Quote :

" If people are getting discharged for Telling "

They aren't getting discharged for the "Telling". You can not be in the Armed Forces and be homosexual. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a compromise between changing that rule and keeping it as is.

And yea, you are told not to ask other peoples sexual orientation.

5/10/2009 3:46:14 AM

Quote :

"What actually needs to happen is a greater societal shift in opinion, where people come to the realization that gay people are just normal people. That's not something that will come about through policy changes."

I think it has to be a little bit of both. Society will change some on its own & that has to be part of it, but for some people the policy shift is going to have to come first, and then they can adjust to it next.

5/10/2009 9:44:10 AM

Quote :

"What actually needs to happen is a greater societal shift in opinion, where people come to the realization that gay people are just normal people. That's not something that will come about through policy changes.""

While this is true, the military is a different story. The military is not civil society. Soldiers aren't just trained, they're indoctrinated. They're made to think differently than a normal person would - to value your unit before your self, to kill without a moment's hesitation, and to be a flawless, machined cog in a clockwork military machine. Your team mates are your brothers and sisters. To maintain that level of indoctrination, the military takes away some of the liberties that one would expect in civil society. Certain "distractions" are removed from a active soldier's life, and dealing with a gay brother is simply too much of a distraction for many potential soldiers.

However, I think its possible to include diversity-acceptance as part of the indoctrination. It would be no small feat, but there are harder steps to creating a perfect soldier. The military could become gay-tolerant well before greater society.

If heterosexual men and women can serve alongside one-another, it should be possible to have gay and straight men serve side-by-side openly.

5/10/2009 11:14:30 AM

Quote :

"The military could become gay-tolerant well before greater society."

Quote :

"If heterosexual men and women can serve alongside one-another, it should be possible to have gay and straight men serve side-by-side openly."

Both true.

The Commander-In-Chief needs to make the decision and set policy that allows gays to openly serve. Selective policy enforcement at the unit level (or even higher) is not the answer.

5/10/2009 11:26:25 AM

I was once told by a Navy guy that 150 seaman go down in a sub and 75 couples come up..

5/10/2009 11:53:56 AM

Quote :

" While this is true, the military is a different story. The military is not civil society. Soldiers aren't just trained, they're indoctrinated. They're made to think differently than a normal person would - to value your unit before your self, to kill without a moment's hesitation, and to be a flawless, machined cog in a clockwork military machine. Your team mates are your brothers and sisters. To maintain that level of indoctrination, the military takes away some of the liberties that one would expect in civil society. Certain "distractions" are removed from a active soldier's life, and dealing with a gay brother is simply too much of a distraction for many potential soldiers. "

This paragraph made me lol. You have no clue what you are talking about, at all. For most people in the military, it's just another job, the only difference is you get up a bit earlier and get off earlier.

Quote :

" If heterosexual men and women can serve alongside one-another, it should be possible to have gay and straight men serve side-by-side openly. "

There is a big difference between those two things. One is a deviant behavior and one is not. But okay...

5/10/2009 3:09:22 PM

n/m fuck it

[Edited on May 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2009 3:23:10 PM

"deviant"? Really? you want to go there?

5/10/2009 4:42:20 PM

one of the most-loved used term grouping by opponents is "homosexuals and pedophiles"

i heard it on the radio this weekend as a matter of fact

on a jesus channel on the way to wilmington

5/10/2009 4:46:58 PM

So one of you brain children answer me this....

Where do open homosexuals sleep/live. Men and women do not berth together for the SOLE reason of not having unprofessional relations.

There is no way you can prevent this with homosexuals/bisexuals. Maybe there is a way.... please do tell.

I have been in several briefings with fairly high ranking Captains/Admirals were posed this very question, and the answer given was one not of discrimination but more of logistics.

5/10/2009 6:35:16 PM

how hard is it to separate two people living in the same quarters who are in an "unprofessional" relationship, honestly?

[Edited on May 10, 2009 at 6:49 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2009 6:45:43 PM

Additionally (excuse the double post) what exactly is the distinction between a homosexual and a pedophile? I know this is getting a little off topic, but the reason we as a country are so open to accepting homosexuals is because they are "born that way" and are only following what their heart tells them. I can see no distinction between a dude who "was born" liking to have sex with other dudes and a dude who "was born" liking to have sex with 14 year old girls, because according to the logic of today we should be accepting of how people are on the inside, whether they like to have sex with their gender, cut off their penis and dress like a woman, have sex with animals, or have sex with younger girls.

I know this is getting way off topic, and we could start talking about at what age people can actually give consent, but I am only writing this in response to the post that acted like comparing homosexuality to pedophelia was such a far stretch. Yes, I am in 100% agreement that raping 7 year olds is wrong, but I really don't see that much difference in if I wanted to have sex with a 14 year old and if I wanted to have sex with a man (neither of which sound all that great).

5/10/2009 6:54:15 PM

Quote :

"how hard is it to separate two people living in the same quarters who are in an "unprofessional" relationship, honestly?"

Uh, "honestly," it's very hard, and impossible in some cases. In my line of work (submarines) there is no way it could be done. I imagine many jobs overseas have the same restrictions, in which there just isn't enough space to segregate people at a whim.

I have been at commands where there are females who will sleep with just about any dude, so of course the answer there is put them with only females. That option just does not exist with homosexuals.

5/10/2009 7:21:40 PM

Quote :

"but the reason we as a country are so open to accepting homosexuals is because they are "born that way" and are only following what their heart tells them"

Actually, no. We as a country are open to "accepting" homosexuality because we as a country believe in the values of individual freedom, and that happens to include consensual relationships between adults.

