Poll: Troops oppose repeal of "don’t ask don't tell"

[alienlovechild 75]

I was drawing a direct comparison between how problems between male and female personnel are handled and elevate the discussion above brilliant observations about whether they are aware of their genitals. Most people could handle changes but there will some friction but would a few individuals be nuisance enough to dispute units or greatly affect retention?

The military kicks out people who are more trouble than they are worth and it's questionable why we are playing around with social engineering during wartime. It bothers me that politics mean more than the military and surely it's no coincidence that all this stuff is happening again at the start of another Democratic presidency just like in 1993. There are far more important issues than gays in the military and it's ridiculous to waste the time making a huge issue on something that will affect a very small minority in uniform just to satisfy gay voters.

I'll respond by making a couple substitutions in your last point:

There are far more important issues than blacks in the military and it's ridiculous to waste the time making a huge issue on something that will affect a very small minority in uniform just to satisfy black voters.

It's a civil rights issue, not a special interest group issue.

In response to your observation that "it's questionable why we are playing around with social engineering during wartime," I'll point out that we integrated the services during World War 2, and also to a large extent during Vietnam. We have a very adaptable military, I'm confident they can handle this during wartime. And since this country seems to be perpetually at war, waiting for peace time really isn't in the cards anyway.

For starters, the U.S. armed forces were desegrated during the Korean War not WWII. There are far more minorities serving than gays. As a matter of fact there 0 service members openly gay or haven't been kicked out per the don't ask don't policy so your argument is so full of holes the new commissioned USS GHW Bush could sail through easily. In other words, our military has been fighting the current wars without openly gay members serving.

Blacks and other minorities weren't in the closet and military necessity forced the government to accept black soldiers not as a civil rights issue but because they needed fighting men. Most black vets didn't get any greater rights for serving so civil rights weren't the orginal reason but their service proved they could do the job.

You haven't explained why it so necessary to change the policy now of gays openly serving during wartime beyond your weak analogy with blacks' serving. Your reasoning is purely political and perfectly timed with the election cycle. It has little to do miliitary considerations. Personally, I think the military is flexible and I don't think there's going to be a huge influx of gays or soldiers coming out of the closet but I think almost any issue facing the armed forces in wartime is more important than toying with social experiments for solely for political gain. If this becomes the focus of Obama's defense policy (haven't heard that though) as it did with Clinton in his first year then good to come from it will be buried beneath other pressing issues facing our troops at a time when the media is already forgetting our wars to focus on Gaza.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A better question that "why change the policy" would surely be "why keep the policy".

Its not really been explained what the thinking is behind it.

[Danno 1,228]

Should heterosexual men and women shower together? If a woman objects to that, is she therefore backward, unenlightened, and prejudiced?

This is arguing extremes. You're taking an extreme position to argue against a non-extreme. It's not even worth considering.

It is very much worth considering!

You can't dismiss a valid point (in many peoples opinion) by just brushing it off.

Housing is a real problem.

You say; a gay man has had a ####### all his life so therefore it holds no interests for him to leer at a shower with nude men,....Mox this is beyond ridiculous!

Lets be honest, "gay" is more than what people do in the quiet of a motel room (or barracks in this case). Gay is a life style, it is a way of carrying oneself (though certainly not always).

speech and mannerisms are often part of who they are. It is way more complicated than just changing a law and acting like "those who are Gay no longer have to "hide" and it's business as usual.

When Gays are serving openly, they will want to "be who they are". (and why shouldn't they)

Will homos be allowed to room together?

You always fall back to this "They are professional soldiers" and they can handle it.

MOX we are talking about 18, 19, 20 year old kids.

Why should these kids be forced to live in close quarters with openly ** room mates?

It is offensive to a large segment of Americans (not to mention the world).

Using the "Black" comparison is so lame.

The majority of people did not find Blacks offensive or felt uncomfortable around them after WW2 when integration took place.

Even in the South where segregation was

alive, almost everyone knew, interacted, worked-with and considered some Blacks as family members and friends.

This, is much more a profound change and much more complicated than you suggest.

* You never answered my question from before; (don't do another dodge)

SHOULD CROSS DRESSERS, TRANSVESTITES<TRANS GENDER, BE IN THE MILITARY AS WELL?

These are real americans who perhaps also have a "right" to serve.

....and to build on your logic... in the past these folks have served with honor so why not bring them out of the closet as well?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Danno - I think the answer to that question depends a lot on the prevailing social attitudes in the military.

