Top US Marine rejects Obama plan to repeal gay ban

• Con_Alma

  FairwoodKing wrote: A lot of these same arguments were posed as recently as World War II regarding African Americans in the military. In today's world, nobody questions whether blacks should serve.
  
  There are countries in the world where gays are free to join the military and there have been no appreciable problems. The U.S. military will eventually see the light.

  I agree with everything you stated.
  
  In addition, it has become clear that it continues to be an issue in the U.S. When it's a non-issue is when it will be a perfect time to be rid of the requirements that are in place.
• I Wear Pants

  Wait, so it's okay to discriminate as long as some people still believe in the discrimination?
  

  My point was that decisions regarding social issues in the military should not be made based on bigotry. I hope they are made based on impact and effectiveness of the troops. Based on this thread and the news media it appears that it still may be a polarizing issue. I thought we were passed that. Apparently there still may be something to it.

  If the military is not somehow less effective with gays being allowed to openly serve then there is no reason for them not to be able to. It being a polarizing issue has nothing to do with it.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: Wait, so it's okay to discriminate as long as some people still believe in the discrimination?
  

  My point was that decisions regarding social issues in the military should not be made based on bigotry. I hope they are made based on impact and effectiveness of the troops. Based on this thread and the news media it appears that it still may be a polarizing issue. I thought we were passed that. Apparently there still may be something to it.

  If the military is not somehow less effective with gays being allowed to openly serve then there is no reason for them not to be able to. It being a polarizing issue has nothing to do with it.

  The military discriminates on a host of issues. They do not operate under civilian law. Their primary purpose is not equality, fairness, and freedom but to be a cohesive fighting force. A force that is efficient at meeting objectives by killing people and destroying property. Anything that the military sees as a risk to that cohesiveness they will address it under military law. The president has the power to change it if and when he wants. Con_Alma's point is not that hard to see.
• september63

  

  While I support Gay rights and their right to do most things. MY biggest problem is Non military personel telling life time military people what they should be doing. If gays would be devisive in the military, they would know. Not lawmakers or the president.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: Wait, so it's okay to discriminate as long as some people still believe in the discrimination?
  

  My point was that decisions regarding social issues in the military should not be made based on bigotry. I hope they are made based on impact and effectiveness of the troops. Based on this thread and the news media it appears that it still may be a polarizing issue. I thought we were passed that. Apparently there still may be something to it.

  If the military is not somehow less effective with gays being allowed to openly serve then there is no reason for them not to be able to. It being a polarizing issue has nothing to do with it.

  The military discriminates on a host of issues. They do not operate under civilian law. Their primary purpose is not equality, fairness, and freedom but to be a cohesive fighting force. A force that is efficient at meeting objectives by killing people and destroying property. Anything that the military sees as a risk to that cohesiveness they will address it under military law. The president has the power to change it if and when he wants. Con_Alma's point is not that hard to see.

  Are you saying that gays openly serving makes the military less effective? If so then this argument can stop because it'd be a moot point, we disagree.
  
  But if it doesn't make the military less effective, like I've said the whole time, then there is no reason to discriminate. What would the benefit be? None.
  
  Why is no one allowed to question the military without being met with "you weren't/aren't in the service so you wouldn't understand/can't have an opinion?"
• Glory Days

  

  it can be less effective if the military society isnt accepting of it. heck, normal society isnt quite accepting of the gay culture yet(look at gay marriage).
• september63

  

  Glory Days wrote: it can be less effective if the military society isnt accepting of it. heck, normal society isnt quite accepting of the gay culture yet(look at gay marriage).

  Exactly. There will be a time that comes, but I dont think we are there yet. Career military personnel have a better handle on how this effects our troops than politicians do.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't buy that "unit cohesion" argument because it doesn't make sense. What you're saying is that we have to disallow some people the right/honor/option/whatever you prefer to call it to serve their country because another group of people doesn't like them.
  
