Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Fail
Tweet
We’re losing an Arabic linguist in the Army because he’s gay. I wonder if President Obama still thinks its still a good idea to kick the can about Don’t Ask further down the road?
Let’s get this done.
75 Responses to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Fail”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Certainly the Repubs wouldn’t object to a President using an executive order or signing statement to clarify how he’s going to implement a law, now would they?
How long before News Reference somehow attributes “don’t ask don’t tell” to Republicans?
It’s amazing how willing people are to be stupid in large patriarchal institutions. Who the hell cares what the guy’s orientation is? He’s got critical skills!
Let’s head that off. Bill Clinton signed that. It was a mistake. It was a hundred times more egregious a mistake than the mistake that got him impeached.
I greatly appreciate the efforts of the groundswell of Republicans who have, since the signing of DADT, campaigned hard with both rhetorical and financial means, to get this policy stricken down. I know that with continued Republican support, opponents of DADT will one day see this nonsensical policy tossed into the dustbin of history. If Obama and the Democrats fail to end DADT, I am sure that a Republican president, with the help of a Republican Congress, will do everything he can to stop hobbling our Armed Forces on the basis of simple bigotry.
Obama needs to get off the pot on this one right now. This heinous stuff has gone on way too long.
This is required viewing for humans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk&feature=channel_page
It’s over. It’s been over for quite some time, but if this video goes viral or if Philip gets more attention, it’ll be over sooner than later.
I’ve believed for quite a while that Obama could get in front of this issue and reap massive political benefits (in addition to doing the right thing and having that good mark as part of his legacy). Time’s running out. Obama needs to give another super badass speech on why DADT is long overdue to be overturned.
How long before News Reference somehow attributes “don’t ask don’t tell” to Republicans?
ThuneSupporterSaysWhat?
hats off to Spider for a lovely bit of satire
Repeal DADT, don’t repeal DADT. I really don’t give a fuck either way. But until it is repealed, don’t be a jackass and go on national TV to having your coming out party. This really has to be the easiest homosexual conduct discharge that his NGB will be processing this year.
I really don’t give a fuck either way.
Way to take a stand, Standy.
Joe Sestak was great on Maddow’s show tonight talking about DADT
I really don’t give a fuck either way.
uh huh, sure you don’t.
How long before News Reference somehow attributes “don’t ask don’t tell” to Republicans?
It was created under a democratic president 15 years ago, but republicans are the main reason it has lasted this long.
If it is repealed (and I think it should), it should be done the same way racial integration came about — from the top down, with absolutely zero tolerance for those who can’t or won’t abide by it. The message has to be crystal clear: “this is how it is. Deal with it, learn to deal with it, or get out.”
This is one of those things that can’t be done gradually, by half-measures, a little at a time. It’s either whole hog or not at all.
I think that this, like gay marriage, is another place where I am more progressive than Obama.
BTW, this is SO worth a peek:
iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/05/gay-marriage-opponent-topless-photos-leaked.html
J.
If it is repealed (and I think it should), it should be done the same way racial integration came about — from the top down, with absolutely zero tolerance for those who can’t or won’t abide by it. The message has to be crystal clear: “this is how it is. Deal with it, learn to deal with it, or get out.”
It pains me to type this, but, yup.
Sooner the better, for the policy and the politics. This is a band-aid removal situation.
BTW, I strongly support getting rid of DADT. Gays have served in our military with distinction for a long time and should be able to do so in the open.
Gays have served in our military with distinction for a long time and should be able to do so in the open.
Word.
I’m sorry, does my ambivalence offend you?
No. Really. I don’t care either way. As others have pointed out, gays have been, and are currently, serving with honor and distinction. That won’t change whether they’re in or out of the closet. So if the policy doesn’t change, it won’t adversely effect the war-fighting ability of US forces (the opinions of special interest groups like the Palm Center notwithstanding). If the policy does change it means in 10 years Soldiers Magazine will have a cover story on the first openly gay general to take some command somewhere, and every couple years after they’ll feature some other homosexual who makes 2, 3, and 4 stars. Maybe they’ll also do a cover story on the first openly gay 1SG and CSM.
The worst thing about DADT eventually being repealed will be the command-directed homosexual awareness training we’ll have to attend.
Sometimes I bang my head against the wall and ask myself how the hell the Democratic Party got to be more socially conservative than Barry Goldwater.
Jay Caruso: “How long before News Reference somehow attributes “don’t ask don’t tell” to Republicans?”
You realize DADT was a step up from the old system. And even though it doesn’t go far enough, the Republicans still fought against it. Furthermore, they are fighting against repelling DADT now.
Hell, given a chance, their base would want them to go back to the old system.
SFC B: “No. Really. I don’t care either way. As others have pointed out, gays have been, and are currently, serving with honor and distinction. That won’t change whether they’re in or out of the closet.”
Are you really this fucking stupid? Gays are being kicked out right now. Important members needed to combat America’s number one enemy are being kicked out because they are gay.
Got it?
If DADT is repelled, that will change.
Strowbridge, get a fucking clue. You’re just being contrary here because people you don’t like are speaking, and not reading what they are saying.
SFC B was absolutely right:
“That (gays have been, and are currently, serving with honor and distinction) won’t change” if they are open or in the closet. The diifference is that, should DADT is repealed, they will be allowed to serve with honor and distinction while openly gay.
I know you love to get into fights around here, but at least try to find something remotely accurate to base it on.
Hey, maybe you can find a way to work in racism and “southern strategy” in the issue of gays in the military…
J.
That won’t change whether they’re in or out of the closet.
