There are, and always have been, gays in the US Military (as well as other Military Forces). President Clinton (as crafted by Colin Powell) suggested that the US Military should take a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" stance on the topic. The idea being to keep it quiet but not deliberately lie about your sexual preference. President Bush has not changed this policy.

Still there are fervent arguments for and against gays in the military.

One one had there is the idea that gays would be "checking out" others during showers. That having gays in the military would lower morale.

On the other there is a feeling that anyone should be allowed to serve the US through the Military.

I personally believe the issue of gays in the military is one that homophobes must address amongst themselves. Gays do not pose any inherent danger to themselves or anyone else greater than a heterosexual. Sexual preference really shouldn't be a factor in Military service.

Questions for debate:

1 - Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?
2 - Who, if anyone, is to blame for this controversy? Is it the gays for wanting in or those wanting them out?
3 - Are there any acceptable compromises for this rift?

SF Gate talks about how they don't believe it's effective...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...EDGTH39QR51.DTL


From USmilitary.about.com...
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa011000a.htm


Basically, I can see both sides. The unfortunate situation for a platoon leader or company commander is that what do you do with a Corporal who is openly gay in the barracks? Operationally, rarely do military installations have the luxury of allowing enlisted men (Non-NCO's) to have seperate housing, shower facilities, gyms, etc. It's part of being an enlisted soldier. Worse even is basic training or MOS School (AIT in other branches). There's no money for two standards, and surely you can't keep morale high if Billy the open homosexual gets his own room, a personal bathroom/shower facility, etc. Lord only knows what you'd have to do when you go to the field or into a war zone.

This doesn't even address prejudice. Who's to blame? Well- society on one hand and homosexual misunderstanding on the other. Why is the airforce the # discharge king of homosexuals? Well- it attracts more gays in my opinion. Homosexuals seemingly don't understand why a straight man/woman wouldn't want them in such close proximity and in such intimate quarters. The military doesn't understand how this underminds the progress of gay rights. This is all coupled by the bravado of many military (especially Army and Marine) soldiers. We NEED tough, macho, and type-A fighting men (and women in some cases). It's been part of the fabric of US military dominance. The obvious downside in this debate is that most macho men don't want an openly gay man living within arms reach.

Are there acceptable compromises? Well, I doubt it. Maybe they allow homosexuals to serve in Government Service (GS) roles that give them more privacy, and remove them from the fray of unitized ranks. Maybe the government creates roles and stipulations that creates roles where homosexuals can serve in proximity to each other, but even that makes for its own problems. What if homosexual men, for instance, are housed together in a communications outpost (or whatever) in Northern Afghanistan? Would there be issues with men having sex with each other? Would you make it a ratio of women to gay men that is acceptable?

The problem is that homosexuals in US society expect that the system changes to meet their needs. Unfortunately, they ARE the overwhelming minority in the US, and definitely in the Armed Services. If they are given preferential treatment, how do you handle the backlash from the rest of the soldiers in your unit, etc?

The real answer to all three questions basically states at this point that there is far more to be LOST by allowing homosexuals in the ranks of our Armed Forces than there is to be gained. Right now, there is no financially, logistically, or manageable compromise that benefits the US or the Military.

The issue of allowing these people into the military is pretty simple.

The issue of unit cohesion is critical, these are men who work, live and fight together, the inclusion of something openly different in their ranks like this will reduce their figting power, and their military effectiveness. The US military is a fighting force, whose only objective is to protect US rights and citizens and project US power. This is NOT the place for social experimentation or pushing a political agenda, no matter how reasonable that agenda might seem in the civilian world.

Aevans stated that real MACHO men don't want these kinds of people around, it will lead to conflict, possibly even fights and violence. In fact it could be argued these people are being kept out of the military for their OWN protection.

Many of the recruits from small towns will never even have encountered one of these people, it is to be expected they will react with fear and confusion, they will react differently when they see them in the shower, when they have to sleep beside them at night. There are different habits, different traditions, different ways they see the world in some cases. Of course not all are like this, some are just like anyone else, but we can't take the chance by opening this door to the US military. I mean, there is justifiable logic in the fear of soldiers asleep at night beside one of these people that they might not be able to control their baser instincts, after all, in the end they really aren't like us.

Oh, and also they can't see at night.


THAT is why we absolutely cannot allow Blacks into the US military.




The level of steriotyping in this thread so far has been painful to read. We can't be sure they won't try and cuddle men in the showers? We can't be sure they won't make a pass at other soldiers?

PLEASE. This all goes back to the horribly steriotypical and bigoted fear that gay men are all really sexual predators searching around for straight men to 'turn to the dark side'.

"Give in to your aggressive feelings boy, they have made you powerful! The more you resist, the more you make yourself my gay servant!"

Ask yourself, does it ever happen, and I mean EVER, that STRAIGHT men and women have to work together in close proximity? Perhaps on a sports team, or an expedition, or any field when straight men and women work closely together for extended periods of time? Are we terrified those straight men will not be able to control themselves, and will HAVE to 'cuddle' with the women?

