Gays in the Military and DADT

[roo_ster]

...gay animals don't want to join the military.

Are you sure about that?

What with all this magical thinking going on of the "I feel this therefore this is reality" sort, how are we to know?

We may have an heretofore secret army of critters, some of whom are quite senior in rank, ready to call on when the Chicoms come marching down Main Street the local state park.

[MillCreek]

You are playing his proxy, as you point out in later posts.  It is still category error.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of 'category error'? And how does this cartoon fit in with your definition?

[MillCreek]

That's nice, but the cartoon is still an ad hominem argument.  

What is it about the cartoon that makes it an ad hominem argument for you?

[MillCreek]

Are you sure about that?

What with all this magical thinking going on of the "I feel this therefore this is reality" sort, how are we to know?

I would love to see your data supporting your premise that homosexuality is a choice.  Preferably data published in the contemporary mainstream medical literature that I can find via a Medline search. 

[mellestad]

I would love to see your data supporting your premise that homosexuality is a choice.  Preferably data published in the contemporary mainstream medical literature that I can find via a Medline search. 

You don't get it.  He has a *feeling* it is not biological

[Balog]

I would love to see your data supporting your premise that homosexuality is a choice.  Preferably data published in the contemporary mainstream medical literature that I can find via a Medline search. 

I'd like to see the same thing, but for your position. And I'm aware of the studies trotted out, I think we both know they were hyped into something they are not by the media.

[mellestad]

You don't get it.  He has a *feeling* it is not biological

From the research I have seen though, it is more complicated than a binary choice.  Current thinking is a combination of nature vs. nurture, or many factors combines to produce homosexual behavior.  There does appear to be some evidence that there is a maternal genetic component, but it does not explain all cases.

[MillCreek]

I'd like to see the same thing, but for your position. And I'm aware of the studies trotted out, I think we both know they were hyped into something they are not by the media.

Here are some to get you started.

[Influence of genetic factors on human sexual orientation. Review]
Rodríguez-Larralde A, Paradisi I.
Invest Clin. 2009 Sep;50(3):377-91. Review. Spanish.PMID: 19961060 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Review and theory of handedness, birth order, and homosexuality in men.
Blanchard R.
Laterality. 2008 Jan;13(1):51-70. Review.PMID: 18050001 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation.
Rahman Q.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005;29(7):1057-66. Epub 2005 Apr 25. Review.PMID: 16143171 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation.
Swaab DF.
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2004 Dec;19(6):301-12. Review.PMID: 15724806 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

The etiology of anomalous sexual preferences in men.
Quinsey VL.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Jun;989:105-17; discussion 144-53. Review.PMID: 12839890 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality.
Blanchard R.
Horm Behav. 2001 Sep;40(2):105-14. Review.PMID: 11534970 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ohsu.edu/pcmonline/docs/Homosexuality.pdf

[Jamisjockey]

This isn't a what causes gay thread.  this is a Don'taskdon'ttell and gays in the military thread, and how it pertains to the current adimistrations plans.

[zahc]

For DADT to be invoked, the person in question must have acted in some fashion, as the .mil does not yet have a mind-reading device to employ to detect thoughts & emotions.  IOW, they were caught doing something or talked about it, etc.  Even in my near-psychotic unit, somebody had to go out of their way to get that sort of scrutiny.

I have no experience with the military, but I always figured this MUST be the case. Otherwise, all the soldiers that don't want to return to Iraq would just say "I'm gay", which violates DADT, and they would be gone. Obviously they must not believe what the people say, which calls the DADT thing into question anyway.

[Perd Hapley]

What is it about the cartoon that makes it an ad hominem argument for you?

Ah, another cute little trick at the end of the sentence there.  Not interested in an honest discussion, are we? 

It is ad hominem (for all concerned), because it adds nothing to the debate, except to say, "You people are just like racists and sexists!" 

[41magsnub]

Speaking from my military experience I do not have a problem with doing away with DADT.  We had folks that I assume were gay that were good soldiers.  We also had one guy who was gay and predatory who got a BCD for his actions.  DADT would not have mattered a lick in that case, the guy was a freak.  I was present for the first official integration of female soldiers (cooks and medics) into a combat unit and other than an unplanned pregnancy it went fairly smoothly.  I did have to sit through a series of exceptionally tedious sexual harassment briefings before they showed up.

If a soldier, airman, marine, etc is acting in a way that impedes the mission then appropriate action should be taken.  I do not know the effects this would have being implemented in the middle of 2 wars but I imagine that would also take away from the mission.  I would like to see it done away with, but only once things calm down more.  Bringing it up now is a ploy IMO.

[Blakenzy]

Houston, we have a problem... but we don't want to deal with it.

DADT seems like something devised by the mind a five year old. The mere fact that the policy exists, indicates that awareness exists, that there are homosexuals in the armed forces, in enough numbers to merit the attention of the top leaders, in such a significant form that it required the formulation of a distinct and specific policy. It is a BS policy, an ostrich head in the sand type deal, but a real and tangible policy to a real and tangible issue all the same. They are accepting it, with out having to ACCEPT it.

So the debate isn't really about whether we should allow homosexuals in the armed forces(because we already have), or about what effects they will have on the force(because if they were to infect the rest of the men they already would have), but rather should we admit to ourselves the fact that they are already in there, and probably always will be.

