wrong to separate homo or heterosexual relationships as a hurdle in the Army. As much as two soldier of the opposite sex causing conflicts if they're focusing more on their love affairs than the army, same goes for homosexuals, in my honest opinion.
I don't find it however completely wrong in the same way. But how can they be sure without actually testing it.
Most European armed forces don't have this policy and have few if any problems.
The American people are behind it 80%.
The people being hurt here were faithfully serving their country and got kicked out and their income and pensions taken away.
A lot of Arabic translators were thrown out because of this law. How is a homosexual translator affecting morale?
I really don't see the other side at all.
The problem isn't the soldiers who *are* gay, it's the straight soldiers who can't even hear the word "gay" without fantasizing about sweaty man-on-man butseks. I really don't get why we can't get over this obsession with who's fucking who and how. Yes, people fuck, get over it. I don't like the mental image of wrinkly-ass John McCain sucking his wife's sagging tits either, but for some odd reason that's not the first thing that springs to mind when I watch an interview with him.
America must get over its sexual hangups, and its not gonna happen as long as they pretend that suppression is working. It reminds me of the situation in schools where Conservatives want books about same-sex parents banned, then claim that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt because their kids will be bullied in school. WTF!?!? Teach your brats not to bully others then, before pointing fingers at other people's parenting abilities.
Of course there will be a few incidents at first, if they end "don't ask don't tell", but after a while whole platoons of soldiers will know at least one or two gay people, and see that they're not so bad and won't come to rape them in their sleep, in fact they may be people they respect at would entrust their lives to. Nothing cures fear and prejudice faster than actually meeting "the other" and discovering you're not all that different after all. The army used to have racial segregation, and I'm pretty sure nobody would dare argue that we should bring it back because black people make them uncomfortable. Even without statistical evidence to back it, I'd even hazard a guess that fighting alongside people of other ethnicities cured a lot of white folks of their racial bias. Just stop dicking around, so we can get on with making the world a better place.
I'm kind of pragmatic about it, I've always been for whatever the top brass in U.S. military think makes them most effective - moreso than what makes the military more gay friendly or unfriendly. And since the top guys in the military asked Congress to repeal it earlier this year, I'm for repealing it. It should ONLY be up to the armed forces, as they are the ones who risk their lives and really put their butts on the line. I don't think this is an issue where politics and/or religion on either side matters.
I think they should make the whole military illegal...
Sorry, but war is for pussies :P
Let's say that heterosexuals are a majority in the US army and that homosexual are not really "welcomed" or can be open about their sexuality, correct? This draws 2 strange questions:
1. are they saying homosexuals don't love their country, work for their pay and can't control their sexual urges whatsoever?
2. wouldn't discrimination against homosexuals, draw discrimination towards heterosexual men and women - meaning that women shouldn't not be allowed in the army (since they basically can't "hide" the fact that they're women). are they suggesting that heterosexual male soldiers for example have a zen or celibate-like or indifferent attitude towards women? are they gay? ;D
In my opinion it's not that gay [wo]men cannot (or are not capable) of serving/fighting for their country.
The problem is the non-gays in the military being homophobic.
Now yes, they should not be homophobic, but it is still there and is not going to just go away. America (the world) has had generation upon generation of being raised believing that "gay is bad" (I blame stupid religious crap mostly which has steered society blindly for far too long). It takes time to remove a preconceived notion.
I don't think the U.S. senate (or the U.S. Military command/Joint Chiefs) should necessarily be labeled as "homophobic" though. America's military is 100% volunteer based. If the military becomes "gay segregated" they know their recruitment numbers will diminish because a large portion of their numbers come from impressionable youth comin' out the of "bible blinded" regions of the country who have been brainwashed into believing that gays are disgusting.
They don't want the saying, "putting my ass on the line" to have a double meaning.
