User Tag List

First 14222324252634 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 387

  1. #231
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    You still don't get it. Forcing a conservatively cultured military to accept a new culture that it is threatened by, and resistant towards simply for the sake of idealism would damage the effectiveness that makes the military work.
    That's your personal, unsubstantiated opinion. Others can simply assert the opposite.

  2. #232
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    That's your personal, unsubstantiated opinion. Others can simply assert the opposite.
    Sure they can, but it doesn't make sense. If you tell me that an openly gay soldier doesn't create trust issues, personal safety concerns, and division among a conservative and intolerant unit, I would tell you need your head examined. While I'm sure tolerance is improving, the military is not the environment to test it, because of the negative effects.



  3. #233
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    The military culture of undoubtedly every Western nation, has a more conservative bent then the nation's populace at whole. And most Western militaries allow gay people to serve. Even the Western nations with a more conservative leaning overall, have done it. It's not a bad thing.

  4. #234
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    I'm standing by my original assertion since I have yet to see a spec of evidence outside of rational provided by the nay-sayers to prove otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I always wondered how women must have felt when conservative minded men argued the rules that were set up to keep women subordinate were for their own protection and to preserve a traditional social order. Now I know since the same mentality is being used to perpetuate a discriminative policy towards gays. The arguments to preserve the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy are simply a fear that hidden prejudice towards gays will turn into alienation or abuse toward them if they are allowed to serve openly and a fear of of decay to unit cohesion. This is despite evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that our soldiers are currently serving alongside openly gay soldiers from other countries in Iraq and some gay soldiers from our own country have been able to openly serve within their units without their being any negative consequences, provided they have performed their job well. I see nothing objective about individuals who choose to ignore this information just because it doesn't coincide with their beliefs.
    If anything, the nay sayers are just repeating the same unsubstantiated arguments over and over again despite the evidence to the contrary. They have lost their objectivity on the issue.

    To be fair I'll pose the question directly...

    Peguy, Jack Flak, and JocktheMotie; what actual evidence do you have to support your assertions that allowing gays to openly serve in the military will lead to an increased endangerment of gay soldiers or that it will decrease unit cohesion, despite all the recent testimonial evidence that has been presented to the contrary?
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  5. #235
    Senior Member dga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    You guys still don't get it. The military isn't and shouldn't be about sociological progress, let alone a proxy testing ground for new policies.


    It's really beyond me why homosexuals would join an organization which won't allow them to admit their sexual preference, but if they want to, they can get Gung Ho and shut up about it.
    What about the national guard upholding brown vs board of education? Was that not about social progress? If anything, every war is an experiment, as geography, technology, and culture has been different every time.

    taxpayers fund the military, including gays, so it is a bit hypocritical to exclude anyone from it that wishes to join.

  6. #236
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    If you tell me that an openly gay soldier doesn't create trust issues, personal safety concerns, and division among a conservative and intolerant unit, I would tell you need your head examined.
    The military has always been stressed by all sorts of factors beyond their control. The gay issue is nothing extraordinary. They will adapt and thrive as they always have.

  7. #237
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Not true. They are not breaking any new grounds. Other countries already done it.
    I already addressed this argument, but oh well....from the link I posted earlier:
    It is said that the U.S. military should include homosexuals because other nations do so.

    But at one hearing we explored in detail some of these nation's policies. We learned there is a gap between what our militaries say and what they do.

    Dr. Charles Moskos, a renowned military sociologist, categorized these nations in two groups.

    He did two extensive studies. They either discriminate against homosexuals as a matter of law, he said, or they discriminate against homosexuals as a matter of unwritten policy.

    Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf characterized these nations as practicing `a blatant form of hypocrisy.'

    We also found that these comparisons themselves are flawed, because the role and mission of America's military is different than any in the world.
    It would be interesting to know what really goes on in these militaries. Just earlier today I read some anecdotes from my friend who's serving in the Australian army(which tolerates gays), and he said that the unwritten rule is that gays keep to themselves.