The quality of their lives would certainly change, and that would certainly make a difference. Or do you think it’s easy to continually have to lie about yourself in order to keep the job you love and serve your country?
Quaker, don’t be a Strowbridge and go looking for arguments.
Whether or not DADT is repealed, some gays in the service will go on to have careers of honor and distinction.
Some will be disgraces to the uniform.
And many will have utterly unremarkable careers.
JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
It would be far, far better (for them, and for us) if it was repealed.
One concern I have is that Obama might not be the best one to make this change. John McCain has the credentials to make such a policy stick, but unfortunately 1) he lost the election and B) he supports DADT.
So you play the hand you’re dealt. Maybe CNN can dig up that retired gay general they flew into the GOP YouTube debate to lead the effort. With CNN so in the tank for the Obama administration, it wouldn’t take much effort to get his name and contact info.
And maybe, at the same time, the general (OK, got it — Air Force General Keith Kerr — wizbangblog.com/content/2007/11/30/whoops-there-goes-another-democratic-plant.php) can get Obama to be a bit more progressive towards gay marriage…
J.
I’m sorry, does my ambivalence offend you?
No, it’s your disregard for the welfare of good soldiers or for the overall safety of the U.S., Standy.
JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
No, Jay, not just like everyone else. A straight soldier can show his buddies pictures of his wife and doesn’t have to lie about who he goes home to at night. A gay soldier can’t. Do you honestly believe that those kind of mental gymnastics and compartmentalization of one’s life is either (a) fair, or (b) good for the morale and readiness of the military?
Yes, Quaker, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. As in, “serving with honor and distinction.” It means that gays who do so have to work quite a bit harder to keep that part of their life compartmentalized, but some are doing it quite well — witness the Air Force general I cited.
They shouldn’t HAVE to do that, it’s unfair, it’s stupid, and it’s wrong, but they do — and some do it incredibly well. Which makes their success that much more remarkable, their dedication that much more admirable, and shows just how bad the policy is.
You’re simply not listening to what I’m saying, probably because you’re fixated on “Jay Tea must be wrong.”
There’s an old line among feminists: “in order to be seen as good as a man, a woman must do twice as well. Fortunately, this isn’t that hard.” The principle is the same: if you took two soldiers (say, two Air Force generals) who had pretty much identical careers and accomplishments, but one of them was gay, then that officer would most likely be a bit better — because he or she had done all that with the additional handicap of having to keep his or her sexuality concealed. (Cue the “Ginger Rogers” line — how she was a better dancer than Fred Astaire because she did everything he did, but backwards and in high heels.)
If you actually opened your eyes and read what I was saying, and stopped acting like a prejudiced dolt who feels the need to automatically gainsay whatever I say, you’d see that we’re on the same side on this one.
I repeat: don’t be such a Strowbridge.
(Could be worse; you could be acting like a complete Jaim or, horror of horrors, a Newsy wannabe.)
J.
CSS, people get kicked out of the service all the time for failing to meet one standard or another. Believe it or not, even after 1LT Choi is Mr. Choi, there will still be thousands of Infantry officers in the Army. His discharge will result in one CAARNG unit going without a platoon leader for a few battle assemblies. It really isn’t going to be the end of the world and this will degrade the Army’s warfighting ability not-one-bit.
Jay Tea: Yes, Quaker, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. As in, “serving with honor and distinction.” It means that gays who do so have to work quite a bit harder to keep that part of their life compartmentalized
You’re on the right side of the DADT issue, but I swear your ability to contradict yourself in a single sentence just continues to astound. It isn’t “just like everyone else” if they have to do something differently because they aren’t allowed to behave just like everyone else.
If you actually opened your eyes and read what I was saying, and stopped acting like a prejudiced dolt who feels the need to automatically gainsay whatever I say…
Says the guy exhibits the need to automatically gainsay whatever Obama does and to automatically defend whatever the Repubs have done.
SFC B: So if the policy doesn’t change, it won’t adversely effect the war-fighting ability of US forces
What a stupid statement. Did you not read the post that started this thread?
It certainly does adversely affect the military if qualified people who’s skills are needed are being kicked out becuase of an irrelevancy.
—
SFC B: CSS, people get kicked out of the service all the time for failing to meet one standard or another.
Oh, puh-lease. The “standard” Choi is failing to meet isn’t being overweight or physically weak or blind or anything that in any way hampers him from being able to carry out his duties. As far as I know, the service isn’t kicking out anyone for having red hair or a facial mole. His orientation is about as relevant. Explain to me how, exactly, it renders him “un fit”.
Believe it or not, even after 1LT Choi is Mr. Choi, there will still be thousands of Infantry officers in the Army. His discharge will result in one CAARNG unit going without a platoon leader for a few battle assemblies. It really isn’t going to be the end of the world and this will degrade the Army’s warfighting ability not-one-bit.
Whaa???? It doesn’t matter how many thousands of Infantry officers there may still be in the Army. If they don’t speak Arabic then they can’t really take over Choi’s job, now can they? It isn’t having one less soldier in battle assemblies that is an issue. It’s having one less person translating. So, yes, his removal DOES degrade the Army’s ability to carry out it’s missions.
*rolls eyes*
Jay Tea, I was responding initially to SFC B’s assertion that he doesn’t care, and that it doesn’t matter whether the policy changes or not. Of course there are gay and lesbian members of the military currently serving with distinction. Of course they have to be better than everyone else. That’s exactly why the policy should change, and exactly why it does matter, despite SFC B’s assertion to the contrary.
It really isn’t going to be the end of the world and this will degrade the Army’s warfighting ability not-one-bit.