Do you really think a gay man in the military is going to wear leather chaps and spurs, dye his hair pink and place his limp wristed hand on the naked butts of the poor defenceless straight men in the showers? Some here even go so far as to imply that gay men, if left alone with other men, HAVE to have gay sex, that they simply cannot help themselves, that they will need to be segregated or mionitored to make sure they don't get up to their 'gay shenanegins', assumedly by corrupting them poor straight boys... besides, there already ARE gays in the military under 'Don't ask, don't tell', and yet somehow these horrific predictions have not come true, so the only issue is actually admitting their sexual inclinations.



There are no realistic arguments for keeping gays out of the military. Inside they are subject to the same rules and discipline as anyone else, If they violate it, they are discharged, like anyone else. How on earth is this a problem?

1 - Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?

Yes, out concern for civil rights and for military effectiveness. The argument that accepting homosexuals would impede military effectiveness simply cannot be made because so many gays already are in the military. It is merely a question of how they should be treated. But military anti-gay policies demoralize many people and undermine military effectivess.

2 - Who, if anyone, is to blame for this controversy? Is it the gays for wanting in or those wanting them out?

I do not see why anyone should be "to blame" for the existence of fundamental disagreements on a civil rights issue. People who favored Jim Crow laws were not "to blame" for their attitudes. Fortunately over time, most Americans have come to realize that unfavorable typefication of Blacks is profoundly unjust. A similar change is going on in thinking about homosexuals.

Miltary leaders who spend time and resources on trying to discover who is homosexual, and booting them out of the service, are doing a disservice to justice and to military effectiveness. It's time to disenable these bigots by removing the UCMJ's prohibition of private, homosexual conduct.

3 - Are there any acceptable compromises for this rift?

No, it's a civil rights issue and a miltary effectiveness issue as well, so there can be no compromise. Also there is no reason to compromise, since the tide of history is going this way.

While I definitely understand your logic, and believe that it has a reasoning behind it. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

The fact of the matter is that fraternization and when men and women soldiers come in contact, relationships and sexual tensions do occur. It's normal and natural to have an attraction that causes undue diversion.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9705/09/army.sex/

Why on earth do people believe this won't happen in the US Military with homosexuals? I can't count how many "field showers" I've had where a tarp is hung, and a contraption holding water is used to shower with other men present. Not to mention that some installations have "dorm" living arrangements for enlisted men. I would say with 100% assuredness, that I've known fellow (women) soldiers that I've found attractive in one light or another. It would be VERY difficult to maintain professionalism and do my job if I had to be nude with them to shower, to sleep within inches, etc. It's a reasonable argument.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily that the homosexuals will attempt to harass straight soldiers, but moreover that there will undoubtedly be issues with the arrangements. Do you think people in the military don't date? Ask any Petty Officer off the record about how they feel about men/women aboard ships in close proximity. Months away from loved ones, being deprived of "basic needs" often changes the dynamic of "professionalism".

I find it interesting that people don't understand this and think it's a stereotyping, as it's not. It's really just a realistic inference that comes from experience and the documented impact of women and men stationed abroad together.

Would I be wildly off the mark in assuming you do not want women in the US Military either? For the same basic reasons you have posted here.

Yes, and yet they seem to all survive, don't they?
These relationships also have the little caviat of being consentual, don't they? No miliytary policy allowing rape or men to 'cuddle up with' women who reject their advances, right?

So how is that applicable? Heterosexuals can control themselves, so why can't homosexuals? They would be subject to the same rank-based anti-fraternisation laws as currently exist, so whats the issue, exactly?




And has this led to the downfall of the military? No? then frankly, that disproves your entire argument. If consentual, within regs dating already occurrs, and the military survives, then whats the issue? You can't seem to decide what you are arguing here, is it the absurd fear of non-consentual fondling or cuddling from some gay man on his poor straight victim? Or is it the fear that two gay men in the military might actually hook up, considering you just said heterosexual hook-ups are not uncommon: whats the problem?



Just like it wasn'y when people used many of the very same arguments to justify keeping blacks out of the military. And you know what? Introducing blacks into the military WAS disruptive, and there WERE incidents... for a little while, as the bigots got used to things. Now its impossible to imagine it being any different.

Look at what just happened with the "astronaut love triangle" involving a US Navy Captain (female), an Air Force officer (female), and a male astronaut. If that happened in a unit in combat, can you imagine how awful, distruptive and downright deadly it could be? Homosexuals are subject to the same potential problems.

There should be no women and no homosexuals in the military. Love triangles and the resentment (and maybe jealous rage murder) they cause will never go away as long as people are people, unlike, say, racial prejudice. Women and homosexuals can serve their country in many ways, including in civilian support roles for the military. There is no need to experiment with the military in a way that impairs its effectiveness.

The stakes are too high.