In fact many very reasonable people can give less than a rat's ass about why someone is gay, and still be "accepting" for the simple, common sense reason that it isn't any of their goddamned business. Or the government's.

Now, maybe you may think that pedophilia falls into the same category and the government has no compelling interest in protecting children. If you believe that, I have more than a few bridges to sell you; I am a capitalist at heart and hope to profit well.

As to the points you make about "homosexuals": I am a "homosexual" and I can assure you, having known many of the same (including having dated a gay marine, imagine that), that your view of how "it" works is pure theory. Don't Ask Don't Tell isn't based on some operational policy, it's based on pure superstition. Other nations such as Britain have allowed gays in the military:

Quote :

"Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news aboutthe policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/world/europe/21britain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Besides all that, pure logic ought to let you figure out that the military -- which recruits heavily from the south and among the lower income classes, some of the most anti-gay people in the country -- doesn't need a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to keep the service ranks from turning into a Cher concert. Like many successful people in the private sector with specialized knowledge that probably could benefit the military, I think I'll sit out the military service option. I'm gay, not stupid. You figure out how that effect works out in aggregate.

5/10/2009 8:28:11 PM

Quote :

"I really don't see that much difference in if I wanted to have sex with a 14 year old and if I wanted to have sex with a man (neither of which sound all that great)."

uhh, maybe because if two adult men want to have sex with each other, as disagreeable the act itself may seem to you or me, then that's their decision, and they are presumably of sound mind and of consenting age. An adult attempting to have sex with a minor of the same or opposite gender is obviously different because the older person is preying on the younger person, and the younger person is either more easily manipulated, is coerced, is too immature to make decisions like that, or is simply physically over powered. That's not to say adults can't be coerced or over powered by other adults, but then again, that's why rape is illegal for same or opposite sex.

5/10/2009 8:32:41 PM

Quote :

"Additionally (excuse the double post) what exactly is the distinction between a homosexual and a pedophile? I know this is getting a little off topic, but the reason we as a country are so open to accepting homosexuals is because they are "born that way" and are only following what their heart tells them. I can see no distinction between a dude who "was born" liking to have sex with other dudes and a dude who "was born" liking to have sex with 14 year old girls, because according to the logic of today we should be accepting of how people are on the inside, whether they like to have sex with their gender, cut off their penis and dress like a woman, have sex with animals, or have sex with younger girls."

By that logic, what exactly is the distinction between a heterosexual and a pedophile? I can see no distinction between a dude who "was born" liking to have sex with women and a dude who "was born" liking to have sex with 14 year old girls.

The answer to both cases is informed consent, as well as social constructions of the proper age for when children should be allowed to become sexually active.

5/10/2009 9:22:51 PM

I am not going to sit here and say that some people's views on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" are not based on discrimination or homophobia, because unfortunately, some are. However, as I have said before, that is not the reason for the policy. Men are not allowed to bunk with women because of inappropriate conduct that can/will occur. You cannot stop this behavior with homosexuals. This is THE reason for not allowing people who are openly homosexual into the service, despite what your friends or the media or liberals or whoever may lead you to believe. Not letting open homosexuals in the military is the exact reason that women are not allowed on submarines. It is not logistically possible. End of story.

Quote :

"The answer to both cases is informed consent, as well as social constructions of the proper age for when children should be allowed to become sexually active."

According to who? Who does this social construction you speak of? Pretty much the same people who say men shouldn't have sex with men. In many countries 14 is fine, and people are considered mature enough to have sex (I think maybe even in Hawaii?) So in South America and Europe someone who likes 14 year olds (or younger) is totally fine, but in the US they are a felon?

I am NOT arguing that homosexuality and pedophelia are the exact same, but to deny there are many similarities is just.... wrong.

5/10/2009 9:29:57 PM

Yes, in the US they are a felon, because we're a different society. And just as social constructions can change around the world, they can also change through time. 100 years ago gay rights wasn't anywhere near the top of the political agenda; now we're in a period of transition where society's views on gay marriage, gay military service, etc., are much more liberal. Policies change as society changes.

To be logically consistent, we can't rule out these slippery slope arguments that some religious conservatives are making that this is the first step towards marrying 12-year-olds, or horses, or what-have-you. If society changes its views on that so that the majority of Americans condone marrying 12-year-olds, then the law might very well allow it. But it's still a deeply flawed argument to make, because it completely ignores the informed consent issue. You didn't draw any similarities that aren't also similar to heterosexuals; as such, it's essentially a straw man distracting from the real issues. Sure, there are similarities, but there are much stronger fundamental differences that I think will clearly prevent our developed, first-world nation from ever legalizing pedophilia.

[Edited on May 10, 2009 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ]

5/10/2009 9:48:32 PM

Quote :

"I am not going to sit here and say that some people's views on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" are not based on discrimination or homophobia"

Quote :

"I am NOT arguing that homosexuality and pedophelia are the exact same, but to deny there are many similarities is just.... wrong."

hmmm. i wonder who some of those people are. . . .

5/10/2009 9:56:16 PM

Quote :

"I am NOT arguing that homosexuality and pedophelia are the exact same, but to deny there are many similarities is just.... wrong."

many similarities? DO TELL

Quote :

"It is not logistically possible. End of story."

really? really?

Countries that allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military:
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
UK

what alternate universe are all of our allies living in? gays serving openly in the military? that's certainly not logistically possible. end of story.

