Judge orders 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction

reply to post by Aim64C

Homosexual conduct has no place in the military - period. If there are people out there who are seriously distracted from their job by "who around me could be gay" - then allowing people to serve openly isn't going to suddenly improve that person's performance.

Well, if gays serve openly, you wouldn't have to worry "who could be gay".
Homosexual conduct has always been in the military, however, that's not the issue.
The debate is not about legalizing gay sex amongst soldiers on the job.
The debate is about whether people can have a gay identity and serve their country.
And yes, I suppose a soldier who is worried about being found out, or being blackmailed because of things he does in his private time is probably not at his best.

How gay people have handled this situation across the decades still astounds me, I guess they were very dedicated men and women.

reply to post by Aim64C


36 nations and their militaries completely disagree with you.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Mayson

 

Not sure I get the full meaning, since the existence of gays in the US army is acknowledged (I once read 200 000 personel, otherwise why even have the debate?).
So why do they not already disturb unit cohesion?
There were gay soldiers in the World Wars and Vietnam, this is well documented.
So perhaps the statement should rather be: having openly known gays will disturb unit cohesion.

However, is that the problem of a gay soldier, or a homophobic unit?

You friend made a very good point it's a homophobic unit that's the problem and not every gay goes around flaunting how gay they are. I've known gays who I thot were straight before finding out years later they are gay. Very good post man.

reply to post by halfoldman


Reading comprehension - please invest in some.

Someone who is concerned about who may or may-not be gay around him is not going to see a boost to his performance when all of his/her suspects are allowed to come out of the closet.

The debate is about whether people can have a gay identity and serve their country.
And yes, I suppose a soldier who is worried about being found out, or being blackmailed because of things he does in his private time is probably not at his best.

No, you can't have a homosexual identity and serve in the military.

If you don't understand why not - review the issues regarding berthing and the rights of individuals to privacy and hygiene.

At that level, it's not even so much a unit-level concern as it is a policy-level concern. You have to remember that the military has a responsibility to ensure the rights of those under its jurisdiction. Women are to be allowed their own facilities, maternity leave and concessions, concessions to child care responsibilities (such as a designated breast-feeding room that is hygienic and not a lavatory or shower). These are in effect through all of the DoD through MILPERS manuals - those same manuals will also have to be adjusted to accommodate homosexuals and bisexuals within those same rights (considered basic and humane by our legal system).

Homosexual behavior is simply not a fit with military service without completely restructuring the principles thereof. Period. End of discussion. If you want an example of what -could- work - see the last portion.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


I honestly couldn't care less if a country disagrees with me. Their policy or lack thereof does not reflect operational readiness, unit morale, or translate in any capacity to our own military structure. We are also one of the few military forces that allow women to serve in support roles (let alone we allow them to serve in combat functions). Go picket those same countries for woman's rights and see what kind of response you get.

As for a restructuring of the military to allow for open homosexual service? It's quite simple - get rid of male and female individuals. The individual will then be redefined as a matched pair (ideally male and female - and I hope that does piss you rights activists off - I enjoy your dismay at our disagreement). The concept would be that of a 'married' pair - again, ideally romantically involved with each other and pledged to a joint life of service to the country in the armed forces. This individual would be the most fundamental unit within the military and would never be separated through billeting or command.

I'm not proposing it as a silver-bullet solution - it will have advantages and disadvantages, however - I believe it could, with the correct implementation, see very high levels of unit readiness and performance.

Or it could be an abysmal failure. But it would be interesting to see.

reply to post by Aim64C


23 nations have women in their militaries; even a "rogue nation" like Libya does.
en.wikipedia.org...

If women can serve, why not gays? Are they any less qualified? 36 nations don't think so.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by Aim64C

 

23 nations have women in their militaries; even a "rogue nation" like Libya does.
en.wikipedia.org...

If women can serve, why not gays? Are they any less qualified? 36 nations don't think so.

edit on 13-10-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross because: Removed attack on a poster who does not deserve the attention

Sorry man I'm not trying to disrcredit you're info but wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyone can change whatever info is on that site no matter who you are. My college banned wikipedia from being used because it is filled with opinionated information.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by halfoldman

 

Reading comprehension - please invest in some.

Someone who is concerned about who may or may-not be gay around him is not going to see a boost to his performance when all of his/her suspects are allowed to come out of the closet.

The debate is about whether people can have a gay identity and serve their country.
And yes, I suppose a soldier who is worried about being found out, or being blackmailed because of things he does in his private time is probably not at his best.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE with everything you said in your post. You say you can't be gay and serve your country! How in the world is that true when you have GAYS defending YOUR FREEDOM right now. How can you say such hurtful things.