That is rediculous. Pointing to an extreme crime committed by a borderline personality and using it for such a method?

How about I point to racist murders, like those done by the KKK, or regular bigots across the country? Are those crimes sufficient reason to keep blacks out of the military? After all, if stuff like those racist crimes happened IN the military it would be bad! So no blacks: right?



All people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The EXACT same statements were uttered regarding blacks, and they turned out to be just as fallacious.



I agree. At stake are not only the basic principles of freedom and equality, but also the critical factor of men for an under-recruiting military. The stakes are far too high to let petty predjudices and steriotypes of predatory out-of-control gays rule military recruitment practices. gays in the military won't impair the military's effectiveness, I can 100% absolutely, completely guarentee that. How? because there ARE gays in the military, LOTS of them under 'don't ask don't tell': yet thesedoom scenarios about gays cuddling straights against their will have not happened. How do you explain that? Apparently gays CAN control themselves!!!

The only issue is openly gay or not, and there is no justification for banning that at all.

Not that I am against Gays being in the military but I am interested in the counter argument to BaphometsAdvocate point that Gays/Homosexuals are already in the military. I've served with them, both men and women. They may or may not have been in my platoon in boot camp in the same shower with me. I didn't know, and I think that is part of what people who object are saying.

Don't ask Don't tell policy lets homosexuals in the military

1 - Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?

Of course they should- it is silly and anti-American values of freedom that we even have this rule there. Pure stupidity, bigotry and ignorance are the only reason. Same reasons white and blacks couldn't serve together, then men and women shouldn't serve together yadda yadda same stupid idiotic argument, played out again. The arguments didn't wash then, and they don't pass the sniff test now.

When America allowed racial discrimination in society- they allowed it in the military- when it was no longer acceptable for officers to be racist, and officers lost thier jobs over it- then racism became rare real dang quick- at least overtly, and those that harmed someone in the military simply for race are hashly punished, with their careers, and depending how severe the infraction- with thier freedom.

If I were CNC, I would sign an executive order barring discrimination and harrasement- and the first general that doesn't follow the policy, or anyone in his chain of command, he would lose his job, and everyone down the line would too- that would be the end of the problem, right there.

AS soon as it is shown as unacceptable behavior and will damage careers if it happens- it ends over night. End of discussion.



2 - Who, if anyone, is to blame for this controversy? Is it the gays for wanting in or those wanting them out?

Religious whackos, as usual. There is simply no logical reason, same as any other bigoted behaviors.


3 - Are there any acceptable compromises for this rift?

No- freedom is an inalienable right- NOT legislated by the majority. Gays simply need to not be denied any right, whether to serve or to marry, as any other American, and, like the civil rights movement before it- it is yet another dark chapter in US history regarding our ideals vs our actions.

We want to claim to be a beacon of freedom- then we are not that beacon until this is not an issue.

Race prejudice can change; sexual attractiveness and the ruinous jealously it breeds will never change. That is all you need to undertstand to get the correct answer for this problem.

As far as the argument that gays are already in the military, I am sure that is true, but just because we have am imperfect system is no reason to ditch the system.

No one should have a "right" to be in the military; the military has to be effective, period, and all other concerns are secondary at best. Now, if the general staff says it doesn't matter, then fine; but whatever they think they need to do the job, they should have.

Yes but in that formula how to you determine fact from fiction and what is needed, just and correct vs. what is not. I mean if some person in charge feels the need to use the tactic of suicide waves on a regular basis should we just agree with it and let it be?

Overall if taking what you say is true about human nature such should be automatic and directly visible to the observer, for example every homosexual in the military should then cause such problems as a constant.

I think the history of the military and of course homosexuals in such an organization would prove a different story as a point overall, so I don’t find it so mildly simple is all.

Bigotry and intolerance should not by themselves be the only factors overall in the decision process in regards to the military, more so being its a federal organization. Overall giving the idea of such its not a far cry overall from basically imposing such beliefs in other aspects of human perception and or behavior, what’s to stop them from saying only the devoutly religious should serve? I mean an atheist might hesitate giving there life if they believe death is simply a fade to black end of all type event? You could of course by extension apply this to a multitude of human aspects you could find in American culture. What if a cell of anti American African Americans form, and steal weapons to hold some perceived revenge on white capitalist oppressor pig dogs? I mean the situations that can evolve could in total be mildly endless.

Overall it should be something as close to objective as humanly possible deciding law at all times in my opinion, not subjective matter. So in your formula could you say with no doubt that such is objective, or is it simply more rooted in modern day bias and intolerance that in itself does not have to hold a grain of truth to it? Perceive negative acts of human behavior come from every aspect of such not only today but in history, or simply nobody is perfect.

1 - Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?

You train people to kill, to incinerate and tear apart other human beings, and then you worry about their moral health... why?

You send your armed forces into the worst possible places, to endure the worst possible sights, dead children, their bodies dismembered, people ploughed into the mud, and yet you worry that they may have to endure amorous attentions by one of their own...?