The problem as I see it (in regards to DADT) is that Americans (people in the modern world really) are used to "instant gratification" and this issue; the stamping out of prejudice on this subject, isn't something that is just going to magically resolve itself over-night. If you smother somebody with, "homophobia is bad, gays are people too!" you're just going to cement their beliefs and cause them to dig-in their heels. This is the case with just about any issue really (from racism, politics, whatever). People don't like realizing/admitting that their views on a subject are wrong and/or close-minded. They need time to "see the light". The solution is to be patient and let it play itself out. Rome wasn't built in a day.
It's inevitable that the military will be open with gays. Just the same as with lettin' black dudes in, just like letting women in combat positions, etc. If a person looks back at American history (and world history for the most part) it becomes obvious that, with situations like this, when people want a thing, and they persevere, they will achieve the thing. It might take years, but they will get it. The reason it takes years, usually, is because those people that can grant this thing are having to fight through their prejudices/preconceived notions and it just takes time (or they just get sick of fighting against it and capitulate).
The ironic thing to me is that there have been gays in the military since history has been recorded. The U.S. military is no exception. I think a lot of "manly men" would shit their pants if they realized that guy that pulled them outta the foxhole and saved their life likes man-meat in his mouth. I actually find that pleasing (the fact of an anonymous gay guy saving the life of a straight guy, not the idea of man-meat in my mouth).
I say we let gays into the military and have a new "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy regarding homophobes. As in "we won't ask if you're homophobic if you don't tell anyone you're homophobic." I'd rather have dedicated soldiers, gay or straight, who can overcome their own prejudices in the name of protecting their country in our armed services. Anyone who would prioritize freaking out over having to line up next to a dude who likes sex with dudes over serving with dedication and honor should not be in the military.
Darth, your arguments are similar to ones that were used against racially integrating the military a few decades back: racist white kids (particularly from the South) wouldn't be able to deal with it. They went ahead anyway, and overall it turned out that the claimed problems were overstated.
I think racism was much more virulent then than homophobia is now (lynching was widespread, for example), so I think chances are soldiers will actually be more OK with it than we expect.
Snarky and Darth made the point I was trying to get across, except much better. It was kinda late, and stuff like this piss me off so much it's hard to be eloquent :)
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 22/09/2010 02:11:03
I heard someone compare this to not allowing drunk people to drive because it endangers other people. Do you think thats a fair comparison?
Absolutely not. A gay person is not a chromosomal aberrant. Gay people are not dangerous simply by being gay. Drunk people are.
Is there any user who has or has been recently serving in the military? I'd love to hear Private Joe Blogg's opinion.
DADT is not really about Gay in the military. It's just a way an organisation is trying to avoid the cost of totally predictable legal suits/inquiries/bad publicity. As long no one tell, that's resolving the issue. I understand the debate is about the equality principle. But the mere reason it's purely functionnal and to avoid what's happening in other countries.
I don't think that allowing American soldiers to be openly gay would result in all current gay soldiers coming out. I think they'd know themselves if it made sense to come out, given the people they spend time with.
QuoteIt's just a way an organisation is trying to avoid the cost of totally predictable legal suits/inquiries/bad publicity. As long no one tell, that's resolving the issue.
DADT was instituted by Bill Clinton as a matter of political expediency.
I think all the talk about homophobia and discrimination misses a critical point. In a combat situation a soldier expects that the others in his group be deeply and equally committed to each other (i.e. be willing to risk life and limb for one compatriots). Now consider how the equality of commitment would be affected if two members of the group were lovers? Would they not be more committed to each other than to others in the group?
It should also be noted that members of the military give up their freedom when they sign up. Their conduct is subject to military rules 24-7. They are told when to wake up, when to eat, when to sleep, and what activities and under what circumstances they may engage in. Any freedoms they enjoy are privileges given by the military and can be taken away at any time. From their point of view disallowing sexual activity with a non-spouse married person is no different that disallowing sexual activity with persons of the same sex.