[Edited on May 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2009 11:19:37 PM

Quote :

"If people are getting discharged for Telling, I'd hope that there at least are some sort of reprimands for Asking... certainly not to the degree of a discharge, since that would be totally impractical, but at least some form of reprisal would be welcome (for the sake of logical consistency if nothing else). "

I think that the cases of witch hunts for homosexuals are very unusual, and of those few, the vast majority are cases where the guy (or girl) is a turd and homosexual conduct happens to be an expeditious means of shitcanning him/her.

In cases such as this one (and most of the cases I've heard of), there was no asking. I mean, this guy went out of his way to out himself for political reasons.

What's much more common are cases of people wanting to get out, and saying "Hey, look, I'm G-A-Y! Gay! Gay! Gay! Super-duper, fabulously flaming! Wheeeee!"...and the military saying "Whatever. You're not gay. Shut the fuck up and get back to work." Now, if a guy turns in a video of himself smoking pole or something, appropriate action gets taken.

Quote :

"They aren't getting discharged for the "Telling". You can not be in the Armed Forces and be homosexual. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a compromise between changing that rule and keeping it as is. "

You CAN be in the armed forces and be gay. DADT is not a ban on homosexuality in the military. It is a ban on homosexual conduct.

I don't think DADT is a perfect solution, but I think it's overall a pretty good policy, in light of how it's enforced (in general). There aren't widespread homosexual witch-hunts, but you can't prance around and be fabulous. I worry that getting rid of DADT might be a case of letting pursuit of the perfect be an enemy of the good. I think what we have right now is a decent policy, to the point that I'm not convinced that the potential benefits of getting rid of it would be worth risking the potential negatives.

By the way, the UCMJ prohibits other stuff that wouldn't be illegal (or at least ever prosecuted) in civilian law. Adultery is one example...again, it isn't usually prosecuted. There is no witch hunt for adulterers (or adulteresses) in the military, but there are cases where it's an expeditious means of getting rid of a dirtbag, and they do reserve the right to hammer you if you're doing something over the top that's causing problems (sleeping with another service member's spouse, for example).

I guess the greater point that I'm trying to make is to be careful not to view the issue strictly from an academic standpoint, from a strictly ideological, "on-paper" perspective. I see both sides of it, but when I view it from a pragmatic, grounded-in-reality viewpoint, I still conclude that we should stick with the status quo on this one.

[Edited on May 10, 2009 at 11:59 PM. Reason : ]

5/10/2009 11:57:47 PM

^ You've been in the military longer than I have, but yeah, I agree with that post completely.

5/11/2009 12:20:10 AM

Quote :

""deviant"? Really? you want to go there?"

In the strictest sense that one is statistically much more unusual than the other, this is accurate. "Deviant" doesn't have to be a term of disparagement, though it often is. The simple fact is, homosexuality is unusual. Most estimates I've seen put it at around 10% of the general population, which admittedly ranks quite high for a "deviant"/unusual disposition, but still qualifies. It's far enough from the average that you can call it weird, if perhaps not immoral/disgusting/whatever else it gets called.

Quote :

"Men and women do not berth together for the SOLE reason of not having unprofessional relations."

Quote :

"Certain "distractions" are removed from a active soldier's life, and dealing with a gay brother is simply too much of a distraction for many potential soldiers. ""

And various other comments...

All -- all of these things could have been said, and indeed were said, about minorities and women in the military. And you know what? In each case, the military survived just fine. Whites managed to live with blacks being integrated. Men managed to live with women. There was an adjustment period -- arguably one we're not over yet, but we've had high-ranking female and black commanders that seemed to represent their respective populations quite well.

Very simply -- yes, you will have problems. There will be people who don't like berthing with homosexuals. There will probably even be people who respond violently to the prospect. We will remove those people, and, as has happened in the past, the military will continue operating on its normally high level of professional efficiency and quality.

5/11/2009 1:48:22 AM

OK I am still interested in a solution here....

The military's policy is and always has been and more than likely (at least for the foreseeable future) always will be no sexual relations between members while in a duty status. They prevent this by separate berthing, so please please please tell me how this can be done with homosexuals.

People keep trying to compare this to blacks and women, but the situations are way different, especially with blacks (one of the reasons for not allowing women to serve in some jobs is logistical, so some parallels can be drawn between gays and women.)

I don't want to come off as condescending, but people who haven't actually served in the military really can't grasp what it's like. Like Josh mentioned, many liberties that most people take for granted can and are controlled. He is obviously better at making his point, but the fact is, the military is not a business or a glee club. It's a huge, multi-billion dollar entity that is here with the sole purpose of defending the nation. There are going to be things that most people don't like about it, things that directly infringe on the civil liberties that are enjoyed by most Americans, but they are things that have ultimately been determined to be necessary to run the most effective military. Somebody posted a laundry list of countries that allow open homosexuality (at least he claims they do... who knows), but not one of those countries has a military that can even hold a candle to ours. So maybe, just maybe, these "silly" policies that admittedly infringe on people's rights are actually effective.

