Alright I've fucking had it...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070606/pl_usnw/republican_presidential_candidates_support_dismissal_of_lesbian___gay_military_personnel

Wolf Blitzer asked for any Republican candidates in support of openly gay men and women being allowed to serve in the military to say so. The place went dead silent.

Forget the rest of the article. Forget the bickering over whether "Don't ask, don't tell" is working. The US is currently up to its elbows in bullshit stemming from its military presence in Iraq. Progress is slow, political decisions are hotly contested, and American soldiers are dying. In short, it sucks over there.

Quote from Article referenced above:

Quote :

"Since its implementation 1993, more than 11,000 service members have been dismissed under the law, including nearly 800 with skills deemed 'mission- critical' by the Department of Defense. More than 300 language specialists alone have been removed from the services because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The cost to taxpayers has been estimated at $363.8 million."

My position:

I believe that anyone who puts their sentiments regarding homosexuality in the military over the security and defense of our nation needs to seriously reconsider their priorities. If an openly gay man/woman desires to serve our country, to put their time and energy into patriotically defending our nation, I have but one thing to say to them - THANK YOU.


Oh, but having openly gay members of the military will hurt our morale!! Bullshit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/world/europe/21britain.html?ex=1337400000&en=cd41d5442d5a3212&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Quote :

"Until its policy changed [in 2000], the British military had deep misgivings about allowing homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces. But it had no choice. It was forced to by a European court, which ruled that its policy of excluding homosexuals violated the European Convention on Human Rights. "

Quote :

"...concerns were raised when, bowing to national antidiscrimination laws, the military began allowing gay personnel who had registered for civil partnerships to live in military housing with their same-sex partners. “But all the problems the services thought were going to come to pass really haven’t materialized,” the official said. "

But wait!!! Homosexuality is immoral! What about our morals and values? We'll be sending the wrong message to the children!

Here's a message for the children - I like to call it reality:

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Quote :

"the APA (American Psychological Association) removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA finally stated, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality" [2]. "

Thus, there is no RATIONAL basis for declaring that homosexuality is wrong in general. The argument that gay military officers hurt morale is not only refuted by the British example, it also ignores the financial costs associated with our current policy. I am disgusted with the Republicans and anyone else in favor of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because this policy clearly flies in the face of any legitmate, factual argument


I'm a practicing catholic, so I'm sure I'll get shit for being a hypocrite. And I don't care. We have separation of church and state for a reason. In concede that everything I wrote conflicts with the church' position on homosexuality. I admit it, and am working on resolving it. Do not bother bringing it up, since I took the time to address this issue already.



Discuss.

6/8/2007 1:13:01 PM

I support this thread.

6/8/2007 1:16:54 PM

So does SilentIsrael

6/8/2007 1:18:55 PM

I not only support this thread, but you can absolutely personally disagree with someone's lifestyle and still support that in the US they have the right to live that way.

It's absurd that this debate is going on still, and at huge cost in both lives and taxpayer dollars.

6/8/2007 1:19:50 PM

that is what happens when you have a bunch of close minded, old values kind of people running the country. I can't wait to see what our country is going to be like when our generation is older and running the country

6/8/2007 1:27:13 PM

Quote :

"It's absurd that this debate is going on still, and at huge cost in both lives and taxpayer dollars."

6/8/2007 1:31:37 PM

Quote :

" But it had no choice. It was forced to by a European court"

I would tell a bunch of other countries to slob my knob if they tried to meddle in my affairs like that.

Quote :

"It's absurd that this debate is going on still, and at huge cost in both lives and taxpayer dollars."

wait a minute, how is this costing lives, and for that matter, what significant impact is it having on taxpayer dollars?

6/8/2007 1:52:17 PM

He's saying that getting rid of openly gay troops means our military loses competent soldiers and therefore more soldiers get killed.

And I am guessing that the money comes from the cost of court-martialing or getting rid of these troops and for having to hire and train other replacements.

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 1:57 PM. Reason : ]

6/8/2007 1:56:57 PM

Okay, one the usage of the word "Homophobia" is fucking stupid. Dislike of gays != you are afraid of them.

I wonder how many of that 11,100 (over 14! years = ~790 a year) just decided they didn't want to serve or go to a war zone, and how many of that number were in the first year or two?

We don't need homosexuals in the military, it is no great loss not having them. Seriously, stop sucking the cock and be realistic. 11,000 people? over 14 years? come on. And the cost? I wonder how they figured that out, and you gotta remember it's the military, fixing a broken stove costs about $100,000.

