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

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:28:44 PM)
Exactly Asher and that is a problem. I am bisexual and if I was to take a female or male lover in my unit I can see how that could compromise my ability to make decisions. For the record obviously considering my own sexuality I think homosexuals should be allowed to serve what I am pointing out is that the concerns over their service are not simply a product of homophobia.

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:39:41 PM)
Ok, so my question to you then, how is that any larger of a risk then hetero relationships that develop? There are rules stating that you cannot date within your unit (paraphrasing here) yet we all know how often those are broken.

Arpig -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:41:31 PM)
quote: 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. Fair enough. It may be an issue, however I have never heard of it being an issue. I have seen no studies to say that it is an issue, I have only seen unfounded claims that it could be an issue, while there is no evidence that it is. However there have been studies: http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/study_finds_gays_do_not_undermine_canadian_military_performance http://users.sfo.com/~rathbone/mil00001.htm

MrRodgers -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:41:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf 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. My 'personal' attack as you describe is not personal at all. The Supreme court showed their incomparable ignorance on MicroSoft's monopoly and now show their cowardice here by not deciding the law-of-the-land concerning military employment and is the ONLY court that can...constitutionally. What facts are missing or incorrect ? They are 'doing their job' so to speak if you want to call it that but showed a costly ignorance or fear by throwing this back to the appeals court. So now we are to believe that a gay person signs away his right to be legally treated the same as straight enlistees ? What else can we come up with that gays in the military must do...that straights don't ? There was a time in Korea when white commanders threw black infantry to the front lines. Could the same be done now legally...to gays ? No...presumably equal treatment of the law means the military must treat gays the same as straights. But they can't even acknowledge that. With your understanding of what the SC should do, they could throw any challenge of Roe v. Wade back to the appeals court and I would call them cowards again. In fact, the SC is empowered to decide NOT to decide any case taken to it. Would that be doing their job ? I have some ideas. How 'bout don't ask, don't tell about my religion or the same for race ? Oh, ok, my race is visible so that won't fly but it used to...didn't it ?

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:46:08 PM)
I don't think it is any larger risk than a heterosexual relationship Asher in fact heterosexual relationships are obviously far far more common simply due to the numbers of those with that sexual orientation. But I think that that is a problem in either case. Your right that the rules are broken with alarming regularity but I think that makes the concern more potent rather than diminshing it. I can only speak for myself but personally if I was in love with someone that I was commanding I can see how my capacity to make rational decisions could be badly compromised.

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:47:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 I don't think it is any larger risk than a heterosexual relationship Asher in fact heterosexual relationships are obviously far far more common simply due to the numbers of those with that sexual orientation. But I think that that is a problem in either case. Your right that the rules are broken with alarming regularity but I think that makes the concern more potent rather than diminshing it. I can only speak for myself but personally if I was in love with someone that I was commanding I can see how my capacity to make rational decisions could be badly compromised. I can see that too, however my point is that the decline that you seem to be predicting didnt happen with hetero relationships, or when black people were openly serving as equals, The sky still hasnt fallen, so why are you running?

Arpig -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:48:33 PM)
quote: 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. First of all, what does the rate of pregnancy on a ship have to do with homosexuals serving openly. Homosexuals are serving in the military, and the present ban on them does not prevent homosexual relationships from developing. The fact that people have sex is irrelevant to the discussion, the only question should be does it reduce the effectiveness of the military. The evidence from those nations that allow gays to serve openly is that it does not affect their performance in any way. - Israeli gays and straights can serve together openly without reduced effectiveness. - British gays and straights can serve together openly without reduced effectiveness. - Canadian gays and straights can serve together openly without reduced effectiveness. This begs the question: why couldn't American gays and straights serve together openly without reducing their effectiveness? What is it about the US military that sets it apart from the above militaries?

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:48:39 PM)
Thankyou for the links Arpig i'll read them later and tell you what I think but there's a bit too much to take on just now [i'm quite tired it's early in the morning over here!]

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:51:32 PM)
~FR~ Even those relationships are restricted between Officers and enlisted. People that have never been in the military, or been raised with parents in the military, will not understand that they have rules that are outside the norm for society. They are loathe to change, and follow orders to the letter (usually). Much of this may have to do with incorrect perceptions of gays, and an unwillingness to change, but that is what we are dealing with. Most everything in the military, and the government is slow to change. Work on changing the attitude and psychology of the general population of high school graduates, and you will eventually change it in the military. Most warriors see homosexuality, at least in males, as a weakness or being less than a "man". Whether I disagree with that perception or not, it is still there and effects combat operations. That is the sad reality.

