Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Biccat: I didn't say everyone who disagrees with me is a homophobic biggot. Just that the change to the law would drive out the homophobic biggots, and that's gotta be a good thing!

I'm being slightly tongue in cheek here, because I don't honestly believe that I'm going to change the mind of someone like NoI.

mattyrm wrote: The day a bloke in a shirt and tie, with a copy of er... PRIDE magazine under one arm, knocks on my door while im watching TV with a hangover on a Sunday and when I answer it tries to give me a copy of Breakfast at Tiffanies and says something along the lines of "Do you know that you could be sucking balls today?" Is the day that I have disdain for gay people.

Ok im done now.

Hm. I should get a friend of mine to do that as a practical joke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:What I worry about is the non-vocal objections. How many servicemembers will simply walk away after a few years of service rather than serve long-term?

How many do so because they're racist,r or because they don't want to serve alongside muslims or jews, or because they don't want to serve alongside people of different socioeconomic classes?

I'm not sure people who leave early for those reasons are really worthy of serving in the military anyway.

biccat wrote:The military is not the place for social experiments. I think that in 10-15 years homosexuality will be widely accepted and laws like DOMA and DADT would naturally fall into disfavor.

DADT is already falling into disfavor, that's why it's being repealed. Heck the military likely would have repealed it already except that it doesn't have the power to do so as it's a congress-enforced law.

As for DoMA, don't get me started on that trash produced by a bunch of worthless clowns who lie about wanting to strictly follow the constitution and then go and make laws that not only violates it but does so in a way that is a 180 degree turn from what the constitution actually says.

Well calling me an 'homophobic bigot" sure won't. I corrected your spelling by the way....

Can one be homophobic and not be a bigot I wonder? I see you use the terms as if they are one. If the correct term is to be "gay" then if you think I hate gays then should not the term now be "gayphobic"? Perhaps the happy gay term is for use to say its OK and the homo term is only to be used for folks who are to be called against that form of lifestyle?

The bigot part.... my Korean wife, my oldest daughter in law (Moroccan) and my soon to be second (a pacific islander) all disagree with you.

My gay boss does not think I am homophobic or gayphobic as I think would be the correct slang now.

I do not think gays should be in combat arms units, sorry but I been there and I bet most here shouting what a bigot I am have not. The army is for combat, not nation building or social experiments Congress will not try at home, otherwise the Defense of Marriage Act would have been repealed. Many civil rights civilians have, soldiers do not for combat efficiency and unit cohesion. Shall we allow the disabled in combat arms if they want it bad enough or does the right of the soldier to have the best chance of survival come into play?

I am for gays getting married, but in their hearts, and in the shadows, most religions are not.

As for the gays in the military, how the organized religions feel about this can be summed up by the remarks for slide 11 that the army is presenting to Chaplains. For background an Ecclesiastical Endorsement is required by the Department of Defense for Military chaplains, this Ecclesiastical Endorsement is a certification by an agent of a specific religious body that an individual is permitted to minister in the name of that Church or denomination. Some examples are Muslim, Jewish, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and the various christian groups like the Catholic church, Methodist, Lutherans and even Wickim.

Serving chaplains have made two contracts, one with their endorser to represent a faith group and one with the US Army to serve as an officer and Soldier.
It is very important to note that the loss of endorsement relieves the chaplains of their obligation to represent the endorsing faith group but does not automatically relieve a chaplain of their military obligation.
If an Endorser pulls a chaplain’s endorsement the chaplain has four ways to address the contract made with the Army:

1. Seek another endorsement
2. Change branch
3. Retire if eligible
4. Voluntary separation if eligible (owes no time to the Army)

So when a major religion pulls their Ecclesiastical Endorsements over this the Chaplin on active duty is given a choice of
a- Change his religion
b- No longer be a man of God but he can be some other type of soldier
c- Retire if eligible and not stop lossed
d- Get out if he has been in long enough for his service obligation and not stop lossed

Chaplains are a big deal in the military.. They marry us, they give us comfort in times when we need it, they go in places you would not and they often bury us. Take your cheap shots at me but leave them alone.

If the above is being briefed do understand at least one of the major groups has likely given Uncle Sam notice.

It's a big deal, even if it's not politically correct.

This concludes my part of why soldiers complain so much for today. Have at it

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:This concludes my personal feelings with the flimsiest of justifications as I hide behind a uniform and pretend that makes my opinions are fact and that I speak for soldiers when I only speak to my own failings as a person

I see.

Comparing gay people to those with disabilities?



WE HAVE A KEEPER.

Seriously, how is a gay person less effective in the field if they have went through the same training?

Thanks for correcting my spelling!