5/11/2009 2:26:33 AM

This Week with George Stephanopoulos
Transcript [Excerpt]: National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones
Exclusive First Interview with President Barack Obama's National Security Adviser
May 10, 2009

Quote :

"STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring up the issue of gays in the military. The president has said he wants to reform that policy, allow gays to serve openly in the military and actually a remarkable letter from the president was released this week to Lieutenant Sandy Tsao, who was a serviceperson who was discharged from the military because she's a lesbian and there is this handwritten note I want to show our viewers right now from the president to Sandy in which he says, 'Thanks for your wonderful and thoughtful letter. STEPHANOPOULOS: It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete, partly because it needs congressional action, I intend to fulfill my commitment, Barack Obama.' Now, this is in the Congress right now. Will take legislation to completely overturn but some of the president's supporters like Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey say that what the president can do right now is issue an executive order to review the policy and order the military to stop investigation and prosecutions while that review is going on, while the Congress is considering this legislation. Will the president issue such an order? JONES: Well, that is, of course, up to the president. And this issue is something that has been brought up during the campaign. We have had preliminary discussions with the leadership of the Pentagon, Secretary Gates, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, this is, as you know, George, better than most, this is an issue that is not going to be a light switch but more of a rheostat in terms of discussing it and building - having the discussions that have to be had with the military in order to make sure the good order and discipline of the military ... STEPHANOPOULOS: And I understand that and this is a complicated issue. JONES: So it's a complicated issue. It will be teed up (ph) appropriately and it will be discussed in the way the president does things, which is be very deliberative, very thoughtful, seeking out all sides on the issue and trying to ... STEPHANOPOULOS: But if the president is against the policy, why not suspend prosecutions and investigations while that review continues? JONES: Well, maybe that's an option that eventually we'll get to but we're not there now. STEPHANOPOULOS: A lot of your former colleagues in the military, a thousand flag and general officers including 50 four stars have written a letter to the president opposing any change in the policy, saying that their past experience as military leaders make them concerned about it. They think it's going to have effect on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, what do you say to your former colleagues? JONES: Well, I think - as I said, this is illustrated by the fact that this is a very sensitive issue and it has to be discussed over time and it has - all sides have to be heard. But I think most of us who have served in the military believe that the standards of conduct is what determines the good order and discipline. So as long as conduct by all members of the military is not detrimental to the good order and discipline, then you have cohesion in the ranks. But there is ... STEPHANOPOULOS: But that gets to the heart of the problem. I mean, if you're saying any kind of homosexual act is conduct ... JONES: I'm saying that it applies - it has to be a uniform policy for all members of the military in order to function as a military has to function. We will have long discussions about this. It will be thoughtful. It will be deliberative. The president I know will reach out to fully understand both sides or all sides of the issue before he makes a decision. STEPHANOPOULOS: But it will be overturned. JONES: I don't know. We'll have to - the president has said that he is in favor of that. We'll just wait - we'll have to wait and see[/u][/b] - as a result of the deliberations and as a result of the - in the months and weeks ahead. We have a lot on our plate right now. It has to be teed up at the right time so - to do this the right way."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=7549797&page=1

LOL!

5/11/2009 3:07:35 AM

^^Just... ban having sex with another army member. Male or female. Seems like a perfectly reasonable solution. Sure, there would be isolated incidents of people breaking the rules... but that's why punishments exist in the first place. Just discharge them (or whatever punishment normally gets done for violating rules of conduct) if they do.

And no one's saying that any solution to this is going to be perfect. There's certainly going to be some mental adjustments necessary if the status quo is changed (of course, if someone can handle the mental adjustment that is basic training, they can probably manage to man up and stop being a homophobic twat). Frankly, there probably still needs to be some social progress (both in military society and the public at large) made before a better policy is ever implemented. So for now DADT and the current system is probably best. As more and more states legalize gay marriage and gayness in general becomes more socially accepted, though, it'll become easier to change.


As for ^^'s primary point of no sexual relations between members, what would be lacking in simply enforcing the no-sex-between-members rule? Just because you allow openly gay men to bunk with a bunch of other men, either straight or gay, doesn't exactly mean the whole thing is going to break out into an orgy. It seems like you're implying that we'd be opening some sort of floodgates and unleashing hell, or that this would suddenly turn into a major issue that takes over the army, when it seems to me like that's just incrediblY unrealistic. Perhaps opening the floodgates and releasing a small trickle, but I would be absolutely amazed if it were anything larger than isolated disciplinary issues over people who are breaking an established rule. And again, as someone in the military, what problems can you see in a policy of allowing gay men and simply enforcing the no-sex rule?

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 3:14 AM. Reason : ^]

5/11/2009 3:12:47 AM

^

Quote :

"Just... ban having sex with another army member."

And watch the military grind to a halt with time-consuming investigations and morale-crushing disciplinary actions and/or force-depleting discharges. While fraternization and undue familiarity are against military regulations, it still happens much more than civilians realize--it's human nature.

5/11/2009 3:20:11 AM

^I'm sure it happens more than I'd expect, and I'm assuming what we're saying already happens involves men and women... bring in some factors for gay guys... most statistics I've seen say that about 1/10 men are gay at the most. Usually those figures hover closer to 5% (source: just google around for a bit. formal citations are for research papers). I'm not sure how big unit sizes are in terms of how many people bunk together, but find that out, crunch some numbers a bit, combine that with the fact that perhaps not every gay person will want to have sex with another particular gay person, and general demographic statistics for who is even going to be enlisting (gay guys tend to be more liberal, and from the random statistics I've seen, the military leans conservative)...

It'll happen from time to time. I'm not denying that. But saying it'll cripple the military though investigations seems like a gross overestimation. It's not like anyone's going out of their way now to investigate male-female relations, so why go out of their way to investigate homosexual ones? If they get caught or get reported, they get caught. If not, then they don't. As for force-depleting discharges... you'd be discharging people who probably otherwise wouldn't have been serving in the first place, due to their being openly gay.