Whew. For a minute there, I was worried that we could use able-bodied, well qualified Arabic translators in the Army. Turns out we don’t need any. Thank goodness we’re not at war in any Arabic speaking countries.
I propose here a game of DADT Chess.
Remove your queen from the board.
If your pawn makes it to the other side, it becomes a queen.
Remove that queen from the board.
Quaker, my apologies. The numbers of gays serving currently has to be pretty low, meaning that those being directly affected is very, very few, but it is still a bad policy and needs to go.
Long-term, though, it will open up the service for more people, and that’s always a good thing.
J.
I’ve been hearing the “must allow gays to openly serve” line for most of my military career. So far the lack of openly gay servicemen and women hasn’t exactly resulted in a less effective fighting force. Personally, I think they best reason for the military to allow homosexuals to openly serve would be that it would get some folks to shut the fuck up about the subject. At least until some transgendered person isn’t allowed to join. However “getting critics to shut up” isn’t exactly a compelling reason to allow it.
Because AR 600-20 says it does. It’s not 1LT Choi’s job to get the policy changed. That’s in the hands of the elected folks. If and when the policy gets changed maybe he can appeal his discharge and be allowed to continue serving.
He’s a lieutenant in an infantry unit. He’s likely a platoon leader or some staff officer. You can swing a dead cat and hit a junior officer who can fill his role. He speaks Arabic the same as several thousand other Iraq veterans who picked up the language while deployed. Contrary to the press releases, he’s not actually an Arabic linguist.
He’s not a linguist or a translator.
No. It doesn’t.
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, get a fucking clue. You’re just being contrary here because people you don’t like are speaking, and not reading what they are saying.”
I did read what he wrote. And he’s fucking wrong.
“The numbers of gays serving currently has to be pretty low…”
How the fuck do you know that?
SFC B: “CSS, people get kicked out of the service all the time for failing to meet one standard or another.”
So fucking what? How does that change the fact that removing DADT will PREVENT SOME PEOPLE FROM BEING KICKED OUT?
This is undeniable fact, you fucking retard.
THERE WILL BE AN EFFECT OF REPELLING DADT.
“Explain to me how, exactly, it renders him ‘un fit’.”
“Because AR 600-20 says it does.”
Circular Logic is a fallacy, not a winning argument.
Changing any number of regulations will prevent people from being kicked out. What makes it so super important that this regulation is changed? I see the argument that we’re losing people with key skills because of it. However since there are no skill sets which are exclusive to homosexuals, the loss of openly gay servicemembers doesn’t actually result in a decrease in effectivness for the Big Military because there are always other people with the same skills who can fill the void while not violating the regulation. So, yeah, his unit will need to deal with being down a junior officer until a replacement is ready. Oh well, they’ll soldier on. 1LT Choi is not irreplacable.
Is it actually circular logic to cite the regulation which establishes why the Army considers homosexuality to render someone unfit for service when someone asks me why someone is unfit for service? As far as the Army is concerned people who are openly homosexual are a risk to good order and discipline. Are they? Maybe. Probably not. But the Army has no compelling reason to change their policy of their own volition. The policy, as it is now, has resulted in the most effective fighting force ever. It is very unlikely that the Armed Services will change their rules without being ordered to. That is their perogitive. If you don’t like that, then get to lobbying your elected folks, you know, the people who have the power to require the military to change their rules. Last time I checked President Obama has a nearly filibuster and veto-proof majority. He can do whatever the damn hell he pleases.
Of course, maybe he’s just saving the gays in the military debate for when the Chrysler and GM bailouts/bankruptcies go to hell.
Me: “(Removing) DADT will PREVENT SOME PEOPLE FROM BEING KICKED OUT?”
SFC B: “Changing any number of regulations will prevent people from being kicked out. What makes it so super important that this regulation is changed?”
Because there is nothing about being gay that makes you unfit to serve.
Me: “Circular Logic is a fallacy, not a winning argument.”
“Is it actually circular logic to cite the regulation which establishes why the Army considers homosexuality to render someone unfit for service when someone asks me why someone is unfit for service?”
Yes. In fact, it is a textbook example.
Unless you can come up with an independent reason, it is circular logic.
“The policy, as it is now, has resulted in the most effective fighting force ever.”
How do you know that? The United States and Canada have competitions against each other, and Canada wins, a lot. Not always, but more than we should, considering how small our army is.
“Last time I checked President Obama has a nearly filibuster and veto-proof majority. He can do whatever the damn hell he pleases.”
Have you been living in a cave for the past 40 years? The Democrats are not a well organized group.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The US military disagrees and has the lawful authority to enforce their rules and regulations on people in the military. And as I said, the military has no reason to change their policy given the results they have gotten.
So, because select groups of US and Canadian troops compete against one-another, that means that the Canadian military is the equal of the US military? Sorry man, the fact that Canada’s best can go toe-to-toe with America’s best doesn’t mean that the entirety of their armed forces are equal. The US’s ability to project force is similar to the British, Roman, and Mongol empires in their heydays. There simply isn’t an equal currently, and won’t be until the US degrades to the point that someone else catches up.
Like moving the goal posts huh?
Me: “Because there is nothing about being gay that makes you unfit to serve.”
SFC B: “That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The US military disagrees and has the lawful authority to enforce their rules and regulations on people in the military.”
Appeal to authority. Another logical fallacy.
SFC B: “The US’s ability to project force is similar to the British, Roman, and Mongol empires in their heydays. There simply isn’t an equal currently, and won’t be until the US degrades to the point that someone else catches up.”
So because you have the biggest army, there’s no reason to try and make sure you improve yourself?
