Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 2:45:28 GMT -5
Post by Bando on Feb 11, 2010 2:45:28 GMT -5
IMO, the coming repeal is long overdue. Even a majority of Republicans support a repeal. I have yet to find a defense of DADT that doesn't echo a support of segregation in the military (replacing "homosexual" with "negro" makes this very easy). I have a hard time believing even our most conservative posters are still against this.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 3:38:46 GMT -5
Post by rosslynhoya on Feb 11, 2010 3:38:46 GMT -5
If the Executive Order that established the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is repealed, then all homosexual behavior by members of the U.S. armed forces will once again be criminalized.
Is that really what you want?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 9:27:56 GMT -5
Post by TBird41 on Feb 11, 2010 9:27:56 GMT -5
If the Executive Order that established the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is repealed, then all homosexual behavior by members of the U.S. armed forces will once again be criminalized. Is that really what you want? That's the reasons Congress has to make the change--they're the only ones that can change the Military Code. I understand that DADT will probably just get a full repeal, but, as much as I don't see any reason why open homosexuals can't serve in pretty much every MOS, I think there probably is something to the concerns about open service in infantry / combat units, for some of the same reasons that women aren't allowed in (obviously the physical aspects aren't the same). I haven't served in the infantry / combat, so I don't know how big an impact it would have on the effectiveness / morale of those types of units, but I really, really, really hope that its a small one, considering we're currently in the middle of two wars. I know the brass is on board with the change, but I'm more concerned about the effect it will have on the NCOs that make the Army / Marines what it is. I'm also curious what the effect will be on retention / recruitment. Hopefully, a small one, but still, something to be worried about in the middle of two wars.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 9:32:18 GMT -5
Post by Elvado on Feb 11, 2010 9:32:18 GMT -5
IMO, the coming repeal is long overdue. Even a majority of Republicans support a repeal. I have yet to find a defense of DADT that doesn't echo a support of segregation in the military (replacing "homosexual" with "negro" makes this very easy). I have a hard time believing even our most conservative posters are still against this. I'm all for the repeal of this policy, but how would one not tell they are a "negro"?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 10:24:37 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Feb 11, 2010 10:24:37 GMT -5
I think there probably is something to the concerns about open service in infantry / combat units, for some of the same reasons that women aren't allowed in (obviously the physical aspects aren't the same). I haven't served in the infantry / combat, so I don't know how big an impact it would have on the effectiveness / morale of those types of units, but I really, really, really hope that its a small one, considering we're currently in the middle of two wars. I know the brass is on board with the change, but I'm more concerned about the effect it will have on the NCOs that make the Army / Marines what it is. The people in the Army tell me that this is basically a non-issue, since there are already gays in the military, and everybody knows it. Most infantrymen have already knowingly served alongside gays somewhere along the line, and the Army still seems to work pretty well. Also, because the military is naturally such a macho organization, most gays in the military will probably still hide their homosexuality, just like they do now. The only difference will be that they won't get kicked out if the wrong person learns their secret. I don't think it will have a big effect on recruitment. A few die-hard homophobes might stay away, and a few gays who might not have joined might join up. But I think most potential recruits' patriotism is greater than their homophobia, and most gays will still be wary about joining a naturally macho organization like the military. The bigger issue will be retention. Given how small the practical effects of the change will be, I don't see too many soldiers leaving the military because they find out there are gays there, aside from maybe an initial wave who resign out of protest. However, it will obviously increase retention among gays.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 10:57:07 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Feb 11, 2010 10:57:07 GMT -5
Once again, if someone is opposed to repeal of DADT, he/she is labeled a homophobe.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 11:12:03 GMT -5
Post by Cambridge on Feb 11, 2010 11:12:03 GMT -5
You can't criticize homosexuals or their lifestyle as being non-traditional when you prevent them access to traditional means of civic engagement such as marriage, parenthood, community involvement and military service. If family, service and patriotism are core values of American society we really shouldn't be limiting the opportunities for people of all orientations from participating, we should be encouraging it, if we are to grow as a nation. Therefore, I find it disingenuous when people speak of the need to have a strong military and family, when they prevent a significant portion of the population from participating.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 14:00:14 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Feb 11, 2010 14:00:14 GMT -5
I do not object to homosexuals serving in the military. I think, however, it's a matter of debate whether homosexuals serving openly in the military enhance or degrade our military capability. Some military leaders are now saying they see no problem. If this is the case then I have no objection. If these military leaders do not reflect the rank and file and how they see it influencing their ability to carry out their mission which is to defeat the enemy, then I do have an objection. What I abhor is calling anyone who sees a problem relative to "defeating the enemy" a homophobe.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 14:35:09 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Feb 11, 2010 14:35:09 GMT -5