At a guess - perhaps there's a disconnect between what the rank and file believes, what the command structure believes, and what the command structure thinks the rank and file believes. At a glance the OP survey would seem to suggest that that's the case.

Are they (the command structure) holding with this policy simply because its easy, and because its what they've always done - or is it because there is prejudice among the rank and file and that opening up the field for gheys would cause discipline problems? Even if there is prejudice (and clearly there is for some of the folks in the survey), it really needs to be clarified exactly what the practical drawbacks of this are.

Is the command structure pandering to that prejudice because they don't want to upset the apple cart?

There's no reason why anyone can't serve, so long as they aren't crazy and can meet the physical requirements.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

As with gays, all these people already are serving in the armed forces, you just don't know about it because, guess what? They wear a uniform as is proper for their jobs. Nothing changes by the acknowledgment that gays are well, gay, they don't multiply because they are allowed to be openly gay, they don't perve more because they are allowed to be openly gay and they will not attempt to sexually assault a straight guy just because they are openly gay. All that happens is that gay people don't have to pretend that gays don't exist in the armed forces.

As for the 'worthiness' of this issue at this time - human rights issues are always worth striving for - oh but, I remember now, you guys don't believe in human rights, instead you believe in what? American liberties?

[Danno 1,228]

Danno - I think the answer to that question depends a lot on the prevailing social attitudes in the military.

At a guess - perhaps there's a disconnect between what the rank and file believes, what the command structure believes, and what the command structure thinks the rank and file believes. At a glance the OP survey would seem to suggest that that's the case.

Are they (the command structure) holding with this policy simply because its easy, and because its what they've always done - or is it because there is prejudice among the rank and file and that opening up the field for gheys would cause discipline problems? Even if there is prejudice (and clearly there is for some of the folks in the survey), it really needs to be clarified exactly what the practical drawbacks of this are.

Is the command structure pandering to that prejudice because they don't want to upset the apple cart?

There's no reason why anyone can't serve, so long as they aren't crazy and can meet the physical requirements.

I agree with most of your post except for this;

<<There's no reason why anyone can't serve, so long as they aren't crazy and can meet the physical requirements.>>

The military has been and should remain a department which has such a unique mission, that it need to serve its own mission and interests and not the interests of it's members.

The military needs woman in many capacities and so they are there. Same with Blacks or any race but if any group or segment is thought to "overall" bring more negative than positive, the Military has the obligation to "ban" this segment.

Often time even "allowing" something... opens up pandoras-box.

An fine example is Drug use in the military. To allow former users of certain drugs entrance or to put drug use in the "privacy of life" compartment would "invite" a more active drug use and the many problems that are associated from the use and culture.

NOw on another point I could Use MoX's reasoning that; since Many who comited adultery the military did in fact give excellent service, we should there for let it be a civilian matter and remove it from the UCMJ. In fact with this logic, we could do away with a lot of those pesky Rules from times gone-by.

Bottom line, entrance in the military is NOT A RIGHT.

[Danno 1,228]

There's no reason why anyone can't serve, so long as they aren't crazy and can meet the physical requirements.

Which brings up another point of discrimination (if the Military was "just like every other gov't job")

Why is it a woman can enlist for the same MOS as a man... yet be shorter?

If a 5'2" woman can be a computer programmer... why can't a 5'2" man?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Danno - I think the answer to that question depends a lot on the prevailing social attitudes in the military.

At a guess - perhaps there's a disconnect between what the rank and file believes, what the command structure believes, and what the command structure thinks the rank and file believes. At a glance the OP survey would seem to suggest that that's the case.

Are they (the command structure) holding with this policy simply because its easy, and because its what they've always done - or is it because there is prejudice among the rank and file and that opening up the field for gheys would cause discipline problems? Even if there is prejudice (and clearly there is for some of the folks in the survey), it really needs to be clarified exactly what the practical drawbacks of this are.

Is the command structure pandering to that prejudice because they don't want to upset the apple cart?

There's no reason why anyone can't serve, so long as they aren't crazy and can meet the physical requirements.

I agree with most of your post except for this;

<<There's no reason why anyone can't serve, so long as they aren't crazy and can meet the physical requirements.>>

The military has been and should remain a department which has such a unique mission, that it need to serve its own mission and interests and not the interests of it's members.

The military needs woman in many capacities and so they are there. Same with Blacks or any race but if any group or segment is thought to "overall" bring more negative than positive, the Military has the obligation to "ban" this segment.

Often time even "allowing" something... opens up pandoras-box.

