Thoughts On Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have no huge problem with homosexuality. My guess is it's not a choice, but something you're born with (not many people would voluntarily choose a path thatr's so challenging and difficult). When I look at my wife, an involuntary biochemical reaction takes place. I can't help it, and I didn't choose it. It just is.

Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society.

I've also been in combat. And as an officer, I've had to order my guys to do some very dangerous things. When an officer is deciding who goes first through a door to clear a house, his men better not have reason to believe that the officer's decisions about who does what, are influenced by feelings of affection. If that happens, even if the men think it's happening, the unit cannot operrate in combat. It just can't. If my wife was under my command (let's say we were secretly married), there is simply no way I could be expected to order her into harm's way.

In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest.

All things considered the number of gay service men and women is still pretty small. I'd think the leadership capabilities of a professional military should be able to handle this pretty easily. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other countries, the vast majority of which allow gays to serve openly.

I was never a fan of DADT, I thought that was too tolerant. In my opinion, military combat units are not good places for politically correct social engineering.

Social engineering has nothing to do with it. Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are. To be honest, the idea I had to trust someone who I thought might hiding something big might do a lot to erode unity of the team as well.

Social engineering is a talking point used by the religious right to push the idea of a gay lifestyle by choice.

You can't do anything that disrupts the chain of command, you just can't. If an officer orders a private to take a hill, that private has the right to know that his selection was not even remotely based upon sexual affection, regardless of whether the affection is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

Granted, I don't have your real world experience, but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time. People know who the favorites are...

The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare, and this coming to a head in a combat situation must be even more rare. A professional has the responsibility to remove themselves from the situation, and you don't set such a discriminatory policy based on something that's so unlikely to happen.

I certainly can see people uncomfortable with the shower situation...but they'll get over it. Remember, they're already showering with them now. It's quite insulting to say someone else needs to change because they offend you.

Repealing DADT was the right thing to do, and I applaud those like Scott Brown who didn't let the party politics influence their decision.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society.


In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest.

All things considered the number of gay service men and women is still pretty small. I'd think the leadership capabilities of a professional military should be able to handle this pretty easily. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other countries, the vast majority of which allow gays to serve openly.


Social engineering has nothing to do with it. Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are. To be honest, the idea I had to trust someone who I thought might hiding something big might do a lot to erode unity of the team as well.

Social engineering is a talking point used by the religious right to push the idea of a gay lifestyle by choice.


Granted, I don't have your real world experience, but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time. People know who the favorites are...

The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare, and this coming to a head in a combat situation must be even more rare. A professional has the responsibility to remove themselves from the situation, and you don't set such a discriminatory policy based on something that's so unlikely to happen.

I certainly can see people uncomfortable with the shower situation...but they'll get over it. Remember, they're already showering with them now. It's quite insulting to say someone else needs to change because they offend you.

Repealing DADT was the right thing to do, and I applaud those like Scott Brown who didn't let the party politics influence their decision.

-spence

Spence -

"Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society."

Every single military argument against repealing dadat that I have ever heard, is based on the concern that morale would be harmed. For you to suggest otherwise shows you aren't really grounded in the facts. You just label everyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe. Your rants are unbelievably consistent, unoriginal, predictable, and boring.

"In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest."

Irrelevent. In the business world, gays go home at the end of the day to their partners. In the military, you live 24/7 for MONTHS AT A TIME with the guys you work with. Again, you ignore the facfs that matter because those don't serve your agenda, and insert irrelevent meaningless facts that support your argument. That tactic would get any freshman debate student a richly deserved "F".

"Social engineering has nothing to do with it."

No?? Then please tell me why we're having this debate. Enlighten me.

"Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are."

I'd love to know, LOVE TO KNOW, what you base that on. Again, you invent supporting arguments. It must be so convenient to support an agenda when you permit yourself to invent fictitious supporting arguments as you go along.

"but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time."

And possibly at the cost of who-knows-how-many lives. That may be a price you're willing to pay for political correctness. Not me.

"The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare,"

Ask the National Organization for Women if problems with women in the military have been "rare".

Just one time Spence, try getting the facts FIRST and then making your decision, not the other way around...

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

Can you do somehting for me? As pointed out by Scott W (brilliantly, I might add), can you explain an apparent flaw in liberal ideology?

(1) on the issue of birth control, the liberal ideology suggests that abstinence programs are a waste of time. Their theory is that you can't stop people from having sex, so learning safe sex is better than preaching abstinence. That argument only makes sense if you concede that people cannot withhold from having sex.

(2) on the issue of gays in the military, all of a sudden liberals change their tune, and suggest that gays won't be a problem, because they can put their sexual impulses on hold. In the military, you might be deployed for over a year, where the only folks you see are the guys you work with, 24 nhours a day.

