RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aylee -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 7:13:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Aylee I am sorry but that simply isn't true there are a number of different reasons why the armystrictly limits women being in the armed services [in particular front line units] and why homosexuality is not tolerated openly. It is not as simple as heterosexual men not being able to control themselves that is actually very deeply offensive. I was actually refering to the inability to see a female soldier as "just another soldier."

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 7:16:28 PM)
Yes that is what I mean male soldiers are capable of seeing women as just another soldier [at least in Britain I have no experience of the American army] that is not why they do not profligate within the military.

DreamGoddess666 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 7:37:45 PM)
If a soldier would be bothered by serving alongside a homosexual, that soldier is most definitely a COWARD.

kdsub -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 7:52:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Can anyone in the discussion say that the majority of Americans today do NOT think homosexuality is perverse? Yep. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=290 THis is about gay marriage, not gays in the military, but I think it gives a sense of where folks in the US are on homosexuality. "While a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, a similar majority supports civil unions (which grant gay couples most of the legal rights of marriage without the title of marriage), by a 54% to 42% margin, according to a Pew poll from August 2006." It's interesting that among folks who go to church once a week or more, the number supporting civil unions is even higher - 60%. Edited to add that I found another statistic, perhaps more pertinent to your question. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108115/americans-evenly-divided-morality-homosexuality.aspx "Agreement that homosexuality should be considered an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" (a wording Gallup began using in 1982) has followed a more linear path (though it, too, dipped after the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2003), increasing from 34% in 1982 to 44% in 1996, to 54% in 2003, and 57% in 2007, where it remains today." Thanks MmeGigs... you forced me to research your links and I find acceptance of gays in the US is better than I assumed. That will teach me...lol I still believe acceptance is different than approval...but now this is opinion. Maybe in a few years if that 50 percent or so acceptance continues to increase...and military polls change to reflect this trend...we will see sexual preference discrimination in the military service become illegal. Butch

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 8:18:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The cowardice I write of is that of the SC judges who should have put an end this unequal treatment under the law, i.e., employment discrimination. So a personal attack shows what? quote: As for constitutionality...it's called equal treatment under the law. So gays have the same constitutional rights against employment discrimination (all else being equal) as straights and one of those is to serve in the military. Refresh my memory again. In the Constitution, which branch interprets the laws? Also, service in the Military is not the same as employment. It is not just a job. quote: I couldn't care less what previous policy directed military enlistments or promotions. This is an obvious discrimination and illogical treatment of the same personnel as the military has had over the ages...as long as they remained in the closet. So you do not care about history or marking progress? I see. You seem to debate from a very emotional state, as there is not much meat (facts) in your post. quote: That psychological impact you write of is the psychology of discrimination and prejudice as we all know...gays have serve admirably for years as long as they protected that discrimination. In my view...this is all ridiculous and it's time the court stood-up and did their job. Oh so they should do their job according to MrRodgers interpetation of things. I missed that in my reading of the US Constitution. I also recommend you read about the military service, and how it suspends and removes many people's constitutional rights (not all) while they are in the service. There are all kinds of restrictions that the people in the military have upon them, including restrictions on travel, where they may or may not be able to purchase things, whom they can marry, and the list goes on. Education is your friend.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 8:32:45 PM)
I have to say I agree with Orion here, I have pointed out a couple of times now that the policy of not allowing homosexuality to be openly acknowledged in the army is a complicated manner and not a just a case of serving soldiers not wanting to serve with homosexuals. It appears to me that there is actually an awful lot of crass sterotyping of the armed forces on this thread with a reluctance to actually look at the facts if they do not correspond with preconceived ideas.

Arpig -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 8:47:18 PM)
quote: There is actually at the moment another reason why homosexuals are not allowed to openly express themselves in the armed forces [at least in the British I do not know about the American policy] as most of our high intensity operations are in the middle east it is not desirable to have homosexual men facing staunch muslims. Israel used to have women in nearly all of it's army including most frontline combat units however they found that muslim soldiers would never surrender if they thought they would be surrendering to women. Obviously from a military point of view that is disastrous. It is similar with homosexuals. This is by no means official policy but it is something to consider this issue it is not always quite as straightforward as it first appears. What a load of crap!! Gays and lesbians can openly serve in the British military, to discriminate against them in any way is illegal, period. The IDF, arguably one of the toughest and most effective militaries in the world, has allowed openly gay (male and female) soldiers in all branchs and areas since 1993 with no lessening of its effectiveness. http://www.filmforum.org/films/yossi/israelstudyafs.pdf quote: Aylee I am sorry but that simply isn't true there are a number of different reasons why the armystrictly limits women being in the armed services [in particular front line units] and why homosexuality is not tolerated openly. It is not as simple as heterosexual men not being able to control themselves that is actually very deeply offensive. A number of reasons? List em. quote: I have to say I agree with Orion here, I have pointed out a couple of times now that the policy of not allowing homosexuality to be openly acknowledged in the army is a complicated manner and not a just a case of serving soldiers not wanting to serve with homosexuals. Yeah, you have stated it, but you have not actually provided any reasonable reasons. So far only Butch has put forward a reason, and his reason doesn't hold water to me. Come on, list these compelling reasons....