Your reasoning for why you are not a bigot is a bit all over the place. I mean, a gay racist is still a bigot even though they're not a homophobe. And your whole "homophobic-gayphobic" tirade isn't making much sense to me either, though it's late and I haven't had enough sleep, which may have to do with it
As to your arguments about Chaplains and religion in the military, I'm sorry to say I'm just completely unsympathetic.
Can you point me to the bit in the Bible where Jesus is all "Killing people is cool, but keep those damn gays outta my sight!"? I was raised Catholic and I never heard it mentioned in mass, oddly enough. If your religion requires you to discriminate against others then I'm intolerant of it and have no sympathy for you, especially in a State run body like the military. And that's not politically correct, either.
Your arguments about combat effectiveness aren't so strong either, considering your allies the British allow gay soldiers to serve and they're still pretty effective.
Oh, and I've never been to war. I'm actually from a namby pamby neutral country and everything.
Oh, and by the way. You don't sound like a terrible guy to me at all. Probably on the low end of the bigot spectrum. But we're all bigots in some ways- I don't particularly like Irish Travellers based on my experience. The difference is, I wouldn't try and deny them any rights I claim myself. And while service in the military isn't a right, per se, I think it's foolish to stop those who want to serve because others are so blinkered, intolerant and reactionary that they can't deal with it.

Ultimately, you are seeking to curb the rights of, and discriminate against homosexuals though, based upon their choice of sexuality. Your reasoning is that christians do not like to work alongside them.

The flaws in your reasoning are thus:-

1. Being christian does not preclude one from believing in gay marriage. Christians believe and disbelieve what is convenient for them most of the time, homosexuality can easily be another of those things.

2. By saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve, due to a higher HIV risk, this is equivalent to saying that black people should not be allowed in the police force because more criminals are black out of the population statistic (this is the case here, at least). A statistic for a generality is not something which one may use to discriminate against an individual. Otherwise you're not a democracy. (no doubt dogma will now interject with an exact definition of a democracy, and how somehow it could be, but that's more of a personal opinion that statement, than a fact most likely). The second you start dividing people into what they can and cannot do based upon, colour, religion, caste, sex, gender, or sexuality, you have ceased to make everyone an equal citizen. You have instituted a system whereby you are discriminating against a grouping of people, and favouring another. You have, in effect, made homosexuals a second class citizen.

3. Saying that gays should not be allowed in the military because a lot of military members may be christians and not like them is stupid. Sorry. Not only have you failed to provide any statistic indicating that they dislike homosexuals (see point 1), you have failed to give any kind of evidence to back up the reasoning that people will leave the military early or not join because gays are present. None whatsoever, beyond, 'I'm a military man, therefore I know more about this than a bunch of civvies'. Which fails considering we've had the likes of mattyrm, who is also ex-military, who disagrees with you. Empirical evidence is handy, but is not the be all end all. I do not need to contract cancer to study the symptoms of it, or hold an opinion on it.

4. I don't get why you keep going on about people saying you need to say gay instead of homosexual. I can't remember reading it anywhere in this thread, and I've never heard of it anywhere.

5. Having a gay friend does not insure one against being homophobic.

6. Having a disability impairs one from serving. Being a homosexual does not. A homosexual can shoot a gun as well as anyone else. And STD's are not limited solely to homosexuals. I would hope regular blood tests are the norm in your military. If not, you are forced into a position whereby you're scared any time anyone bleeds on you, because anyone CAN have an STD. Being gay has nothing to do with it. In short, your choice of sexuality does not impair your capacity to serve.

7. You claimed that relationships in the military can cause bad judgement calls on officers, favoritism, and so on. However, women may serve in the forces. Why is this not a barrier to all women from serving? Or, to flip it on its head, all men? This is a problem not limited to simply homosexuals.


There is more, but I tire of this. Your line of thought is bizare, and genuinely seems to be an attempt to discriminate against gays for poorly thought out reasons, with the fallback defense of you possessing secret knowledge due to having served in the military, or having a gay boss. Sorry. I'm not buying.

biccat wrote:The military is not the place for social experiments.

Where in fethety feth is the 'social experiment' in treating people equally regardless of sexual preference?



EDIT- Whoops, turns out the word filter doesn't catch 'fethety', if you get my meaning.

biccat wrote:
What I worry about is the non-vocal objections. How many servicemembers will simply walk away after a few years of service rather than serve long-term? How many will take the option to retire early rather than stay and train the next generation of soldiers? How many people will simply refuse to serve because of the presence of gays in the military?

They likely would have had the same issues with DADT. It isn't as though homosexuals are only now being admitted.

biccat wrote:
The military is not the place for social experiments.

Given that the military is a unique type of society, there really is no other option except the exploration and implementation of policy in the military.

biccat wrote:
I think that in 10-15 years homosexuality will be widely accepted and laws like DOMA and DADT would naturally fall into disfavor.

According to the military's own internal inquiries, that is already the case.

Medium of Death wrote:Comparing gay people to those with disabilities?



WE HAVE A KEEPER.

Seriously, how is a gay person less effective in the field if they have went through the same training?

To respond, letting some one who is disabled in a combat unit endangers troops, a fact of life, putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion, the same as putting women in a combat unit. Of course we will ignore the study the DOD did that revealed 70% of combat arms units in the Army and Marines said letting gays in combat units would effect the unit effectiveness adversely, but hey you get your punch line and they suffer, so what?

I never compared gays to disabled, just their effects on combat unit effectiveness. If this seems like a false argument then why do we not let disabled serve in combat units now or have woman in the combat squads?