I didn't join the military because I like to wake up when I'm not sleepy,
eat when I'm hungry, drink when I'm dry ...,
Spoiler
... and if the Rugby doesn't kill me, I'll live till I die. - "sorry, couldn't resist :="
Rick makes a compelling argument that is discussed in more detail here (http://www.theonion.com/articles/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-paves-way-for-gay-sex,17698/).
I would also point out that most women feel uncomfortable disrobing and engaging in other personal activities in the presence of people, especially males, who would potentially be sexually gratified by the experience. However, they are never referred to as being sexist or manaphobic.
I think most men have similar discomfort. Why are they treated so differently? A bit of a sexist double standard, eh.
Your ability to zero in on the most pertinent, reasonable and not at all gay-panicky arguments is uncanny, Rick.
Rick, you can be my wingman anytime! ;)
Quote from: RickJ on Sat 25/09/2010 19:00:55
I would also point out that most women feel uncomfortable disrobing and engaging in other personal activities in the presence of people, especially males, who would potentially be sexually gratified by the experience. However, they are never referred to as being sexist or manaphobic.
So, should all changing rooms that don't have individual cubicles be banned? Should gay kids be banned from doing sports at school?
I say that public showers should be banned.
It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! I don't want to get nekkid and have to shower in front of the (watchful or unwatchful) of several other dudes OR dudettes! WHY HAS THIS BECOME THE NORM?! BRING BACK THE OLD GYMS!
Ahm....yeah. You all can continue now.
Quote from: RickJ on Sat 25/09/2010 17:13:34
I think all the talk about homophobia and discrimination misses a critical point. In a combat situation a soldier expects that the others in his group be deeply and equally committed to each other (i.e. be willing to risk life and limb for one compatriots). Now consider how the equality of commitment would be affected if two members of the group were lovers? Would they not be more committed to each other than to others in the group?
I don't know where to start. First of all, there is no way to prevent men with homosexual preferences to join the army, only to let them live out their homosexuality, openly. And gay people
can suppress those feelings, just like anybody else.
Secondly, you suggest that soldiers are equally committed to each other thanks to the lack of sexual feelings. Are there rules saying you can't develop friendships in the army? Let's say that two soldiers have fought together for decades, saved each other's lives numerous times and developed a profound brotherly companionship - does this count less than if one of them slept with another person last night? Does carnal lust automatically outweigh platonic love?
Thirdly, would this way of thinking mean women can't serve in the military? Wouldn't this expose male soldiers to potential feelings of physical attraction?
This all reeks of reactionism.
Thanks, Andail. I was going to but too lazy to point these things out.
Also,
Quote from: Phemar on Wed 22/09/2010 08:18:14
I think they should make the whole military illegal...
Indeed. Wouldn't that solve the problem and end the stupid discussion? :D
I'm with Andail
This has worked in other countries fine. There is no reason to suggest it wouldnt work in the US.
Well as The Daily show simply explained, dadt won't be rewoked so soon, thanks to politicians: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-22-2010/are-we-run-by-a--holes-
I find that military has every right to be homophobic (or xenophobic or whatever else "intolerant" word that makes you cry).
It's a military, dammit, not some pussy hippie garage band. Don't expect pats and hugs in the people-killing business.
Military is taxed enough by being unethical, shameful beast of human civilization.
Arguing over someone's dumb feelings or taste in bed-mates would be worst hypocrisy of all.
If any attitude helps military to be strong, so be it... leave fake tolerance etc trash to civil world.
DADT seems to be a way to deal with the issue so there would be no need to deal with the issue further.
Which is how this issue should be dealt with, IMO. There's more killing to do, no time for sex life!
@ InCreator
Um. Actually, the role of the military isn't just kill kill kill, like you suggest. Armies can and are used peacefully, giving aid where it is needed, home or abroad, and as a passive deterrent.
Let's look at it another way. A brain surgeon and a soldier are not unlike in many respects - both require concentration, advanced training, skill, patience, etc. Ignoring the fact one takes lives and the other saves lives, it would be unheard of to deny a gay man from becoming a surgeon. And no brain surgeon in an operation would ever be distracted because the assistant is gay.
