logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> 770 Specialists discharged for being gay, Can we afford to continue this policy?
Paladin Elspeth
post Jun 21 2004, 02:24 AM
Post #1


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



When I logged in tonight, I saw this headline:

770 Specialists Discharged for Being Gay

QUOTE
The study found that the Army, the largest of the services, was responsible for about 41 percent of all discharges. The Army has invoked "stop-loss" authority to keep soldiers from retiring or otherwise leaving if they are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Lawmakers' votes to increase troop strength reflected the concerns voiced by families of military personnel whose tours in Iraq keep getting extended.

About 27 percent of the discharges came from the Navy, 22 percent from the Air Force, and 9 percent from the Marines.

Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties that required years of training and expertise, including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and 49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists.

Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven Arab language specialists.


Under the circumstances, can the United States Military afford to continue this policy toward homosexuals?

Is this fair to the heterosexuals who are being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely?

What about the ramifications of this for the proposed reinstatement of the draft? Is the gay community going to experience a sudden population explosion?

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Jun 21 2004, 02:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Curmudgeon
post Jun 21 2004, 02:57 AM
Post #2


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,198
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties that required years of training and expertise, including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and 49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists.

Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven Arab language specialists.

Under the circumstances, can the United States Military afford to continue this policy toward homosexuals?

The obvious answer to this question is no. The military cannot continue to afford their policy of believing that someone can spend years getting specialized training, socializing with fellow trainees, learning highly specialized skills; and only discover their sexual orientation when it's time to go to war.

Is this fair to the heterosexuals who are being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely?

No. The military should really create something equivalent to the Buffalo Soldiers, a Greek Pride Platoon... "We're tougher, we're stronger, and we r-e-a-l-l-y believe you when you tell us you're gay."

What about the ramifications of this for the proposed reinstatement of the draft? Is the gay community going to experience a sudden population explosion?

There might be a slight increase. I have heard that the new draft proposal allows no exemption for college, for being a parent, for gender, etc. If they do allow the equivalent of a IV-F exemption for homosexual orientation; I can envision a lot of Congressmen's sons filing for marriage certificates to marry each other, and Congressmen's daughters filing for marriage certificates to marry each other. (How else could you legally prove your sexual orientation?)

On the whole though, I think it has generally been the heterosexual community which has been blamed for the worldwide population explosion.

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Jun 21 2004, 02:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jun 21 2004, 04:16 AM
Post #3


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,833
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 20 2004, 09:24 PM)

Under the circumstances, can the United States Military afford to continue this policy toward homosexuals?

Is this fair to the heterosexuals who are being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely?

What about the ramifications of this for the proposed reinstatement of the draft? Is the gay community going to experience a sudden population explosion?

Under the circumstances, can the United States Military afford to continue this policy toward homosexuals? Yes.

Is this fair to the heterosexuals who are being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely? Yes, because the standard for fair is their enlistment contract and the laws governing military service, not what some other guy is getting. But as a point of order, they are not being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely. Those who are going to be extended under the stop-loss will get out after their units rotate back stateside.

What about the ramifications of this for the proposed reinstatement of the draft? Is the gay community going to experience a sudden population explosion? What ramifications? The "proposed reinstatement" is just that, proposed, and proposed by who? Second, I'm pretty sure that if they did reinstate the draft, they'll come up with some way of insuring that gays and women get to serve their country. They did it with conscientous objectors during WW2, they can do it again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Victoria Silverw...
post Jun 21 2004, 04:27 AM
Post #4


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,601
Member No.: 608
Joined: March-16-03

From: Chattanooga Tennessee USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



The anti-gay policy of the armed forces is total nonsense. Of all people, Barry Goldwater said it best:

QUOTE
You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country.   You just need to shoot straight.


If the draft comes back (I sure hope not) you will certainly see many people claim to be gay just to get out of it. I can remember way back in the 1960's and 1970's when this was sometimes shown as comic in movies. The young man would report to his draft board with a purse, speaking in a lisp, and just generally acting swishy. Well, I hope we have progressed to the point where we no longer stereotype gay men in that way. I guess we still have a long way to go before we overcome other forms of discrimination.