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 8:59:10 PM)
One is that in the current climate with many high intensity operations aginst enemies that are islamic open homosexuality has a negative impact on a military campaign. If muslim soldiers think they are facing [what they class] as sodomites they will refuse to surrender it is the same for women, that is the reason why the israeli army withdrew all females from it's frontline units. The army wants people to surrender not fight to the death for obvious reasons. The use of women in frontline units tend to invoke the wrath of those facing them and they take that out on the males of the opposing army. One of the reasons the army is vary wary about having a mixed sex force is that it is possible that vital decisions could be compromised by emotion. Men react to women being in danger differently to men they take risks that they often should not. There is scope for relationships that again can cloud judgement if an officer, for example, has to take a decision that may result in the deaths of his men then he may well not do so if his lover is involved whether male or female. None of these alone are a reason for homosexuals to be barred from the army I am simply pointing out that it is not as simple a situation as many people appear to be under the impression of Arpig.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 9:04:31 PM)
Arpig it is not a load of crap it is true. Gays are meant to be allowed to serve in the military openly but in practice this is not so open homosexuality is shunned in the British army. I am bisexual and have been told numerous times by serving officers not to flaunt it. If you disagree with what I am saying by all means ask Arpig but do not patronise or take a belligerant tone with me because I differ in my views to you.

Arpig -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 9:19:51 PM)
Thank you for the listing [:)] quote: that is the reason why the israeli army withdrew all females from it's frontline units. It did that 50 some odd years ago, and has since reversed that position. Israeli women served alongside men on the ground in Lebanon in 2006. And the stated reason for removing them from the frontlines had nothing to do with muslims surrendering to them or not, it was because of the perceived liklihood of them being raped if captured. The Israelis allow openly gay soldiers in all positions, so obviously they are not worried about muslims not surrendering to them, why would anybody else be, the Israelis know the Arab soldiers better than anybody. quote: The use of women in frontline units tend to invoke the wrath of those facing them and they take that out on the males of the opposing army. Really, got any evidence of that? There is no evidence of female soldiers causing an enemy to go into a frenzy or berserker rage because of the presence of women, and there sure as hell isn't any evidence that the presence of gays would do the same. More to the point, how the hell would the enemy know if there were any gays in the forces opposing them or not? quote: One of the reasons the army is vary wary about having a mixed sex force is that it is possible that vital decisions could be compromised by emotion. Men react to women being in danger differently to men they take risks that they often should not. Crap, pure and unadulterated crap. Again, there is no evidence of this. In WWII the Soviets used female soldiers with no problems. As do the Israelis today. The Canadian military has women and gays serving in all positions, with no apparent problems, either in efficiency, discipline, or effectiveness. quote: There is scope for relationships that again can cloud judgement if an officer, for example, has to take a decision that may result in the deaths of his men then he may well not do so if his lover is involved whether male or female. Yet women are allowed in the military, and how does staying in the closet keep a couple of gays from becoming lovers. As well there are already rules in the military forbidding relationships between officers and enlisted personel. Face it, there are simply no valid reasons for this policy, other than the fact that the military brass are conservative (in the sense of opposing change) and generally homophobic.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 9:42:23 PM)
Arpig you appear to have lifted your first rebuttal straight from wikipedia [forgive me if I am wrong] Israel banned women serving in combat units both because of a fear of them being raped if captured and muslim soldiers refused to surrender to units they believed contained women. They have since repealed this ruling to allow a very small fraction of women in a very few field operations. this problem was most pronounce in the various intifadas where obviously combat was at close quaters and women's prescence obvious. The use of women in frontline units negatively affecting the psychology of the men facing them has been well documented. It is studied to some degree in Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad and Berlin [i chose those as they are easily accessible and cracking reads.] I never claimed that the prescence of homosexuals produced the same effect I don't know where you got that from I apologise if I was not clear enough. The soviets used female soldiers with no problems? How dare you pronounce my posts crap when you produce tripe like this. Systematic rape was endemic within the soviet army campaign wives were a regular [and condoned] practice the treatment of captured men by female units and vice versa was legendarily appaling, I reccomens Ivan's war by Catherine Merridale as a good starting point to discovering the lives of both sexes in the red army during the second world war. There are indeed rules prohibiting relationships yet naturally they do still occur as I said it alone is no reason to bar homosexuals from the army it is simply a consideration. My argument has not been that homosexual should not serve but that the reason there is resistance historically and in the present is not as imple case of the homophobia of service personel.