Take a reading comprehension course some time.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:To respond, letting someone in a combat unit endangers troops, a fact of life

So combat units are now made up of zero people? New people are put into combat units all the time. You can't replace3 injured or dead soldiers with nothing.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion

Except we know that it doesn't because other modern military forces have done so and are still effective.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Of course we will ignore the study the DOD did that revealed 70% of combat arms units in the Army and Marines said letting gays in combat units would effect the unit effectiveness adversely

Apparently we are also going to ignore the part of the study that said that all other parts didn't care and that Combat Arms historically are the least likely to ever want any kind of change (for a myriad of reasons, one of which is that you can still be basic infantry with an abysmal ASVAB) and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. When they integrated blacks into the unit they were saying the same thing but the unit got over it. It always does.

Actually, homophobia is highly un-Christian going by the actual values espoused by Christ in that old little book (IE, love god, and love all people, unconditionally). Just sayin'.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion

Gays and lesbians have served in the US and other nations militaries-- and in fact, openly in other military organizations-- for some time. This hasn't happened yet.

Melissia wrote:Actually, homophobia is highly un-Christian going by the actual values espoused by Christ in that old little book (IE, love god, and love all people, unconditionally). Just sayin'.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion

Gays and lesbians have served in the US and other nations militaries-- and in fact, openly in other military organizations-- for some time. This hasn't happened yet.

He would claim the Srebrenica massacre was the result of it, without any evidence or sources that say so.

Of course he has spoken to many Dutch officers in the "know"! Who are we not to trust him?

Da Boss wrote:Thanks for correcting my spelling!

Your reasoning for why you are not a bigot is a bit all over the place. I mean, a gay racist is still a bigot even though they're not a homophobe. And your whole "homophobic-gayphobic" tirade isn't making much sense to me either, though it's late and I haven't had enough sleep, which may have to do with it

Lucky I do not value your opinion just as you do not value mine.

a gay racist is still a bigot even though they're not a homophobe

What are you talking about?

The homophobic-gayphobic is my point. I do not support gays in combat arms so I am you use the term homophobic. People who support gays are called what? The term gay is used to make it sound better. I can remember when gay meant happy, not a description of a sexual preference.

As to your arguments about Chaplains and religion in the military, I'm sorry to say I'm just completely unsympathetic.

And that does not surprise me either. I bet you have a support the troops sticker somewhere around along with some other stuff that has a saying on it that you really don't endorse or care about. The majority of the combat troops did not want this. There's an IG investigation being released soon that goes into some of the shenanigans that were done to the study but again I am sure you do not care.

Can you point me to the bit in the Bible where Jesus is all "Killing people is cool, but keep those damn gays outta my sight!"?

Raised Catholic but obviously never paid attention. The quote is "Thou shall not murder" Legal killing was OK, Ever read your Old Testament?

The second part (

keep those damn gays outta my sight!

would be the

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[2](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

I was raised Catholic and I never heard it mentioned in mass, oddly enough.

Yes, I do find that strange.

If your religion requires you to discriminate against others then I'm intolerant of it and have no sympathy for you, especially in a State run body like the military. And that's not politically correct, either.

You meant government ran body?

Your arguments about combat effectiveness aren't so strong either, considering your allies the British allow gay soldiers to serve and they're still pretty effective.

Funny you should mention that, my respect for the British efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are not as high as yours. How many times were Brit troops pulled out because they refused to risk themselves to pacify an area and American troops had to be brought in?

Oh, and I've never been to war. I'm actually from a namby pamby neutral country and everything.

Glad to know your experience on what affects the unit effectiveness of combat units is based on the politically correct crowd who never show up when the bleeding starts.

Oh, and by the way. You don't sound like a terrible guy to me at all.

LOL, you never knew me when I was young.

Probably on the low end of the bigot spectrum. But we're all bigots in some ways- I don't particularly like Irish Travellers based on my experience. The difference is, I wouldn't try and deny them any rights I claim myself. And while service in the military isn't a right, per se, I think it's foolish to stop those who want to serve because others are so blinkered, intolerant and reactionary that they can't deal with it.

Let them serve, just not in combat arms. It will affect unit leadership and cohesion. Could you send your girlfriend/lover/wife out to die when you could send someone who does not like you anyway to draw fire while the rest of the squad retrogrades?

An honest answer there. Its the number one reason why women have not been allowed in combat units and there is such a strict fraternization policy between leaders and troops in combat units. You DO know there is one , right?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:To respond, letting someone who is disabled in a combat unit endangers troops, a fact of life

thanks for catching that.

So combat units are now made up of zero people? New people are put into combat units all the time. You can't replace3 injured or dead soldiers with nothing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Of course we will ignore the study the DOD did that revealed 70% of combat arms units in the Army and Marines said letting gays in combat units would effect the unit effectiveness adversely

Apparently we are also going to ignore the part of the study that said that all other parts didn't care and that Combat Arms historically are the least likely to ever want any kind of change (for a myriad of reasons, one of which is that you can still be basic infantry with an abysmal ASVAB) and thus should be taken with a grain of salt.