What a nightmare scenario might lie ahead! People who want to serve in the military being forced out; people who don't want to serve in the military being forced in. Does this make any sense at all?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cadman
post Jun 21 2004, 06:32 AM
Post #5


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 411
Member No.: 1,193
Joined: September-13-03

From: Outside of Chicago, Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



What a great way to put it Victoria. What I find really disturbing from the article is the view of Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group, has:

770 Specialists Discharged for Being Gay

QUOTE
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place.

"We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," Donnelly said. "There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual."


To have this kind of view in this day and age is very hard to swallow for several reasons,

1. why would we dismiss anyone that has not done anything wrong and our military has invested so much time and energy in.

2. if they wanted to be in the military more power to them, hell if I was gay I would not want to put up with the junk they are making them swallow by hiding in the closet or be dismissed for being who you are, its not like they are having military gay pride parades in the middle of the military base. whistling.gif

3. the fact that the anti-gay policy was ever allowed to see the light of day is beyond me, especially since any employer within our country can not prejudice against someone because of their sexual orientation but we allow our military to do just that if the person does not keep quiet about them being gay. wacko.gif

This post has been edited by Cadman: Jun 21 2004, 07:36 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Jun 21 2004, 06:49 AM
Post #6


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I disagree with you, Bikerdad, which comes as no surprise to either of us.

QUOTE
Is this fair to the heterosexuals who are being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely? Yes, because the standard for fair is their enlistment contract and the laws governing military service, not what some other guy is getting. But as a point of order, they are not being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely. Those who are going to be extended under the stop-loss will get out after their units rotate back stateside.


No, it is not fair to heterosexuals overseas.

Witness the definition of indefinite:
QUOTE
ADJECTIVE: Not definite, especially: a. Unclear; vague. b. Lacking precise limits: an indefinite leave of absence. c. Uncertain; undecided: indefinite about their plans.


Add to that the fact that gays, especially those who can translate Arabic, do represent a substantial loss when fighting people who don't speak the same language as you do.

The heteros will bear the brunt of extended duty while gays who are willing to fight for their country (for you, too) are prohibited from doing so if the military finds out they aren't straight.

What about the heterosexuals catting around while they are over there with relative impunity? What honor is there in that--women being raped by healthy heterosexual men, or women getting pregnant because they fooled around and there was a whoops or they just got tired of serving overseas? Can you honestly state, from a moral standpoint, that these types of behavior are more morally suitable? Are these circumstances any less of a blow to troop morale?

I think it is that men fear rape as much as women do, or they are afraid to think that maybe they might have reciprocal feelings for the cute guy in the bunk next to theirs... whistling.gif

Since when did you have to be sexually "morally upright" in order to don a uniform and go kill people, anyway? ermm.gif

I'm so glad that they think that they have enough military personnel that they can throw dedicated professionals away just like that. But wait! They can always force just the people they want to serve if they run out of heterosexual cannon fodder.

Tell me, Bikerdad, if there is a gay soldier who gives his life in service to his country, is his sacrifice somehow less?

And one more thing as to the "indefinite" argument:

What if a soldier says "Hell, no, I won't go (back)" after being on a short leave with his family. Aren't there definite repercussions to that action, or does the military say, "That's okay, you've done enough already"?

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Jun 21 2004, 07:07 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Titus
post Jun 21 2004, 06:50 AM
Post #7


*******
What's crackalackin?

Group: Members
Posts: 631
Member No.: 1,872
Joined: November-29-03

From: So Cal
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



Under the circumstances, can the United States Military afford to continue this policy toward homosexuals?

Of course they can. The military may not be perfect as far as making recruitment projections, but I don't think that discharging a relatively handful of homosexuals will make the various units of the Army unable to complete it's objectives.

Is this fair to the heterosexuals who are being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely?

Number one, you mention compelled, meaning they aren't forced to so, yes it's fair. And units may have their deployment extended, but it isn't ever indefinately.

What about the ramifications of this for the proposed reinstatement of the draft? Is the gay community going to experience a sudden population explosion?

Nope. Canada maybe, but not the homosexual population. Do I think the return of the draft is possible? Sure. But don't expect the military to be jumping for joy. All you'll do is either have an influx of Americans traveling to both sides of the border, or an influx of people who don't want to serve and will make the lives of those in charge of training them miserable, which in turn, will get them thrown out anyway.