Wow. You are a fucking retard. Thank god you are just so fucking loser on the internet and not someone with any real power.
Hell, if you were a real patriot, you would stop voting completely.
Me: “Unless you can come up with an independent reason, it is circular logic.”
SFC B: “Like moving the goal posts huh?”
I’m not moving the goalposts, but you avoiding answering a simple fucking question.
What makes a gay person unfit to serve? Try answering that question without resorting to logical fallacies, if you can.
However since there are no skill sets which are exclusive to homosexuals, the loss of openly gay servicemembers doesn’t actually result in a decrease in effectivness for the Big Military because there are always other people with the same skills who can fill the void while not violating the regulation.
This assumes that the pool for other servicemembers is limitless. It is a deeply stupid assumption. SFC B’s lack of humanity is also unfortunate.
Ed: “This assumes that the pool for other servicemembers is limitless. It is a deeply stupid assumption.”
Also, when it comes to the military, being the biggest is not good enough.
Your enemies can win simply by making you spend yourself into poverty.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It’s actually the second largest active military, 7th largest overall, and like 50th when you factor in population size.
That’s what schools like The War College and NCOES, and training are for.
The guy who spent like two months lying about how I never said something he claimed I said should probably be careful tossing about terms like “retard”.
“Hi Pot, this is Kettle. You’re black!” Do you actually read what you write CSS? Seriously dude, you’re making yourself sound like an ass here.
I thought it was no longer the vogue thing to make judgments about people’s patriotism. Or maybe that doesn’t extend into Canada. I always figured Canadian music was like 5 years behind the US. Maybe their political discussion is the same way.
I answered your question. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered. But I’ll make it simple for you. You want to know what makes openly gay people unfit for the service? President Obama makes openly homosexual people unfit to serve. It’s in his power as commander-in-chief to allow openly gay people to serve and he has chosen, thus far, to not exercise the power to allow it. He could even choose to spend some of his massive political capital to get the laws changed, and yet he doesn’t. If you want to blame someone for gays not being allowed to be out-of-the-closet and in the military, blame him. I think you can write him about it @ The_Prez@whitehouse.gov. Let your voice be heard CSS. While your inner-fascist might want to restrict my right to vote, I don’t give a rats ass if you try and petition the government for redress.
Well Ed, given that the military currently represents less than 1% of the US population, and draws from a pool of about 70,000,000 people, the number of people isn’t limitless, but for the purposes of being able to replace the 600-1,200 people year discharged for homosexual conduct I don’t think it’s stupid to assume that those losses can be replaced in any given year.
What makes you assume I am lacking in “humanity”? I empathize with folks who are going to be discharged for deciding to be who they are. It sucks for them. They’re likely losing their job, benefits, and being told they are unwanted by an organization which was probably very important to them. That sucks, and I can’t imagine having to go through something like that. However, I, and every other leader, have a responsibility to every person in uniform to enforce the standards. Until those standards are changed by the appropriate authority the role of “humanity” in the decision is minimal.
Me: “Appeal to authority. Another logical fallacy.”
SFC B: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
I do know what it means, and I’m using the term correctly, so if you don’t want me to use it again, don’t use logical fallacies.
“That’s what schools like The War College and NCOES, and training are for.”
Not throwing out qualified people just because they are gay is also a good idea if you want to make sure you maximize the potential of your military. Something you refuse to admit.
“The guy who spent like two months lying about how I never said something he claimed I said should probably be careful tossing about terms like ‘retard’.”
Oh no. You said something homophobic, not racist. I got the wrong bigotry.
“I thought…”
Clearly you are incapable of this.
“But I’ll make it simple for you. You want to know what makes openly gay people unfit for the service? President Obama makes openly homosexual people unfit to serve. It’s in his power as commander-in-chief to allow openly gay people to serve and he has chosen, thus far, to not exercise the power to allow it.”
Congress would have to appeal DADT, idiot.
And you still haven’t answered the question without resorting to a logical fallacy.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT GAY PEOPLE THAT MAKES THEM UNFIT FOR SERVICE? WHY IS THIS RULE IN EFFECT? WHAT IS THE LOGIC BEHIND IT?
Or is it just you and you fellow homophobic assholes trying to force their prejudices against others?
“While your inner-fascist might want to restrict my right to vote…”
Another idiot that thinks ‘should’ means the same as ‘forced.’
“Well Ed, given that the military currently represents less than 1% of the US population, and draws from a pool of about 70,000,000 people, the number of people isn’t limitless, but for the purposes of being able to replace the 600-1,200 people year discharged for homosexual conduct I don’t think it’s stupid to assume that those losses can be replaced in any given year.”
And how many people is the military recruiting each year? It sure the fuck isn’t 70 million.
SFC B: So far the lack of openly gay servicemen and women hasn’t exactly resulted in a less effective fighting force.
It hasn’t? How has it not?
We’ve lost translators that we need, to pick just one example. In that way it’s made for a less effective force.
Those who are forced to remain closeted have an additional stress. Any particular individual may be able to handle it well, but to others it’s more significant and prevents them from being as effective a service man/woman as they could otherwise be.
It’s tied up resources (personnel and money) in conducting investigations, which could otherwise be spent on more critical needs.
SDM: “Explain to me how, exactly, it renders him “un fit”.”
SFC B: Because AR 600-20 says it does.
Oh, please. That’s dodging the question we’re actually debating. We’re not talking about where DADT says a gay person can serve. I asked what, exactly, about being gay makes them incapable of carrying out their duties?