And this isn't the same thing as ethnic segregation, so don't go down that road.

6/8/2007 3:03:26 PM

Quote :

"We don't need homosexuals in the military"

why not?

6/8/2007 3:17:44 PM

as much as i disagree with homosexuality i disagree with government interference and telling people how to live there lives. so unfortunately it would be hypocritical if i stood by the belief that it should be banned.

In the military i do not see how GI Fag is any worse then the Jarhead who goes to the bar and rapes some chick. If Sgt. Flamer starts hitting on his soldiers then kick his ass out just like if Sgt. Johnny started hitting on the hot female private

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 3:25 PM. Reason : l]

6/8/2007 3:22:02 PM

^^^ So you can justify dismissing 300 "highly critical" personel because they're gay? I don't care how much money that equates to, the bottom line is that you're dismissing personel that (1) are NOT easily replaceable, and (2) has a direct impact on the security of our nation, specifically with regards to our progress in Iraq.

That, in my opinion, is a blatant example of allowing personal opinion and idealogy to trump not only pragmatism, but also common fucking sense.

You cannot honestly run a campaign stating national security as your top priority AND support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" without running into the wall that is my initial post.

6/8/2007 3:53:44 PM

A WHOLE NEW CAN OF WORMS...

I'm not well informed on this topic, but what about pedophiles? Pedophilia is documented as a mental illness by the APA, but it is classified a mental illness only when it's acted upon. Kind of a strange way to put it, but whatever. Am I right? If so...

So, my question is, SHOULD PEDOPHILES BE OPENLY ACCEPTED IN THE MILITARY???

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ???]

6/8/2007 4:38:18 PM

Quote :

"In the military i do not see how GI Fag is any worse then the Jarhead who goes to the bar and rapes some chick."

lol great comparison and way to miss the point

6/8/2007 4:42:21 PM

^^

6/8/2007 4:42:56 PM

^ Hey, it's a legitamate question. It could be the hot new topic of the decade. Move out of the way LGBT here comes North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)!!!

6/8/2007 4:50:17 PM

^^ brilliant response! youre a sharp one!

He has a point though. Outside of the moral issue of one involving a minor, thus non-consenting adult, you can compare them.

Are they both choices or no? Are they both a different wiring of the brain?

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 4:54 PM. Reason : taking morality out and looking at what 'causes' each.]

6/8/2007 4:54:20 PM

Both choices, and both different wiring of the brain... but neither should impact military service unless it impacts their ability to serve. (Which to my knowledge hasn't been proven)

6/8/2007 4:59:30 PM

^Aside from the whole "not at all related to each other" part, it's a completely legitimate comparison.

Anyone who compares homosexuality with pedophilia is seriously demonstrating some extreme ignorance of basic psychology.



[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 5:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2007 5:02:39 PM

didn't read it all because I think the GOP stance is fucking retarded, but...

It's just like they said on the Daily Show

They'd rather get attacked by terrorists than have gays in the military who could help stop it

6/8/2007 5:35:19 PM

Quote :

"He has a point though. Outside of the moral issue of one involving a minor, thus non-consenting adult, you can compare them."

lol, that's one big fucking exception

6/8/2007 5:45:49 PM

Seriously, 100 years ago this thread would have never been made. Imagine 100 more years from now, new thread title "Pedophilia in Politics".

Studies have shown that kids are maturing much sooner these days. Stories of teachers engaging in sexual activities with students are non-stop. The ramifications of radical liberal acceptance and tolerance will definately be felt if history proves me right. 100 years from now I'm going to bttt this topic with a big "LOL" or whatever the new slang of those days will be.

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 6:22 PM. Reason : I just realized I won't be alive 100 years from now... LOL (in advance)]

6/8/2007 6:21:11 PM

what?

6/8/2007 6:24:38 PM

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CAN WE LEARN TO USE TINYURL!!

6/8/2007 6:33:46 PM

Quote :

"why not?"

why?

Quote :

"So you can justify dismissing 300 "highly critical" personel because they're gay? I don't care how much money that equates to, the bottom line is that you're dismissing personel that (1) are NOT easily replaceable, and (2) has a direct impact on the security of our nation, specifically with regards to our progress in Iraq."

300 people that WERE replaced. Are you saying the war in Iraq would be ANY different? If so you are kidding yourself. 300 people man, get a grip.

I could care less if some fruit wanted to join the Air Force, but don't make it sound like it matters at all. Cause it don't.