Anyone in here, remind me -- is the current policy more along the lines of 1 or 2:
1) If you are openly gay when you join, you can still enlist, just never mention it while you are serving, or engage in gay acts.
or 2) If you are openly gay, you cannot join.

Quote :

"not one of those countries has a military that can even hold a candle to ours. So maybe, just maybe, these "silly" policies that admittedly infringe on people's rights are actually effective."

This is primarily just an off-topic aside, but... that's probably due more to budget than anything else. I'm sure policies might contribute a bit, but... there's no comparison between our defense spending and theirs.

Also, as far as I know, Russia has one of the most strict and restrictive military discipline systems out there, and I highly doubt their military beats ours by any relevant measure of strength... though they do have three times as many tanks as us any other country, but that's beside the point.


[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 3:46 AM. Reason : .]

5/11/2009 3:37:27 AM

^ 1. "Don't tell" makes it pretty clear that you can't be "openly gay."

2. Discharges actually increased for a period following implementation of DADT. Try actually enforcing a real ban on sex among military members (gay or straight) and the disciplinary actions and discharges I described will not be a "gross overestimation" or exaggeration of any sort.

3.

Quote :

"big unit sizes"

LOL--I couldn't help myself on the last one.

5/11/2009 3:49:10 AM

Quote :

"1. "Don't tell" makes it pretty clear that you can't be "openly gay.""

I was mainly trying to refer to the recruitment and initial enlistment process (for example, gay guy says to recruiter "I'm gay, but if I join I won't put it on any forms or mention it at all, and I certainly won't be having sex with anyone" ...Would he be turned down? I'm sure it depends a bit on how desperate the particular recruiter is, but still).

Quote :

"Try actually enforcing a real ban on sex among military members (gay or straight) and the disciplinary actions and discharges I described will not be a "gross overestimation" or exaggeration of any sort. "

So, you're saying the current fraternization ban goes virtually unenforced? (I am assuming in most cases it's not enforced due to no one in command finding out that two members are having sex)

If so, I'll just repeat this bit: It's not like anyone's going out of their way now to investigate male-female relations, so why go out of their way to investigate homosexual ones? If they get caught or get reported, they get caught. If not, then they don't.

(A side note on this: male-male relationships would be far more likely to be reported. While heterosexual sex is likely to earn some high-fives and kudos from bunk mates, gay sex is not. While I doubt the average person would care enough to report an incident, there's probably going to be at least one hardcore homophobe or super-christian fundie or whatever else who will. This goes back somewhat to that bit about social progress I mentioned... "Frankly, there probably still needs to be some social progress (both in military society and the public at large) made before a better policy is ever implemented." A new policy, even if it's logistically better, won't really work until people are ready to accept it.)

Quote :

"Discharges actually increased for a period following implementation of DADT."

DADT is basically a restriction... it's going to remove certain elements that were already present but were not noticed or enforced before. Allowing openly gay members is an allowance, and would provide an influx of new recruits who formerly could not join. Even if fraternization discharges increased some (and again, I'm not proposing enforcing it much differently than it is enforced between men and women right now), there would almost certainly be a net gain.

5/11/2009 4:08:46 AM

I think you guys have a misconception on what fraternization is. It is defined as the unduly familiar relationship of a subordinate and a superior, whether it be officer/enlisted, senior enlisted/junior enlisted, etc. Nothing in the UCMJ prohibits two service members of equal or near equal paygrades of dating and or having sex. What is prohibited, is having ANY kind of relationship in a duty status.

I'll use a Navy example (cause that is what I am most comfortable with). An E-4 and an E-5 assigned to the USS Enterprise (a carrier) start to date. That is fine, assuming of course one does not work for the other. If they work with eachother, they are often separated so they don't work at the same workstation. Let's say they get off at a liberty port, go get drunk and have sex. That is totally fine. What would not be fine is if they snuck off and had sex while onboard the ship, ie in a duty status. For this reason men and women are never allowed to bunk with eachother.

Now I am definitely not saying that all gay people want to have sex with eachother, that is just silly. Everybody knows it is just most gay people that will sleep with anyone (that was a joke). Of course in reality there are slutty straight people and slutty gay people. The military definitely accepts slutty people into their ranks, but what they do to attempt to control the situation is to not allow this sluttiness to occur in a duty status. This is achieved by seperation of men and women's living quarters with straight people. It is virtually unachievable with homosexuals.

5/11/2009 4:47:43 AM

^^ Would you kindly stop stereotyping and check all your "facts"?

Quote :

"'I'm gay, but if I join I won't put it on any forms or mention it at all, and I certainly won't be having sex with anyone'"

(1) Won't mention it? Too late! (2) Won't mention it? That's hardly "openly gay," is it? And (3) won't be having sex with anyone? That's realistic!

Quote :

"A side note on this: male-male relationships would be far more likely to be reported."

Wrong.

'Don't Ask' Policy Hits Female Soldiers Hardest

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3675

Quote :

"So, you're saying the current fraternization ban goes virtually unenforced?"

Well, this depends on your definition versus the military definition of "fraternization." But, yes, relative to the number of relationships that occur.

Quote :

"Even if fraternization discharges increased some. . . ."

It's not "if" discharges increased--they did increase.

Quote :

"The policy's implementation has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of discharges based on sexual orientation as well as high costs related to the discharges."

http://www.hrc.org/issues/military/4884.htm

^ I have no misconceptions.