If someone’s job requires them to be able to fly a jet and they are able to do that then they are not rendered incapable of doing that job just because someone says so. If they were to lose an eye or injure a limb and were no longer able to safely and effectively operate the controls THEN they would be unfit. They would no longer be able to do the job. But if they were to declare themselves gay their ability to operate the aircraft hasn’t been diminished at all.
SFC B: The policy, as it is now, has resulted in the most effective fighting force ever.
Your logic continues to be twisted. You cannot legitimately claim that the fighting force we have now, as effective as it may be, is effective AS A RESULT OF this policy.
And an argument can certainly be made that by spending resources expelling otherwise exemplary and skilled personnel the military is LESS effective that it could otherwise be. IT would have more money and more personnel.
I answered your question. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered.
No, you didn’t answer. What you keep saying is, essentially, gays are unfit to serve because the military says they are. But the question asked is, what about being gay makes them unfit. If the rule was “blind people are unfit to serve” and you were asked what makes them unfit you could easily point to a number of required tasks that they just couldn’t do effectively. So, what is it that gay people are not able to do effectively? What is it the actually makes them unfit other than the circular reasoning that says “they are because we say they are”?
but for the purposes of being able to replace the 600-1,200 people year discharged for homosexual conduct I don’t think it’s stupid to assume that those losses can be replaced in any given year.
And the military has never had any problems meeting its recruitment goals. Right?
I don’t think it’s stupid to assume that those losses can be replaced in any given year.
And I think it’s stupid not to aim for the best and most effective armed forces possible. Especially during multiple wars.
Also, discriminating against people who prefer the company of the same sex is really douchey.
Actually, according to as least some folks who think about things like this, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, could actually have the military stop doing the investigations necessary for someone to be discharged for a DADT violation. It doesn’t take DADT off the books since that is a legislative issue, but it renders it harder to enforce. So the President does have the option to stop losing openly gay servicemembers.
Because homosexual conduct is considered a risk to good order and discipline.
Because the military wants to reduce risks to good order and discipline.
Because good order and discipline is important in a unit. Do you like sounding like a 4 year old?
For all services and components about 250,000. So it’s not like there is a critical need to expand that pool of 70,000,000 by however many allowing openly homosexual people would expand it.
Reading comprehension really isn’t your strong suit is it CSS? It’s comments like that that make me doubt you have any idea what logical fallacies are. You sound like some grade-schooler who learned a new word and just wants to use it whenever possible.
But the translators lost (and many of them weren’t actually translators. The origin of that story was an incident years ago where some folks were kicked out of the language school. They hadn’t actually completed the training) have since been replaced through programs like the Translator Aide program which targetted native Middle Eastern language speakers, or allowing free enrollment in things like civilian language training or Rosetta Stone for servicemembers. Programs like that allow for the military to have people who can speak the language there with their boots on the ground. So, even if the military were to lose hundreds of Arabic speakers through DADT (they haven’t), it’s replaced by thousands of people taking the classes on their own initiative or recruiting targeting people with the desired language skills.
I wouldn’t envy anyone who has to keep such a personal thing secret out of fear of losing their career. And here’s my dirty-little-secret Sean: I’d love to see DADT repealed. Not only for my “shut the critics up”, but because it really would be the right thing to do. However the policy is what it is and, as I’ve stated, the military has no incentive to change the policy on their own. The Big Military isn’t hurting for people, and the “good order and discipline” risk is real-enough to keep the military from changing its policy. So why should the military assume the risks from changing the DADT policy?
Investigations for DADT require negligible amounts of man hours and money. It’s basically a commander interviewing people and taking sworn statements then making a recommendation through the chain of command. “Wasting Resources on investigations” is really weaksauce for a reason to oppose DADT.
Because the military considers homosexual conduct to be incompatible with military service and a threat to good order and discipline.
Yeah, I was thinking about that last night and realized it was poorly thought-out and stated right after I hit submit. Would have been more accurate to say something along the lines of “most effective force in the world with the current policy and no compelling, practical reason to change.”
Recruiting failed to meet its mission like once in the past decade. Which didn’t affect end strength because retention was at like 100%. Currently recruiting is reducing its mission and closing even more categories of people who are allowed to enlist and retention is reducing bonuses because the military is in danger of going over its legally authorized size.
Yup. And since the worst, lasting effect of this discrimination is that people think it is a douchey thing to do, not a real compelling reason to change it.
However, I, and every other leader, have a responsibility to every person in uniform to enforce the standards. Until those standards are changed by the appropriate authority the role of “humanity” in the decision is minimal.
We have enlisted gangbangers and general psychotics into the armed forces to meet recruitment goals. There are inner-city gang tags on the walls of Baghdad. Holding up DADT as an attempt to enforce standards is a fucking joke.
CSS, isn’t this a strawman?
Back on topic, Spiderj, yes, there have been gang members and psychotics who have joined. And when they get found out they face any number of adverse actions, including separation from the service under any number of provisions. So you’re saying that the military should treat gays the same way they treat psychotics and gang members? How progressive.
SpiderJ: “We have enlisted gangbangers and general psychotics into the armed forces to meet recruitment goals.”
SFC B: “CSS, isn’t this a strawman?”
No.
Would you like me to link a website on logical fallacies? I have several bookmarked.
SFC B: “So the President does have the option to stop losing openly gay servicemembers.”
So you would want the president to step in and say, ‘Stop enforcing the rules.’ Holy fuck, that’s a bad idea.
Jesus fucking Christ, that’s a bad idea compared to the worst shit J.G.Thayer, Dennis the Bigot, and Jay Caruso have spouted.
You have simply run out of things to say, but you keep posting.
