Homosexuals in the army "immoral".

[BigBadWlf]

Well, if pedophiles were barred then it too is because of their sexuality. Sexuality is a broad term. If someone sleeps their way up the military ladder and is expelled for it then it is because of their sexuality also.

All said and done it is good that someone in the military is standing up for integrity. At least you cannot say he is ignoring corruption in the government!

The old “if you can’t come up with an actual reason for discrimination…falsely compare homosexuals to pedophiles” ploy…

 

[BigBadWlf]

Looks like that reality check just bounced. To claim that military men have some sort of fear of homosexuals is ridiculous. They are concerned with keeping order and integrity in the ranks, and preserving function and order. When that is your mindset then you will see the common sense of man and woman being made for eachother. The pro homo lobby does not see that. They think that their feelings dictate reality

There is never common sense involved in bigotry.

Worse for the pro-discrimination side…studies from countries that no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians in the military have shown that this has not led to any perceptible decline in operational effectiveness, morale, unit cohesion, retention, or attrition. Quite the reverse in fact…there has been a discernable improvement in the moral and military working environment. A significant number of commanders and soldiers, believe that these improvements are associated with the removal of discrimination policies fostering a working environment that is freer from the burdensome and unproductive consequences of hate, mistrust, and prejudice that are the true reasons for the compromised the integrity of units in the past.


Ref:
Agostino, K. (1997). "Masculinity, Sexuality, and Life On Board Her Majesty’s Royal Australian Ships." Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies 2(1).

Chapman, A. (1996). "Australian Anti-Discrimination Law and Sexual Orientation: Some Observations on Terminology and Scope." E Law: Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law 3(3): 13.

Gade, Paul, David Segal, and Edgar Johnson. 1996. "The Experience of Foreign Militaries." in Out in Force: Sexual Orientation and the Military, edited by Gregory Herek, Jared Jobe and Ralph Carne. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Pond, Frank. 1993. "A Comparative Survey and Analysis of Military Policies with Regard to Service by Gay Persons." in Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, hearing held by Senate Armed Services Committee. April 29.

 

[BigBadWlf]

It's amazing how similar the arguments against letting gays serve openly are to those used against integration of the armed services.

Similar?…heck they are identical.


Just like the arguments against legal recognition of same sex marriage is indistinguishable form the arguments used in favor of preventing interracial marriage.

 

[Museveni]

And once again it is BS. Still to hear one single reason for keeping openly homosexual people from the military that have even a microscopic ounch of merit to it.

Usualy comes down to either a completly unrelated comparison of homosexuals and people X or the same old arcaic and misguided notion that military stability would crash and burn from allowing openly homosexual people to serve.

 

[RealityCheck]

What they don't really want to say is this:

"Letting homosexuals openly serve in the military will disrupt order and cause trouble because 'normal straight' soldiers will constantly be wary of the homosexual soldiers attempting to 'hit on' them or potentially that these homosexual soldiers will attempt to rape them."

 

[Obsequey]

What they don't really want to say is this:

"Letting homosexuals openly serve in the military will disrupt order and cause trouble because 'normal straight' soldiers will constantly be wary of the homosexual soldiers attempting to 'hit on' them or potentially that these homosexual soldiers will attempt to rape them."

I think so too. If the situation weren't so.. pathetic, it would actually be sorta funny. How does it feel guys, to be treated like a piece of meat?!

 

[WalkingforHim]

There is never common sense involved in bigotry.

Worse for the pro-discrimination side…studies from countries that no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians in the military have shown that this has not led to any perceptible decline in operational effectiveness, morale, unit cohesion, retention, or attrition. Quite the reverse in fact…there has been a discernable improvement in the moral and military working environment. A significant number of commanders and soldiers, believe that these improvements are associated with the removal of discrimination policies fostering a working environment that is freer from the burdensome and unproductive consequences of hate, mistrust, and prejudice that are the true reasons for the compromised the integrity of units in the past.

While I think DADT should be gotten rid of. These results may not be so applicapble to us. Most of those countries aren't populated with idiots, fools, and misguided right wing homophobes.