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 5:04 AM. Reason : ^]

5/11/2009 5:03:46 AM

Quote :

"So, you're saying the current fraternization ban goes virtually unenforced? (I am assuming in most cases it's not enforced due to no one in command finding out that two members are having sex) "

No, it is enforced. Yes, most of the time people do what they're going to do without anyone finding out (just like with most crimes, other than big stuff like murder).

You can have all the sex you want with other military members, though. I don't think this is written anywhere in black & white, but in the USMC, the rule of thumb is to stay within junior enlisted (E1-E3), NCO (E4-E5), staff NCO (E6-E9, although that wide of a rank seperation would at least be frowned upon), company grade officer (O1-O3), field grade officer (O4-O6, and again, I think the extremes of that one would be pushing it), and generals. The other thing is that neither of you should be in charge of the other (i.e., I could sleep with a female Lieutenant, but not if she worked for me).

...and then I suppose there's the catch-all of the way it's worded. They can put the brakes on anything they find contrary to "good order and discipline", although the aforementioned ROTs are pretty much accepted.

They do make exceptions for cases where you are married and one spouse gets promoted (or even commissioned as an officer, in the case of two enlisted members being married. I know of two cases of Majors and Gunnery Sergeants being married to each other).

5/11/2009 7:11:44 AM

Quote :

"According to who? Who does this social construction you speak of? Pretty much the same people who say men shouldn't have sex with men. In many countries 14 is fine, and people are considered mature enough to have sex (I think maybe even in Hawaii?) So in South America and Europe someone who likes 14 year olds (or younger) is totally fine, but in the US they are a felon? I am NOT arguing that homosexuality and pedophelia are the exact same, but to deny there are many similarities is just.... wrong."

What unique similarities does homosexuality have with pedophilia that makes it "wrong" to deny the two acts are similar?

5/11/2009 10:32:11 AM

Quote :

" You CAN be in the armed forces and be gay. DADT is not a ban on homosexuality in the military. It is a ban on homosexual conduct. "

You are correcting me and saying I am wrong.... by saying the same thing I am? What? You can not be openly homosexual in the military. Homosexual conduct = homosexuality. You don't have to tell anyone you are gay. Look it up, you don't get discharged for violating DADT, you get discharged for homosexual conduct, like I said. Again, you don't get discharged for the telling part.

5/11/2009 12:06:14 PM

From the article:

Quote :

"“This is to inform you that sufficient basis exists to initiate action for withdrawal of Federal Recognition in the Army National Guard for moral or professional dereliction… You admitted publicly that you are a homosexual which constitutes homosexual conduct… Your actions negatively affected the good order and discipline of the New York Army National Guard.”"

These guys are saying, just by admitting it, you're engaging in homosexual conduct.....

^ So they are getting discharged just for telling....

5/11/2009 12:14:56 PM

Quote :

"Like Josh mentioned, many liberties that most people take for granted can and are controlled. He is obviously better at making his point, but the fact is, the military is not a business or a glee club."

I'm not concerned with making the military politically correct. I'm concerned with the fact that the military has lost competent personnel in essential fields through the DADT policy.

Quote :

"The military's policy is and always has been and more than likely (at least for the foreseeable future) always will be no sexual relations between members while in a duty status. They prevent this by separate berthing, so please please please tell me how this can be done with homosexuals."

We don't prevent it by separate berthing -- men and women still have sex in the military. It's more difficult because of the sleeping arrangements, yeah, but it still happens.

I'm confused about your problem with the berthing question. If we let homosexuals in, they'll sleep be in the same quarters as others as their gender. So? If two homosexuals happen to be in the same barracks, they're not going to have any more opportunity to have sex there than a straight guy would with a woman. The lack of privacy would still exist, and I feel confident that anyone who saw them doing something would turn them in -- hopefully out of respect for the rules, more likely out of a dislike for homosexual activity.

5/11/2009 12:25:05 PM

I'm not gonna let a little logic an practicality get in the way of my hatin' on homos.

5/11/2009 12:30:31 PM

This guy is a LT...so I'm going to assume <4 years service. He knows what he was doing. How many martyrs does this cause need?

Quote :

"THIS POLICY IS HATEFUL AND WRONG, BUT WE MUST ENFORCE IT!!"

We go by what the CinC says, Clinton put up DODT, another president/congress is going to have to get rid of it.

5/11/2009 12:48:20 PM

Quote :

"Would you kindly stop stereotyping and check all your "facts""

I'm not looking anything up, as though that weren't obvious enough. Everything I've said in here is just opinion, conjecture, and common sense as applied to a situation as best I understand it offhand.

That's part of the reason I've been asking so many questions -- I'm not sure exactly what is already in place (Thanks, feeble, for the clarification on what exactly makes fraternization) and what is the current standard operating procedure, and frankly I'm not going to be looking it up because I don't care enough.


And even though sex between members is apparently not explicitly banned (as I previously thought it was), the spirit of my point is the same: Don't treat it any differently than we treat relationships between men and women. As Duke said, there's still no privacy. ("If two homosexuals happen to be in the same barracks, they're not going to have any more opportunity to have sex there than a straight guy would with a woman.")

And again, there's going to need to be some social progress made before changes can really be made... there's still a ton of taboo about homosexual activity that keeps people from treating it simply as two adults having sex (in other words, the same way they'd treat heterosexual sex).

5/11/2009 2:16:39 PM

I'm pretty much waiting for feeble to come out and say that it would be a problem because straight soldiers would be grossed out and uncomfortable, so I can point out that this makes the gay situation perfectly comparable to integration, even though he insists it's not.

