:smack:
its, its, its, its
Missed this little gem.
“A model of control”?
I know that some straight guys have trouble believing this, but as far as i’m aware, gay guys do not all have an irresistible urge to hump every man within poking distance. You make it sound like the gay guy is going to be lying awake in the bunk every night thinking of baseball just so he doesn’t prod his bedmate in the ass with a rock-hard boner.
If the people involved–both gay and straight–are the sort of professionals that the military commercials on TV insist are being produced in our armed forces, then they should be able to recognize that “hot-racking” is just another part of the job.
But what would you do, mhendo? to keep up mission readiness while you exclude the homophobes? Especially if there are a lot of them, and they fight really well?
I’m dying to know, really, and I’m sure the DoD would love to hear your suggestions as well.
Sheesh, I wasn’t implying anything about gay guys. I was just remembering what I was like as a sailor in my early twenties.
Hormones can run high, gay or straight. In any case, please accept my apologies for any offense inadvertantly caused.
I’m not pretending that it would be easy.
At the very least, i would make it clear to potential and incoming recruits that they are liable to runs across gays in the services, that the gay service people are no more or less important than any other member of the armed forces, and that homophobic taunts and actions would not be tolerated.
While this strategy does not address the issue of homophobes who are currently in uniform, it would be a positive step towards gradually reducing their numbers by attrition. Hopefully, then, as the homophobes retired, they would not be replaced by more of their ilk.
The very first step the military needs to take, and one that it seems singularly unwilling to take, is to make a clear and forceful statement that homophobia is actively discouraged in the armed forces, and that anyone who feels they cannot get over the hurdle of serving with gays should seriously consider whether or not they really should be in the military.
I wasn’t offended, just bemused.
As i said before, i think that if these military men and women are really as professional as they would like us civilians to believe, then who their comrades choose to sleep with should really have no impact on their ability to do their jobs.
Also, your own comment about hormones running high gets to the core of the issue for me. The military has always had to deal with problems that might affect troop morale and readiness–fraternization, drunkenness, adultery, violence, insubordination, etc. Why can it not deal with homophobia the same way–by ruling that discrimination against or abuse of homosexuals in the armed forces is a punishable offence, and making clear that any such offences will, in fact, be punished and not ignored or whitewashed.
I didn’t go thru the entire thread, but I’d like to ask Mr. Moto what actual evidence he has that gays in the military would cause a problem? I know there are a lot of hypothesis, but any actual data? On the other end of the spectrum, has there ever been a country that allowed gays to serve, only to reverse that policy because of its negative impact? IIRC, even the Israeli military has no ban against gays. If ever there was a country that depended on its military for its very survival, that would be Israel.
I see no reason that a pilot program, at the very least, should not be tried in the US. Ban gay (and hetero) sex between members of the military, but what a guy or gal does for sex in his or her off hours is just simply besides the point.
[QUOTE=Otto]
Ah, you haven’t had diversity training yet. In order to deal with someone espousing a belief you find objectionable, you have to separate the person from the belief, listen to what the person is saying and maintain respect even in the midst of disagreement.
Calling Airman Doors names does not get him any closer to seeing your POV. You have to negotiate consensus with him and get him to see things your way by being nonjudgmental yet firm in presenting your position.
Mind, I know he (plus the rest of the board) doesn’t like or respect me, but it might work better for you.
I think it can, and should. That would be my preference, as opposed to DADT.
John Mace, in my five years in the Navy, I’ve seen some instances of sexual misconduct firsthand, including some committed by gays. Some of them incidents are recounted above. They were quite serious and represented major violations of order and discipline. That’s why I take this issue seriously on all fronts.
This is exactly what I was talking about.
What I was saying was that the numbers wouldn’t compare…because even though I would be willing to bet there are significantly more people committing adultery and having heterosexual sodomy than there are people outing themselves as homosexuals, homosexuals are far more likely to be booted out of the armed forces for their offenses.
If this course of action was taken, the armed forces would be ALARMINGLY depleted. Imagine the fighting force we’d have if everyone who committed adultery or engaged in sodomy (which includes anal AND oral sex, remember) were kicked out for their crimes.
Mr. Moto exchange Black for Gay and you have your answer. It’s really that simple. How did intergration finally work? Let’s ignore the fact that there are most likely lots of racists right now that are working and functioning as a unit. Do we exclude every bigot in a uniform now?
Every excuse that can be made about Gays were made for denying Blacks the ability to serve…and women.
It’s amazing. We’re fighting ANOTHER civil rights war in this country, when are we ever going to grow up as a nation? We never freaking learn.