2 - Who, if anyone, is to blame for this controversy? Is it the gays for wanting in or those wanting them out?

A military, any military you care to examine, reflects the society it came from. It is a product of it. It echoes the sentiments and mentality of that society and mirrors its morality. To argue that a military cannot function because it must share the same morality of the society means that one has no faith in that society. I do not believe a military can sustain its own internal morality, seperately from its parent society.


3 - Are there any acceptable compromises for this rift?

Any person who cannot accept military service in the armed forces of a society that accepts homosexuality should leave that service and ask themselves why they are serving in the first place.

Race prejudice can change. So can sexual prejudice and with it the farcical idea that gays are out of control sex predators who will be feeling up and trying to 'convert' their straight squadmates, against their will of course. So can sexual prejudice and the idea that gays are so out-of-control (and stupid) that they will hit on their straight mates, knowing full wll that they are straight, that they will fall hopelessly in love and non-functional about other guys because they sleep next to each other in trenches. Sexual prejudice can change and with it the godawful steriotype of gays as something other than regular humans, with different controls over their desires, differejnt mental capacity to make reasoned judgements, different libidos and different ability to tell appropriate from inappropriate than regular 'stright' people.




I'm sorry, so your suggestion is retrograde? That you ban even closeted gays from the military? based on what? Based on prejudice and fear over evidence and fact (for which there is NONE supporting that premise)?

I have to admit as a New Yorker who has worked in Advertising, Travel and Fashion I have often dismissed the idea that discrimination against Blacks is similar to discrimination against Gays. Not that one was less wrong than the other but in that I saw them in completely different lights. Looking over the arguments AGAINST gays in the military is is basically the same "rap" as the one used against blacks.

I've been on the fence for a while regarding Gay marriage - mostly feeling that it really wasn't any of my business but sort of understanding the "Sanctity of Marriage" crowd. Not only am I for gays in the Military (as I always was) I am now totally FOR gay marriage.

This discrimination against gays in the military is nothing more that "they'll screw our white women" replacing women with warriors.

1 - Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?

Not allowing gays to be in the military is a denial of equal opportunity. Of course, they should be allowed to serve.

Given current conditions - refereeing a civil war in Iraq - I can't understand why anyone, gay or otherwise would sign up. That, however, doesn't concern me much either. To each his/her own poison.

Trying to prevent gay people in the military has got to be one of the largest forms of homophobia I have ever seen on a grand scale.

If your whole argument is about a gay man hitting on another enlistee then I suggest you find another argument because that breaks the first rule of no fraternization.

I would like to call the moderator's attention to this slanderous implication that all who oppose allowing known homosexuals to serve in the military are mentally ill.

Only gays and the Left are "demoralized" by this policy. Given how few gays there are, and how few on the Left actually serve, what's the loss?

There is no indication whatsover that the policies demoralize the vast majority of troops. Based on both my reading and my experience in the military, the only demoralizing aspect of this is the push by the Left, who have made their disdain of the military crystal clear, to impose upon the military a social experiment that the military opposes.

Again, I would like to call the moderator's attention to this slanderous characterization of those who oppose known homosexuals in the military.

Wrong.

January 25, 2007: The U.S. military again made its recruiting goals in December, 2006. In addition, the people already in the service continued to re-enlist at above average (pre-2001) levels.

How long will you continue to spout this nonsense even though you've been corrected repeatedly? There is a term for someone who continually and deliberately spreads misinformation. Should it be applied to you?

yeah, right. You can't even get the recruiting info straight and its a matter of past public record, one that you've been corrected on repeatedly, and now your guaranteeing what will happen in the future? Do you have a bridge to sell also?

Annnnndddd, yet again I would like to call the moderator's attention to this slanderous characterization of those who oppose known homosexuals in the military.

In characterizing the decision process as limited to "bigotry and intolerance", you have fallen prey to the same shortcomings yourself.

1 - Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?
No. Because the disruptive effects on military effectiveness would not be outweighed by any offsetting increase in military effectiveness.

2 - Who, if anyone, is to blame for this controversy? Is it the gays for wanting in or those wanting them out? Gay activists and the Left. As there was no controversy before gays began demanding their "right" to serve in the military openly, the onus lies on them. It should be noted that military service is not a right, never has been. It is either a privilege, or an obligation, depending on the needs of the nation. If military service were a right in the classical civil rights sense, then why isn't anybody clamoring for the deaf and blind to be allowed in? (Americans with Disabilities Act, anyone?)

3 - Are there any acceptable compromises for this rift?
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a compromise. Clearly, it was not acceptable to the Left. The notion that "what's happens in the bedroom is private" clearly only matters to the Left when it can shield them. The military doesn't want to know, yet the Left and Gay Activists clearly are intent on telling. Why? It can't be about tolerance, because tolerance begins with a judgement of wrongdoing. This appears to be unacceptable to the Left (at least when somebody other than they are making the judgement.)