I do not object to homosexuals serving in the military. I think, however, it's a matter of debate whether homosexuals serving openly in the military enhance or degrade our military capability. Some military leaders are now saying they see no problem. If this is the case then I have no objection. If these military leaders do not reflect the rank and file and how they see it influencing their ability to carry out their mission which is to defeat the enemy, then I do have an objection. What I abhor is calling anyone who sees a problem relative to "defeating the enemy" a homophobe. As I said above, the rank and file that I know don't see the repeal as a problem, since it won't have major practical effects. Every soldier already knows that there are plenty of gays in the military. I should also clarify my previous post. I wasn't saying that opponents of repealing DADT are homophobes. As you pointed out, there are other understandable (although, I believe, inaccurate) concerns with repealing the policy. The people I was branding as homophobes are the ones who would refuse to enlist or would leave the military specifically because gays are allowed to serve. I stand by that.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 14:43:05 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Feb 11, 2010 14:43:05 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 15:00:02 GMT -5
Post by TC on Feb 11, 2010 15:00:02 GMT -5
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 15:26:46 GMT -5
Post by rosslynhoya on Feb 11, 2010 15:26:46 GMT -5
If I were a Republican incumbent, candidate, or strategist, I would have to recommend keeping the ban on homosexuals but allowing patriotic gays and lesbians to serve in the armed forces, and of course, little American flags for all!
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 16:02:16 GMT -5
Post by TBird41 on Feb 11, 2010 16:02:16 GMT -5
I do not object to homosexuals serving in the military. I think, however, it's a matter of debate whether homosexuals serving openly in the military enhance or degrade our military capability. Some military leaders are now saying they see no problem. If this is the case then I have no objection. If these military leaders do not reflect the rank and file and how they see it influencing their ability to carry out their mission which is to defeat the enemy, then I do have an objection. What I abhor is calling anyone who sees a problem relative to "defeating the enemy" a homophobe. As I said above, the rank and file that I know don't see the repeal as a problem, since it won't have major practical effects. Every soldier already knows that there are plenty of gays in the military. I should also clarify my previous post. I wasn't saying that opponents of repealing DADT are homophobes. As you pointed out, there are other understandable (although, I believe, inaccurate) concerns with repealing the policy. The people I was branding as homophobes are the ones who would refuse to enlist or would leave the military specifically because gays are allowed to serve. I stand by that. I've heard differently from various infantry members I know (mainly officers)--there's concern about the impact on unit cohesion, but I guess I see your point about there being a lot of voluntary/self regulated DADT. And it wasn't you who said that anyone who was opposed / concerned w/ the repeal were homophobes--it was Bando who began this thread by saying anyone who didn't 100% agree w/ the repeal of DADT was the moral equivalent of those who opposed ending racial segregation in the military. It was a very Karl Rove style move on his part.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 16:42:29 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Feb 11, 2010 16:42:29 GMT -5
You left out this portion of your link: "There's a further difference when the question specifies that they "openly" serve. In this case, just 44% favor allowing "homosexuals" to openly serve in the military while 58% favor allowing "gay men and lesbians" to serve openly."
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 16:51:44 GMT -5
Post by TC on Feb 11, 2010 16:51:44 GMT -5
You left out this portion of your link: "There's a further difference when the question specifies that they "openly" serve. In this case, just 44% favor allowing "homosexuals" to openly serve in the military while 58% favor allowing "gay men and lesbians" to serve openly." I was more trying to point out that 11% of our population are idiots.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 16:59:54 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Feb 11, 2010 16:59:54 GMT -5
You left out this portion of your link: "There's a further difference when the question specifies that they "openly" serve. In this case, just 44% favor allowing "homosexuals" to openly serve in the military while 58% favor allowing "gay men and lesbians" to serve openly." I was more trying to point out that 11% of our population are idiots. And I was more trying to point out that your actual percentages were misleading for those openly serving in the military, which is what overturning DADT would involve.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 17:16:20 GMT -5
Post by TC on Feb 11, 2010 17:16:20 GMT -5
I kinda think you're missing the point about a poll in which the difference between "homosexual" and "gay men and lesbians" causes an 11% shift. Insert "openly" rather than just serve and you get a 12% shift. They mean the same thing.
|
|
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 17:28:15 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 11, 2010 17:28:15 GMT -5
I do not think the question should be answered by polls. Everyone can usually find one or another to support his/her policy positions, and I think this case is no different. If you don't like the poll, challenge the methodology or its value to a particular question.