Having a few gay people in a regiment will not put anybody's life at risk, I promise you. So what is the problem?
There's no ban on gays in army, is it? Just that military has no desire to hold regiment pride rallies or other kind of handholding, like gays were more special than other soliders.
Heterosexuals don't wear "hello my name is ... and I am a heterosexual" tags on their chest, I don't see why gays would want to... or have right to...? (It's military, have some f*ckin' discipline, damnit)
And if not, what's to be so "open" about?
"Don't ask, don't tell" applies to most things about sexual preferences, I don't see why it shouldn't apply for homosexual desires. You wouldn't go around telling everyone what turns you on! Nobody wants to know about your fetishes.
Okay, it's kind of popular to add some imaginary inches to your penis by saying you're super tolerant and preaching equality and whatnot. Whatever, it's a free world, mostly. To each its own.
What I'm writing against is bringing this circus to the military. For example, an instance with capabilities to end all life on planet earth in few months (biological warfare ahoy), few soliders with hurt ego and extreme need for attention is not important. Atleast since military exists as it is today, with much more important unsolved problems it has.
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 28/09/2010 08:39:10
It's a military, dammit, not some pussy hippie garage band. Don't expect pats and hugs in the people-killing business.
Sorry for the useless post, but whilst I may not agree with your post, this bit made me laugh!
My understanding of "Don't ask; Don't tell." is that gays are not allowed in the US military but they will not be actively sought out.
It isn't a terribly progressive policy to begin with since even under it gays must keep their orientation a secret. I don't see the big difference between this and "We'll ask; you lie." I guess it depends on how much resources the military wants to devote to flushing out closeted soldiers...
I do think the only people at risk by having openly gay soldiers in the military are the gay soliders from homophobia in the barracks, etc.
InCreator, you completely misunderstand how "don't ask, don't tell" works, and what the point of ending it is.
The rule is a bit of a fudge, but essentially the way it works is that gays are banned from serving in the military, but the military promises not to try to find out if a soldier is gay. However, if they do find out, that soldier can be (and usually is) kicked out, as has happened to more than 13,000 soldiers so far.
That means that someone who is gay has to hide any hint of homosexuality, or risk being discharged. Obviously this often means having to lie, and leading a paranoid secret life. For example, in one recent case a soldier disguised the fact that he was talking to his boyfriend on the phone by speaking in Portuguese, not realizing that another soldier nearby also understood the language. He was reported and fired.
This isn't about gay pride parades and need for attention. Straight soldiers may not walk around with "heterosexual" on their chest, but they don't have to worry about mentioning their girlfriends or wives, carrying photos of them in their wallet, posting pin-ups in their lockers or bunk beds, or getting into locker room talk about the girls they slept with on their last leave. Gay soldiers just want to be able to deal with such situations naturally and honestly, if they choose, without getting kicked out of the military.
I think its a way of protecting the people who train the cadets up at the military schools (Many of the senior ranking officers tend to call privates fags for not being at their best or performing a little under standard). They see being gay as a bad thing and it probably boils down to the christianity that they swear by each and every day, most people who are sent to these camps are failing school kids (the impressionable ones) or the soft kids who need toughening up (generally the camp kids who's parents were brought up to hate the gays) what about Bi-sexuals, Is there anything wrong with that? or is that seen as a foot in either state situation?
The U.S government has always got something to persecute whether its gay men in the army or people of another colour. Why on earth are they allowed to make up these silly laws and bills. They want everything to be squeaky clean and perfect when really out of all the governments in the world they are indeed the most corrupt.
For those too lazy to check wikipedia, this should clarify the basics:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Dontaskdonttellcredible.jpg)
(I can't help wonder if outrageously camp behavior is alright, I mean they can't discharge you for lip-syncing to Barbara Streisand and Gloria Gaynor, right?)
Next thing you know they will want only blonde hair and blue eyed cadets. the British army is much better anyway at least we know who's on our side gay or not