Now, what is common about this thread, and so many others here on AD anymore, is the amount of unbridled intolerance and dehumanisation exhibited. Those who object to gays openly serving have variously been characterized as



I oppose gays serving openly, so what of the above list applies to me?

Then what factors are taking into account that allowing homosexuals to serve in the military will destroy it, taking into account that at this very moment gays are serving in the military...

Can you prove to me that it is not just intolerance or bigotry that serves in the process of deciding homosexuals should not be allowed in the military.

If you can I will with full respect recant my opinion that nothing exists preventing homosexuals from serving in the military save for personal intolerance and bigotry.

Please, with details if at all possible. Not just that a homosexual has caused problems in the military, but all homosexuals, simply because the military takes on many problems, from all sorts of people, heteros of all shapes and sizes included.

As for calling in the moderators, well I am sure somewhere on this board is a homosexual that gets angry over the idea that because they are gay or lesbian that if they joined the military they would become sexual predators.

I would like to call the moderator's attention to this slanderous implication that all who are gay are somehow disabled, or otherwise unable.


Yes, when the INTOLERANT pass judgement on the behavior of others as being wrong.


That is something you will have to decide for yourself, if you need some help, ask those who know you best AND who are honest.

Could you please provide some reliable U. S. government statistics to back up this assertion?

No, and if I could you would be screaming about it. How would the government gather the information for such statistics? Who would define the classifications of Moonbat Left, Moderate Left, Rational Right, and Wingnut Right?

If you can't back up what you are writing, then maybe you shouldn't be writing it.

Do you have any credible evidence that I would be screaming? I didn't think so.

I agree with you, BD. The military has been able to meet its recruiting goals. Of course, this was achieved by lowering recruitment standards.

1 - Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?

I'm going with the dominant theme here on this thread: yes. So, far the objection I've read is: it will demoralize the troops. Why? Because gays will "hook-up" and they might be checking out the "straights" in the showers/barracks. Did I miss something? Some other justification?

As scary as a homosexual man checking out a straight man may seem, it clearly doesn't justify exclusion from voluntary military service. As far as hooking up is concerned, I suppose that can be an issue, but I think the military understands this problem well enough between heterosexual men and women.

And BD, I think you have honestly come to your position. I don't wish to guess why you have come to it. Still, I do wonder at how much interaction you've had with those self-identifying as gay.

2 - Who, if anyone, is to blame for this controversy? Is it the gays for wanting in or those wanting them out?

I'm tired of the blame thing. Can't we all just get along? No? Okay, then... I blame the terrorists. Yep, since 9/11...blah...blah....blah...Al Qaeda....WMD....Bin Laden...

3 - Are there any acceptable compromises for this rift?

Get over it. Sexual behavior between consenting adults does not justify exclusion from voluntary military service to their country.

The question is not, should there be homosexuals in the military? There already are tens of thousands of homosexuals in the military, probably in about the same proportion there are in the general population. The question is, how should these people be treated?

Firstly, you know what is kindof funny?

That you, Bikerdad wrote this:



In the SAME post you wrote this



...THREE times. Do you know whay hypocricy is?



getting away from your personal attacks and into the substance of the debate:



Actually, you are the first person to make this implication, so I can only assume you are calling the moderators on yourself. Why would you make up a comment like that? Were you hoping pity would further boost your argument?



So, just to be clear, it is ok for you to issue slanderous comments regarding groups of people, but not ok for others? Actually, to be fair that is not a fair statement since most of the slanderous comments you accuse others of you just made up.

However, in this case you are factully incorrect. In a US times survey conducted in 2004, only 58% of serving troops identified themselves as Republican. Above the national average to be sure, but hardly the complete sweep you seem to be implying.



That is true, but then again that has never been argued. I'm not sure why you are opposing a point that has never been up for contention in this debate at all. NOT having gays in the military likely doesn't reduce morale, just as NOT having blacks in the military didn't reduce moreale. Accurate, and utterly irrelevant.



I can't help but notice that you did this at the end of most paragraphs (I assume to make a point, though what that point could be escapes me). I also notice that you did this instead of, you know, making any arguments or actuallt opposiing the statements made demonstrating the fallacy of your claims. It makes it somewhat difficult to debate you when the sum-total of the substance of your post is inventing things to report to the Moderator. I ALSO should let you know that there is a 'report' button, allowing you to report posts you see as being insulting, without having to repeat the same comment in-thread again and again and again.

May I suggest you either argue a post, or report a post (or both) but do not argue a post BY pretending to report a post.



Wow, thats a lot of vitriol. I don't know where it came from, do you have some personal isues you need to work out? Should we give you some time?