The military has it's regulations against homosexuals being in the service for a reason. Cadman, the military and the civilian world are completely different. Pay, benefits, risk, duties. This is what seperates the two. And if having homosexuals in the service is going to be a distraction, then if one is so inclined, one should think twice before enlisting. Even at the processing station, where you get all that paperwork done, they ask you to read a little brown folder. In it, it describes the service's policy on such. Such are the rules and if one chooses to ignore said rules then one is inclined to deal with the consequences.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Jun 21 2004, 07:00 AM
Post #8


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Please bear in mind the net definition of compel:

QUOTE
TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission.


Just what are the consequences when a soldier says he won't go back or remain an "indefinite" (as in "We don't know how long") term of duty?

"For the duration" might be a definite time frame, but only to someone who is omniscient.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Jun 21 2004, 07:01 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Titus
post Jun 21 2004, 07:06 AM
Post #9


*******
What's crackalackin?

Group: Members
Posts: 631
Member No.: 1,872
Joined: November-29-03

From: So Cal
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Paladin Elspeth

Tell me, Bikerdad, if there is a gay soldier who gives his life in service to his country, is his sacrifice somehow less?

And one more thing as to the "indefinite" argument:

What if a soldier says "Hell, no, I won't go (back)" after being on a short leave with his family. Aren't there definite repercussions to that action, or does the military say, "That's okay, you've done enough already"?


First off, anyone who dons the uniform of a professional soldier and gives their life is a hero in my book, regardless of anything including sexual orientation.

Second, if a soldier is on leave and refuses to go back to his unit, no matter if he is gay or straight and has accolades galore or not... he is AWOL and subject to the UCMJ.

And we can debate symantics till the cows come home. But the here's the deal. The military has rules. If the rules are not complied with, actions will be taken.

And believe me when I say that there are dirtbags in the service. I've met some. From E-7s to Privates. I've had soldiers I've trained with get into violent relationships, be accused of sexual assualt, and drug use. They were all dealt with according to what the Uniform Code of Military Justice dictates. There's no policy that hunts down homosexuals. But the fact remains... rules are rules.

BTW. The Presidio at Montery trains plenty of people in Arabic and Farsi, so I wouldn't worry about that.

This post has been edited by Titus: Jun 21 2004, 07:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cadman
post Jun 21 2004, 07:47 AM
Post #10


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 411
Member No.: 1,193
Joined: September-13-03

From: Outside of Chicago, Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Titus @ Jun 21 2004, 01:50 AM)
The military has it's regulations against homosexuals being in the service for a reason. Cadman, the military and the civilian world are completely different. Pay, benefits, risk, duties. This is what seperates the two. And if having homosexuals in the service is going to be a distraction, then if one is so inclined, one should think twice before enlisting. Even at the processing station, where you get all that paperwork done, they ask you to read a little brown folder. In it, it describes the service's policy on such. Such are the rules and if one chooses to ignore said rules then one is inclined to deal with the consequences.

Please tell me inquiring minds want to know having homosexuals in the service what is the exact distraction? Because if history serves me correct their has been homosexuals in the military almost from the conception of our military.

96029: Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues

QUOTE
updated December 12, 1996

Numerous constitutional challenges to former and current military policies regarding homosexuals followed in the wake of the new 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior. More recently, however, there has been some erosion of judicial consensus on whether a discharge based solely on a statement that a servicemember is homosexual violates equal protection or other federal constitutional protections.


Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military

QUOTE
A Brief History of Military Policies Concerning Sexual Minorities
Prior to World War I, the U.S. military did not maintain specific regulations addressing homosexuality among its service members. Instead, individual commanders retained considerable discretion over the control and discipline of soldiers under their command. Evidence exists of both the participation of gay military personnel and of discharges for homosexuality as far back as the revolutionary war (Shilts, 1993; Katz, 1992).[2] While documents concerning same-sex sexual behavior from this time are scarce, it is believed that not all reported cases were prosecuted (Katz, 1992). The Articles of War of 1916 addressed the issue of homosexual conduct for the first time, although prohibition was limited to assault with the intent to commit sodomy.[3] In the 1920 revision of these regulations, consensual sodomy was listed as criminal behavior and made punishable by imprisonment (Shilts, 1993; National Defense Research Institute, 1993).[4]


Edited to add some info

This post has been edited by Cadman: Jun 21 2004, 08:05 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slim
post Jun 21 2004, 12:35 PM
Post #11


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Member No.: 1,361
Joined: October-4-03

From: Arizona
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Under the circumstances, can the United States Military afford to continue this policy toward homosexuals?