Instead of simply getting rid of the gay person, send them to another unit or create an all gay unit, or screen their unit for people who have issues with homosexuality.

But to fire desperately need linguists and soldiers in a time of war over something that is so trivial and rediculous as soldiers worried about being hit on, it's the height of stupidity, and just goes to show that even conservatives don't know how to fight a war anymore.

This general is also an idiot and should be repremanded. He might as well have said that it's immoral to let blacks in the army.

 

[BigBadWlf]

While I think DADT should be gotten rid of. These results may not be so applicapble to us. Most of those countries aren't populated with idiots, fools, and misguided right wing homophobes.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to WalkingforHim again.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Strange, one would think if there was no fear of homosexuals, there would be no policy against them. Your logic doesn't jive.

So you are saying that being afraid of something causes being against it, and being against something means you are afraid of it? By that reasoning humanists are Christophobes and you have an irrational fear of General Pace. Just because your are against something or think it is bad does not mean you have an irrational fear or even fear of it.

So are you saying that homosexuals will disrupt the integrity and function of the ranks? If so, could you please explain how?

If you do some research on the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy they give a pretty thorough explanation.

 

[BigBadWlf]

So you are saying that being afraid of something causes being against it, and being against something means you are afraid of it? By that reasoning humanists are Christophobes and you have an irrational fear of General Pace. Just because your are against something or think it is bad does not mean you have an irrational fear or even fear of it.




If you do some research on the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy they give a pretty thorough explanation.

To bad the facts don’t back DADT up

 

[RealityCheck]

If you do some research on the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy they give a pretty thorough explanation.

You mean like this?

The success of the armed forces in pre-screening out gays and bisexuals from the 1940s - 1981 remains in dispute, and during the Vietnam Conflict some heterosexuals would try to pretend to be gay in order to avoid the draft. However, a significant number of gay men and women did manage to avoid the pre-screening process and serve in the military, some with special distinction. For example, in the 1950s - 1960s the Navy medical doctor Tom Dooley received national fame for his anti-Communist and humanitarian efforts in Vietnam. His homosexuality was something of an open secret in the Navy, but eventually he was forced to resign and the Navy conducted the first official study on sexual orientation and the Navy regulations and rules. The 1957 report, titled Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing With Homosexuals (aka the Crittenden Report) found that gays were no more likely to be a security risk than heterosexuals and found there were no rational basis for excluding gays from the Navy, although it stopped short of recommending a change in the regulations because of society's social mores.

Beyond the official regulations, gays were often the target of various types of harassment by their fellow heterosexual servicemen, designed to persuade them to resign from the military or turn themselves in to investigators. The most infamous type of such harassment was called a "blanket party" and involved several other service members during the night in the barracks, who first covered the face of the victim with a blanket and then committed assault, often quite severely and occasionally even fatally. The introduction of "Don't ask, don't tell" with the later amendment of "don't harass, don't pursue" has officially prohibited such behavior, but reports suggest that such harassment continues. The degree of official and unofficial attempts to separate gays from the armed forces seems to be directly related to the personnel needs of the armed forces. Hence, during wartime, it has not been uncommon for the rules regarding homosexuality to be relaxed. Up until 1981 it was the policy of all branches of the armed forces to retain a homosexual, at their discretion, thus promoting the "queen for a day" rule which allowed a person accused of homosexuality to remain in the armed forces if they could successfully claim that their behavior was only a temporary occurrence. This especially became the case during the Vietnam War.

So we see now really what "disruptions" will occur when gays serve openly in the military. It's the straight soldiers that can't resist the urge to harass and beat on the gay men - not the other way around.

 

[RealityCheck]

And we also see that when the military needs men, they stop caring about sexual orientation so much and put anyone they can get in the trenches.

Now, how does that jibe with the idea that allowing gays into the military disrupts order and discipline? Isn't war-time a time when discipline and order are in higher demand? Wouldn't then allowing gays to serve be defeating that purpose, if in fact that claim were remotely true?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Well, if pedophiles were barred then it too is because of their sexuality.

Actually it's because of their actions, not their sexuality.

