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

[Ban Hammer 14,571]

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

just out of curiosity, can anyone bring to the table any benefits for the military for allowing them to serve openly? and do keep in mind that serving openly would in all likelihood be hazardous to the health of that one serving openly (yes, there are a number of attacks, and deaths, of suspected gays in the military). is it really worth satisfying one's need to leave their mark on society while watching unit cohesion and readiness slip in the armed forces due to one's perceived concept of "right" as people would essentially have to guard an openly serving servicemember?

a "war story" for those who don't know - III corps headquarters, stationed at ft hood tx - one could always tell where that unit had set up in the field. if one made a large circle around the perimeter after the unit had departed the location, you'd find used condoms all over the place. and i'm not talking about a dozen or so...i'm talking hundreds.

with gender mixed units, the above is not uncommon. but i have to wonder how many more biological hazards would be left lying around should some have their wish.

Edited January 13, 2009 by charles!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

Absolutely, and just because it DOES happen, doesn't mean it should be accepted or condoned. Blacks and hispanics were often targeted back in the day, or at the very least held back from advancing, but it's not an argument against them serving.

It also can't be defended on the basis that because of existing prejudice in the work environment that it justifies keeping things as they are.

Who says that homophobia or racism in (supposedly) the best military in the world should tolerated?

[alienlovechild 75]

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

Gheys? G'days?

You missed it, 6. Most of it has to with retention and unit cohesive. People who don't re-enlist because they have a problem with gays will have be replaced with gays or more gay friendly types which may mean lower standards. Also, it not a good thing to armed folks who can't get along and may end up fighting each other more than the enemy. That was a real problem between blakcs and whites in the later part of the Vietnam War and DOD spent years on EO to straighten out the problem. Not because Uncle Sam is concerned with civil rights on people with a lesser expectation of their individual rights but because open divisions hurt unit operations.

Changing the policy may improve things but they may not and the military doesn't change unless it has to whether because it's losing on the battlefield or the politicians have something that supercedes military considerations.

I was wrong. The deseg policy was done in peacetime but only took off during the Korean War. So changing the don't tell policy is even riskier now in wartime. Again the military didn't deseg for human or civil rights but because of battlefield losses (same in American Civl War in segrated units).

"In 1948, President Harry S Truman's Executive Order 9981 ordered the integration of the armed forces shortly after World War II, a major advance in civil rights. Using the Executive Order (E.O.) meant that Truman could bypass Congress. Representatives of the Solid South, all white Democrats, would likely have stonewalled related legislation.

For instance, in May 1948, Richard B. Russell, Democratic Senator from Georgia, attached an amendment to the Selective Services bill then being debated in Congress. The Russell amendment would have granted draftees and new inductees an opportunity to choose whether or not they wanted to serve in segregated military units. Russell's amendment was defeated in committee. Truman signed Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948. In June 1950 when the Selective Services Law came up for renewal, Russell tried again to attach his segregation amendment, and again Congress defeated it.

At the end of June 1950, the Korean War broke out. The U.S. Army had accomplished little desegregation in peacetime and sent the segregated Eighth Army to defend South Korea. Most African-American soldiers served in segregated support units in the rear. The remainder served in segregated combat units, most notably the 24th Infantry Regiment. The first months of the Korean War were some of the most disastrous in U.S. military history. The North Korean People's Army nearly drove the American-led United Nations forces off the Korean peninsula. Faced with staggering losses in white units, commanders on the ground began accepting black replacements, thus integrating their units. The practice occurred all over the Korean battle lines and proved that integrated combat units could perform under fire. The Army high command took notice. On July 26, 1951, the US Army formally announced its plans to desegregate, exactly three years after Truman issued Executive Order 9981."

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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So in other words - I was correct. The military adopts an institutional policy based on the perceived prejudices of the people who enlist.

[Peikko 1,575]

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

Gheys? G'days?