They can, and they will.

Is this fair to the heterosexuals who are being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely?

It's not fair to anyone involved in the situation. I will never understand why some people think who you want to have sex with has any impact upon your ability to perform any given task or be part of any given community.

QUOTE
What about the ramifications of this for the proposed reinstatement of the draft? Is the gay community going to experience a sudden population explosion?


I think there are plenty of men and women that would claim to be homosexual to avoid the draft.


QUOTE
And we can debate symantics till the cows come home. But the here's the deal. The military has rules. If the rules are not complied with, actions will be taken.

And believe me when I say that there are dirtbags in the service. I've met some. From E-7s to Privates. I've had soldiers I've trained with get into violent relationships, be accused of sexual assualt, and drug use. They were all dealt with according to what the Uniform Code of Military Justice dictates. There's no policy that hunts down homosexuals. But the fact remains... rules are rules.


And it's time to change those rules. The private sector can not discriminate based on sexuality, but the military can? Government sponsored discrimination is okay? Having opportunities refused to you is acceptable if it's the government that is refusing? Being the rule doesn't mean it's right, doesn't mean it's fair, and doesn't mean it can't be changed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chiefdork
post Jun 21 2004, 01:44 PM
Post #12


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Member No.: 3,216
Joined: June-20-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



Under the circumstances, can the United States Military afford to continue this policy toward homosexuals?


Yes they can. They enter in under false pretenses they will be removed under them.


Is this fair to the heterosexuals who are being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely?

Same story they sign up to serve they are expected to do so, wether they are in Iraq or Korea fair does not play into it.




What about the ramifications of this for the proposed reinstatement of the draft? Is the gay community going to experience a sudden population explosion?

Of course there would be, Canada would get an influx of people as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Jun 21 2004, 02:01 PM
Post #13


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Just to clear any misunderstanding of the DOD policy, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', here is a link with the pertinent facts. Link
As they are not asked if they are gay when they join, technically, they are not entering under false pretenses.

Under the circumstances, can the United States Military afford to continue this policy toward homosexuals?
Probably not. However I did notice the spin in the article headline. When it says the Army is discharging 770 gay 'specialists', that sounds more serious than saying they were cooks and truck drivers. Of course, in a sense, everybody in the military is a specialist of some sort. But I think the wording of the headline had an agenda.

Is this fair to the heterosexuals who are being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely?
No more unfair than women who get pregnant and are re-deployed back to the states, some destined for discharge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Jun 21 2004, 04:07 PM
Post #14


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



This is from the Should Women be expected to register for the Draft thread:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues...=ua_congressorg (Sorry, it appears that this link is no longer available; please check the thread for additional content from the article)

QUOTE
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft.

*emphasis mine

Fleeing to Canada will not be an option if the draft is reinstated.

I just can't figure out what the big deal is about gays serving in the military. They take philanderers of the heterosexual ilk. A gay person is not necessarily a promiscuous person any more than a hetero is.

The sodomizing of detainees/prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison with chemical light sticks was done by allegedly heterosexual U.S. military personnel. Why their preoccupation with anal assaults?

I see a lot of hypocrisy in refusing to allow gays to serve in the military. And it places an undue burden on the service personnel who are allowed to serve because of their sexual orientation.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Jun 21 2004, 04:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Jun 21 2004, 04:35 PM
Post #15


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,520
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



Is the problem homosexuality or the sodomy that goes with gay males?

These are two independent issues. If the military rejects gays based simply on their gender preference, that's wrong. I personally served with heteros that didn't have the moral fortitude good enough for most prisons.