I have read the entire study and that is not what it said. I suggest you read it. Really.

The President's adviser to Gay and Lesbian groups quoted a number to a San Francisco newspaper that pulled numbers from a question that had 6 levels of responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree and added four of the groups together to get the often quoted 60% of the Armed forces figure Congress voted on before the study was officially released. If he had taken the 4 groups starting from strongly disagree to the center he would have got exactly opposite numbers.

That was for the combined armed forces - Air Force, Navy, Army, etc.

The two that provide the combat arms units that would have to fight in ground combat, the Marines and Army, when their numbers were considered alone it was a far different story. So Congress said leave it up the the chiefs. Obama then fired the Army and Marine chief so he could get all yes votes by appointing his men in. The newly appointed Marine chief still said he would vote no. He was canned and they appointed a Navy guy to be the marine chief and that's how Obama got a unanimous vote from the service chiefs and an outgoing sec of defense.

That's another reason why soldiers complain

When they integrated blacks into the unit they were saying the same thing but the unit got over it. It always does.

Neither of us was around when they integrated blacks but its not the same thing because I don't think there was sex involved, do you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

He would claim the Srebrenica massacre was the result of it, without any evidence or sources that say so.

Of course he has spoken to many Dutch officers in the "know"! Who are we not to trust him?

Yes I did , and I did include the links to the court case finding the Dutch army responsible for it which include the downloadable official Dutch government report and the link to General Sheenam's congressional testimony before the President ordered his to go back the next day and retract it.

You could also read the book by the Commander of Dutch Ground troops but I suspect you are not going to do any of these things. Not politically correct.

So what is your explanation why the Dutch army gave their equipment, weapons, and combat vehicles, along with 7000 people they were supposed to protect?

By the way have you talked with any Dutch officers or men who were in the Dutch army at that time?

Woman have been serving in the Isrealy army for a while now and They haven't fallen apart at the seams yet, in fact I seem to recall that they have a fairly good military. Same thing with russia.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:To respond, letting some one who is disabled in a combat unit endangers troops, a fact of life, putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion, the same as putting women in a combat unit.

Problematically, that's just you making gak up. You have no evidence that it will impact unit cohesion, you just like to believe and then declare it as a fact.

Standing against this are the large number of militaries who have been allowing openly gay soldiers to serve for many years, and have not noticed any negative impact on unit cohesion.

Your 'concern' is nonsense, and you need to give it up.

Ketara wrote:Ultimately, you are seeking to curb the rights of, and discriminate against homosexuals though, based upon their choice of sexuality. Your reasoning is that christians do not like to work alongside them.

The flaws in your reasoning are thus:-

1. Being christian does not preclude one from believing in gay marriage. Christians believe and disbelieve what is convenient for them most of the time, homosexuality can easily be another of those things.

2. By saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve, due to a higher HIV risk, this is equivalent to saying that black people should not be allowed in the police force because more criminals are black out of the population statistic (this is the case here, at least). A statistic for a generality is not something which one may use to discriminate against an individual. Otherwise you're not a democracy. (no doubt dogma will now interject with an exact definition of a democracy, and how somehow it could be, but that's more of a personal opinion that statement, than a fact most likely). The second you start dividing people into what they can and cannot do based upon, colour, religion, caste, sex, gender, or sexuality, you have ceased to make everyone an equal citizen. You have instituted a system whereby you are discriminating against a grouping of people, and favouring another. You have, in effect, made homosexuals a second class citizen.

3. Saying that gays should not be allowed in the military because a lot of military members may be christians and not like them is stupid. Sorry. Not only have you failed to provide any statistic indicating that they dislike homosexuals (see point 1), you have failed to give any kind of evidence to back up the reasoning that people will leave the military early or not join because gays are present. None whatsoever, beyond, 'I'm a military man, therefore I know more about this than a bunch of civvies'. Which fails considering we've had the likes of mattyrm, who is also ex-military, who disagrees with you. Empirical evidence is handy, but is not the be all end all. I do not need to contract cancer to study the symptoms of it, or hold an opinion on it.

4. I don't get why you keep going on about people saying you need to say gay instead of homosexual. I can't remember reading it anywhere in this thread, and I've never heard of it anywhere.

5. Having a gay friend does not insure one against being homophobic.

6. Having a disability impairs one from serving. Being a homosexual does not. A homosexual can shoot a gun as well as anyone else. And STD's are not limited solely to homosexuals. I would hope regular blood tests are the norm in your military. If not, you are forced into a position whereby you're scared any time anyone bleeds on you, because anyone CAN have an STD. Being gay has nothing to do with it. In short, your choice of sexuality does not impair your capacity to serve.

7. You claimed that relationships in the military can cause bad judgement calls on officers, favoritism, and so on. However, women may serve in the forces. Why is this not a barrier to all women from serving? Or, to flip it on its head, all men? This is a problem not limited to simply homosexuals.


There is more, but I tire of this. Your line of thought is bizare, and genuinely seems to be an attempt to discriminate against gays for poorly thought out reasons, with the fallback defense of you possessing secret knowledge due to having served in the military, or having a gay boss. Sorry. I'm not buying.