So where does the ability to control one's sexual impulses come from? Do liberals feel that only homosexuals have the ability to control their sexual impulses? Or can it be that liberal ideology has no logic at its core?

I'm tired, I have a cold, and my one year old has been puking on me all day. Sorry, I'm tired and cranky.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1) on the issue of birth control, the liberal ideology suggests that abstinence programs are a waste of time. Their theory is that you can't stop people from having sex, so learning safe sex is better than preaching abstinence. That argument only makes sense if you concede that people cannot withhold from having sex.

Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard.

(2) on the issue of gays in the military, all of a sudden liberals change their tune, and suggest that gays won't be a problem, because they can put their sexual impulses on hold. In the military, you might be deployed for over a year, where the only folks you see are the guys you work with, 24 nhours a day.

So where does the ability to control one's sexual impulses come from? Do liberals feel that only homosexuals have the ability to control their sexual impulses? Or can it be that liberal ideology has no logic at its core?

In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard.



In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?

Likwid -

"Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard."

Like all liberals, you completely dodged my question, which was explaining the obvious contradiction in liberal ideology about whether or not people can refrain from sexual activity. You dodged like the intellectual coward you are, and asked me a different question. But that's OK, because I can handle that one.

When it comes to preventing STD's and unplanned pregnancies, abstinence is the only method that is guaranteed to be 100% effective. Many recent studies show that abstinence education probrams reduce casual sexual activity.

Let's look at the liberal approach to this problem, which is to tell folks it's OK to have casual sex, as long as you're careful. That argument surfaced in the 1960's during the sexual revolution. Liberals argued that if birth control was readily available to everyone, that would lead to a reduction in unplanned pregnancies, abortions, and STD's.

Well, the liberals got what they wanted. Birth control is readily available. And what happened was a huge INCREASE in unplanned pregnancies, kids born out of wedlock, abortions, STD's, adultery, and divorce.

Well done, liberals...kudos to you all...

"In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?"

For the hundredth time...if a gay officer tells a private to take a hill, if that private has any inkling that his selection was influenced by his commander's sexuality (regardless of whether or not the private has a good reason to be concerned) than you can't function in combat.

Yes, you have a job to do. The majority of people who have some experience in combat, feel that openly homosexual people have a harder time doing that job effectively. Why do you suppose that 65% of servicemen who serve in combat units are opposed to repealing DADT? Are we all homophobic bigots, every single one of us?

I responded directly to your points. Maybe you can try to show me the same courtesy, and answer the question that I was asking.

P.S. Dont worry, we all know why you didn't answer, because you can't. There is no explanation for why liberals claim abstinence doesn't work (based upon the belief that you can't stop people from having sex), yet those same liberals claim that homosexuals can put their sexuality aside while serving in combat. There is simply no earthly way to reconcile those two positions. So you dodged and asked me what you thought was a "gotcha" question.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why do you suppose that 65% of servicemen who serve in combat units are opposed to repealing DADT? Are we all homophobic bigots, every single one of us?

Not sure where you pulled that number from. I believe the Pentagon study indicated that 40% of combat troops were against the repeal across all branches, and 58% in the Marines. It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership.

Flip the numbers and 60% of combat troops either support the repeal or don't care...a strong majority.

The opinion of combat troops seems to have been heard and noted by the military leadership advocating a repeal. Their position being that even so, it shouldn't block moving forward as long as the transition was handled properly.

I'm not sure who you think has called you a homophobe. It's certainly reasonable to oppose something seen as a non-critical change when focused on a combat mission. This is why organizational change in business or the military can be so difficult. It's never easy to balance strategic direction without disrupting day to day tactical operations.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure where you pulled that number from. I believe the Pentagon study indicated that 40% of combat troops were against the repeal across all branches, and 58% in the Marines. It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership.

Flip the numbers and 60% of combat troops either support the repeal or don't care...a strong majority.

The opinion of combat troops seems to have been heard and noted by the military leadership advocating a repeal. Their position being that even so, it shouldn't block moving forward as long as the transition was handled properly.

I'm not sure who you think has called you a homophobe. It's certainly reasonable to oppose something seen as a non-critical change when focused on a combat mission. This is why organizational change in business or the military can be so difficult. It's never easy to balance strategic direction without disrupting day to day tactical operations.

-spence

58% of combat Marines are opposed to the repeal, and Spence is in a position to suggest that they only "say" they're opposed to the repeal because of pressure from leadership.

Spence, you dismiss EVERY SINGLE FACT that doesn't support your agenda. There is no limit to how inane a spin you will put on facts that you don't like.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For the hundredth time...if a gay officer tells a private to take a hill, if that private has any inkling that his selection was influenced by his commander's sexuality (regardless of whether or not the private has a good reason to be concerned) than you can't function in combat.