What does the Pentagon think will happen if they accept that gays are among their ranks? That Marines will suddenly lose all composure, strip off their MARPAT and don the rainbow uniform, and start parading around the middle east straddling an Abrams main gun yelling "yoohoo!!, I just LOVE those bushy beards!"?

[Ned Hamford]

What does the Pentagon think will happen if they accept that gays are among their ranks? That Marines will suddenly lose all composure, strip off their MARPAT and don the rainbow uniform, and start parading around the middle east straddling an Abrams main gun yelling "yoohoo!!, I just LOVE those bushy beards!"?

Some of them 

My school recently hosted a debate on the DADT issue.  The Federalist Society, The Armed Forces Society, and The Gay and Lesbian Lawyers Association. 

My core view remains unchanged.  We are supposed to have world class leaders, leading our troops.  In the past we have had them overcome class differences, religious differences, regional differences, race, gender and even criminality.  I don't think it speaks well that so many view open homosexuality as being insurmountable.  I am of the mind that overcoming adversity builds the group, increases unit efficiency. 

If there are problems, and there are always problems, all the way up the chain we have folks entrusted with a staggering amount of discretion, able to shape the lives of the folks below them and the military culture as a whole. 

In the cases where that fails, we have the UCMJ. 

[wmenorr67]

And for those of us who have spent anymore than a minute in the military knows that the UCMJ is anything but "Uniform" in the way things are handled.  Ever heard the phrase "F--- Up, Move Up!"?

[roo_ster]

And for those of us who have spent anymore than a minute in the military knows that the UCMJ is anything but "Uniform" in the way things are handled.  Ever heard the phrase "F--- Up, Move Up!"
[/quote

FTR, I am honoring JJ's request as to topic.  Want hard data on my claims?  I have posted links in previous threads. 

As for the quoted bit above, I can vouch for its veracity.

[drewtam]

I've read, and now can't find where... that Britain and Australia have already changed to open door policy to homosexual troops, and that the change has had no noticeable effect on unit cohesion or performance.

At the end of the day soldiers (or Marines/Sailors/Airmen whatever) have a job to do and good ones are more concerned about following their own orders and doing their job.

[MicroBalrog]

Most of the Western world accepts openly homosexual troops into the armed forces, AFAIK. Certainly Israel does.

[Perd Hapley]

"Gays" is not a word.

Just sayin'. 

[MicroBalrog]

"Gays" is not a word.

Just sayin'. 

So, pray tell, what is the proper plural of the noun 'Gay'?

[taurusowner]

So the debate isn't really about whether we should allow homosexuals in the armed forces(because we already have), or about what effects they will have on the force(because if they were to infect the rest of the men they already would have), but rather should we admit to ourselves the fact that they are already in there, and probably always will be.

I don't agree.  Yes the policy itself admits that there are already gays in the military. So the main arguments against DADT, "they won't lets gays serve their country", is already nullified.  The crux of the issue is whether or not we want them to flaunt it.

As others have said, the military is a fighting force, not a petri dish for social experimentation.  The roadbumps and issues that would arise from allowing gays to be open about it would be very real.  If this were some college campus that had a DADT policy, which was reversed, that would indeed make a fine place to see what would happen, learn about the issues that would arise, fix the problems, and be seen as an example of happens.  But you pull that kind of reckless experimentation in the military, and real lives are at stake.  It would quite simply, handicap soldiers ability to complete missions more so than we already are.  As I alluded to in my previous post, the last thing we need as front line fighters, is for more red tape, books of procedures, and petty regulations to follow to make people feel welcome.  We're already not allowed to have things like Maxim magazine overseas on many FOBs out of fear it offends females.  We can't joke around and talk like we used to out of fear of an EO complaint for the same reason.  We don't need to add another protected class and the things that would offend them into the mix.  And of course there are issues like group showers.  And as far as sexual harassment goes, at least right now with the relatively small amount of women serving, there are fewer chances of sexual harassment, and when it does happen women have a lot less problem coming out about than a man would if he was harassed my another man.  Like I said, these are all issues that can be examined and understood and maybe even overcome...somewhere else.  The military is not the place to jumble things up and see what happens.

[Perd Hapley]

So, pray tell, what is the proper plural of the noun 'Gay'?

Gay men.  Gay is an adjective, so no need to pluralize. 

[MillCreek]

We're already not allowed to have things like Maxim magazine overseas on many FOBs out of fear it offends females.  We can't joke around and talk like we used to out of fear of an EO complaint for the same reason.  We don't need to add another protected class and the things that would offend them into the mix.

RD, I am not trying to squeeze your shoes here, but I gotta tell ya: these same issues apply in the civilian workforce.  Leaving around skin magazines or making gender-, ethnic- or orientation- based jokes in the wrong setting is going to get you counseled or fired after you return to civilian life.  So from that standpoint, I am hard-pressed not to think that the US military, whether point of the spear or in the tail, should not be held to the same standards as the rest of American society.

[MicroBalrog]

Gay men.  Gay is an adjective, so no need to pluralize. 

The Merriam-Webster dictionary also has a noun entry for "Gay".

[Perd Hapley]

As we know, dictionaries track usage.  They don't inform very well on proper usage.