There are other repercussions to this. In most Arab states Homosexuality is a major crime. We have forbade our military personal from bringing(and consuming) alcohol into these countries. Would most Arabs willingly work with a known homosexual? How many homosexuals want to join the military but can't because of this? It is a non-issue. You can be gay, but don't be loud and proud. Pretty simple.

Maybe your ideology is crowding out your judgment. The vast majority of the military is social conservative in this regard. Why push YOUR moral ideology on them? There is no broad national support for changing this policy, the country doesn't care.

6/8/2007 6:48:46 PM

Quote :

"Okay, one the usage of the word "Homophobia" is fucking stupid. Dislike of gays != you are afraid of them."

Quote :

"pho·bi·a (fo'be-?) pronunciation n. 1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. 2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion."

6/8/2007 8:13:46 PM

6/8/2007 9:01:52 PM

Quote :

"There are other repercussions to this. In most Arab states Homosexuality is a major crime. We have forbade our military personal from bringing(and consuming) alcohol into these countries. Would most Arabs willingly work with a known homosexual? How many homosexuals want to join the military but can't because of this? It is a non-issue. You can be gay, but don't be loud and proud. Pretty simple. "

you have a very good point, this also applies to jews too. From what i have heard jewish soldiers stationed in the middle east can not wear the star of david and are usually not directly involved with the Arab population

6/8/2007 10:33:20 PM

Quote :

"I could care less if some fruit wanted to join the Air Force, but don't make it sound like it matters at all. Cause it don't. "

Let me get this straight. The US is in desperate need of linguists and translaters in Iraq, yet the fact that the military dismissed 300 personel in this field doesn't matter? Whatever you're smoking, give me a double dose, b/c it must be some good shit. Considering how stretched the military is right now, there's absolutely no way you can argue that dismissing ANY competent, hard-working, patriotic soldiers "doesn't matter."

Quote :

"There are other repercussions to this. In most Arab states Homosexuality is a major crime. We have forbade our military personal from bringing(and consuming) alcohol into these countries. Would most Arabs willingly work with a known homosexual? How many homosexuals want to join the military but can't because of this? It is a non-issue. You can be gay, but don't be loud and proud. Pretty simple."

Except that there's no reason to broadcast the sexuality of our troops stationed in the Middle East. Seriously, we're already sticking hundreds of thousands of heterosexual soldiers under strict orders to behave themselves. Gay soldiers would have to keep themselves in line just as much as straight soliders.

Additionally, the British already have openly gay soldiers, and I imagine some of them have served over in Iraq. Have you heard of any issues arising from this? I haven't...

Quote :

"Seriously, 100 years ago this thread would have never been made. Imagine 100 more years from now, new thread title "Pedophilia in Politics"."

Alright, this bullshit argument has gone far enough. Lokken already refuted it. Gay couples have mutual, adult consent. Not so with pedophiles. Besides, pedophiles target kids prior to puberty, so the "maturity argument" falls flat.

In addition, even if you wanted to shift the argument to student-teachers, the maturity issue still doesn't work. Teachers for one thing are in a position of authority, making such relationships inappropriate. Secondly, students at that age are significantly less able to make a mature, informed decision regarding sex. Teachers can easily manipulate the situation. They're adults and should be expected to dissuade an interested student from pursuing a sexual relationship.


God willing I won't have to address this fucking argument again...

6/9/2007 2:07:15 AM

I have to say that was a damned skillful answer by Hillary Clinton. And I don't disagree with anything she said.

6/11/2007 12:52:55 AM

i dont like Hillary much, myself, and I agree with ^

6/11/2007 1:01:16 AM

Gays should absolutely be permitted to serve openly in the military. Their integration will not cause substantially more disruption than the racial version caused, and we got over that (in the miilitary) quick enough.

I will also say, however, that certain kinds of sexual misconduct in the military may require even more stringent punishments. The unfortunate reality is that while separating male and female servicepeople is pretty easy, separating gay from straight is not. As a consequence of that, it may be necessary to provide for harsher punishment for homosexual indiscretion, if only because it is so much harder to prevent through means other than punitive.

At the end of the day, though, I can't say that this is an important enough issue to me that it will dramatically sway my vote.

*I do not mean to imply that homosexuals are more likely to commit some sort of sexual misconduct or anything of the sort. The fact of the matter is that throwing a bunch of sexual beings together in a military setting will eventually lead to sexual incidents that disrupt the organizational function to an extent which would be considered unacceptable regardless of the genders/sexualities involved, and so provisions must be made for those scenarios.

[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 1:56 AM. Reason : ]

6/11/2007 1:54:07 AM

I don't see what is so bad about "don't ask, don't tell." If they really want to serve their country they have the opportunity to do so.