I will not call you bizarre, just uninformed with a low reading comprehension level.

Item 1. Those Christians I know do not have such a ....flexable faith and they will leave and they are the core of most combat units. You would not know.

Item 2. Mixing HIV and combat vs blacks and crime is particularly stupid in essence. Could you not do better ? In case you never got it soldiers do not get all the rights you do, more proof you are clueless and imposing your values in a place they do not work. If you believe in so strongly sign up and put you life where your mouth is.

Item 3. Let them in the military, but not combat arms. Did you read the study , no you did not obviously. Is you ex military ex combat arms? I will bet not. 1 in 20 in the Army are combat arms.

Item 4. My point is when folks dis those who do not subscribe to the gay life style they are called homophobic , the word gay is only for those who support the gays I guess. You are probably too young to remember when gay only meant happy. Gay for the homosexual lifestyle is a marking word but you are too young to know that. Ask your parents....

Item 5. Having a gay friend does not insure one against being homophobic. Really....... But I guess disagreeing with anything the gay movement wants does make someone homophobic, is that your argument? Give me an example of something the gay movement wants that you disagree with and then tell me what you will be called when you say you are against the movement on that.

Item 6. Being gay does not impair you from serving. Serving in a combat unit harms unit cohesion just as assigning women to a combat unit would.

Example - Squad leader is dating a member of the squad (woman or gay does not matter). Squad leader has to send a man out to draw fire. Does not send his girl friend/boy friend. Picked man refuses to go. That's a real problem and destroys a unit.

But it gets better - suppose squad leader is NOT dating but guy picked thinks he is, same problem or he picks the gay guy who won't go because he thinks the squad leader hates gays and does not go.

That's the reason that fraternization can get you charged in the military and removed from command. But not having anything to do with the military you would not know that.

Item 7. See item 6 and it is a problem but not in combat because they are all males and not open practicing gays. You will note women are not members of ground combat units and that is the biggest reason. When they lifted the ban on gays they should have lifted the ban on women in combat units, the damage is already done. You will note Congress did not, you should ask your congressman why they didn't.

Surprised I said that? The gate is open, don't be shocked by what happens in the next 10 to 15 years. You will get a politically correct army, but it will not be able to fight and it will be broke on health care costs.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:To respond, letting some one who is disabled in a combat unit endangers troops, a fact of life, putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion, the same as putting women in a combat unit.

Problematically, that's just you making gak up. You have no evidence that it will impact unit cohesion, you just like to believe and then declare it as a fact.

Standing against this are the large number of militaries who have been allowing openly gay soldiers to serve for many years, and have not noticed any negative impact on unit cohesion.

Your 'concern' is nonsense, and you need to give it up.

Actually they have affected unit cohesion when those gays were allowed to server in combat units. Keep beating that politically correct line, maybe the next army we fight might believe it, we know the Serbs didn't.

Needle: You claim he's just making it up, yet you provide no source for your own arguments. Fascinating. I think it's you that's making things up, in fact, to cover for your own sexual insecurities.

Allow me to demonstrate with some links and pertinent quotes:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002030010

Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed that the Australian, Canadian, Israeli, or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military performance, readiness, or cohesion, led to increased difficulties in recruiting or retention, or increased the rate of HIV infection among the troops.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_cohesion.html

Whereas some heterosexuals might refuse to cooperate with known homosexuals, many factors will discourage this and promote teamwork: effective leadership; military norms, roles, regulations, and disciplinary options; and external threats and challenges.

(that one's even from 1996, quite old)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/07/study-military-gays-dont-_n_111296.html

"Everyone was living a big lie _ the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.

(Don't Ask, Don't Tell actually disrupts unit cohesion, because of the dishonesty it requires)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-07-12-column12_ST_N.htm

Despite some outlandish claims (including one charge that the Bible will be banned), chaplains should not be affected by a new policy. "Don't tell" never did apply to conversations with a chaplain, which are "privileged communication." And good chaplains can preach and teach, true to their beliefs — respecting rights while challenging what they believe is wrong. They also teach commandments — loving neighbors, judging not, not casting stones, the golden rule — that help the troops serve together.

(letter from a chaplain)

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/04/religious-organizations-support-“don’t-ask-don’t-tell”-repeal/#.Tl8XT2-pURI

“Forcing our men and women in uniform to lie about who they are goes against the core religious tenets of all major faith traditions. Telling the truth is an American and a religious value,” said HRC Religion and Faith Program Director Harry Knox. “Not only does ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ harm our national security, it also fails to live up to the moral standards to which we aspire.”

(petition from a wide variety of Christian organizations)





Yeah, I'll just leave these here. Perhaps you'll be enlightened.

You have yet to explain how the Israeli military is being destroyed by the inclusion of gays and women in combat units. It still is functioning despite this.