Me: “WHAT IS IT ABOUT GAY PEOPLE THAT MAKES THEM UNFIT FOR SERVICE?”
SFC B: “Because homosexual conduct is considered a risk to good order and discipline.”
PROVE IT!
Stop repeating what the military says as if it was gospel truth, and use some critical reasoning skills.
“Do you like sounding like a 4 year old?”
Do you like acting like a 4-year old?
“It’s comments like that that make me doubt you have any idea what logical fallacies are. You sound like some grade-schooler who learned a new word and just wants to use it whenever possible.”
If that’s true, you will be able to prove it. You will be able to show where I’ve misused the term. Of course you won’t. I doubt you will even try.
“Investigations for DADT require negligible amounts of man hours and money.”
But it does require money and man hours. So does training of the person kicked out, and their replacement.
These are inefficiencies that hurt the military. Unless you can show DADT is worth this, and you haven’t even attempted to do so, it is evidence DADT should be repelled.
SFC B: “So you’re saying that the military should treat gays the same way they treat psychotics and gang members?”
On a side note, this is a strawman.
Can I ask a question: What is the opposite of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”?
In other words, are all of you suggesting that DADT simply be done away with, and that there be no policy with regards to gay members of the Military?
What about participating in Gay Pride Parades in uniform?
What about fraternization?
What about unwanted advances?
What about (homo) sexual harassment?
No mention of gays at all?
Were the Army leadership’s fears about the negative effects of homosexuality in the Services groundless? [I am not saying they were; I am asking]
Tradition? What , me worry?
SFC B: WHAT IS IT ABOUT GAY PEOPLE THAT MAKES THEM UNFIT FOR SERVICE?
Because homosexual conduct is considered a risk to good order and discipline.
In what way. What, exactly, in their conduct creates a risk? Are gay people more likely to disobey orders? Do they display a greater tendency to act inappropriately toward others in the service?
You keep answering this question with circular arguments and vaugness. “They are unfit because we’ve defined gay as being unfit.” They’re a risk because we consider them a risk.”
I’ve seen people try to make this “They are a risk to unit cohesion” argument before and when actually examined it ALWAYS has come down to “They make me uncomfortable so clearly THEY are the ones who are the problem.” If only we didn’t have these negroes around nobody would be getting lynched.
WHAT IS THE LOGIC BEHIND IT?
Because good order and discipline is important in a unit.
Of course. So if there is poor order in the unit do we blame it on the person getting beat up, or the bully?
You are a soldier. You are to follow orders. You are to put the unit above yourself. You are to work well with and support your fellows.
And if some soldier is unable to do that because they have a problem with someone else in the unit, because they have to work with someone who is black or gay or Jewish or female or what-have-you then who is the soldier who should be removed? Th one who is doing their job well or the one who is unable to put aside their personal issue, who is unable to work with all the other members of their unit?
The Big Military isn’t hurting for people, and the “good order and discipline” risk is real
They they can afford to lose those who would get drummed out because they can’t bring themselves to work along side gay people.
ALL of the arguments against gays openly serving were heard before the services were integrated. “Allowing blacks to serve with whites will be bad for unit cohesion, and etc. and blah and blah…” And the military survived and it wasn’t really a hard transition to make.
“Wasting Resources on investigations” is really weaksauce for a reason to oppose DADT.
Bullshit. “In 2005 the U.S. Government’s General Accountability Office released a study that estimated the military’s policy of discharging open gay and lesbian service members had cost more than $190 million in the previous ten years. But a later analysis by a Blue Ribbon panel formed under the auspices of the Center determined the GAO had underestimated several costs associated with the policy. The panel’s conclusion indicated the cost of DADT was more than twice the GAO estimate.”
So getting near $400,000,000, and if that rate has continued for the past years, well over half a billion so far.
I asked what, exactly, about being gay makes them incapable of carrying out their duties?
Because the military considers homosexual conduct to be incompatible with military service and a threat to good order and discipline.
And you still spin in circles trying to come up with any actual supportive reason. Can you just not get past “They are unfit because we say they are”? Apparently.
Recruiting failed to meet its mission like once in the past decade. Which didn’t affect end strength because retention was at like 100%.
Once you drop the recruiting standards and institute stop loss, yeah, make an argument that the military continues to be fully staffed. BUt is it really the best possible military when you have to start filling positions with with less educated ex-cons and people who really would rather not be there but aren’t allowed to leave than with (horrors!) gay people who want to be there?
SFC B: So you’re saying that the military should treat gays the same way they treat psychotics and gang members? How progressive.
That is so not what was said.
—
Frank DiSalle: What about participating in Gay Pride Parades in uniform?
What about fraternization?
What about unwanted advances?
What about (homo) sexual harassment?
No mention of gays at all?
Each and every one of those are already covered in military regs without any mention specifically of gays. When/where the uniform can be worn. Procedures for reporting and the consequences for anyone found guilty of unwanted advances and/or harassment. There is no need at all to have to specify sexual orientation in any regulation regarding conduct.
When a rule says “You shall not make unwanted advances” it doesn’t need to specify “we meant men shall not advance on women and now that a woman has made an advancement on a man, well, we’ll need a whole new rule to cover that situation”.
I’m starting to see the appeal of the “Chickenhawk” argument.
SFC B is, by his/her own representation, an active-duty member of the armed services. (Probably Army.) He (I’m going to presume it’s a he) is presenting real, valid, current opinion based on experiences and knowledge and events that most of us have absolutely no way of fully grasping.
And his opinion seems to be that he has no problem with the DADT regulation, but no real objections if it were to go away. It’s simply not a very high priority for him.