6/11/2007 3:31:27 AM

yeah, but why should they be forced to pretend to be someone they're not in order to serve

6/11/2007 8:27:00 AM

How bout an openly gay division in the military so that these people can still serve, and be separated from those who wish not to serve along side them. I say that if their "purpose" is just to serve their country, then they would be happy with this opportunity. If their purpose is to scream for attention, then to hell with them and we dont want them anyway ...

I know its not the *best* solution(which would be just to let them serve as everyone else) but at least this way they can still have the opportunity while the rest of the BS gets re-evaluated.

6/11/2007 8:37:53 AM

^now replace gay with black and get back to me.

6/11/2007 10:44:12 AM

Quote :

"yeah, but why should they be forced to pretend to be someone they're not in order to serve"

It's not asking them to pretend to be something they are not. It is asking them to be discreet because their presence can create uncomfortable situations for their peers. I really don't think it is fair to expect straight men to shower with openly gay men for the same reasons that the military doesn't make women shower with men. It's not that straight men or gay men are inherently bad.

6/11/2007 11:06:07 AM

Quote :

"How bout an openly gay division in the military so that these people can still serve, and be separated from those who wish not to serve along side them"

Aside from the obvious segregation/separate-and-unequal situation this creates reminiscient of separate black units in history, there's a purely pragmatic issue. One attempts to create units that have an appropriate balance of skillsets. Pulling from the whole of the military population, that's not too hard. But when you're stuck with a very specific set of troops, you're stuck with a specific set of skillsets.

There's also the basic problem of having an entire unit full of nothing but people who, for lack of a better term, are potential sex partners with everyone else in that unit.

6/11/2007 11:25:58 AM

^ I know and agree ... But to play devils advocate...

Quote :

"11,000 service members have been dismissed under the law, including nearly 800 with skills deemed 'mission- critical' by the Department of Defense"

So putting those people together would be a limited set of skills to choose from?? ... Probably not that limited.

Quote :

"There's also the basic problem of having an entire unit full of nothing but people who, for lack of a better term, are potential sex partners with everyone else in that unit."

At least this way they all know who is and who isn't potentially going after some butt ...

I don't think its the solution, of course. However, its a temporary fix to those who just REALLY want to serve for the sake of the country, not those who just want to argue for gay rights.

[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2007 12:00:44 PM

Quote :

"I don't see what is so bad about 'don't ask, don't tell.' If they really want to serve their country they have the opportunity to do so."

Skack

Quote :

"DADT was a classic example of political compromise in that no one liked it. Military traditionalists lamented the decline of manly virtues associated with idealized notions of the warrior spirit, while advocates for equal rights decried the fact that gay servicemembers were relegated to second-class citizenship. Incidents of anti-gay harassment and even violence actually increased in the military, as servicemembers perceived as potentially gay could be targeted with impunity. Any attempt to complain about the harassment could be deemed a violation of the 'don't tell' element of the policy, resulting in punishment toward the victims rather than the perpetrators. Military discharges for homosexuality actually increased, as the 'don't ask' and 'don't pursue' elements of the policy were frequently evaded."

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/military/13295/self-inflicted-wound/

This is why it's "so bad."

[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 12:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2007 12:10:46 PM

If complaining is a violation of the "don't tell" portion of the policy then harassment should be a violation of the "don't ask" part.

Furthermore, harassment and violence is against military code of conduct regardless of the motivation. If what you're saying is true then this is not bad policy as much as it is bad implementation.

I'm sorry the world isn't perfect. I'm pretty sure it will keep on spinning around the sun though.

6/11/2007 12:18:31 PM

^ Look, I'm not up in arms about this issue. It should be addressed, though, and it will be examined even more in the '08 presidential race. In any event, we need more people in the military now--not less.

I'm simply pointing out that if the intention of the DADT policy was to help gays in the military, it was a horrible failure. But it's what could be passed at the time.

6/11/2007 12:44:33 PM

Quote :

"So putting those people together would be a limited set of skills to choose from?? ... Probably not that limited."

I'm sure it could function, but not as well as one would hope. It isn't as though all of those 11,000 people were serving at the same time, or would be. There's also what I'm willing to bet is the fact that very few gays who would be interested in coming out of the closet are of notably high rahnk. How many of those 11,000 were majors? Colonels?

6/11/2007 1:10:58 PM

I don't have a problem with it, although I figure it would have to be dealt with similarly as having women in the military.

6/11/2007 2:58:03 PM