However, if it's a public health issue due to sodomy, I think they have every right to reject gays. It's up to the armed forces to protect their general military population from disease. In the service, you don't go anywhere without all your shots. I couldn't make a mailrun to the Azores one time without getting a couple shots. Extraordinary measures to reduce the risk of transmitted disease is highly common in the military.

Obviously, there are diseases in the hetero community. But HIV and third world diseases on the rise (typhoid, TB, etc) occur overwhelmingly in the homosexual community. It doesn't make sense to expose that many people typically living in confined areas for extended periods of times to the heightened risks associated that type of sexual behavior.

Given the extremely high promiscuity rate in gay males, I believe there are valid health concerns to keep them out due to typical military living conditions. But quite honestly, I haven't heard that as being the issue. So, it appears wrong to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Jun 21 2004, 05:25 PM
Post #16


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jun 21 2004, 04:35 PM)
Obviously, there are diseases in the hetero community. But HIV and third world diseases on the rise (typhoid, TB, etc) occur overwhelmingly in the homosexual community. It doesn't make sense to expose that many people typically living in confined areas for extended periods of times to the heightened risks associated that type of sexual behavior.

Firstly, of new AIDS infections reported in 2002, only 32% of them were transmitted through homosexual contact. While that is still slightly higher than the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals in the general population, it none the less shows that the majority of AIDS infections are through drug use or heterosexual contact.

TB is a highly infectious airborne disease, not an STD. It is transmitted by close proximity, such as family gatherings or crowds. In terms of close contact such as sex, homosexuals are at no more risk than heterosexuals.

In the third world AIDS is far more serious:

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/i...ids/africa.html

There are no statistics to list infection rates among heterosexual and homosexual groups, but assuming the same or lower prevalence of homoseuxuality as in the US (7% to 10%) it is statistically impossible for homosexuality to be the primary transmission agent of the virus.


I know this is off topic, but it is necessary to deal with the 'deseased homosexuals' argument before getting on to the real issue.


Clearly disease is not the reason homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the military. I am at a loss to understand the need for second layer of regulations to deal with this group. Fraternisation is already not allowed, two soldiers found having sexual relations would already face charges even before rules against homosexuality are invoked. If a homosexual man is willing to pick up a rifle and fight for his country, it is the epitome of pregudice to say he cannot because of his sexual orientation, a factor which will have NO EFFECT on the performance of his duties.

It was only 50 years ago that Blacks were not allowed to be pilots because "negros do not have the necessary eyesight or hand eye coordination to pilot and aircraft". saying 'The military has rules' is not sufficient, there needs to be reasonable justification for those rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FargoUT
post Jun 21 2004, 06:37 PM
Post #17


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 242
Member No.: 1,331
Joined: September-30-03

From: Salt Lake City, UT
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



This whole topic makes me sick to my stomach. I can't believe such bigotry still exists in our society. I hear about it, but to witness it is another story.

CNN - 770 dismissed

CNN.com has the story of Brian Muller who admitted to his commanding officer that he was gay. "I didn't do it to get out of a war -- I already served in a war," he says. "After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable."

I feel sorry for Mr. Muller, as his viewpoint is valid and cuts through the bullplop. This war is for freedom, but whose freedoms exactly? It's insane, if you ask me. There seems to be the argument that homosexuals bring the threat of diseases and immoral behavior. I am reminded of comedian Bill Hicks, a stand-up comedian with sharp wit and pointed arguments. He argues, "Since when does the military have all these morals? Aren't you all hired killers? 'Is that a village of women and children? Where's the napalm? I don't want any gay people around me while I'm killing kids. I just don't wanna see it!'" (Paraphrased for effect)

Perhaps the real reason gay and lesbian citizens aren't allowed in the military is this: since they don't have the same freedoms as their heterosexual counterparts, they shouldn't be fighting for those freedoms. President Bush himself was able to avoid active combat in the military, yet those who have been fighting are now discharged over their sexuality? Something's not right with this picture.

I can't continue writing. My fury and anger are mounting to cloud my logical judgment. After I've cooled down, maybe I'll write some more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Jun 21 2004, 07:07 PM
Post #18


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Under the circumstances, can the United States Military afford to continue this policy toward homosexuals?