Although I disagree with some of the statements in this thread, I think with all due respect that this is basically a moral or rights question and, at the worst, you may have some de minimis effect on troop morale and the like. I'm more inclined to think that we can trust our military and its officers to do their jobs irrespective to which way a colleague may choose to conduct his or her private life. With all due respect, the folks who don't think they could do their jobs as officers as well are simply folks I don't think we should trust with our security because they lack the requisite focus to get the job done. I am not sure anyone yet described in this thread fits in this category, but they must be out there if the unit cohesion argument has basis in fact. Otherwise, we're basing the argument on an empirical fiction.
There are any number of things that openly homosexual individuals simply are not permitted to do in this country as a matter of right. I've listed some of them before. There are any number of rationales for this (particularly on the marriage question) that are simply nutbar regardless of whether you are a yes/no on the issue itself. The supposed threat to heterosexual marriages is just one of them. The slippery slope arguments about hospital visitations is another, particularly when you consider that homosexuals would not be taking up anything that heterosexuals would otherwise be entitled to, unless you count an extra chair in a shared hospital room. The morale argument on DADT fits in this general category of argument for me.
In any event, the military is no different from many institutions in being slow to adapt to certain social issues and does not deserve any scorn on its own accord for this. However, it seems that the arc of history in the military is toward inclusion, and we look back at the Tuskegee Airmen, for example, rather fondly. In this respect, I think Bando rightly contextualizes this issue with prior civil rights struggles.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 17:52:13 GMT -5
Post by TBird41 on Feb 11, 2010 17:52:13 GMT -5
I do not think the question should be answered by polls. Everyone can usually find one or another to support his/her policy positions, and I think this case is no different. If you don't like the poll, challenge the methodology or its value to a particular question. Although I disagree with some of the statements in this thread, I think with all due respect that this is basically a moral or rights question and, at the worst, you may have some de minimis effect on troop morale and the like. I'm more inclined to think that we can trust our military and its officers to do their jobs irrespective to which way a colleague may choose to conduct his or her private life. With all due respect, the folks who don't think they could do their jobs as officers as well are simply folks I don't think we should trust with our security because they lack the requisite focus to get the job done. That is not a problem caused by homosexuals. My view on this, and I think this is true of most people who have concerns about ending DADT, is that the military and, especially, combat, are unique--the question of "should they" in combat isn't as important as "can they". And, in a time of two wars, decisions that might have an effect on the military's ability should be closely scrutinized and debate should not be limited by your and Bando's Roveian attempts to paint everyone who has concerns about the wisdom of making such a policy decision as Homophobes. I'm not sure what you mean by the military being slow to adapt to certain social issues. You realize that the military was actually at the front of desegregation, right? Truman desegregated the military in July 1948. If anything, one of the reasons that the Gay Rights movement puts such importance in ending DADT is the importance of the military becoming desegregated to the Civil Rights movement. That all being said, the U.S. was not actively engaged in a war (or even a "Police Action" ) at the time.
|
|
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 18:00:25 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 11, 2010 18:00:25 GMT -5
I in no way suggested that the opposition is by definition homophobic and find the attack on me, anyway, to be Rovian and unfair. So, I'll clarify my remarks because I am the best source for what I think. My point was merely that the civil rights struggle is the proper context (as distinct from substance) for this. In other words, Bando was right for making the comparison or providing context, to be clear, despite the inartful remarks he made. I indeed think, in many cases, the homophobe-accusation argument is used to play a victim's card that need not be played as much as accusations of homophobia are often ill-advised. Bando, in fact, never accused anyone of being a homophobe. In this way, what were inartful and ill-advised remarks have become even more charged based on a mischaracterization that has been given to them. We're better off letting it die because there is good substance on both sides here to an important question. Responses to an argument about rights and historical arguments with an accusation that someone is calling another a homophobe is sloppy at best, but I am not sure it has happened in this case anyway because of what may have been a misinterpretation or misunderstanding.
It might be asked, however, and I think fairly, what rights that Republicans are willing to give homosexuals that are not already available to them but are available to heterosexuals. In my mind, anyway, that is the meat of the matter, not whether someone has been called a homophobe or not.
In any event, it is great that the military desegregated in 1948, but it would have been wonderful if it, with other institutions, took actions before that. Just because it was first (or second or third) does not mean it was fast.
|
|