The request was for the name of someone who lied about being gay. You provided information about people who said they were gay but no one who lied about it. As for Colonel Claypool, she isn’t offering any more evidence to back up the assertion than you are.
My original point still stands unrefuted. The best way to prevent these supposed hordes of lying recruits from taking the out would be to repeal DADT.
Otto, please stop demanding a name. The only way you’ll get one is if the service member in question was court-martialed, because those proceedings are public. And, as I said before, that seldom happens.
Punishments, especially for something like this, usually are handled administratively. This is done is large part to not completely screw the servicemember’s life up for good. A court-martial follows you around the same way as a criminal record.
Service records, including the events causing a person to be discharged, are protected by the Privacy Act. You’ll not get any names that way.
You’re demanding information from Airman Doors that simply cannot be provided by anybody. He’s given you plenty of other supporting information for his argument. It should be sufficient for the purposes of this discussion, and I suggest you form your responses on the basis of this data.
Otto was not the one who made the assertion in the first place. If AD cannot support his (rather inflammatory) assertion, he ought to retract it.
I briefly scanned those articles last night before going to bed, and I’ll read them a lot more thoroughly today, but so far I haven’t seen any evidence that any of the people to whom Col. Claypoll referred were prosecuted or even charged for falsifying their statements.
I have supported it. And how was my assertion inflammatory? I asserted that there were people using DADT as an out when they realized that they might have to actually fight. Hell, they use all kinds of other ways, too. In my own shop we had a guy who was yold that he would be deploying and within two days he was on Ritalin. Locally (in Pennsylvania) we had a Marine who refused to go because he “had only joined up for the benefits”. I’ve offered up statements from people who would know that people are using DADT as a way out.
I will not retract my statements. I think it’s an obvious ploy, and it under no corcumstances insults homosexuals that there are cowards using that to get out of their commitments. All it takes is one simple statement, and just like that they’re back on the street with a General or Honorable Discharge. How does that affect homosexuals in any way?
To top this all off, all I did was question the numbers of “true” homosexuals that were discharged. I’d like to see a study done on that. I’d like to know how many were discharged on the basis of true homosexual conduct and how many claimed it just to get out. Until then, the numbers are highly suspect, at least to me.
What purpose does this serve? Is it going to affect the validity of DADT to show that some heteros are faking? Being gay should not be an easy out for cowards because being openly gay should not be grounds for discharge, period!
Openly gay people should be allowed to serve, end of story.
OK, say I want out. All I have to do is make a statement that I’m gay. That is the standard. If someone told on me there would be an investigation, but turning myself in by making a statement is not investigated. My “confession” would result in a General (or Honorable) Discharge, because by stating that I am gay I have not broken any laws, since the “fraudulent enlistment” charge is no longer applicable due to the prohibition on asking. I would not have “falsified” any statements by the standards of the law, although I would be lying.
What do you think they’re gonna do after that? Follow me around and try to prove that I was lying? Even if they could prove that I had lied about being gay, I have a Discharge in hand. For all practical purposes I’m untouchable. Those are the kinds of people I’m referring to, not people who were discharged because of actual homosexual activities.
Where have I argued in this thread that they shouldn’t? I’m arguing the ramifications of DADT, not the law itself.
Speaking of ramifications, you have yet to support your statement that half of the general officers in the Air Force resigned because of Truman’s integration order.
I would say if the assertion is going to be made that someone is using homosexuality as an excuse to get out of the armed forces, they should make that assertion prior to the discharge, and back it up with proof. Otherwise shut the hell up.
It’s not as if this person is coming out just to the military. They’re being discharged. People will want to know why. They’re essentially telling all their friends, family, coworkers, everyone they’re close to, that they are gay. I’m going to err on the side of believing them.
I’m will not say it never happens; I’m sure it does. But I doubt it’s the majority you claim it to be.
Now show me where I said it was a “majority”. I’m saying that the actual incidences of discharge for homosexuality are very likely inflated by cheaters.