You missed it, 6. Most of it has to with retention and unit cohesive. People who don't re-enlist because they have a problem with gays will have be replaced with gays or more gay friendly types which may mean lower standards. Also, it not a good thing to armed folks who can't get along and may end up fighting each other more than the enemy. That was a real problem between blakcs and whites in the later part of the Vietnam War and DOD spent years on EO to straighten out the problem. Not because Uncle Sam is concerned with civil rights on people with a lesser expectation of their individual rights but because open divisions hurt unit operations.

Changing the policy may improve things but they may not and the military doesn't change unless it has to whether because it's losing on the battlefield or the politicians have something that supercedes military considerations.

I was wrong. The deseg policy was done in peacetime but only took off during the Korean War. So changing the don't tell policy is even riskier now in wartime. Again the military didn't deseg for human or civil rights but because of battlefield losses (same in American Civl War in segrated units).

"In 1948, President Harry S Truman's Executive Order 9981 ordered the integration of the armed forces shortly after World War II, a major advance in civil rights. Using the Executive Order (E.O.) meant that Truman could bypass Congress. Representatives of the Solid South, all white Democrats, would likely have stonewalled related legislation.

For instance, in May 1948, Richard B. Russell, Democratic Senator from Georgia, attached an amendment to the Selective Services bill then being debated in Congress. The Russell amendment would have granted draftees and new inductees an opportunity to choose whether or not they wanted to serve in segregated military units. Russell's amendment was defeated in committee. Truman signed Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948. In June 1950 when the Selective Services Law came up for renewal, Russell tried again to attach his segregation amendment, and again Congress defeated it.

At the end of June 1950, the Korean War broke out. The U.S. Army had accomplished little desegregation in peacetime and sent the segregated Eighth Army to defend South Korea. Most African-American soldiers served in segregated support units in the rear. The remainder served in segregated combat units, most notably the 24th Infantry Regiment. The first months of the Korean War were some of the most disastrous in U.S. military history. The North Korean People's Army nearly drove the American-led United Nations forces off the Korean peninsula. Faced with staggering losses in white units, commanders on the ground began accepting black replacements, thus integrating their units. The practice occurred all over the Korean battle lines and proved that integrated combat units could perform under fire. The Army high command took notice. On July 26, 1951, the US Army formally announced its plans to desegregate, exactly three years after Truman issued Executive Order 9981."

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

Why is that 'likely'? I don't see how being 'gay' friendly (as it were) should make one any worse at doing one's job. What a curious statement to make - but as with all this trash about gays, it's just that, trash. There is no logical argument to make against allowing gays to be open about their lifestyle - except that some people simply don't like to be aware of all aspects of humanity. Blinkers on, the gays are coming!

[alienlovechild 75]

So in other words - I was correct. The military adopts an institutional policy based on the perceived prejudices of the people who enlist.

Yes 6, you're right as usual. Uniforms without bodies to go with them tend to hurt military readiness. The military lightened up on guys with visible tattoos because. . . they needed more bodies and because too many of them have tats now they had to adapt. Individual rights had nothing to do with the change in policy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So in other words - I was correct. The military adopts an institutional policy based on the perceived prejudices of the people who enlist.

Yes 6, you're right as usual. Uniforms without bodies to go with them tend to hurt military readiness. The military lightened up on guys with visible tattoos because. . . they needed more bodies and because too many of them have tats now they had to adapt. Individual rights had nothing to do with the change in policy.

If that's the case - it kinda takes the shine off of the supposedly honorable profession of serving one's country.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Scott & Lai 12]

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.

And a heterosexual male will not attempt to sexually assault a female just because they are openly heterosexual... so there is no logical reason for not allowing males and females to bunk together and shower together...only an ignorant hetero-phobe would object...

Edited January 13, 2009 by Scott & Lai

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

And a heterosexual male will not attempt to sexually assault a female just because they are openly heterosexual... so there is no logical reason for not allowing males and females to bunk together and shower together...

Yep no reason really - outside of an old social convention that dictates that men and women need separate bathrooms.