  If that was the case then there still wouldn't be minorities in the service or women. If we as a society continue to cater to the bigots (again, call them what you want. I'm calling them bigots) we won't get anywhere. The same people arguing against repealing DADT are the same people who whine about how politically correct everything is becoming and yet they want to discriminate against a group of the population because another group might feel funny about it.
  
  Edit: And it's not as if everyone in the military agrees with your viewpoint (same for me). Someone earlier posted a quote from an Admiral stating that keeping the rule as it is strips integrity from the military. Last I checked military people were big into the whole integrity thing.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: Are you saying that gays openly serving makes the military less effective? If so then this argument can stop because it'd be a moot point, we disagree.

  Not per say. But lets say 20% for instance would be uncomfortable sleeping in close quarters, showering, etc... If a significant portion of a military unit has difficulty accepting a gay in these situations than unit cohesiveness is negatively affected. Right or wrong it is what it is. These young men were not raised by the military and these issues will not be changed by them. It is up to the civilian society to change and the military will follow.
  

  I Wear Pants wrote: But if it doesn't make the military less effective, like I've said the whole time, then there is no reason to discriminate. What would the benefit be? None.

  I agree. But as I said above it can effect the cohesiveness of a military unit. So any change in military rules should be carefully made. Obama could order this change now and has not. I believe he understands what you appear not to.
  

  I Wear Pants wrote: Why is no one allowed to question the military without being met with "you weren't/aren't in the service so you wouldn't understand/can't have an opinion?"

  I never said this. And who might I add is. Maybe the chicken hawk crowd on the left. You can question the military leadership all you want and your opinion is welcome. I am just trying to point out to you that the military operates under different laws than that of civillians. Their objective is not the same as that of civilians.
• I Wear Pants

  Aha! I've gotten you to say that Obama is smarter than at least one person! (that person is me in this case but still)
  
  Also, I can argue philosophic positions on different topics all day. I enjoy having that type of discussion. However at the same time I can also be mindful that it has no effect on me whatsoever seeing as I'm not in the military.
  
  That last bit you quoted was more of an anecdote on something I've noticed on a more broad basis, not specifically this topic or this thread.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: I don't buy that "unit cohesion" argument because it doesn't make sense. What you're saying is that we have to disallow some people the right/honor/option/whatever you prefer to call it to serve their country because another group of people doesn't like them.

  The military deals with the social cards they are dealt. They put them together as best they can into an efficient combat force. It has nothing to do with yours or my opinions on the matter. As I stated before the military's objects are not the same as those of civilians. It is in the civilian arena these battles are fought and the military will follow.
  
  Under the marriage protection act the federal government can't recognize gay marriage. Nor do states that do not allow gay marriage have to accept the marriage laws of other states. How dow you implement this into the military rules governing spouses of its members when federal law prohibits its recognizaiton. Bottom line is civilian government has to resolve these issue before it is implemented into the military. Otherwise you have uneeded conflict in the military.
  

  I Wear Pants wrote: If that was the case then there still wouldn't be minorities in the service or women. If we as a society continue to cater to the bigots (again, call them what you want. I'm calling them bigots) we won't get anywhere. The same people arguing against repealing DADT are the same people who whine about how politically correct everything is becoming and yet they want to discriminate against a group of the population because another group might feel funny about it.

  Wrong. Civilian law dealt with these issues and in time the military followed. As for women they are still not able to serve in certain combat roles. Why? They are deemed to have a negative impact on combat effectiveness. Try saying this in the civilian realm. The two are quite different. As I stated before the two have different objectives.
  

  I Wear Pants wrote: Edit: And it's not as if everyone in the military agrees with your viewpoint (same for me). Someone earlier posted a quote from an Admiral stating that keeping the rule as it is strips integrity from the military. Last I checked military people were big into the whole integrity thing.

  You are correct they don't. Both sides are well represented.
• I Wear Pants

  Touche on my women comparison.
• FairwoodKing

  The miiltary has always upheld the status quo, no matter how bad it was. That's why blacks and women had such a hard time being accepted.
  