Our number one priority should be to protect our citizens, as well as to make sure our military is the best that it can be. Getting rid of linguists and engineers? They don't just grow on trees and conducting witch-hunts to find out about people's personal lives(which should have no bearing what they do on the job) is just preposterous. National security is more likely to be jeopardized by shortages in key areas than by some guy in a unit who happens to be gay. It would be unfortunate if some tape didn't get translated because the guy who would've translated it and perhaps saved lives didn't because he didn't fit the "moral fiber" of some arbitrarily agreed upon rule.

QUOTE
What about the ramifications of this for the proposed reinstatement of the draft? Is the gay community going to experience a sudden population explosion?


Outlaw the army and war since it is a part of the gay agenda! w00t.gif Send the Village People to Iraq? wacko.gif Okay, okay, I'll try and be serious now. whistling.gif I don't know if more people would claim they were gay to get out of service, then again you had people who would maim themselves on "hunting" trips and the like. The military should just grow up and do what 24 other nations do already-admit gays in the military.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Grendel72
post Jun 21 2004, 07:09 PM
Post #19


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 681
Member No.: 1,013
Joined: August-17-03

From: Tulsa, OK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Under the circumstances, can the United States Military afford to continue this policy toward homosexuals?
It's an extremely silly rule, and from a moral standpoint it makes no sense to say that lying is more acceptable than being gay. The standard anti-fraternization rules would prevent any of the myriad straight-boy-paranoid-fantasies laid out in this thread from being allowed.

Is this fair to the heterosexuals who are being compelled to serve overseas indefinitely?
Not really, but as long as such a silly rule remains in place they have an easy out should they choose to take it. tongue.gif

What about the ramifications of this for the proposed reinstatement of the draft? Is the gay community going to experience a sudden population explosion?
This is where the real unfairness comes in: turning away people who want to serve, who chose it for themselves, while forcing those who don't want to serve to fight and die.
It is my understanding that despite the jokes from the Vietnam war era, relatively few were discharged for homosexuality.
From a personal point of view, I've always though the draft was a patently unfair concept and when I was of draft age I would have happily used my sexuality as an out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Jun 21 2004, 07:30 PM
Post #20


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Titus @ Jun 21 2004, 02:50 AM)
And if having homosexuals in the service is going to be a distraction, then if one is so inclined, one should think twice before enlisting.

Not long ago that same argument kept women out of the service. Today the distraction comes in the form of MOSs close to the front line and integration at the recruit training stage (the latter I'll agree is an incredibly stupid, futile PC move).

Even today you could make the argument that women are a distraction.

QUOTE
The first women entered West Point in 1976. Upon graduation, they were allowed to pursue most career fields, but by law precluded from those "combat arms" specialties that would place them on the front lines. This was done for two explicit reasons. The first is the importance the military places on "unit cohesion." Integrated units, some theorists have argued, would destroy the teamwork crucial to combat performance. Male soldiers would become distracted and compete for women's attention, and would grow demoralized if women were killed or wounded. "No unit can afford to have two people in love with another," says Dr. Anna Simons, a professor at the Navy's Postgraduate School who has written extensively on Special Forces and believes that gender integration would have a disastrous effect. "Forget the sex--this is about the clouding of judgment. No matter how close the friendship is between men, it still doesn't jeopardize their decisions the way that love does."

As far as sexual impropriety goes, women aren't immune to the wiles of their "legal" sexual orientation.
QUOTE
Some criticized women's performance in Iraq, pointing to ships and ground units with high pregnancy rates--even organized prostitution rings--as examples of women's harmful effect on unit cohesion and morale. There have also been charges of standards being lowered to let women into combat positions, such as at least one high-visibility aviation accident with a female pilot in 1994 who, critics charged, had been rushed into the cockpit to ensure that a politically motivated proportion of women earned their wings. But there were too few female pilots at the time for any meaningful studies to be conducted, and more recent reports from the air campaigns in Kosovo and Afghanistan indicate that women pilots performed as well as men, and, in some cases, even better.

Source: War Dames

The soldier makes the uniform, not the other way around. A wo/man's sexual orientation is part of what makes him or her human, not a tool we can extrapolate to draft up rules for fears and prejudices we want to explain away but can't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: May 25th, 2019 - 07:07 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.