So, naturally, for passing along the current military justification for the policy, and not objecting to it, he’s to be excoriated and condemned and denounced.
As I’ve said before, I support the repeal of DADT. But I am willing to listen to those who will have to live with the consequences of that decision, and give some weight and credence and consideration to their opinions and concerns. After all, it doesn’t affect me in the least one way or another.
I guess that makes me a heretic and hatemonger, too…
And SFC B: you’ll have to give up your lifelong dream of ever being Miss California.
J.
What, exactly, in their conduct creates a risk? Are gay people more likely to disobey orders? Do they display a greater tendency to act inappropriately toward others in the service?….
And if some soldier is unable to do that because they have a problem with someone else in the unit, because they have to work with someone who is black or gay or Jewish or female or what-have-you then who is the soldier who should be removed? The one who is doing their job well or the one who is unable to put aside their personal issue, who is unable to work with all the other members of their unit?
I am sincerely interested in SFC B’s answer to this point. Because it seems to me the entire argument the military has in keeping DADT comes down to the behavior of soldiers who can’t handle the idea of someone in their barracks being gay. Why is the problem, then, with the gay soldier and not with the bigot?
NEWS ALERT: The world is not flat and societies are moving forward:
http://en.wikinews.
org/wiki/Canadian_military_hosts_first_gay_military_wedding
Jay Tea: So, naturally, for passing along the current military justification for the policy, and not objecting to it, he’s to be excoriated and condemned and denounced.
No, his replies are being picked apart because he is not providing a single answer that isn’t a thoughtless echo of unsupported talking points. If it’s the military justification that he’s passing along then he’s showing that policy to be poorly supported.
When asked, repeatedly, what inherent quality of gay people makes them unfit to serve the only answer given is the self-justifying circular argument that “they are because policy says they are.”
Most all of the arguments put forth have this same circularity to them. Based on any support he’s put forth, we’re to believe it’s not a drain on resources because he says it isn’t. (It’s been shown to have cost upwards of half a billion dollars so far.)
We’re to believe the people lost have been no loss to the military because he says they haven’t been. (The military has been facing quota shortfalls to the extent that they’ve needed to significantly lower standards and resort to extensive stop loss.)
And so on.
I get that it is current policy and has been for some time. I would agree that anyone currently working in the military knows that it is policy and, further, knows that it is a policy that is being enforced. Nobody in the military, especially anyone who signed up after DADT was enacted, has any excuse for not expecting to be kicked out if they go on TV and announce that they are gay.
BUT, nobody is discussing what the policy is. We’re discussing whether it is a good policy and thus far the “current military justification for” it doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
Shorter SFC B:
“People say that the military code of conduct should be changed to allow homosexuals to serve openly. However, the military code of conduct forbids this. Therefore, homosexuals should not be allowed to openly serve.”
We have enlisted gangbangers and general psychotics into the armed forces to meet recruitment goals.
Unfortuately, no, it’s not.
What about participating in Gay Pride Parades in uniform?
What about fraternization?
What about unwanted advances?
What about (homo) sexual harassment?
No mention of gays at all?
I’m pretty damn sure the military has methods of handling those issues in a universal context.
Were the Army leadership’s fears about the negative effects of homosexuality in the Services groundless?
Yes.
Frank DiSalle: “Can I ask a question: What is the opposite of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”?
In other words, are all of you suggesting that DADT simply be done away with, and that there be no policy with regards to gay members of the Military?”
Treat them like they were straight. For instance…
“What about participating in Gay Pride Parades in uniform?”
I don’t think you are allowed to be in uniform for political rallies, but this should be fine.
“What about fraternization?”
Define fraternization? I think you mean in a sexual way, in which case, who gives a fuck? If you uniform gets you some ass, good for you.
However, fraternization has a military definition, which would be frowned upon.
“What about unwanted advances?”
It’s against the rules if you are straight, so it will still be against the rules if you are gay.
“What about (homo) sexual harassment?”
Again, it’s against the rules if you are straight, so it will still be against the rules if you are gay.
Wow. Simple answers to simple questions.
J.G.Thayer: “So, naturally, for passing along the current military justification for the policy, and not objecting to it, he’s to be excoriated and condemned and denounced.”
So you think his deluge of logical fallacies is something that we should commend?
Nope, I can’t even pretend to be surprised.
Look at the substance of what he has said. Defend the substance of what he said, and don’t resort to Appeal to Authority Fallacy, which is what it is called when you say, ‘He’s in the military, therefore his opinion is fact.’
canadian bacon: “NEWS ALERT: The world is not flat and societies are moving forward:
en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canadian_military_hosts_first_gay_military_wedding”
Canada rocks.
CSS addressing JT: Look at the substance of what he has said. Defend the substance of what he said,
Not holding my breath.
So, I ask the questions, and then everyone is just chock full of information?
Well, I don’t work at the White House or at the DoD…
And it would help if someone addressed the issues raised from a military perspective rather than excoriating the person who raises them…
Why do liberals “run into the future”, assume everyone who objects to overthrowing tradition believes the “world is flat”, and then stand around shouting “Well? Come along, then!”
The world is not the Liberals’ Social Engineering Lab…
Frank DiSalle: “So, I ask the questions, and then everyone is just chock full of information?”
Wait? You are complaining that we had answers to your questions? Do you want us just tell you to ‘Fuck off!’ next time? We are willing to do that. … At least I am willing to do that.
“Well, I don’t work at the White House or at the DoD…
And it would help if someone addressed the issues raised from a military perspective rather than excoriating the person who raises them…”
We did, Frank. We addressed the issues, while SFC B merely parroted the military code.