  I'm willing to bet that Obama eliminates the DADT policy right after the midterm elections. He probably doesn't want to stir the pot right now.
• UA5straightin2008

  

  gays are allowed to serve, they just have to keep their mouth shut
  
  thats not too hard to do
• FairwoodKing

  UA5straightin2008 wrote: gays are allowed to serve, they just have to keep their mouth shut
  
  thats not too hard to do

  Yes it is hard to do. I have gay friends who said they were terrified when they were in the military. They couldn't even look at anybody for fear of being caught.
• Con_Alma

  FairwoodKing wrote: [.... They couldn't even look at anybody for fear of being caught.

  
  They have complete control in regards to being "caught".
• I Wear Pants

  Lying constantly can make someone extremely anxious and nervous. I don't think we want that type of person in the military. By having DADT your putting extra stress on at least some of the soldiers who already have tons of stress.
• cbus4life

  They shouldn't have to fear being "caught" at all.
  
  Maybe it would go a long way towards destroying common stereotypes about gay men if we were able to actually see them kicking ass and taking names in Iraq and Afghanistan, as i'm sure hundreds have done already.
• FairwoodKing

  cbus4life wrote: They shouldn't have to fear being "caught" at all.
  
  Maybe it would go a long way towards destroying common stereotypes about gay men if we were able to actually see them kicking ass and taking names in Iraq and Afghanistan, as i'm sure hundreds have done already.

  It's not hundreds, it's thousands. I know for a fact that thousands of my gay brothers and sisters have fought valiantly to protect our freedoms. The problem is that they don't have the freedom to be themselves.
• Glory Days

  

  FairwoodKing wrote: It's not hundreds, it's thousands. I know for a fact that thousands of my gay brothers and sisters have fought valiantly to protect our freedoms. The problem is that they don't have the freedom to be themselves.

  the military really isnt about being an individual though.
• FairwoodKing

  Glory Days wrote:

  FairwoodKing wrote: It's not hundreds, it's thousands. I know for a fact that thousands of my gay brothers and sisters have fought valiantly to protect our freedoms. The problem is that they don't have the freedom to be themselves.

  the military really isnt about being an individual though.

  I'm talking about human rights, not individuality. Straight soldiers have the freedom to talk about their girlfriends and wives. Gay soldiers don't have the right to talk about anything about their private lives. There is a double standard and it should not continue.
• Con_Alma

  Some very interesting debate on the floor last night about this. Here's what it came down to.
  Legislation already exists regarding this issue. For that legislation to change the following is to be understood and answered respectively in a positive manner.
  
  It's not a social issue. It's a military issue.
  
  If the law were changed would it make the units more combat ready, more cohesive and overall more able as a fighting force?
• cbus4life

  I'm curious, when Truman integrated the Armed Forces in regards to African-Americans fighting in integrated units...was that a social issue, or a military issue?
  
  I'm not saying it is quite the same thing, but i'm interested in that as well.
  
  Did that decision make units more combat ready, more cohesive, and overall a more able fighting force?
  
  Seems like that was most certainly a social issue...what do you guys think? It is considered a huge step in the civil rights movement, thereby making it a social issue. I don't think it made the Armed Forces more combat ready, or more cohesive, but simply gave the same rights to African-Americans in regards to the military.
  
  I would say, at the time, it certainly didn't make the units more cohesive.
  
  Again, i am NOT saying the gay "civil rights movement" is of the same magnitude as the African-American civil rights movement, but intersting to think about.
• Con_Alma

  I bet it was very much a social issue but obviously don't know for certain.
  
  I think the difference is that a legislative change wouldn't be created to allow gays to serve. A legislative action would need to take place to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell. That's the debate. Don't Ask Don't Tell should apply to all enlisted.
• cbus4life

  Yea, good point Con.
  
  I appreciate your opinions on this matter. Was just throwing it out there.