The vitriol is even more unfortunate when it turns out that you are 100% factually wrong. Yes, the military has managed to meet its recruiting quota, but only be the enormous lowering of entry standards and the offering of massive and increasing bonuses to new recruits. It has done this after TWO YEARS of on and missed quotas most months.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1499164,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8155830/
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1501654/2...511/story.jhtml
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/ja...iting_5-12.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7802712/

But here is the interesting thing. You KNEW this. The source YOU cited stated openly that recruitment goals were met the last few months, after YEARS of missing their goals. So when you launced into your ad hominum attack about how wrong I was and how follosh it was of me to repeat such things, you already KNEW that I was right and you were wrong, based on your OWN source.

To quote YOUR words back at you:

"There is a term for someone who continually and deliberately spreads misinformation. Should it be applied to you?"




What disruption? This is the first time you have ever referred to such a thing, so please demonstrate this 'disruption'. Please show us (and be specific) exactly how this would cause a disruption.



I would like to point out that there was no controvercy before Blacks started to want to be let into the military either. There was also no controvercy before women started to domand the right to vote. Is this the argument you are using to justify your position?




I don't know. Its hgard to tell, as in the above post you spent your time fake reporting non-existant insults to the mods (thrice), making personal attacks regarding thing you already knew you were in the wrong, and arguing one point that was never under contention. So given the complete black of anything on topic in your post, it is very difficult for anyone to assess exactly why you so openly oppose gays in the military.

lol... no one has yety to answer a point brought up.

Gays already serve.

Would you like a check box put on a form that says

Sexual oreintation Check here

Gay ___ Straight ___

Also I don't personally think Gay men are predators who want to turn straight men. I do however believe that many of you would find it inappropriate for women to be made to bunk with and shower with men. Why??

Well chances are same principals apply.

What you don't know doesn't hurt you...

Now you have an openly Gay person looking at you shower, looking at you urinate. Oh and you get stuck with bunking with the guy that is openly homosexual. So instead of trying to hide the fact he's gay, maybe now he's walking around with pink socks switching.

Look my point is... many of you want something, that if you get, won't change a thing.

A gay man still won't be able to have sex, because there sodomy laws under UCMJ. There are still catch all like "unbecoming of a marines/soldier/etc" under UCMJ.

And now when the openly ostricized homosexual has been demoralized... who can he turn to?? Hmmm.. maybe other homosexuals...

This is where the scenario between race relations and sexual orientation relation sharply divide. A Black man who felt isolated by the whites in his command had fellow African Americans to turn to and it ended there. A homosexual that turns to a homosexual, given the hardship both will bear will likely develop beyond "brotherly love" at which point they stand in violation of UCMJ.



So yes gays should be able to serve and they do. But I'm not quite sure what the point is to say..."Hello I'm Gay"
Oh yet another stark contrast that separates race from sexual orientation.

Blacks don't need to tell people "I'm Black" and they don't need to ask...

BikerDad check out my post.... Look I'm far left!!

It would seem that we must once again tiresomely flog our left-wing-liberal straw man, this time to avoid thinking about a question that has nothing to do with Left versus Right.

Your sweeping generalizations about the composition of the ranks reflect so much ignorance that I wonder whether you had your eyes open during your military service, Bikerdad, or whether you perhaps were not a regular, but a National Guardsman. Your observations are at variance with my own eight-year experience of active duty, so I will endeavor to enlighten you.

The people who serve in the enlisted ranks are mostly from the lower and lower-middle classes, so there is a high representation of urban Blacks and rural or small-town Southerners. Most of these people don't join because they share your right-wing, flag-saluting ideology, but because it's the best life opportunity they have and because they genuinely want to serve their country. Very few of them are highly political one way or the other. However, it is completely ignorant to assert that few people in the military have progressive politics. Most of the Blacks do, for one thing, and a surprising number of Southerners have broadly populist ideas as well. In the world in general and certainly in the military, people have all sorts of strangely mixed ideas and there is very little use trying to sort people into "left wing" and "right wing," "liberal" or "conservative." Ideas can be sorted in this way, most people can't. Among the relatively few people in the military with a very highly developed political ideology, probably more are lean to the right than to the left, but people with very committed progressive politics aren't entirely rare -- not that it matters, mind you, in a discussion about homosexuals in the military.

Among the officers its a little different; whiter, better educated although still largely middle class, and disproportionately Southern. Among these people my impression is that you do find a pretty high prevalence of Republicans, as you would expect among the Southern small-town middle classes.

Now with particular regard to homosexuality, the sprinking of these people throughout the ranks and the officers is about the same as it is in society at large. Your post seems to associate homosexuals and left-wing politics, but anyone with much perceptive ability will be aware that homosexuality cuts quite evenly across political divisions and indeed, across a great many other social distinctions as well. When I was in, there was a certain perception that the representation of female homosexuals in the military is somewhat greater than in the population at large. I am not sure if that is true, however.


Is there any question that the current state of affairs tends to demoralize the particular persons affected by it? The relative number of affected people is on the order of 2-4 percent of people in uniform, more if we include people with conflicted sexuality. This is a lot of people, and the question of whether they should occasionally be subject to being hounded and rooted out is not an idle one. This is happening in some places where the current policy is observed mostly in the breach. Further the existence of an official policy that places the service of these troops in question encourages homophobic hostility in the ranks. This is not good for the general morale.