Quote :

"Somebody posted a laundry list of countries that allow open homosexuality (at least he claims they do... who knows), but not one of those countries has a military that can even hold a candle to ours. So maybe, just maybe, these "silly" policies that admittedly infringe on people's rights are actually effective."

Really? Really? You think the reason that Luxembourg's military can't "hold a candle" to ours is because they let gays in?

Are you fucking serious?

The only two countries with militaries comparable to our own are Russia and China, and even that's debatable. Do you think those countries have big bad armies because they keep out queers? Or do you think that military prowess is a function of a nation's economy, population, and willingness to spend both on the military?

This is just fucking stupid. You might as well be wearing clown shoes. Jesus fucking...ok, Grumpy, calm down.

For its size, Israel has a hugely effective military in spite of letting gays in. So does Great Britain. And do you think that kicking out some of a very few Arabic translators and experts because they're pole-smokers is "effective?"

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2009 3:55:55 PM

I never said that us not letting gays in is the sole thing that has made us a great military. I said, that some policies (perhaps including DADT) that others might not understand or agree with are actually really effective. One of the best Ultimate fighters, Lyoto Machida, drinks his own urine on a daily basis. Does that mean that if I start to drink my own piss, I will be 14-0 as an MMA fighter? Of course not, but obviously what he is doing works. I realize this is strictly an analogy, so take it for what it's worth.

Someone else posted an article before about how a thousand flag officers (those are really high ranking officers in the military that hold very important postitions and have been in for 20+ years) do not think DADT should be repealed. Is it possible that these men, many who directly interact with the President, and by virtue of their position are "the absolute best at what they do" might have a little bit more insight than a college kid who just got out of high school, or a graduate, or even myself (I have been in now for almost 12 years).

I will 10000000% agree that by not allowing open homosexuality in the military, we will lose some very competant people. There is no arguing that. But, the cost/benefit determination that has been done by people with experience (not just people with ideals) says that DADT is the way to go, and the benefit these competant people would have would far be outweighed by the negatives.

5/11/2009 5:01:27 PM

Quote :

"You are correcting me and saying I am wrong.... by saying the same thing I am?"

You said that "you can not be in the Armed Forces and be homosexual." That is false. DADT does not prohibit being homosexual. As I said, it is a prohibition of homosexual conduct.

Quote :

"Look it up, you don't get discharged for violating DADT, you get discharged for homosexual conduct, like I said. Again, you don't get discharged for the telling part. "

Again, false. "Telling" constitutes a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, and you can be discharged for it. You might not be, but you certainly can be.

Quote :

"THIS POLICY IS HATEFUL AND WRONG, BUT WE MUST ENFORCE IT!!""

There are a bunch of policies that I find stupid that I enforce.

Quote :

"The only two countries with militaries comparable to our own are Russia and China, and even that's debatable."

No, they aren't comparable to us at all, and I would say that's not even debateable. They're just among the "best of the rest".

5/11/2009 5:26:50 PM

Quote :

"But, the cost/benefit determination that has been done by people with experience (not just people with ideals) says that DADT is the way to go"

didn't someone post a link to a report earlier that said pretty much the exact opposite?

yeah this one:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 5:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2009 5:29:09 PM

Quote :

"I will 10000000% agree that by not allowing open homosexuality in the military, we will lose some very competant people. There is no arguing that. But, the cost/benefit determination that has been done by people with experience (not just people with ideals) says that DADT is the way to go, and the benefit these competant people would have would far be outweighed by the negatives."

People with experience in what? What kind of costs/benefits analysis are you talking about? None of what you're saying makes any sense, it's just invented from thin air to sound credible.

Look: the military, as it stands now, has absolutely no ability to ban "homosexuality" from its ranks. None. Zilch. A point is made above that DADT doesn't ban "being homosexual," only the conduct. That is a ridiculous distinction. Because the former is a state of mind, and perhaps only God Almighty can determine whether or not somebody who does not exhibit homosexual conduct (no matter how innocuous) is actually gay. What kind of implemented policy would ban merely being gay? The military shows you pictures of Eva Longoria naked and tests to see if you got an erection?

So the operational point is moot. There are gay people in the military, today, functioning in these supposedly impossible situations. The question is whether or not they are "open" about it.

Here's what being "open" really means: it means that instead of having closet cases running around hiding their whole private lives and pretending to be asexual, a process that -- as we've seen over and over again in our popular culture -- literally drives people nuts, you have reasonably whole individuals serving. Which they would be doing already. As I've pointed out, it's not just DADT that drives gay people from the military. The gay people who are there, who are willing to put up with the hard facts of its built in prejudice, are pretty fucking dedicated.

Ultimately I think eliminating DADT is really more a matter of properly honoring the individuals who do serve, than promoting service or reducing attrition. I also believe that living in the closet under pressure destroys people psychologically over time, and our gay fighting men deserve better than that. And I find it very hard to believe that some objective costs/benefits test was done that takes the real "facts on the ground" into consideration.

5/12/2009 12:46:19 AM

Quote :

"No, they aren't comparable to us at all, and I would say that's not even debateable. They're just among the "best of the rest"."

Two things:

1) Don't get cocky, it's worked out badly for us before, and
2) Fine, but they're still the most comparable, and even then it's for the reasons I mentioned.

Quote :

"I said, that some policies (perhaps including DADT) that others might not understand or agree with are actually really effective."

Fair enough. But still, what you've said admits that DADT doesn't necessarily make us effective -- it could be irrelevant to our success, or at worst, it could reduce our effectiveness. I submit to you Israel, which is pound for pound one of the most effective militaries in the world. It's also a nation that allows homosexuals into its armed forces. Ditto the UK, which I don't seem to recall us complaining about much when they joined us in Iraq.