No, you can't have a homosexual identity and serve in the military.

If you don't understand why not - review the issues regarding berthing and the rights of individuals to privacy and hygiene.

At that level, it's not even so much a unit-level concern as it is a policy-level concern. You have to remember that the military has a responsibility to ensure the rights of those under its jurisdiction. Women are to be allowed their own facilities, maternity leave and concessions, concessions to child care responsibilities (such as a designated breast-feeding room that is hygienic and not a lavatory or shower). These are in effect through all of the DoD through MILPERS manuals - those same manuals will also have to be adjusted to accommodate homosexuals and bisexuals within those same rights (considered basic and humane by our legal system).

Homosexual behavior is simply not a fit with military service without completely restructuring the principles thereof. Period. End of discussion. If you want an example of what -could- work - see the last portion.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

 

I honestly couldn't care less if a country disagrees with me. Their policy or lack thereof does not reflect operational readiness, unit morale, or translate in any capacity to our own military structure. We are also one of the few military forces that allow women to serve in support roles (let alone we allow them to serve in combat functions). Go picket those same countries for woman's rights and see what kind of response you get.

As for a restructuring of the military to allow for open homosexual service? It's quite simple - get rid of male and female individuals. The individual will then be redefined as a matched pair (ideally male and female - and I hope that does piss you rights activists off - I enjoy your dismay at our disagreement). The concept would be that of a 'married' pair - again, ideally romantically involved with each other and pledged to a joint life of service to the country in the armed forces. This individual would be the most fundamental unit within the military and would never be separated through billeting or command.

I'm not proposing it as a silver-bullet solution - it will have advantages and disadvantages, however - I believe it could, with the correct implementation, see very high levels of unit readiness and performance.

Or it could be an abysmal failure. But it would be interesting to see.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE with everything you said in your post. You say you can't be gay and serve your country! How in the world is that true when you have GAYS defending YOUR FREEDOM right now. How can you say such hurtful things.

reply to post by Aim64C

No, you can't have a homosexual identity and serve in the military

Fine, then challenge your military to dismiss all its gay and lesbian staff which they know about immediately.

Otherwise we're going in circles on some issues.
You are confusing gender issues with sexuality issues.
Sexual attractions between same or opposite sex soldiers cannot be quantified, since they occur, even in heterosexual people. You cannot encapsulate people or make them walk around in burkas just because somebody else might be attracted to them. That is a fact of life in any job.
Gay men are men, of the male gender, and thus there is no need for special quarters or "hygiene".
They're already there in any case, and technically it really only concerns them and the employer.
I comprehend from my gay position, so it will not be your comprehension, but ultimately I think it will make very little difference.

reply to post by johnnie_walker

I STRONGLY DISAGREE with everything you said in your post. You say you can't be gay and serve your country! How in the world is that true when you have GAYS defending YOUR FREEDOM right now. How can you say such hurtful things.

Reading. Comprehension.

I did not say you cannot be gay and serve your country. Nor did I say that you cannot be gay and serve in the military. I said that homosexual behavior is not conducive to the military lifestyle.

First - gay people can serve their country. The military is not the only way to serve one's country.

Second - gays can and do serve in the military. I have no problem with this.

Third - gays are not, nor should they be allowed, to behave in a manner as to express their homosexuality. That doesn't mean ban the feminine guy - there are 'flamers' who are as straight as they come.

If it hurts your feelings, I really don't care. It's the military - there are requirements for service and freedoms/rights you curtail or give up completely when you enlist. If you don't like it - don't enlist, there is no shortage of manpower and no sensible reason to sway to this decade's civil rights fad.

reply to post by halfoldman

Fine, then challenge your military to dismiss all its gay and lesbian staff which they know about immediately.

That's their prerogative. I do not have the liberty of challenging my chain of command in such a manner. I do not have any complaints with any personnel I currently work with, and therefor need not file a formal or informal complaint.

Gay men are men, of the male gender, and thus there is no need for special quarters or "hygiene".
They're already there in any case, and technically it really only concerns them and the employer.

Gay men are of the male sex and non-male gender (I won't say female, because that's not exactly correct, either). There is no need for special quarters?

Why not? Women got their own berthing because they did not want to be berthed with men (well, for more reasons than this - including to minimize temptations on all sides of the coin). Or perhaps there would be people who just don't want to be berthed with homosexuals, correct? How is it any different from a woman wanting to have a different berthing from a man? How is the request unreasonable?