Further, since this is a civil rights issue, it is scarecely relevant that the majority of military people aren't affected by these obnoxious policies. It is not a "social experiment" that military people should be allowed to live the private, personal lives they most desire and not be subject to ostracism and degradation. That is all that is being asked, not that there should be a homosexual meat market in the barracks or a Pink Brigade dressed in hip socks and crinoline tutus. Naturally sexual agression in any form is to be discourged; it makes no difference whether it is heterosexual or otherwise.

Finally in your remark that the "military opposes" this, you mistakenly suppose that the military is a political monolith. How top generals testify before Congress is not affect by the general opinion of the ranks, or even of the officers. But in any case, the top levels of the military also opposed racial integration for many years, so this consideration can hardly be very important.





Well obviously, it will be necessary to revoke this obnoxious provision. I wonder, by the way, how many heterosexuals observe it?

Very much so observed, at least in 1998-1999.

There were a group of Marines who got NJP'd, I don't believe they were court marshalled. Several men and a female Marine decided to have group sex. Someone taped it the tape some how fell into the wrong hands... all were punished. Now, I believe, because I never saw the tape and it was a long time ago, that some men only received oral sex.

I know specifically it started a bet between me and another Marine. At the time, I thought Sodomy was only anal sex, but he said it was anything other than missionary vaginal sex. Well he one the bet, I think I only was out a soda, though.

Point is... I'm sure the military uses laws still that stand outside the Constitution. And they will apply them to heterosexuals.

YOu have whined about name calling BD- let me ask you this- those folks that discriminated, harrased, killed, stereotyped and generally thought that blacks were "less" than whites- what do you call them now? We know they are bigots and racists- at the time, they took great offense to that, probably complained to someone when they were confronted with thier extreme ignorance, predjudice and racism.

Unfortunately, there is no gentle method of saying "you are a bigot and homophobe"- how else do you say it?

When there is 0 logic behind an action, no way to logically justify something, yet you cater to it anyway- well, you pick the words I guess

And you know what BD? GW has been GREAT for the "left"- he has managed to pretty much turn the entire enlisted corp "lefty"-

Good work GW!

I disagree that anyone should be characterized as anything in the course of debate, no matter how consistent their arguments are with such a characterization. It is perfectly permissible to say that an argument expresses racism or homophobia; it is impermissible to say that one's interlocutor is a racist or a homophobe. That may seem like a trivial distinction, but it is best observed. Otherwise we lapse, eventually, into name-calling. Always engage the argument; never engage the man.

Similarly we should avoid thrashing at straw men, which is vacuous and which seeks to avoid having to deal with someone's actual arguments. Mostly here you see the Liberal Straw Man and the Leftist Straw Man, but sometimes you do see their conservative and rightist straw brothers.

You are in a squad of 12. There are two gays in the squad having a relationship, or there are a woman and man in the squad having a relationship. (Frankly, both examples equate.) The commander of the squad, the corporal or sergeant, is one of the people in the relationship.

The squad has a difficult mission. The other half of the relationship is the SPF that is trained and qualifed for, say, clearing a mine field--very hazardous duty--but the commander doesn't call on the other because of the relationship. Another member of the squad, or even the entire squad, becomes insubordinate or ineffective as a result of this clear dereliction of duty; or, the other extreme, to mask the relationship, the commander always calls on the significant other for difficult or dangerous tasks, causing the significant other to be insubordinate or ineffective. Neither is acceptable. Plus, you have the fact of a relationship between persons of different rank, which is almost always abusive.

You can say there are "no fraternization" rules, but we all know how effective those are in civilian life. A better rule is "thou shall not tempt," which is the basis of my argument. Of course, unlike a similar situation at the mortgage brokers' office, or the restaurant, or the design studio, this situation is quite literally a matter of life and death in the military, and can be a matter of national security.

Spout all the equal rights drivel you want, but it's all about military effectiveness. This is not an ordinary job.

Interestingly your attempt to refute this argument actually reenforces mine. By saying that the servicepeople in general are NOT demoralized by this policy (of non-official descrimination) you create the inverse (or is it converse) implication that the average serviceperson IS "moralized" by a system of descrimination against people they percieve as being unlike, or inferior to them. Which was my point, that people like that need a villain to justify the hatred and dehumanizing feelings they have. If you take away a target of their hatred they have one less villian to "hate on", so hating therefore becomes more difficult. If you implement a policy that requires tolerance and otherwise punishes "hating" then you've taken away one of the outlets that these people have for their hate. The policy effectively prevents them from following their true nature, that of hate and dehumanizing of others, often driven by testosterone. You've in effect taken away thier ability to pass judgement on other poeple, which is key to determining who is deserving of their hatred. You have in essence told them that a core essence of their being - hatred and intolerance, is no longer acceptable, and to them that is demoralizing.