Arpig -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 9:46:52 PM)
Actually the reasons you presented are not valid examples of non-homophobic reasons, they are themselves examples of homphobia. As to the wikipedia, yes I did, however it is a direct quote from this web site: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/State/The+Israel+Defense+Forces.htm quote: muslim soldiers refused to surrender to units they believed contained women. Please provide some evidence for this. quote: The use of women in frontline units negatively affecting the psychology of the men facing them has been well documented. Please provide some evidence. As to the soviets use of women soldiers, none of the reasons you listed for keeping women out of combat was experienced by the soviets. I concede that there were other problems, but not the ones you gave as an example for keeping gays out of the military. I did not pronounce your post crap, I pronounced the particular arguement for keeping gays out of the military crap.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 9:49:57 PM)
I do not believe they are examples of homophobia Arpig I believe they are legitimate concerns, that is an opinion not fact so do not state it as such.

Arpig -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 9:56:06 PM)
I have given examples of how these "legitimate" concerns are not legitimate, therefore I feel safe in stating that they are homophibic, as they have no basis in verifiable fact.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:10:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig The whole issue is based on the erroneous idea that gays are somehow unable to control their sexual urges. I defy one person to show me a real valid reason why gays should npot be allowed into the military. Right because eighteen year old gay males have an extra organ that allows them to shut off sexual urges, that straight eighteen year old males lack... I keep forgetting that. BTW... if it was just the urges, I think the military could possibly find a way around it. But the breakdown in unit cohesion has to do with actual "lover relationships"

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:14:25 PM)
No Arpig all of the reasons I listed were experienced by the soviet military it's well documented in the three books I cited, the providence of them is, I believe adequate, Anthony Beevor is very well respected and from what I can find on Merridale she seems a perfectley competent historian. The reasons for trepidation for limiting females and homosexual men are not the same I don't claim that [nor does the military] in the list you asked for i've said which apply to women and which to homosexuals and in which case they overlap if it's not clear I can go and put in more grammar. The quote from wikipedia is not wrong but it is not complete either and it is misleading to think that women have the same duties as men in the idf, they serve in it very bravely but in only a very small percentage of combat units. I will try and find you some websites about muslim soldiers refusing to surrender to women [I don't have any books for that] but I do know that as I said it was a major problem in the intifadas where the female prescence was obvious. This is obviously of much less import in more open warfare where often it is hard to see the opposing side let alone their gender. If i find any decent links i'll type them out for you as i'm afraid I don't know how to make a link that you can click on like the ones you have provided. The part of my argument you were disparging about was not about homosexuals in the army though Arpig it was about women. Like I said some of the reasons for concern for one are not applicable to the other I had thought I made that clear I apologise if I had not. I don't think your last post is fair arpig you have offered arguments as to why the reasons the concerns are not legitimate but they are not arguments that are watertight.

Arpig -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:20:03 PM)
quote: Right because eighteen year old gay males have an extra organ that allows them to shut off sexual urges, that straight eighteen year old males lack... I keep forgetting that. I don't know, but when I was 18, I managed not to rape anybody, nor did I try to force myself on anybody either, and I have never been particularly well known for my self control, if I could do it, I can't see why one can't assume that the vast majority of people can. In fact most men (gay and straight) are perfectly able to control their sexual urges, it happens millions of times every day, all over the world. quote: BTW... if it was just the urges, I think the military could possibly find a way around it. But the breakdown in unit cohesion has to do with actual "lover relationships Oddly enough this doesn't seem to be an issue in those militaries that have no bar against gays serving openly. Perhaps there is something unique to the US military that renders them especially subject to problems of this kind? And as I pointed out before, forcing gays to stay in the closet is not any form of prevention of lover relationships.

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:22:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Right because eighteen year old gay males have an extra organ that allows them to shut off sexual urges, that straight eighteen year old males lack... I keep forgetting that. I don't know, but when I was 18, I managed not to rape anybody, nor did I try to force myself on anybody either, and I have never been particularly well known for my self control, if I could do it, I can't see why one can't assume that the vast majority of people can. In fact most men (gay and straight) are perfectly able to control their sexual urges, it happens millions of times every day, all over the world. quote: BTW... if it was just the urges, I think the military could possibly find a way around it. But the breakdown in unit cohesion has to do with actual "lover relationships Oddly enough this doesn't seem to be an issue in those militaries that have no bar against gays serving openly. Perhaps there is something unique to the US military that renders them especially subject to problems of this kind? And as I pointed out before, forcing gays to stay in the closet is not any form of prevention of lover relationships. I cant help but agree with Arpig here When I was in the army I found a guy that to cut a long story short, is the only man I would have ever considered actually dating, as opposed to just sleeping around with. Relationships happen anywhere, at any time, regardless of any rules

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:24:32 PM)
Arpig how do you know it is not an issue in those militaries? It is entirely possible that it is not but I don't know of any studies either way and I do know that it is one of the main concerns with homosexuals in the army. [particuarly as you can't have the same degree of segregation that can happen with women]. Though I am in no way offering a fictional film as evidence yossi and yasser the film in the link is actually a pretty good example of the complications that can arise from this, it's well worth watching to.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:26:56 PM)
Are the same urges being controled on Navy ships, especially aricraft carriers, where women are getting pregnant by the dozens on cruises Aepig? Ask any honest US Naval officer (man or woman) about the problem of pregnancy on US warships with females serving on them. It is not a minor problem.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125