An fine example is Drug use in the military. To allow former users of certain drugs entrance or to put drug use in the "privacy of life" compartment would "invite" a more active drug use and the many problems that are associated from the use and culture.

NOw on another point I could Use MoX's reasoning that; since Many who comited adultery the military did in fact give excellent service, we should there for let it be a civilian matter and remove it from the UCMJ. In fact with this logic, we could do away with a lot of those pesky Rules from times gone-by.

Bottom line, entrance in the military is NOT A RIGHT.

I wonder where the evidence is that certain groups (like gheys) bring more negative than positive. Certainly there is some statement in the policy that they are undesirable, but what this "undesirableness" might be hasn't been defined, and when asked the question the only response is to go around the issue (as you did above) rather than tackle it head on.

As to entrance in the military not being a right - of course it isn't. That's why there's an application procedure.

The reasonable question that I'm asking is whether those application procedures discriminate unfairly against certain groups (like gheys) for unjustifiable reasons. In other words - does this policy amount to institutional prejudice on the part of the military?

There's no reason why anyone can't serve, so long as they aren't crazy and can meet the physical requirements.

Which brings up another point of discrimination (if the Military was "just like every other gov't job")

Why is it a woman can enlist for the same MOS as a man... yet be shorter?

If a 5'2" woman can be a computer programmer... why can't a 5'2" man?

Who knows. Perhaps that's something that should be addressed also.

[alienlovechild 75]

I think I've explained perfectly. It's a civil rights issue. Questioning my motivations is a little strange though. I don't hold political office or have any political ambitions. But I believe that allowing openly gay people to serve in our military is the right thing to do.

You may believe it's a civil rights issue but I'm sure the courts disagree. There haven't been ruling by the Supreme Court ruling against don't ask in the 16 years so it's not a pressing issue. If you don't notice how this issue only emerges when a Democrat is coming to the White House, then I'm sure what will convince you it's more of political move having little to do with any new developments making this a some kind of major national issue. It wasn't a big campaign issue so why make it now?

I think it has everything to do with military considerations. Consider the Arabic translator that was forced out because he admitted to being gay. Any idea how difficult Arabic translators are to come by? We lost a damn fine soldier in a very critical position, not because he was incapable of doing his job, but because of a stupid policy. And while you can argue that he should have just kept his mouth shut, sometimes people feel the need to do the right thing when they see injustice.

His sexual preferences were far important than any service he rendered to the military. He made his choice and figured it's more important to be openly gay in the military and than in doing his duty. I wouldn't want anyone like that in my unit- not because he's gay but because he put his needs ahead of his comrades.

I would not have a problem with this, although I also know there's not enough political willpower at the moment to even consider it, so I don't waste a lot of energy thinking about it.

Agreed

NOw on another point I could Use MoX's reasoning that; since Many who comited adultery the military did in fact give excellent service, we should there for let it be a civilian matter and remove it from the UCMJ. In fact with this logic, we could do away with a lot of those pesky Rules from times gone-by.

Bottom line, entrance in the military is NOT A RIGHT.

Bingo. Believe it or not it is a privilege to serve and not a right.

Since there's all the talk about Obama as the "new Lincoln", what would old Abe do on this issue (with some Mox inspired paraphrasing)

"If I could improve the military without gays I would do it, and if I could improve it by having all gays in the military I would do it; and if I could improve it by having some openly gay and leaving others alone in the closet I would also do that. What I do about gays openly in the military I do because I believe it helps to improve the military ; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to improve the military. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery

Edited January 13, 2009 by alienlovechild

[DeadPoolX 9]

There are numerous areas of life that are a privilege and not a right. Unfortunately, it seems that "conventional wisdom" thinks otherwise.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Camouflage polka-dots and mink stoll will become standard issue.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Camouflage polka-dots and mink stoll will become standard issue.

I think that's highly unlikely, Steven. It'd be a "faux mink stoll" nowadays.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There are numerous areas of life that are a privilege and not a right. Unfortunately, it seems that "conventional wisdom" thinks otherwise.

On this issue - how so?

Noone has really explained how or why gheys should be barred from serving openly in the military, outside of vague innuendo.

[DeadPoolX 9]

There are numerous areas of life that are a privilege and not a right. Unfortunately, it seems that "conventional wisdom" thinks otherwise.

On this issue - how so?

Noone has really explained how or why gheys should be barred from serving openly in the military, outside of vague innuendo.

I don't mean this issue in particular (although some could argue otherwise), but in general, people take privileges for granted and think of them as rights.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Broadly speaking, a person does have the right not to be discriminated against for dubious reasons.