User Tag List

First 8161718192028 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 387

  1. #171
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Interesting that Obama's own military advisors are against this potential move:
    Barack Obama's Military Adviser Says to Stick With Gay Ban - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

  2. #172
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    I hope you are being sarcastic. With your 'logic', it would be like what is proposed by some to be the ideology of the Spartan army. EVERYONE should be 'gay' in order to join the army, and get a partner in there, so that they'd be more willing to fight!

    And, I highly suspect that during times of combat, that soldiers would likely be (a tad bit more) worried about their head getting blown off, than, their small head getting blown. :rolleyes2:
    You would think.

    Threads on this subject always attract faulty 'logic'. Only one person so far, has been capable of arguing the anti-gay side well, but most that post lack empirical and logical foundations for their reasoning.

    Either way, it's best to only engage legit posts. The others are a waste of time.

  3. #173
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    I hope you are being sarcastic. With your 'logic', it would be like what is proposed by some to be the ideology of the Spartan army. EVERYONE should be 'gay' in order to join the army, and get a partner in there, so that they'd be more willing to fight!

    And, I highly suspect that during times of combat, that soldiers would likely be (a tad bit more) worried about their head getting blown off, than, their small head getting blown. :rolleyes2:
    This is also similar to one line of argument that has been made for keeping women out of the army. Some politicians have stated that women are at a high risk of being sexually abused by the enemy (these politicians would be good to point out the higher risk of it coming from their own fellow troopers). But, the flaw with this argument, is that most women who would commit themselves to the army know their taking risks, and generally agree that if they were captured by the opposing force, sexual abuse is the least of their worries.

    It's remarkable how people can get hung up over these little traditional values of theirs even while they stand in contrast to the extraordinary seriousness of war.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #174
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Concise restatement: It's a cost-benefit issue, something idealists know nothing about.

    cost: persecution, infighting, loss of morale and cohesiveness.

    benefit: being able to say "I'm gay" without being fired.

    Being that the military isn't supposed to be a free society by any means, this is an easy decision at this point in time.

  5. #175
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Concise restatement: It's a cost-benefit issue, something idealists know nothing about.

    cost: persecution, infighting, loss of morale and cohesiveness.

    benefit: being able to say "I'm gay" without being fired.

    Being that the military isn't supposed to be a free society by any means, this is an easy decision at this point in time.

    Perhaps.

    Frankly, I have seen the military do some incredible mental conditioning (whether it was ethical or not is another issue), so I always feel a little skeptical when I'm told how some openly gay people will unavoidably destroy moral. What of kind of soldiers are we using for fucks sake? If they're that bad, the American military is in deep shit anyway.

    This is only complicated more by being something we really can't predict or measure. It can only be conjecture from all sides.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #176
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Interesting that Obama's own military advisors are against this potential move:
    Barack Obama's Military Adviser Says to Stick With Gay Ban - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
    A military adviser. As in that article speaks of one military adviser that believes the ban should stay. Your equivocation never ceases to amaze me Peguy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  7. #177
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Perhaps.

    Frankly, I have seen the military do some incredible mental conditioning (whether it was ethical or not is another issue), so I always feel a little skeptical when I'm told how some openly gay people will unavoidably destroy moral. What of kind of soldiers are we using for fucks sake? If they're that bad, the American military is in deep shit anyway.

    This is only complicated more by being something we really can't predict or measure. It can only be conjecture from all sides.
    The morality clause has been relaxed already. Allowing certain groups of criminals that were not permitted to serve before, go ahead. Of course, people in prison have gay sex all the time.

    I also know without doubt, there will be violent incidents. That is to be expected in situations of this magnitude.

  8. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    You can't get fired from prison, so they have it made.

  9. #179
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    A military adviser. As in that article speaks of one military adviser that believes the ban should stay. Your equivocation never ceases to amaze me Peguy.
    Well if you want more, there's always this:

    Military personnel policies on homosexuality have developed in a long history, history that has taught the lessons of war and peace, readiness and failure. The ban did not begin in the 1980's. It was codified after decades of experience. That experience led to a conclusion: Homosexuality is incompatible with military life, for practical reasons and for experiential reasons. Our Armed Forces have concluded that the presence of homosexuals undermines their ability to: First, maintain discipline, good order, and morale; second, our Armed Forces have concluded that the presence of homosexuals undermines their ability to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members.

    They have concluded that this policy is necessary to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; that it is necessary to facilitate assignments and worldwide deployment of service members, who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; it is necessary for recruitment and retention of members of the military services; and finally, it is necessary to maintain public acceptability of military service.

    That is a direct statement from current military policy, at least the policy as it was before the interim policy was directed in response to the President's initiative to change that.