Sexual attractions between same or opposite sex soldiers cannot be quantified, since they occur, even in heterosexual people. You cannot encapsulate people or make them walk around in burkas just because somebody else might be attracted to them. That is a fact of life in any job.

Except you don't sleep with your co-workers in the civilian world - unless a rather lengthy and consentual course of events unfolds. Your private space is the size of a house - the military effectively has none spare for privileged accommodations.

There is nothing unreasonable about the restrictions placed on fraternization. I can meet the most awesome woman on the face of the planet, and she can think I'm the best thing since sliced bread - if she's an officer, the "E" next to my pay-grade pretty much says no-can-do-sir. Not that it stops it from happening... stuff like that happens all the time. Officers get kicked out all the time for thinking they won't get caught, too (and the enlisted people usually get tossed out with them, or busted back to P-days). Technically, her and I couldn't even go hang out together without it being a unit/command function. That is usually not enforced unless it becomes a 'disturbance in the force' and people feel there's some preferential treatment going on.

Likewise, there is nothing unreasonable about saying "you two both have an 'M' next to your gender... you're not allowed to declare your love to the world and ride off into the sunset together."

The alternative is to allow homosexuals (and allow interrogations and investigations into that part of your life) to serve openly, but restrict them to commands where they can have special berthing accommodations - similar to how women were not allowed to serve aboard ships, in deployed theaters, etc.

Gays serving in the military now are not a problem. If one is causing problems - homosexuality in the military is prohibited and therefor voids any contracts signed stating one was not homosexual (which you do when you enlist - you sign and initial stating that you are not a homosexual and understand that evidence of homosexual activity is grounds for separation).

You may not think it's fair. I really don't see how it's a good idea to do otherwise. It's a select group. I'm sure there are very capable and great homosexuals out there who want nothing more than to serve in the military. No one is allowed to harass them about their sexual orientation - and I'll defend everyone's right to that. I won't go out of my way to catch someone being homosexual or pry into their lives. When they hit their EAOS or retire, they are free to do whatever.

When the states and society, in general, can figure out how to handle homosexuals, then the military will be able to just say "hell with it - no one cares, just don't do stupid stuff." and it will all be in the past.

For now - I'm tired of people trying to use the military to push social and civil agendas. The military's job is not to comply with fads - it is to defend the nation. This may hurt a few people's feelings - but we can do that without homosexuals openly serving in the military. It's not necessary to perform the function. Maybe you all could try and figure out how to come to an agreement on homosexual marriage before imposing your insanity on the military ranks? We've got enough problems of our own to deal with, without having you all stirring up more, thanks.

reply to post by Aim64C

Gay men are of the male sex and non-male gender (I won't say female, because that's not exactly correct, either). There is no need for special quarters?

Please explain the comprehension here. Writing, meaning?
You keep making sweeping statements eg. somebody with a gay identity has no place in the military, and then you change and redefine them later.
But you have made your basic point repeatedly clear - you don't want gays in the military (although I'm somewhat doubtful you know anything about gays).
Fair enough.

I wonder why I'm arguing for this anyway.
I remember how much we hated conscription in SA.
Although the military is a huge employer in poor communities, in case of war and conscription many would be glad to be (or pretend to be) homosexual to avoid the draft.

Well, it's certainly not up to me, neither is it up to any individual in the military.
Let's wait and see.

reply to post by johnnie_walker


I agree with you, but there are sources for all of those 23 countries. Instead of attacking the source, address the issue. You commented on countries having women serve. Plenty of countries have both women and gays serving and some, like Israel, are among the best armies in the world.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by johnnie_walker

 

I agree with you, but there are sources for all of those 23 countries. Instead of attacking the source, address the issue. You commented on countries having women serve. Plenty of countries have both women and gays serving and some, like Israel, are among the best armies in the world.

vey true and we as far as having a gay identity..... its the same thing as being gay so yes you did actually say you cant be gay serve your country.

reply to post by johnnie_walker


What? Sorry, but I don't understand your post. I said nothing about "gay identity." I pointed out that 36 countries, including some of the best militaries in the world, allow gays to serve openly.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by johnnie_walker

 

What? Sorry, but I don't understand your post. I said nothing about "gay identity." I pointed out that 36 countries, including some of the best militaries in the world, allow gays to serve openly.

lol that was my mistake. i put two subjects in one post. hahahah i figured you might be confused. i was actually talking to another guy from this post and i am agreeing with you that i should not have attacked the source but rather should have read the statistics