Comparing a conscript army to volunteer army is foolish. Of course Israel has to accept gays, otherwise they'd be getting conscripts claiming to be gay in order to avoid service.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Of course we will ignore the study the DOD did that revealed 70% of combat arms units in the Army and Marines said letting gays in combat units would effect the unit effectiveness adversely

That's incorrect. First, there is no question related to the differentiation between combat arms, and other military personnel that features the word "effectiveness". Second, no response in the entire section features a negative response rate of 70% or above. Indeed, the nearest equivalent to effectiveness, "task cohesion", returned a negative response rate of 57.5% in the Marine combat arms, and 47.5% in the Army combat arms.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I have read the entire study and that is not what it said. I suggest you read it. Really.

No you didn't. You got basic statistical figures completely wrong.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The President's adviser to Gay and Lesbian groups quoted a number to a San Francisco newspaper that pulled numbers from a question that had 6 levels of responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree and added four of the groups together to get the often quoted 60% of the Armed forces figure Congress voted on before the study was officially released. If he had taken the 4 groups starting from strongly disagree to the center he would have got exactly opposite numbers.

That was for the combined armed forces - Air Force, Navy, Army, etc.

Only one question in the entire survey has 6 possible responses, and it not only relates to retention, not effectiveness, but 62.5% of respondents indicated that the repeal of DADT would not effect their career plans.

There are a number of questions you might be referencing, but because of the nature of the possible responses (there are only ever 4) it is difficult to reasonably combine anything other than the "equally positive and negative" response with the "negative" response.

Though, funnily enough, when asked about effectiveness in crisis or combat, the negative responses drop off markedly.

I have read the entire study and that is not what it said. I suggest you read it. Really.

If you literally only look at that single document that is true, but if you look at all related documents produced with that one you will find what I am referring to. Essentially you are turning in a book report with only one source, and according to Dogma, you still got some of the info wrong.

CptJake wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Those charts are bs in several ways.

So I am sure you will post better charts or statistics right?

1. They don’t define a “Neighbourhood”.
2. Their five divisions are not quintiles.

For example, the so-called Quintile 5 contains 73.5% of the income distribution. As it contains only 25% of the recruits, the upper classes are actually massively under-represented.

It’s obvious that the chart has been crudely massaged in order to present a biased picture of the data.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Actually they have affected unit cohesion when those gays were allowed to server in combat units. Keep beating that politically correct line, maybe the next army we fight might believe it, we know the Serbs didn't.

No, they haven't affected unit cohesion. You're relying entirely on the wild speculation of US general John Sheehan over the events as Srebrenica. This is despite around a dozen official reports studying the none of the countless reports . Not one report ever discussed acceptance of homosexuals in the army as a cause of the failure.

What happened at Srebrenica is a grave issue. The policy of placing troops in a region with little effective strength, in the hope that their presence alone would be enough to dissuade murder was an absolute disaster, and the way this played out in Srebrenica in deploying Dutch troops with no support weapons, and denying them access to air support was almost criminal. The reasons for the failure of the operation have been studied seriously, and have revealed many uncomfortable truths about what is actually required to effectively maintain the peace in an area, and who needs to be in control to make that troops are deployed properly.

General Sheehan's decision to wander into the issue years late and make it absolute some entirely random non-issue was treated with bafflement and absolutely dismissed. General Sheehan took the time to read into the issue further, and recognised that fear of gay people had nothing to do with anytihng, and instead recognised the issue was "the rules of engagement...developed by a political system with conflicting priorities and an ambivalent understanding of how to use the military.""

General Sheehan was honest enough to recognise when his pet issue had caused him to completely misread a situation, now please do the same yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Comparing a conscript army to volunteer army is foolish. Of course Israel has to accept gays, otherwise they'd be getting conscripts claiming to be gay in order to avoid service.

I believe that's what was happening, back in the 80s before the ban was lifted. Seriously people, Israel was smart enough on this issue in the goddamn 80s.

Australia made it okay to bang dudes and serve in 1993. Canada beat us by a year, in 1992. Studies in both countries have reported no decline in military performance.

In fact, more than 20 countries now have gay soldiers openly serving in the army and not one has reported any kind of reduced performance. And yet here we have people in the US thinking for some special reason they'd be totally unique and the it'd be a disaster for them.

It's fething ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:1. They don’t define a “Neighbourhood”.
2. Their five divisions are not quintiles.

For example, the so-called Quintile 5 contains 73.5% of the income distribution. As it contains only 25% of the recruits, the upper classes are actually massively under-represented.

It’s obvious that the chart has been crudely massaged in order to present a biased picture of the data.

It's the Heritage Foundation. bs charts is pretty much what they do.

EDIT - In fact, if you look at the chart on page 2 of this report; http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf, from the Defence Department, you'd see that the middle class is over-represented, while both the lower and upper classes are under-represented.

So basically, the Heritage Foundation was bullshitting. Again.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Actually they have affected unit cohesion when those gays were allowed to server in combat units.

I believe the OP, mattyrm, served in a combat unit with an openly gay man. They didn't seem to mind too much.

Hi
Im Ex Army my self, Ex EOD (IEDD none of your RE CMD nonsense )

I've had several friends who i served with either lose their lives or sustained horrific injuries,
I agree with the OP in many ways due to the fact l know the military has supported these men and their families in many ways, I myself after leaving the military received much support in preparation for civilian life.