    The courts, in turn, have consistently upheld this policy because they judged that its basis was rational, that the military had a rational basis with which to make these conclusions and, therefore, draw the policy as exclusion of homosexuals from the military.

    So when the President proposed to overturn the standard, I came to the floor and made a statement and also issued a challenge. I said that the burden of proof in this matter was squarely on the President's shoulders. It ought to be the advocates of change of a system that is deemed not only effective but the most effective the world has ever seen who must overcome the lessons of history. It is those advocates of change who must positively discredit an experience that is far different and far wider than their own.

    Dr. Marlowe concluded:

    I think it was best put by a soldier I knew once who said the flag, patriotism, mom and apple pie are what bring you into the army. When the first bullet comes down the range, the only thing you are concerned with are your buddies.

    Experts then told us that cohesion between those buddies is based on trust and shared values. They stressed over and over the importance of the shared-value system that is necessary to form the unit, the cohesion, the team that can effectively do what Dr. Marlowe has said, and that is withstand the shock, terror, and trauma of combat.

    Dr. William Henderson testified before the committee:

    A significant characteristic about a cohesive unit is the constant observation and evaluation of the behavior of unit members. Any deviation from unit norms, values, or expected behavior brings immediate and intense group pressures to conform to group norms. If the behavior is not corrected, then cleavage results in the group and cohesion is weakened.

    One submariner with 12 years in the Navy commented: `Every sub I've ever been on has been like a close-knit family. If you feel uneasy about somebody within the family, you separate the family.'
    We were told in the committee that homosexuality disrupts the development of cohesion. Gen. Calvin Waller commented:

    These men and women want to be associated with individuals who they can trust under combat conditions; individuals they consider as a family, where teamwork has been forged and tested under the most adverse conditions, and that is simulated combat or, combat. Most surveys indicate that this type of cohesion and teamwork cannot be attained with avowed homosexuals in their midst.

    It was General Schwarzkopf who commented--and General Schwarzkopf, I might note, was commander of personnel during the eighties before he advanced to his assignment as commander of our forces in the Persian Gulf, and so he had some very direct experience with personnel policies--and commenting on that he said:

    In every case--

    Not most cases--
    in every case where homosexuality became known in the unit, it resulted in a breakdown in morale, cohesion, effectiveness--

    With resulting dissent, resentment, and even violence.

    I specifically asked Dr. Marlowe what sexual attraction, either between the soldiers in a small unit or soldiers and their leader, would do to unit cohesion. He replied:

    It destroys it *** because of the implications which can never be kept out, of favoritism, of differential behavior and differential reward.

    We then turned to the question of sexual tension within the unit and why or why not that might cause unit breakdown. We discovered that sexual tension is a particularly powerful force under cohesion. Witnesses testified this is the reason why we separate men and women in the military, but some also argue there is no practical way to avoid sexual tension if we allow homosexuals in the military.
    We have learned that the courts, in our hearings and rulings over the last 20 years, have rejected challenges to the policy based on privacy, free speech, free association, and special privileges under the equal-protection clause. All these cases have been brought under these claims. Witnesses told us that the courts have ruled that in the military individual rights must take a back seat to the military mission.

    Dr. David Schlueter, law professor at St. Mary's University testified:

    [Page: S7605]
    Courts have recognized time and time again that those liberties may not always apply the same extent as in a civilian setting. The reason for the ability of Government to restrict those liberties is linked with the primary purpose of the military establishment to protect national security. Put bluntly, where the military's need for morale is threatened, a service member's constitutional rights may be restricted lawfully by commanders.
    The courts have a long history of upholding that policy. And so rights that we take for granted or that we feel are absolutely necessary to the individual outside of the military, we find that they are tempered by military necessity, and the courts have upheld that.


    Professor Stephen Saltzburg of George Washington University Law School commented:

    The Supreme Court cases * * * established that, even as to fundamental rights like religion and free speech, the Supreme Court has deferred to the military as to the need to control certain types of behavior. The cases establish that even fundamental rights may give way to military necessity, and that judicial review of military rules when compared to judicial review of civilian rules is like night versus day.
    Senate Debate re: Homosexuals in the Military

  10. #180
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Using an argument from 1993 is completely relevant to 2009? Maybe, on a smaller scale. However, there's far more empirical evidence proving success cases for allowing gays to serve openly, than the opposition.

Similar Threads

  1. Deafies to Hearies: "We don't need no stinking implants!!!!"
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-01-2012, 06:02 PM
  2. Dont Ask Don't Tell--Homophobia or Sexual Repression?
    By kyuuei in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 12-23-2010, 12:28 AM
  3. I don't want to end up with a guy who's just like my dad...
    By Queen Kat in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 08:30 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 10:49 PM
  5. What they don't tell you about eating boogers...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-13-2007, 10:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO