FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


don´t ask don´t tell policy in the army





paytime
What is your opinion on the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military ? Do you believe homosexuality is incompatible with military service or do you think time has changed and it could be discussed again in 2009 ?

check out this clip too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZqs-5z_y9Q
deanhills
paytime wrote:
Do you believe homosexuality is incompatible with military service or do you think time has changed and it could be discussed again in 2009 ?

check out this clip too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZqs-5z_y9Q
I don't understand the question? How has homosexuality ever been incompatible with military service? I thought it was illegal to discriminate against homosexuals and that the discrimination has never been from the military officially, but from those who are in the office of the military through personal bias against homosexuals.
paytime
the question was "what´s your opinion on this policy". That´s it
deanhills
paytime wrote:
the question was "what´s your opinion on this policy". That´s it
Thanks for the clarification.

This was the portion that puzzled me:
paytime wrote:
Do you believe homosexuality is incompatible with military service or do you think time has changed and it could be discussed again in 2009 ?
Moonspider
paytime wrote:
What is your opinion on the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military ? Do you believe homosexuality is incompatible with military service or do you think time has changed and it could be discussed again in 2009?


I believe homosexuality should remain illegal under the UCMJ, just as adultery is illegal under the UCMJ. The system can be worked so that homosexuality does not preclude persons from serving in the military, just as adultery does not preclude someone from military service. However, should homosexual behavior between members become detrimental to a command, then the law could be used to prosecute them.

This is common with the adultery law as well. Service members are not prosecuted willy-nilly for committing adultery, however the law is used to prosecute service members if their adulterous behavior negatively impacts their command (e.g., if one member is having an affair with the spouse of another member).

Respectfully,
M
liljp617
It's too early in the "movement" to get rid of the current policy. Perhaps when society is at least slightly accepting of homosexuality we can consider removing it. I don't say so because I tolerate prejudice, but I have a feeling that, at the moment, it would cause more problems within the military than it would solve. Times will change when this is not the case.

But I will post this, which I find pretty much sums up the argument....

ocalhoun
Since the 'don't ask don't tell' policy makes both sides unhappy, it is probably a fair compromise.

Soldiers are often forced into circumstances with little or no privacy, and having openly homosexual people in that environment can cause problems.
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
I believe homosexuality should remain illegal under the UCMJ, just as adultery is illegal under the UCMJ.
Embarassed I did not know that it was illegal. Neither that adultery was. That is interesting. But the way you explained it, it does make sense to me. This is not about morality; discipline has to come first. In the interest of safety of the troops and in combat.
Solon_Poledourus
The way my dad, who was a Marine, explained it to me when I was a kid makes the most sense to me.

He said, "You can't have gays in your barracks, for the same reason you can't share your barracks with women. It can't be co-ed. Not because everyone is going to ignore their duties because they are too busy getting laid, but there will be more of a chance of romantic relationships evolving. Then, if that Platoon is deployed to a battlefield, you have at least 2 people who's heads aren't in the game 100%, because they are worried about the safety of their boyfriend or girlfriend. It will cloud their judgment, putting the entire Platoon at risk."

In this instance, it is a pragmatic decision, not a discriminatory one.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
The way my dad, who was a Marine, explained it to me when I was a kid makes the most sense to me.

He said, "You can't have gays in your barracks, for the same reason you can't share your barracks with women. It can't be co-ed. Not because everyone is going to ignore their duties because they are too busy getting laid, but there will be more of a chance of romantic relationships evolving. Then, if that Platoon is deployed to a battlefield, you have at least 2 people who's heads aren't in the game 100%, because they are worried about the safety of their boyfriend or girlfriend. It will cloud their judgment, putting the entire Platoon at risk."

In this instance, it is a pragmatic decision, not a discriminatory one.
That went through my head too. Just did not want say it loud. But I agree that is the best explanation.

Good thread. Learned something more! Smile Thanks Paytime.
coolclay
My opinion on the matter is that the policy that is currently in place should stay in place and that any type of relationship within a military platoon can be detrimental to everyone's safety. I think it sucks that it has to be that way, but it's necessary for the proper function of our military.
paytime
thanks so much for all your comments about this. I saw that youtube link (which I posted in my first entry) and asked myself what others think about it. I personally believe that it´s to early to remove the policy. Most guys like to live in a surrounding where they believe nobody is gay, even though there are lots of gays in the military, I´m sure. For me, this is a little bit of a self-deception, but it keeps every gay soldier to keep quiet about their interests --> leading again to the assumption of most guys, that they in fact live in a surrounding where there´s no gay person.

(hope you can understand, I´m German and when it comes to details, grammer gets more difficult)
medesignz
the general belief, as pointed out by Gareth Keenan in the office, is that homophobic people believe that if a gay man was in the army, that instead of watching their backs, they're looking at their behinds... MAKE SENSE?

I think they should let anyone in the army... whomever is willing to serve our country is a hero in their own write.
jmi256
I agree that gay people are just as patriotic as anyone else and in principle should be allowed to serve their country. However, the military is not a social experiment and rights and privileges enjoyed by the general public are not guaranteed in the military. The driving criteria on whether gay people should be allowed to serve should be whether doing so impedes the effectiveness of a unit. Given the reasons stated above and others, I think allowing openly gay people in the military would impede effectiveness. There are just too many pitfalls that could be mitigated/tolerated in the general workplace that would have detrimental effects in a unit.

I can think of an example from my own experience in the Marines where a seemly “minor” issue had broad ramifications. When I was stationed in Camp Lejeune , there was this guy from a nearby barracks who was given a Page 11 (area in your service record where infractions and punishments are recorded) because he went out and contracted crabs. In the outside world it would be unthinkable to punish someone for contracting an STD, but because his unit lived in the barracks and came into close contact all the time, it became a unit effectiveness issue. The issue at hand wasn’t that he would spread the crabs through sexual contact, however. Crabs can be transferred to sheets and blankets, mattresses, uniforms, etc., and there was a real concern that his entire squad (and maybe his platoon) would be out of commission if the crabs spread. They found out about the crabs while the unit was in the field, and that particular Marine came back to receive treatment. But I remember standing guard at my barracks as I watched his entire company march into the yard back from the field. First they all had to get checked out by the corpsman (Navy medic). They then had to go into their barracks, strip down their beds, thoroughly clean the entire place, launder all their clothing and uniforms, and then carry their mattresses into the yard to be deloused. New mattresses were then delivered. The entire thing was really demoralizing for that unit because they were already exhausted from being out in the field and marching back, but they couldn’t rest until the cleanup was completed. (The rest of us got a good laugh out of it though.) Their First Sergeant even cancelled their weekend Liberty for a while, and the other platoons were also given a stern warning about going out and doing something stupid. I don’t know all the details of what happened to the guy other than he was given a Page 11, but I’m sure there was resentment in his unit. If I had to, I would guess he asked to be transferred to another unit.

My point in bringing up this example is that seemingly “small” issues can have very adverse effects on a military unit. While openly gay people may have the desire to serve their country in the military, the effects of having openly gay people may be negative (i.e. fraternization, loss of camaraderie and closeness, cliques, etc.), so while the current policy seems silly to outsiders, it should stand.
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
paytime wrote:
What is your opinion on the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military ? Do you believe homosexuality is incompatible with military service or do you think time has changed and it could be discussed again in 2009?


I believe homosexuality should remain illegal under the UCMJ, just as adultery is illegal under the UCMJ. The system can be worked so that homosexuality does not preclude persons from serving in the military, just as adultery does not preclude someone from military service. However, should homosexual behavior between members become detrimental to a command, then the law could be used to prosecute them.

This is common with the adultery law as well. Service members are not prosecuted willy-nilly for committing adultery, however the law is used to prosecute service members if their adulterous behavior negatively impacts their command (e.g., if one member is having an affair with the spouse of another member).
I think your comparison is fundamentally flawed which renders the argument invalid.
The correct comparison is not between homosexuality and adultery, but between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Rephrase the argument in those terms and it becomes meaningless......
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
paytime wrote:
What is your opinion on the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military ? Do you believe homosexuality is incompatible with military service or do you think time has changed and it could be discussed again in 2009?


I believe homosexuality should remain illegal under the UCMJ, just as adultery is illegal under the UCMJ. The system can be worked so that homosexuality does not preclude persons from serving in the military, just as adultery does not preclude someone from military service. However, should homosexual behavior between members become detrimental to a command, then the law could be used to prosecute them.

This is common with the adultery law as well. Service members are not prosecuted willy-nilly for committing adultery, however the law is used to prosecute service members if their adulterous behavior negatively impacts their command (e.g., if one member is having an affair with the spouse of another member).
I think your comparison is fundamentally flawed which renders the argument invalid.
The correct comparison is not between homosexuality and adultery, but between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Rephrase the argument in those terms and it becomes meaningless......

He's not comparing sexual orientations. He's comparing UCMJ infractions.

As stated before, the deciding factor should not be individual rights, individual privileges, or what's best for the individual.
The deciding factor should be what's best for the military.
The military does respect gay rights, even though it is illegal for openly gay people to serve, it is also illegal to have discriminatory behavior towards gays, just in the same way it would be illegal to discriminate against a given race.
Solon_Poledourus
Without trying to sound like a long winded, self aggrandizing, pseudo intellectual, I will try my best to keep this(and future posts) short.
In a perfect world, nobody should have to hide their sexuality in the military. It's a job. And like other jobs, you should leave your libido at home. Don't date people you work with, don't even flirt with them, don't make sexual comments or innuendos or gestures to or about your co-workers. The level of professionalism should be higher in the military than in other jobs. If people could abide by these standards and codes of conduct, then it wouldn't matter if people were openly gay or openly straight in the military, because they are not there to find a mate. They are there to protect the interests of the nation. Period.
Realistically, this doesn't work. Some people are judgmental, others are perverts, and some are both. At this point in time, the only thing we can do is tell people to not mention their sexual orientation. The functionality of the military is more important than the soldiers right to be openly gay or straight.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Without trying to sound like a long winded, self aggrandizing, pseudo intellectual, I will try my best to keep this(and future posts) short.
In a perfect world, nobody should have to hide their sexuality in the military. It's a job. And like other jobs, you should leave your libido at home. Don't date people you work with, don't even flirt with them, don't make sexual comments or innuendos or gestures to or about your co-workers. The level of professionalism should be higher in the military than in other jobs. If people could abide by these standards and codes of conduct, then it wouldn't matter if people were openly gay or openly straight in the military, because they are not there to find a mate. They are there to protect the interests of the nation. Period.
Realistically, this doesn't work. Some people are judgmental, others are perverts, and some are both. At this point in time, the only thing we can do is tell people to not mention their sexual orientation. The functionality of the military is more important than the soldiers right to be openly gay or straight.
By your argument Solon does this mean that women should then also be able to share the male baracks and all is well since they would be expected to leave their libido at home and act professional? Laughing
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
By your argument Solon does this mean that women should then also be able to share the male baracks and all is well since they would be expected to leave their libido at home and act professional?
In a perfect world, yes. I did start that paragraph off with the "perfect world" assumption.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
By your argument Solon does this mean that women should then also be able to share the male baracks and all is well since they would be expected to leave their libido at home and act professional?
In a perfect world, yes. I did start that paragraph off with the "perfect world" assumption.
Would have been fun though .... Laughing Sort of good stuff for a "Carry on Marines" movie ...
Moonspider
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
paytime wrote:
What is your opinion on the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military ? Do you believe homosexuality is incompatible with military service or do you think time has changed and it could be discussed again in 2009?


I believe homosexuality should remain illegal under the UCMJ, just as adultery is illegal under the UCMJ. The system can be worked so that homosexuality does not preclude persons from serving in the military, just as adultery does not preclude someone from military service. However, should homosexual behavior between members become detrimental to a command, then the law could be used to prosecute them.

This is common with the adultery law as well. Service members are not prosecuted willy-nilly for committing adultery, however the law is used to prosecute service members if their adulterous behavior negatively impacts their command (e.g., if one member is having an affair with the spouse of another member).
I think your comparison is fundamentally flawed which renders the argument invalid.
The correct comparison is not between homosexuality and adultery, but between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Rephrase the argument in those terms and it becomes meaningless......


He's not comparing sexual orientations. He's comparing UCMJ infractions.


Partially true. I did compare infractions. However, Bikerman is correct, I also equated homosexuality to adultery, and therefore his argument is valid.

If one believes homosexuality to be a moral issue, than my comparison is valid. If one deems it not to be a moral issue, than as Bikerman pointed out, my argument is invalid.

Respectfully,
M
Related topics
STEVEN WRIGHT QUOTES
A soldier's rant
Rigid School system in Asia
Justification for War in Iraq
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
The Supreme court rules
Iran nuclear showdown getting closer
VERY USEFUL HR QUESTIONS
Karma coming full circle...
Stop it!
How much of the Bible have you actually read?
Protection or Possesiveness?
Trekking in Himachal Pradesh?
Obama proposes the largest single year debt increase ever!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.