Jesus Christ, can’t you people read? :rolleyes:
You’re not going to get any disagreement from Maureen, Airman Doors, and me on that last statement, gobear. And we’re all veterans.
My whole argument in this thread has been that Pentagon planners who are wrestling with this issue can’t be dismissed as bigots, offhand, because there’s far more to consider than just the rights of the gay servicemembers involved. There are also issues of readiness and combat effectiveness, which in the military are always a primary concern.
None of this was offered in defense of DADT, which I believe is a harmful policy that hurts combat effectiveness. But I think levelling charges of bigotry at the DoD is counterproductive as well. People need to understand that the military has a job to do, and that helping it do its job effectively is a far better solution.
I have seen, in my time in the military (I got out in 1998) gays and lesbians who were able to serve, if not openly, at least tacitly. It was a situation where everybody in the command knew what their orientation was, but since the personal life was kept away from the job, it wasn’t a problem. This was done, too, in chains of command where abuse of these servicemembers wouldn’t have been tolerated at all.
It wasn’t an ideal situation, surely. These servicemembers couldn’t take their parthers to the Navy Ball, or put their pictures on their desks. But it’s a different picture than the homophobic, gay-bashing military that is commonly portrayed.
Again, the Privacy Act protects them. You can give your friends and family any reason you want. You’re not coming out to them.
Records that are released to the public show only that you were discharged, and the nature of the discharge (honorable, general, dishonorable, whatever). They don’t show why you were discharged, unless you release them. Remember the calls for Bush and Kerry to do just that?
Earlier you said …
Make up your mind. Is military culture homophobic or not?
Perhaps it would help if you could explain how allowing gays to serve openly would affect readiness. Are you suggesting that a significant number of officers and/or enlisted personnel would resign or not reenlist?
OK, so you, a former military man, have told us that you believe that DADT is actually a “harmful policy that hurts combat effectiveness.” Also, the reports that i quoted earlier (as well as others that i didn’t quote) all say, based on considerable research, that gays in the military will have no adverse effect on morale or combat effectiveness. And both you and those reports have concluded that a key to the successful incorporation of gays is the attitude of those higher up the chain of command.
So, what exactly is it that’s preventing the DoD from allowing gays in? You say that we shouldn’t accuse them of bigotry, but if all the evidence indicates that the presence of gays will have no adverse effect on the way the military runs, then what other explanation could there be? Is it that the DoD believes that it’s officers don’t have the courage or the authority to ensure a smoothly-operating military? Or is it perhaps a belief among the top brass that most enlisted men are redneck chuckleheads who will beat a gay guy as quick as look at him?
I know you can’t see inside their heads, but take an educated guess. What is it that’s stopping the military brass from allowing gays to serve openly in the forces? And if the reasons fly in the face of research and logic, then why isn’t bigotry a reasonable explanation? Or at the very least, a willingness to pander to the bigotry of certain sections of the American population. Because let’s face it, this is a political as well as a military decision.
But can’t you see that something as simple as not being able to take your partner to the Navy Ball, or have a picture of him or her on your work desk or in your cabin, is not the relatively minor issue that you make out. It is a denial of your ability to be who you are, in a situation where who you are has no necessary impact on your ability to do your job.
Can you imagine the furore if the armed forces suddenly made a blanket rule that no service member could carry pictures of the wife (or husband) and kids when on military property or when serving in combat? Those of us who don’t suffer under the impact of “little” things like this often find it easy to dismiss them as unimportant, as tangential to the real argument. But if you’re a gay person who’s had to live with this sort of thing your whole life, it’s just another little slice in the death by a thousand cuts that our society tends to inflict on people whose sexuality is different from the “norm.”
Yes I can, and you’re right you didn’t say “majority.” You said:
[QUOTE]
I’m not saying that the policy is perfect, but I have the feeling that those numbers are that high because it’s such a perfect out.
[QUOTE]
and
Indicating that you believe the number of people fraudulently claiming to be gay is impacting these numbers in such a way as to cause them to be suspect. That would require a significant percentage.