Of course, the "gays-are-comparable-to-pedophiles" argument aptly demonstrates the intellectual vapidness of such arguments. One could just as easily and with more accuracy link pedophiles to Christian churches, since many serve as clergy and lay workers in churches.

If someone sleeps their way up the military ladder and is expelled for it then it is because of their sexuality also.

Again, it's really because of their actions.

Comparably but not similarly let's consider the case of COL Margarethe Cannemeyer (spelling?) who was commander of Madigan Army Medical Center at Fort Lewis, Washington. It was common knowledge Cannemeyer was a lesbian and nobody cared much but she was disliked because she was a <here a word we don't say for a difficult woman is omitted>. So those who hated her because of her personality used the military's archaic rule to get rid of her. Her actions needed to be addressed; the rule provided a tool to do it in such a way that an injustice was committed.

All said and done it is good that someone in the military is standing up for integrity.

Not the guy who's subject of this thread. He's standing up for corruption and hypocricy.

At least you cannot say he is ignoring corruption in the government!

He's pandering to a right-wing political base and most especially to the cultural right players in Congress, including some very closeted people of Ted Haggard sort.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Looks like that reality check just bounced. To claim that military men have some sort of fear of homosexuals is ridiculous. They are concerned with keeping order and integrity in the ranks, and preserving function and order. When that is your mindset then you will see the common sense of man and woman being made for eachother. The pro homo lobby does not see that. They think that their feelings dictate reality

Women (of all sexual orientations) deal with unwanted sexual attention since being little girls and understand it is part of the landscape.

Most heterosexual men, regardless of their intentions, are somewhat flattered when women are attracted to them, even ugly women, because it gives them a feeling where they can look in the mirror and say "You've still got it."

Not so for many with homophobia about unwanted attention from another male. They whine and whine and whine about things women endure hourly.

What is sought to be preserved is the feelings of such whiners.

 

[Texas Lynn]

What they don't really want to say is this:

"Letting homosexuals openly serve in the military will disrupt order and cause trouble because 'normal straight' soldiers will constantly be wary of the homosexual soldiers attempting to 'hit on' them or potentially that these homosexual soldiers will attempt to rape them."

When you consider how we now have a new diagnosis called MST (Military Sexual Trauma) affecting both male and female service members who were victims of rape by their fellow troops, the claim is all the more preposterous.

 

[Texas Lynn]

So we see now really what "disruptions" will occur when gays serve openly in the military. It's the straight soldiers that can't resist the urge to harass and beat on the gay men - not the other way around.

Righto. Because there a racial incidents in the military we don't argue getting rid of minorities although prior to Truman's integration of the armed forces they did.

Homophobes and racists need to be accountable for their actions. It's not their victims' fault what these sorts do.

 

[Texas Lynn]

And we also see that when the military needs men, they stop caring about sexual orientation so much and put anyone they can get in the trenches.

Now, how does that jibe with the idea that allowing gays into the military disrupts order and discipline? Isn't war-time a time when discipline and order are in higher demand? Wouldn't then allowing gays to serve be defeating that purpose, if in fact that claim were remotely true?

Actually processing of chapter paperwork on DADT offenders (that's the process by which people are removed from military service) is down, in large part due to "stop loss" orders because we need every available troop for deployment. So the military brass, by doing so, is tacitly admitting lesbian and gay troops aren't a problem.

 

[RealityCheck]

Actually processing of chapter paperwork on DADT offenders (that's the process by which people are removed from military service) is down, in large part due to "stop loss" orders because we need every available troop for deployment. So the military brass, by doing so, is tacitly admitting lesbian and gay troops aren't a problem.

Which is exactly what my quote above shows.


Now, KarateCowboy - you have anything else that might defend your position?

 

[allhart]

It's amazing how similar the arguments against letting gays serve openly are to those used against integration of the armed services.

Lets throw over weight people in there to thats racist to ( messy) on and on we go were do stop no one knows.

 

[loudatheist101]

Lets throw over weight people in there to thats racist to ( messy) on and on we go were do stop no one knows.

Huh?