I want to repeat yet again -- my concern isn't making the military a PC, liberal institution. My concern is allowing competent people in essential fields to serve as they signed up for.

Quote :

"Is it possible that these men, many who directly interact with the President, and by virtue of their position are "the absolute best at what they do" might have a little bit more insight than a college kid who just got out of high school, or a graduate, or even myself (I have been in now for almost 12 years)."

No offense, but this is stupid on a couple of levels:

1) Experience does not automatically dictate competence. A large number of flag officers opposed integration of the armed forces. They turned out to be wrong.
2) One of the reasons they turned out to be wrong is that such a high level of seniority automatically denotes advanced age and a great deal of conservatism. These people may be highly competent at conducting wars, but that does not mean (and on many occasions has not meant) a great deal of understanding about the average soldier's experience.

Quote :

"But, the cost/benefit determination that has been done by people with experience (not just people with ideals) says that DADT is the way to go, and the benefit these competant people would have would far be outweighed by the negatives."

The same thing can 100% be said about integration. Many officers felt that the enlisted man could not handle serving side by side with a black. Several of our best generals, including one of my personal heroes, George Patton, openly admitted that he did not think blacks could work as effectively in the military.

I want to know what the special case is that applies to homosexuals that does not apply to blacks or women. So far, you've not produced an answer to that question. You've merely said, "People that know better say differently," and that's not an acceptable answer -- not by the standards of democracy, and more importantly, not by the standards of good logic and good sense.

5/12/2009 1:35:05 AM

Quote :

"[George] STEPHANOPOULOS: But if the president is against the policy, why not suspend prosecutions and investigations while that review continues? [National Security Adviser Gen. James] JONES: Well, maybe that's an option that eventually we'll get to but we're not there now."

Quote :

"STEPHANOPOULOS: But [DADT] will be overturned. JONES: I don't know. We'll have to - the president has said that he is in favor of that. We'll just wait - we'll have to wait and see. . . ."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=7549797&page=1

Maybe some of you don't think this is important, but I sure as hell do.

1. Why doesn't Obama "suspend prosecutions and investigations while [the DADT policy] review" is completed?

2. Obama has said he's in favor of overturning DADT, what's he waiting for (I mean, if it's so terrible)?

3. I watched in amazement as Bill Clinton got a pass when discharges increased under DADT. Will Obama get the same pass? Isn't Obama directly responsible for every single discharge or other disciplinary action that has occurred since he took office?

4. The one man with the power to change the DADT policy has not done so.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 2:27 AM. Reason : PS: "[W]e'll have to wait and see. . . ."]

5/12/2009 2:26:31 AM

Quote :

"2. Obama has said he's in favor of overturning DADT, what's he waiting for (I mean, if it's so terrible)?"

Some sort of OK from Congress, most likely.

Bureaucratic processes tend to cock things up and make them take a lot longer than they should.


Also, perhaps to some degree he's also of the opinion that "there's going to need to be some social progress made before changes can really be made... there's still a ton of taboo about homosexual activity that keeps people from treating it simply as two adults having sex (in other words, the same way they'd treat heterosexual sex)."
Though that would imply waiting for a lot longer.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 2:35 AM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 2:34:37 AM

^ Yes, Obama wants consensus--most liberals do. But, as commander in chief, Obama could halt effective implementation of the DADT policy tomorrow (or yesterday) if he had the political stones.

Remember the points made in the OP?

Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist

Quote :

"A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have statutory, stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. Obama could simply invoke his authority under federal law (10 U.S.C. §12305) to retain any member of the military he believes is essential to national security. Or he could take advantage of a legal loophole. The 'don't ask, don't tell' law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality. An executive order would not get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html

White House Changes LGBT Civil Rights Commitments On Web Site (removes most of what we want)

Quote :

"And then there's the mention of 'changing Don't Ask, Don't Tell in a sensible way.' That looks like a clear backtrack from his earlier promise to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' This critical change only serves to reinforce growing suspicions that the administration is backing away from this important, high-profile promise."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x128202

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 3:09 AM. Reason : PS: What about questions 1 and 3? ]

5/12/2009 2:44:10 AM

Stones are all fine and good when it comes down to sticking with your principles vs possibly upsetting people...

but in this case it comes down to sticking to one of his principles (abandoning DADT) vs sticking to two of his principles (belief in consensus + abandoning DADT).

Obviously that's an oversimplification of the situation, but it still addresses the "stones" matter.

Quote :

"1. Why doesn't Obama "suspend prosecutions and investigations while [the DADT policy] review" is completed?"

Isn't there a particular idiom that goes "When in doubt, err on the side of caution"?
He's probably being cautious. If reviews turn up that this new policy could in fact fuck things up (unlikely but still possible, in my opinion), then it's better to have kept the status quo than throw in an unreviewed and untested new policy in the meantime.

Of course, there's another idiom that goes "When in doubt, err on the side of liberty" ...but given that Obama isn't even remotely libertarian I would not expect him to follow this one.

Quote :

"3) I watched in amazement as Bill Clinton got a pass when discharges increased under DADT. Will Obama get the same pass? Isn't Obama directly responsible for every single discharge or other disciplinary action that has occurred since he took office?"

He probably will get that pass if he waits for congressional approval. Because then it's on congress and the process of a representative-democracy (flawed as it may be, but that's a different issue).

5/12/2009 2:57:39 AM