“Why do liberals ‘run into the future’, assume everyone who objects to overthrowing tradition believes the ‘world is flat’, and then stand around shouting ‘Well? Come along, then!’”
Two points…
1.) Huh? Seriously. You might want to try a re-writing that so people who can’t hear your inner voice will understand you.
2.) If you can’t justify tradition, then it is probably a good time to change it. We are not ‘running into the future’. We are looking at a rule and saying, ‘This doesn’t make sense.’
“The world is not the Liberals’ Social Engineering Lab…”
I hate to break it to you, but there’s no experimenting necessary here. Gay serve opening in the military in many countries, including Canada, which it 90% the same as the United States when it comes to social norms.
If it works in Canada without issue, then it will work in the United States. We have the same traditions in law, religion, class structure, etc.
One tradition that never changes : The arrogance of CSS.
I hate to break it to you, but:
Canada is NOT the United States.
I am not complaining that you had answers. I merely pointed out that you had no questions OR answers, until I raised them (it could have been anybody, but it was nobody).
Even in Canada, “engineering” and “experimenting” are two different words.
Don’t bother trying to “explain” things to me, when you don’t know what I’m talking about, and you don’t seem wholly sure of what you are talking about.
Frank DiSalle: And it would help if someone addressed the issues raised from a military perspective rather than excoriating the person who raises them…
What issues? I would love to address the issue if anyone could actually explain just what it was. And so far SFC B, his defender Jay Tea and now you have not yet done so. We’ve asked, repeatedly and with numerous clarifications, for SFC B to provide something other than “gays are unfit because policy says they are”, for some actual issue that is caused by gays serving openly.
In that situation, the person deserves to be excoriated.
One tradition that never changes : The arrogance of CSS.
Can’t disagree with you there. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t right at times. And here he is right.
I am not complaining that you had answers. I merely pointed out that you had no questions OR answers, until I raised them
WTF??!!
No questions?
And those are just from MY posts, not to mention CSS and some others.
God!
So you’re saying that the military should treat gays the same way they treat psychotics and gang members? How progressive.
I swear, it’s like you have a dyslexic Babelfish in your ear.
If you’re going to assert that DADT is a means of enforcing a high standard of recruits in the military, you need to explain to me how the enlistment of gangbangers doesn’t breach the same quality control boundaries. Because I sure as hell would prefer to have a law-abiding homosexual wearing that uniform than a murderous heterosexual thug.
Well, I don’t work at the White House or at the DoD…
And it would help if someone addressed the issues raised from a military perspective rather than excoriating the person who raises them…
I DID. I pointed out that the military already has means of dealing with the issues you addressed outside of a homosexual context. I know the military code of conduct was different back when you fought for the Confederacy, but try to keep up.
Canada is NOT the United States.
So you’re saying that gays can’t serve openly in the U.S. like they can in Canada because…it’s too warm in the U.S. to openly serve? What? Why the hell should the country matter? I’m pretty sure gay people are pretty similar in both Canada and the U.S.
I am not complaining that you had answers. I merely pointed out that you had no questions OR answers, until I raised them (it could have been anybody, but it was nobody).
Why should I ask questions that I already know the answers to? Asking questions for the sake of asking them, which you seem to be a fan of, just wastes everyone’s time.
Why do liberals “run into the future”, assume everyone who objects to overthrowing tradition believes the “world is flat”, and then stand around shouting “Well? Come along, then!”
At which point we leave you to fend for yourself, alone in the woods until you get eaten by wolves.
Also, does this mean you’re “running into the past”? Where men were men, blacks were 3/5 of men, and women were kitchen appliances.
The world is not the Liberals’ Social Engineering Lab…
1. Who are “The Liberals”? Is this some sort of secret organization bent on establishing a one world government and stealing your dentures at night? If so, what’s their website?
2. How is stopping legally mandated discrimination that benefits no one “social engineering”.
Frank DiSalle: “One tradition that never changes : The arrogance of CSS.”
That arrogance comes honestly.
“I hate to break it to you, but:
Canada is NOT the United States.”
What the fuck does that mean? What’s the differences between Canada and the United States when it comes to gays serving in the military?
Is Canada more tolerant than the United States?
“I am not complaining that you had answers. I merely pointed out that you had no questions OR answers, until I raised them (it could have been anybody, but it was nobody).”
Are you fucking kidding me? We had nothing but questions for SFC B. He had no answers, outside of parroting military rules.
“Even in Canada, ‘engineering’ and ‘experimenting’ are two different words.”
I assumed you were using the talking point, ‘You can have a social experiment during a time of war!’
The alternative is much, much dumber.
“Don’t bother trying to ‘explain’ things to me, when you don’t know what I’m talking about, and you don’t seem wholly sure of what you are talking about.”
And you complain about my arrogance.
Guess what, Frank?
Scoreboard.
You side is losing, badly. And as people like you die off, your bigotry and superstitions are dying with them. In a decade gay marriage will be legal in more places in the United States than it is illegal.
And there’s not a goddamn thing you can do about it.
CSS addressing JT: Look at the substance of what he has said. Defend the substance of what he said,
SDM in reply: Not holding my breath.
Still breathing.
Fucking hell, it’s irritating trying to debate the right-wing trolls on this site.
The most you can get out of it is banging your head against the wall for a few days, and then watching them run away when you shoot down their bullshit.
Fucking cowards.
and then watching them run away when you shoot down their bullshit.
I’ll count those as “wins”. It’d be nice to get a “OK, I concede your point” but nobody ever does that here.