I wanted to add one more thing about the consequences of DADT: i think that it not only fails to discourage bigots, but in cases where taunting and physical violence occur, it could actually help to protect them.
Imagine you’re a gay man whose comrades are victimizing you because they have found out that you’re gay. The victimization might be constant verbal harrassment, it might involved playing practical jokes or pranks, or it might even involve violence.
You have a couple of choices:
Deal with it yourself, either by trying to ignore it in the hopes that it will stop, or by actively fighting back.
Go to the appropriate authorities and report it.
In case (1), chances are that it won’t stop, and you’ll have to continue to put up with the abuse. This is especially true if the abuse is coming from more than one person.
In case (2), the problem becomes a matter for the chain of command, and perhaps even for a court martial. That might stop the harrassment, but it’s also likely that such a step will expose the fact that you’re gay, leading to a discharge.
So, the victimized gay service person either shuts up and puts up with the victimization, or risks losing a career over the actions of someone else. The bullies, of course, are probably well aware of this, which can only encourage them.
The military is made up primarily of young men, with some young women present. They are led by noncommissioned officers and officers not much older than they are, for the most part. Department heads on our ship were in their forties, and our captain was about fifty.
Most officers have college degrees, but most enlisted personnel don’t. They’re the sons and daughters of working class America.
Given this makeup of the group, Homebrew, and considering that the military numbers 1.4 million active duty troops, are you going to tell me there aren’t going to be incidents? That’s just stupifyingly naive. But I think those problems can be managed, as I’ve stated already.
And yes, I think reenlistment and officer retention could be issues. They certainly were issues in the mid-1990’s, in the early years of DADT. That was a policy that had the wonderful effect of satisfying nobody. I’m not saying officers and enlisted people weren’t leaving for other reasons in addition to DATD. But they were leaving at this time, causing readiness problems, and there’s no denying that.
Privacy concerns could be a problem, as they are now for women. Training would need to be put into place before the change is made, and chains of command would need to be very agressive about making the change happen.
This would take time, a whole lot of effort, and people helping the change to take place instead of calling the military bigots and homophobes while it happened. And I resent people saying it could happen overnight if the homophobes would just get out of the way.
No one is saying throwing out DADT is going to be a clean fix. But it’s the necessary first step in addressing the problem.
Yes, there will be incidents. I’m realistic enough to agree with you on that count. But it will help stop people from getting discharged just to get out of serving in a combat zone. And I do believe that it will increase our readiness and help, not hinder unit cohesion. Those articles mhendo quoted make me even more optimistic about it than I was before.
The main place I see problems is actually in homeland security. No one seems to have an issue about gays serving in international coalitions. Especially in combat, where you really don’t have time to worry about a person’s sexuality. But in the U.S., where homophobia is a problem (and I am not going to point at any areas of the country, homophobia’s everywhere, even here in the “gay mecca” of the SF Bay area), I foresee a much higher incidence of gaybashing and harrassment.
What privacy concerns? Do you think staight service members need to be shielded from a gay man seeing them naked, although it okay if a staight guy does? Are they gonna “catch gay”? What kind of adult logic is that?
Sure there may be incidents - there already are. Leadership, training and discipline are more important. If those attributes are in place, then the brass will act swiftly and decisively to minimize those incidents. This is not a reason to prevent openly gay service members.
You’re going to have to provide some documentation that DADT caused officers to punch out and enlisted men to not reenlist in sufficient numbers to affect readiness. You’ve provided no evidence that that motivated anyone to leave the military, much less sufficient numbers to affect readiness. Many people also claimed giving a wider role to women would hurt readiness and effectiveness, however, reality has proven that incorrect.
Notice how I linked to research to support my view? You might want to try that rather than just saying stuff like half of the general officers resigned over desegregation or that significant retention problems were caused by DADT in the 90s. So far neither you nor Airman Doors has given any evidence that integration, whether racial, gender or prospective sexual orientation, negatively affects military readiness or cohesion.