Arpig -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:55:29 PM)
No problem. I could not find any links to non-Canadian studies for some reason. Lots of opinion pieces regarding the US, but nothing about any studies. I did find one about the Israeli experience, I posted it earlier in the thread. I'll repost it to save everyone the trouble of looking it up: http://www.filmforum.org/films/yossi/israelstudyafs.pdf

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:55:58 PM)
But I think there has been a decline [perhaps decline is an unfair word but certainly complications] with heterosexual relationships. In the british army there has been a marked increase since the war in Afghanistan began of men getting their lovers pregnant to return them home. It's by no means endemic but it is a problem not one that threatens the integrity of the army but a complication that would otherwise not be there Asher. The difference with say blacks serving is that the problem there was nothing more than prejudice in this case racism being freinds with a black man is unlikely to diminish youur capacity for decision making, with homosexuals and women however, while I have no doubt that both sexism and homophobia has played a part [certainly historically but much less so now] I do feel that there are legitimate concerns that are worth addressing.

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:57:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 In the british army there has been a marked increase since the war in Afghanistan began of men getting their lovers pregnant to return them home. Well, no problem there with gay couples :D

Arpig -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 10:59:34 PM)
Here are a couple of other relevant pieces (particularly the first) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html?_r=2 http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/104Generals%2526Admirals-GayBanMustEnd

Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 11:00:50 PM)
Heh Heh, not bad Asher not bad. I suppose the equivalent would be them adopting some poor afghan orphan[;)]

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/8/2009 11:02:11 PM)
Cant be serious all the time, bad for the digestion :D

lazarus1983 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/9/2009 4:10:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf ~FR~ Most warriors see homosexuality, at least in males, as a weakness or being less than a "man". Whether I disagree with that perception or not, it is still there and effects combat operations. That is the sad reality. Bingo. The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy also acts to protect homosexuals in the armed forces. If someone comes out, there is a very real fear that someone in their unit will have a big enough problem to do something against that person. Arpig asked the question what makes our military so different from others that have open homosexuals serving. What makes our military different is that it is made up of Americans from 50 different states (and Puerto Rico), each coming in with their own principles and beliefs. People come in with very strong anti-homosexual sentiments, and a couple month long basic training isn't going to change that. I served in the Army, however my mother is a lesbian, so I obviously have no problems with homosexuality. I don't see it as an attack on my masculinity, I don't interpret it as weak. But that's just me. Now, stupid people (or ignorant, if you want be a little bit nicer), like to go on and on about how the military desensitives people and turns them into mindless killing machines, etc. etc. etc. This is not true, and is only believed by people who have never been in the military. The military does not change a person to the point where their core beliefs are changed. A person who grew up being taught that homosexuality is wrong is not going to change their mind after a few months in basic training. The US military is not to blame for the ideas that parents instill in their children. The "Don't Ask..." Policy is flawed, but until society changes, it's all we have to protect homosexuals in the military.

LadyEllen -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/9/2009 4:49:23 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes yep - a right bunch of nancy boys this lot...... note the comment from Philip Of Macedon (Alexander's dad, and one of the roughest toughest soldiers in history) and the reasons quoted for the coming into being and existence of such a unit - and why it was they came to be destroyed by Philip. we must then question what has occurred since the 4th century BC to render homosexuals unfit to serve openly? E

barelynangel -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/9/2009 4:57:38 AM)
Just as an aside, sexual orientation isn't a protected class in either Fed or State laws.. You cannot claim discrimination and sue under same for a sexual orientation class in employment. I believe legislation has been proposed but hasn't passed make sexual orientation a protected class yet. angel

Arpig -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/9/2009 10:00:16 AM)
quote: Arpig asked the question what makes our military so different from others that have open homosexuals serving. What makes our military different is that it is made up of Americans from 50 different states (and Puerto Rico), each coming in with their own principles and beliefs. People come in with very strong anti-homosexual sentiments, and a couple month long basic training isn't going to change that. Canada draws its military from a similarly diverse background, yet this does not seem to be a problem. Canada has ultra right-wing evangelical homophobes as well, and they manage to serve alongside openly gay soldiers without any disaster happening. The same is the case for the UK, which has its nut cases as well, yet again it doesn't translate into a major problem when actually put into practice in the field. The diverse origins of US soldiers would only be an issue if other countries were monolithic in their views on homosexuality, and they are not. Evangelical christianity is the fastest growing religious affiliation in Canada as well as the US, yet somehow Canadian gays are safe in the military. The experience of other countries shows that there is no actual ill effects of allowing gays to serve openly in the military (even satunchly catholic and supposedly super macho Argentina allows gays in its military), yet the US continues to hide behind the same lame excuses that have been disproven time and time again, not only in studies, but in actual practice. Its time to face the facts, there is no valid reason for keeping gays in the military in the closet. If anybody has a real reason that can refute the reality as demonstrated by the performance of those militaries that allow gays to serve openly, I look forward to hearing it.

Vendaval -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/9/2009 1:51:53 PM)
Fast Reply - Either none of our soldiers can be expected to control their sexual appetites and social prejudices or all of them should be given the same opportunities to date and have adult sexual relationships.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875