And that private better be NJP'd or have his face stomped in.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Every single military argument against repealing dadat that I have ever heard, is based on the concern that morale would be harmed. For you to suggest otherwise shows you aren't really grounded in the facts. You just label everyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe. Your rants are unbelievably consistent, unoriginal, predictable, and boring.

The facts indicate that 70% of Americans support the repeal.

The facts are that the military's own assessment of repealing DADT is that it's low risk.

The facts are that the Pentagon's own study of the issue found that it wouldn't harm troop moral.

Irrelevent. In the business world, gays go home at the end of the day to their partners. In the military, you live 24/7 for MONTHS AT A TIME with the guys you work with. Again, you ignore the facfs that matter because those don't serve your agenda, and insert irrelevent meaningless facts that support your argument. That tactic would get any freshman debate student a richly deserved "F".

It's called drawing a parallel.

No?? Then please tell me why we're having this debate. Enlighten me.

Because it's a politically charged wedge issue.

I'd love to know, LOVE TO KNOW, what you base that on. Again, you invent supporting arguments. It must be so convenient to support an agenda when you permit yourself to invent fictitious supporting arguments as you go along.

I believe I said "I'd wager" as in I'd be willing to take that bet. This is my opinion based on my conversations with past/present service members and what I've gathered in interviews with service personnel.

And possibly at the cost of who-knows-how-many lives. That may be a price you're willing to pay for political correctness. Not me.

I'll defer to someone with military experience on this...

Admiral Mullen: “My personal opinion is now my professional view, that this is a policy change that we can make in a relatively low-risk fashion ... given time and strong leadership.”

Ask the National Organization for Women if problems with women in the military have been "rare".

This is making the assumption that homosexual harassment has the same rates as heterosexual harassment. And even that being said, are you proposing we should ban women from serving? If not then what's the point?

Just one time Spence, try getting the facts FIRST and then making your decision, not the other way around...

The facts here seem to overwhelming support lifting the ban, which is a natural progression of shifting attitudes in the public at large. If you read my old posts on the subject you'll see that I've consistently called for a repeal of DADT, with the assumption that the military leadership is given the opportunity to mitigate any disruption they believe to be a potential risk to ongoing activities. It looks as though this is exactly what is being advocated by the Pentagon, the Sec Def and what's going to happen.

Your issue Chris is that you can't seem to have a conversation with people as they really are, rather, you need to project your liberal stereotypes upon them to make your talking points fit.

-spence

[scottw]

we all know about Spence's "facts"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The facts indicate that 70% of Americans support the repeal.

The facts are that the military's own assessment of repealing DADT is that it's low risk.

The facts are that the Pentagon's own study of the issue found that it wouldn't harm troop moral.



It's called drawing a parallel.



Because it's a politically charged wedge issue.


I believe I said "I'd wager" as in I'd be willing to take that bet. This is my opinion based on my conversations with past/present service members and what I've gathered in interviews with service personnel.


I'll defer to someone with military experience on this...

Admiral Mullen: “My personal opinion is now my professional view, that this is a policy change that we can make in a relatively low-risk fashion ... given time and strong leadership.”


This is making the assumption that homosexual harassment has the same rates as heterosexual harassment. And even that being said, are you proposing we should ban women from serving? If not then what's the point?



The facts here seem to overwhelming support lifting the ban, which is a natural progression of shifting attitudes in the public at large. If you read my old posts on the subject you'll see that I've consistently called for a repeal of DADT, with the assumption that the military leadership is given the opportunity to mitigate any disruption they believe to be a potential risk to ongoing activities. It looks as though this is exactly what is being advocated by the Pentagon, the Sec Def and what's going to happen.

Your issue Chris is that you can't seem to have a conversation with people as they really are, rather, you need to project your liberal stereotypes upon them to make your talking points fit.

-spence

Spence, the Sec Defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs want to repeal DADT. And like you said, most Americans want it repealed.

You left out one tiny fact. Every poll taken of servicemen who are serving in combat shows that a vast majority don't want to overturn DADT.

So you say you'll let the military decide? It sounds like you only listen to the military folk who agree with you, and you're ignoring the guys who will be most impacted.

[Jim in CT]

Mhy take on DADT is this, by the way...if a huge majority of combat troops are OK with it, and only a few homophobes are opposed, then I say repeal DADT and letthe military deal with the few bigots.

But that's not the case. Every poll I've seen shows that if you ask guys who are serving in combat commands, 65% want to leave DADT in place. Those are the guys putting their necks on the line, so I would choose to defer to them.