[Yoink 7]

one can look at other countries especially those countries with mandatory conscripton where is is unavoidable to enlist gays an see how they conduct themselves

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

one can look at other countries especially those countries with mandatory conscripton where is is unavoidable to enlist gays an see how they conduct themselves

Or perhaps how military commanders in those countries address that issue.

[alienlovechild 75]

Why is that 'likely'? I don't see how being 'gay' friendly (as it were) should make one any worse at doing one's job. What a curious statement to make - but as with all this trash about gays, it's just that, trash. There is no logical argument to make against allowing gays to be open about their lifestyle - except that some people simply don't like to be aware of all aspects of humanity. Blinkers on, the gays are coming!

Your reading comprehension matches your military acumen- zilch. If you use a quote, quote correctly. I said "may" mean lower standards not "likely". Also no trash talk from me so you must be referring to another poster. If you can't grasp the logic behind of basic numbers needed to fill the ranks or why there is a need for recruiters in countries without a draft, then I "likely" can't help you. You may not like it but that's the way it is. It's as likely you'll go into the military as I'll become a fashion designer but you don't hear me spouting nonsense about what's "in" this year.

a "war story" for those who don't know - III corps headquarters, stationed at ft hood tx - one could always tell where that unit had set up in the field. if one made a large circle around the perimeter after the unit had departed the location, you'd find used condoms all over the place. and i'm not talking about a dozen or so...i'm talking hundreds.

The troops at III Corps must be the center of command and control and love nest. I was in the field a lot at Fort Hood and never saw beyond 2AD and 4ID HQs in the field. The Caltrop was really a symbol for a three way?

[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.

And a heterosexual male will not attempt to sexually assault a female just because they are openly heterosexual... so there is no logical reason for not allowing males and females to bunk together and shower together...only an ignorant hetero-phobe would object...

What do you suppose is happening at this very moment, when gays are known to be part of the armed forces, but currently it's acceptable only if you 'keep your mouth shut'? Do you suppose that not acknowledging that gays are gay somehow stops them from actually being gay?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And a heterosexual male will not attempt to sexually assault a female just because they are openly heterosexual... so there is no logical reason for not allowing males and females to bunk together and shower together...only an ignorant hetero-phobe would object...

I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse, but if you really can't see the difference then there's no point continuing this line of discussion. It should be intuitively obvious what the differences are.

The argument seems to be that if the showers are segregated by gender then the ghey person gets a free show, and that logically if one group can get a free show everyone should.

I don't have a problem with it. Why not...

Edited January 13, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

Why is that 'likely'? I don't see how being 'gay' friendly (as it were) should make one any worse at doing one's job. What a curious statement to make - but as with all this trash about gays, it's just that, trash. There is no logical argument to make against allowing gays to be open about their lifestyle - except that some people simply don't like to be aware of all aspects of humanity. Blinkers on, the gays are coming!

Your reading comprehension matches your military acumen- zilch. If you use a quote, quote correctly. I said "may" mean lower standards not "likely". Also no trash talk from me so you must be referring to another poster. If you can't grasp the logic behind of basic numbers needed to fill the ranks or why there is a need for recruiters in countries without a draft, then I "likely" can't help you. You may not like it but that's the way it is. It's as likely you'll go into the military as I'll become a fashion designer but you don't hear me spouting nonsense about what's "in" this year.

a "war story" for those who don't know - III corps headquarters, stationed at ft hood tx - one could always tell where that unit had set up in the field. if one made a large circle around the perimeter after the unit had departed the location, you'd find used condoms all over the place. and i'm not talking about a dozen or so...i'm talking hundreds.

The troops at III Corps must be the center of command and control and love nest. I was in the field a lot at Fort Hood and never saw beyond 2AD and 4ID HQs in the field. The Caltrop was really a symbol for a three way?

What's the point of saying 'may' at all? Your implication, which you are now trying to shy away from, was obvious, having people who are not scared of having 'gays' in the 'village' will lower the quality of the armed forces. May, may not? If it is not 'likely' there is no point in even mentioning, so well, why did you?

As for the rest of your accusations, I don't care what you think.