  8. #238
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    To help further illustrate my basic point, here's an excerpt from Homage to Catalonia, where George Orwell comments on the general nature of the Spanish militias and how they compared to regulars armies - especially the British Army:
    But I admit that at first sight the state of affairs at the front horrified me. How on earth could the war be won by an army of this type? It was what everyone was saying at the time, and though it was true it was also unreasonable. For in the circumstances the militias could not have been much better than they were. A modern mechanized army does not spring up out of the ground, and if the Government had waited until it had trained troops at its disposal, Franco would never have been resisted. Later it became the fashion to decry the militias, and therefore to pretend that the faults which were due to lack of training and weapons were the result of the equalitarian system. Actually, a newly raised draft 'of militia was an undisciplined mob not because the officers called the private 'Comrade' but because raw troops are always an undisciplined mob. In practice the democratic 'revolutionary' type of discipline is more reliable than might be expected. In a workers' army discipline is theoretically voluntary. It is based on class-loyalty, whereas the discipline of a bourgeois conscript army is based ultimately on fear. (The Popular Army that replaced the militias was midway between the two types.) In the militias the bullying and abuse that go on in an ordinary army would never have been tolerated for a moment. The normal military punishments existed, but they were only invoked for very serious offences. When a man refused to obey an order you did not immediately get him punished; you first appealed to him in the name of comradeship. Cynical people with no experience of handling men will say instantly that this would never 'work', but as a matter of fact it does 'work' in the long run. The discipline of even the worst drafts of militia visibly improved as time went on. In January the job of keeping a dozen raw recruits up to the mark almost turned my hair grey. In May for a short while I was acting-lieutenant in command of about thirty men, English and Spanish. We had all been under fire for months, and I never had the slightest difficulty in getting an order obeyed or in getting men to volunteer for a dangerous job. 'Revolutionary' discipline depends on political consciousness--on an understanding of why orders must be obeyed; it takes time to diffuse this, but it also takes time to drill a man into an automaton on the barrack-square. The journalists who sneered at the militia-system seldom remembered that the militias had to hold the line while the Popular Army was training in the rear. And it is a tribute to the strength of 'revolutionary' discipline that the militias stayed in the field-at all. For until about June 1937 there was nothing to keep them there, except class loyalty. Individual deserters could be shot--were shot, occasionally--but if a thousand men had decided to walk out of the line together there was no force to stop them. A conscript army in the same circumstances--with its battle-police removed--would have melted away. Yet the militias held the line, though God knows they won very few victories, and even individual desertions were not common. In four or five months in the P.O.U.M. militia I only heard of four men deserting, and two of those were fairly certainly spies who had enlisted to obtain information. At the beginning the apparent chaos, the general lack of training, the fact that you often had to argue for five minutes before you could get an order obeyed, appalled and infuriated me. I had British Army ideas, and certainly the Spanish militias were very unlike the British Army. But considering the circumstances they were better troops than one had any right to expect.
    pg.27-29

  9. #239
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Peguy, Jack Flak, and JocktheMotie; what actual evidence do you have to support your assertions that allowing gays to openly serve in the military will lead to an increased endangerment of gay soldiers or that it will decrease unit cohesion, despite all the recent testimonial evidence that has been presented to the contrary?
    Well I did provide such here, which includes expert testimony to the Senate. I have yet to hear a real answer to it.

    Most of the "testimonial evidence" that has been presented to the contrary mostly revolves around vague references to the policies of other militaries. Yet I stated earlier one has to take into account the various natures of different militaries. You can't make blanket comparisons between different forces. Most of the militaries I've heard allowing gays can be summed up in one phrase: they're complete jokes!

    I also brought attention to the issue concerning differences between official policy and unwritten rules even within these militaries. There's always going to be that distinction between official policy and unwritten rules within a military force, especially on hot-topic issues like this one.

    Allow me to present a parallel situation. According to official image and policy, the Soviet military was a bastion of socialist brotherhood among its various nationalities and ethnicities. Below the official veneer, however, a different story was told. The Soviet military was constantly plagued by inter-ethnic strife; especially with Balts and Central Asians ganging up on the ethnic Russian conscripts. The officer corps was largely made up of ethnic Russians.

    I could also bring up how unsuccessful Nestor Makhno was in trying to rid anti-Semitic sentiment within the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. It literally came to the point he had to shoot one of his best officers on sight for merely making an anti-Semitic remark. It helps demonstrate how difficult it can be to change attitudes within a military institution, even when resorting to draconian measures.

    There's plenty of military history for me to draw upon here.

  10. #240
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Most of the "testimonial evidence" that has been presented to the contrary mostly revolves around vague references to the policies of other militaries. Yet I stated earlier one has to take into account the various natures of different militaries. You can't make blanket comparisons between different forces.
    I don't doubt that the bigots will be unhappy. But it's a leap of faith to suggest that the armed forces will be crippled because of it. Who's to say that the integration won't turn out to be easier with the Americans?

    Most of the militaries I've heard allowing gays can be summed up in one phrase: they're complete jokes!
    What about the Israelis?

    I could also bring up how unsuccessful Nestor Makhno was in trying to rid anti-Semitic sentiment within the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. It literally came to the point he had to shoot one of his best officers on sight for merely making an anti-Semitic remark. It helps demonstrate how difficult it can be to change attitudes within a military institution, even when resorting to draconian measures.

    There's plenty of military history for me to draw upon here.
    The examples you quoted actually proves my point that life will go on. The military won't implode.

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