As for PTSD i think if i have any its from some of the extra carricular activities i took part in whilst not on tour!!!

Kilkrazy wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Those charts are bs in several ways.

So I am sure you will post better charts or statistics right?

1. They don’t define a “Neighbourhood”.
2. Their five divisions are not quintiles.

For example, the so-called Quintile 5 contains 73.5% of the income distribution. As it contains only 25% of the recruits, the upper classes are actually massively under-represented.

It’s obvious that the chart has been crudely massaged in order to present a biased picture of the data.

Your issues are addressed in the report, which details the methodology. http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf

Your issue with income distribution in Quintile 5 is interesting. Are you saying that 73.5% of the population is in that quintile? Obviously not. Do you think 25% of the population comes form that quintile? If so, then they are correctly represented. If less than 25% of the population is in that quintile, but 25% of recruits come from it, they are over represented.

Again, feel free to post actual figures or a study that contradicts this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:It's the Heritage Foundation. bs charts is pretty much what they do.

EDIT - In fact, if you look at the chart on page 2 of this report; http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf, from the Defence Department, you'd see that the middle class is over-represented, while both the lower and upper classes are under-represented.

So basically, the Heritage Foundation was bullshitting. Again.

Read the report you linked to:

Data show that patterns in recent years are simply reinforcing this trend (Figure 3). More
recruits are coming from families in the mid-scale and upper socioeconomic strata, while
fewer are coming from families with lower earnings.

Which by the way used Heritage data. But older Heritage data than the report I showed graphs from. Your report was done in 2005, and the one I posted from was done in 2008. The chart in yours used 1999 data

Source: Heritage Foundation; distribution of 1999 recruits minus distribution of 18-24 year old population

Mine used 2005 and 2006 data.

You can hate Heritage. Show me stats that support your position. Otherwise you are bullshitting. Again.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I will not call you bizarre, just uninformed with a low reading comprehension level.

Why thank you. To be called as such by someone with such a low level of comprehension of basic statistic compilation and analysis....well, let's just say I don't particularly rate your own skills too highly. Nonetheless, you've taken an entirely logical rebuttal to your points, and started off with ad hominems. I recommend learning common courtesy, you'd be amazed at how far it can get you in life.

Item 1. Those Christians I know do not have such a ....flexable faith and they will leave and they are the core of most combat units. You would not know.

Those Christians you know make up the vast amount of the army? My word. You know a lot of people. I know a lot of christians of many denominations, and most of them have difficulty agreeing on things like what day to worship, and whether or not converting others is good or not. For all your christians to share such a mono-mind is not a compliment to your association of friends.

Item 2. Mixing HIV and combat vs blacks and crime is particularly stupid in essence. Could you not do better ?

It's a perfectly legitimate comparison, based upon the removal of one chosen grouping from a job field due to a generalisation about that grouping. If you cannot see that, you need to learn what the word 'analogy' means.

In case you never got it soldiers do not get all the rights you do, more proof you are clueless and imposing your values in a place they do not work. If you believe in so strongly sign up and put you life where your mouth is.

We're not talkign about the rights of soldiers, so much as the rights of people to become soldiers. And to be frank, even if we were, you'd be wrong even then, becoming a soldier does not suddenly mean one gives up the right to fair treatment between sex, gender, race, sexuality, etc. I've yet to read of anything in the US army doctrine saying you give your superiors the right to be racist or sexist.

Item 3. Let them in the military, but not combat arms. Did you read the study , no you did not obviously. Is you ex military ex combat arms? I will bet not. 1 in 20 in the Army are combat arms.

Have you skipped the bit where Matty pointed out where he served? So you lost your bet. For someone who accuses me of having low reading comprehension, you appear to fail to remember what's been posted within the last few pages of this discussion.

Item 4. My point is when folks dis those who do not subscribe to the gay life style they are called homophobic , the word gay is only for those who support the gays I guess. You are probably too young to remember when gay only meant happy. Gay for the homosexual lifestyle is a marking word but you are too young to know that. Ask your parents....

No, this is probably just a phenomenon over where you live. Age has nothing to do with it. Gay hasn't been used in the traditional sense here in a long while, and homosexual is accepted as interchangeable.

Item 5. Having a gay friend does not insure one against being homophobic. Really....... But I guess disagreeing with anything the gay movement wants does make someone homophobic, is that your argument? Give me an example of something the gay movement wants that you disagree with and then tell me what you will be called when you say you are against the movement on that.

Wanting equal rights and opportunities for all does not translate into meaning you support everything. For example, if the gay community wanted a law passed that the PM, or deputy PM had to be a gay person, I would oppose it. If they proposed a law to deny straight people from serving in the military, because it would 'destroy unit cohesion', I would oppose it. In the same way I'm opposing your ideas now.

Item 6. Being gay does not impair you from serving. Serving in a combat unit harms unit cohesion just as assigning women to a combat unit would.

Then surely the logical choice would be to make up combat arms of exclusively women or gay men? There are many different ways of looking at an issue, and 'BAN THE GAYS!' is neither the most productive, nor the fairest route to take.