If you extend the example out and eventually make policy that shun, or even criminalizes the outward expression of their hatred then you have in effect, told them that a core essence of their being is criminal. Yeah, I think they would find that demoralizing.

With that core function of thier personality neutered, you've pesented them with the ponderance that they are in fact the ones who are "out of the mainstream", which in thier eyes are the some of the people who are desrving of being hated, so you've effectively turned the table on the hater, who now becomes the hated by his own standards of determination. That is why the right wing talking points and are filled with disgused hate speech. Terms like "Democrat party" and "out of the mainstream" are all signals to the followers that these are the people to be hated. They probably don't understand the full psychological process behind it (which I don't pretend to either), buth through repetition they understand that anyone being pointed out in such a manner is being said to be one of the "BAD GUYS".

I don't think the demoralization comes form the hatred, it comes from the conflict of those who want to hate, and those who consider hatred unacceptable. It's the acceptance, the comeradery that breeds unity, be it unity of the intolerant or of the tolerant. So the question remains, do we want to have a military filled with hatemongers or not. Which lead to the next question, how narrow should the range of acceptability be? If we first get rid of all the gays, then who becomes the remaining villians to get rid of, the women, the "ethnics", then who after that, the redheads, then the brunettes, then those with dark hair, then those with pysical imperfections, then do we start doing genetic testing to weed out the best from the rest, where do you stop, and who gets to decide.

Then two members of that aquad are breakig the rules, and should be discplined accordingly. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why the assumption that the two gay guys in the squad are in a relationship? Why the assumption that the gay guys can't restrain themselves?

And that isn't even the LARGEST logical problem with your hypothetica.

You are in a squad of 12. One of the men is black, a couple people in the squad hate blacks.

You are in a squad of 12. One of the men is popular and outgoing, and has lots of friends, others are socially awkward, and jealous of his social dominatio in the squad.

You have 12 men in a squad. One is a bully, or a know-it-all, or farts ALL the time and nobody likes him much.

Or MUCH worse:

You have 12 men in a squad. One is a shirker, lazy and shows no initiative, and the others in the squad have to pick up his slack.

ALL of these happen every day, all of these are situations every soldier deals with, all of these situations can screw up a unit's cohesion and ALL are more likely than the gay guys in the squad being unable to keep their gay urges in check.

EVERY PART of this argument you have made can (and in fact was) used to keep blacks out of the military. They are based on rediculous steriotypes and assumptions that gays 'can't be trusted to act like everyone else.



I have to admit its not often you see an American refer to his Constitution as 'drivel'. But thats neither here nor there. What is true is that there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to suggest it will affect military effectiveness, no reason to believe it will make any difference at all except to allow the military to stop kicking out sucessful, active, patriotic, skilled and experienced men at a time when men are desperately needed because they don't like who they dream about at night.

...you are completely missing the point with your specious arguments.

Any other type of problem--race, laziness, incompetence, etc., can be addressed in a number of ways. Once gays (or men and women--this is NOT just about gays) have a relationship, there is really no way to put the genie back in the bottle. On top of that, they are going to do everything they can to mask the relationship--the other situations are easily discernable or can be tested as part of regular training. You'll learn by the end of training if someone is incompetent or lazy, for example. The sexual/romantic relationship is different than any other scenario you can name, and by far the most powerful and potentially destructive. Whole wars have been fought over it.

I also know, from personal experience, that when women are in near-combat situations in the US military, the men mostly try to protect the women, cutting down on mission effectiveness.

The Constitution does not demand equal rights in the military, any way you cut it. The military should be free to use any reasonable means, including controlling its composition, to cut down upon the impact of jealous romantic relationships within the military. Oh, and during Gulf War I, servicewomen gave birth to a number of children about US naval vessels. How absurd is that? Well, about as absurd as a US Navy Captain and astronaut driving 900 miles to snuff a female air force officer over a love triangle with another astronaut, I guess.

The military shouldn't have to put up with this kind of silliness.

No, I'm not, and they are not specious.



Like what? What means exist to deal with blacks and racists in the same unit? Please list this 'variety of ways' this can be handled, and be specific.

Personality conflicts, jealousy and dislike already exist within squads, as they do within human society, regardless of gender. If there are, as you say, may ways to deal with these isues, then why do those unmentioned 'ways' not also apply to this case?

Worse still for your argument, as has been already mentioned there ALREADY ARE gays in the military, lots of them, and these phantom impossible situations you pretend would be commonplace have not happened. Reality is, in this case, a pretty big opponent of your contention.

And as if that was not bad enough, the entire argument rests on the assumption that gay men will be unable to resist their gay urges, and unable to keep it in their pants as soon as they are withing distance of another gay man. can you honestly not realise how insulting and wrong that is?




If you honestly believe that military training genuinely weeds out all lazy, racist or incompitent people then I am afraid, with all respect, that you know nothing of the military. All of these situations exist, all are dealt with, and all are more likely than