From a report entitled: Belkin and Levit, “Effects of Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Israeli Forces: Appraising the Evidence,” hosted on the website of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, at UC Santa Barbara:
Another report, by Bateman and Dalvi, entitled “Multinational Military Units and Homosexual Personnel,” concludes:
You can read about those five case studies at the website, if you’re interested.
The site also has a copy of a shorter article that appeared in the New York Times back in 1999. It states, in part:
Make what you will of these reports, but if they are even close to the truth, then asserting that gays in the military undermine morale and compromise combat readiness is nothing but a big load of sophistry.
Using anecdotal evidence, as I’m sure you know, is not a good way to formulate public policy. Again, what do the Israelis know that we don’t know?
Like I said above, if there is fear of undermining our entire military, then conduct a pilot program and move cautiously in that direction until and unless there is some credible evidence that the policy itself is flawed.
mhendo: Thanks for the cites. Pretty much makes the case that fears of gays in the military is just that-- fear-- and little more.
I think that’s right. For me, the most illuminating sentences in those reports were the following:
and
I’m realistic enough to realize that there will always be homophobes in the military. But, as others have pointed out in this thread, the military is an institution that is, in many ways, different from the rest of society. And one thing that makes it different is the very strong hierarchy, and the respect for the chain of command. If you get ordered to do something by your superiors, you may not always like or agree with the order, but you carry it out.
Those quotes from the studies suggest that if the military brass makes it very clear that homophobic behavior will not be tolerated, and ensures that this is obeyed right down the chain of command, then there should be very little impact on morale or combat readiness. Professional soldiers, if they truly are professionals, will do their job.
(in the other linked thread)
Was this statement ever challenged? In other words, cite.
The Army’s website doesn’t mention it.
This history seems to point to the conclusion that the troops will do as they’re told if the brass is firm and dedicated. If it worked for racial integration and expanding the role of women, why wouldn’t it work for homosexuals serving openly?
That’s absolutely true, of course. But it gets at the basic, very practical issue of privacy that everyone seems to be avoiding because they’re too busy calling each other homophobes and bigots.
I’ve never served in the military and have absolutely no idea what living conditions are like – are male and female soldiers expected to share showers, bathrooms, and bunks? I’m assuming that they’re not, and they’re given separate facilities. If that’s not true, then ignore the rest of this post.
But if they are given separate facilities, is that considered sexist? If a male soldier refuses to take a shower with a female soldier, does that mean that he’s questioning her competence or her professionalism? Or that he’s questioning her ability to control herself, and he’s sure she’s going to jump on him the moment his back is turned? I don’t think so; I think it’s just one of those basic matters of privacy.
The military simply isn’t like other jobs, because you have to spend all day every day with your co-workers. I think the DADT policy is backwards and outdated, and it reinforces the idea that homosexuals are second-class citizens, and perpetuates homophobia and the idea that a person should be ashamed of or try to hide his or her sexuality. Still, I don’t think the issue is as cut-and-dried as some people would like to make it seem.
Since we keep getting back to that example, how does the Israeli army handle living facilities?
It depends. The rules are that Officers and enlisted aren’t supposed to bunk together. That rule went by the wayside on my trip to the desert, where all the flyers in the squadron (except the women) stayed in the same tent. The women were initially given their own tent, but they annexed a portion of the support tent and built a wall for separation.
Other times, like if we’re staying in a hotel, then there’s a good chance that everyone will get their own room, if it’s long term perhaps then you double up.
Out in the desert, though, it’s all communal. Everything, with only a concession to the women for privacy’s sake.
I’m still looking for a specific case, but those are proving hard to find. Perhaps I’m not searching with the right terms. But anyway, this quote from the above cite should satisfy your curiosity on the topic for the time being:
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that if they have documented cases of people using that as an excuse after receiving educational benefits (as I asserted earlier) there will certainly be cases of people using that as a way to get out of combat.
I’ll keep searching for a name, but barring that I think that that cite is sufficient to prove my point anyway.
This is interesting as well, and worth the read.
And this will be my last cite for the evening because I need to go to bed.
I think I recall saying something along those lines.
I’m also on adderall for fatigue stemming from multiple sclerosis.
It makes my mind sharper, keeps me awake, and lucid.
As adderall and ritalin are both amphetamines, they would alter perception but in certain doses it would improve focus and I am amazed it would be used as a disqualifier.
On the don’t ask don’t tell bullshit, it is ludicrous, pointless, and an archaic dinosaur stemming from the egocentric fears and prejudices of straight men.