Example - Squad leader is dating a member of the squad (woman or gay does not matter). Squad leader has to send a man out to draw fire. Does not send his girl friend/boy friend. Picked man refuses to go. That's a real problem and destroys a unit.

And you believe those bonds of friendship forged between soldiers of a combat unit are somehow less than those of a superior having a bit on the side with a private?

I would invite thought from the other military men who have posted so far on that one.

But it gets better - suppose squad leader is NOT dating but guy picked thinks he is, same problem or he picks the gay guy who won't go because he thinks the squad leader hates gays and does not go.

Why has this not happened in our military, or anyone else's?

You're drawing a massive hypothetical here, applying it across the entire US army, with no evidence.

That's the reason that fraternization can get you charged in the military and removed from command. But not having anything to do with the military you would not know that.

I'm a postgraduate student in War Studies. I hang around with a number of army bods. But then again, being a condescending plonker over the internet, 'you would not know that'.

Item 7. See item 6 and it is a problem but not in combat because they are all males and not open practicing gays. You will note women are not members of ground combat units and that is the biggest reason. When they lifted the ban on gays they should have lifted the ban on women in combat units, the damage is already done. You will note Congress did not, you should ask your congressman why they didn't.

See the little flag? I'm not American. I come from a country where gays serve openly and no unit cohesion is lost. Thereby pretty much refuting this strange idea you have of gays denigrating combat performance.

Surprised I said that? The gate is open, don't be shocked by what happens in the next 10 to 15 years. You will get a politically correct army, but it will not be able to fight and it will be broke on health care costs.

It didn't break the army when black men could join, I doubt allowing gays will do what that couldn't. As for health care costs, the US spends so much on defense unnecessarily, I find that hard to believe.

Funny how needle ignored my post.

I think I'll expound upon one of those quotes:

April 28, 2010
Dear Senators and Representatives:

On behalf of our organizations, representing a diverse group of faith traditions and religious beliefs, we urge you to pass the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009 (MREA) this year. This long-overdue aw will repeal the unjust and unwise Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) law, which prohibits lesbian and gay Americans from serving openly in the military.

We write because we strongly believe this policy of government-sanctioned discrimination is morally wrong and entirely contrary to the teachings and values of our faith communities.

Since DADT was adopted, more than 13,500 lesbian and gay service members have been discharged because of their sexual orientation. Their selfless service has been rewarded with humiliation, and their discharges fray the fabric of our communities. An estimated 66,000 lesbians and gays now serve in our armed forces, and are compelled to live dishonestly and in fear of termination for reasons unrelated to their performance. As faith leaders, we deal routinely with the damage such discrimination and fear imposes on our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers and their families. We believe the laws of our country should reflect the highest regard for integrity and care for our neighbors as we care for ourselves. Repeal of DADT will finally allow all service members to contribute their talents and skills to our country openly and honestly.

We urge you to recognize in law what the majority of Americans – Republicans, Democrats and Independents of many faiths – have recognized in their hearts: this discriminatory law is unjust and wrong and must end this year.

Sincerely,

Alliance of Baptists
American Conference of Cantors
American Friends Service Committee
Central Conference of American Rabbis
DignityUSA
Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of
Christ)
The Episcopal Church
Equal Partners in Faith
The Fellowship
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Interfaith Alliance
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Lutherans Concerned/North America
Metropolitan Community Churches
More Light Presbyterians
National Black Justice Coalition
National Council of Jewish Women
Other Sheep: Multicultural Ministries with
Sexual Minorities
Rabbinical Assembly
Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International
The Sikh Coalition
Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of
Congregations
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness
Ministries
United Church of Christ, Wider Church
Ministries
United Methodist Church, General Board of
Church and Society
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Unity Fellowship Church Movement
Women of Reform Judaism

Da Boss wrote: Your reasoning for why you are not a bigot is a bit all over the place. I mean, a gay racist is still a bigot even though they're not a homophobe. And your whole "homophobic-gayphobic" tirade isn't making much sense to me either, though it's late and I haven't had enough sleep, which may have to do with it

Yeah, I never agreed with the "I married one" argument either. Men like women. I think you could be racist but still marry a black woman.

For example, I hate Muslims, but I happily take attractive ones to bed.

Oh and gingers, Ive got round a few attractive one's, and lets be honest, everyone with sense hates them.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote: Those Christians I know do not have such a ....flexable faith and they will leave and they are the core of most combat units. You would not know.

Honestly, I know plenty of US soldiers, I worked hand in hand with them numerous times, and we lived togteher in Kabul. The majority of them were the same wishy washy Chrsitians that you get over here in England. You know, the good ones. The ones that don't have ultra aggressive beliefs and never shut up about Religion. I think I have only met one or two American soldiers that were topped up to the brim with Jesus Juice like NOI appears to be.

The majority are kinda like me, they have Christian written on their dog tags, but they don't seem to give that much of a gak. If the majority of the US armed forces was like you, we would be in serious trouble.

Not that I think of myself as a Christian anymore, but I'm not boring enough to go get my dog tags changed.