A More Humane "don't Ask Don't Tell"?

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='29 March 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1269919885' post='2083110']
you realize how far you can take your reasoning?

there are good reasons for those examples. there is about as much reason to keep gays out of the military, as say black people. that is, none unless you are an idiot.

[/quote]
This is a great debate tactic. Call your opponents idiots repeatedly.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='29 March 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1269925768' post='2083128']
This is a great debate tactic. Call your opponents idiots repeatedly.
[/quote]

works well enough for me.

there is no "morality" argument to keep gays out of the military that wouldnt also keep 95%(made up statistic representing a lot) of the straight men and women, going by the whole "fornication/lust/etc is a sin"

so it comes down to that unit cohesion thing, which seems a more personal than real thing, most soldiers have no problems with it whatsoever.

[Slappo]

What it comes down to is serving in the military isn't a right.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Slappo' date='29 March 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1269927970' post='2083135']
What it comes down to is serving in the military isn't a right.
[/quote]

then it comes down to discrimination. not all that is legal is good.

i could choose not to let any minorities set foot on my property/business, if that was legal, that doesnt stop it from being a jerk move, and an immoral basis for denying people. there is no logical reason to bar gays from the military, not any that cant be ripped apart. the only thing left is just pure preference and "not letting those damned gays near me"

[sidemunch88]

You guys don't even know.

[track2004]

I'm thinking about enlisting now that DADT is on it's way out. I have wanted to enlist in the past but hesitated because I knew I could get dishonorably discharged and that never looks good on the resume.

[OraProMe]

I think a homosexual should be able to join the army if he wants to and like a lot of posters here, including some devout catholics, can't see any logical reason to bar them. However, personally, I have no problem with the government not wanting to send me to their stupid war in Iraq.

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='pvtmiller' date='30 March 2010 - 03:55 AM' timestamp='1269935758' post='2083159']
You guys don't even know.
[/quote]


I would be really interested in your thoughts on this.


[quote name='OraProMe' date='30 March 2010 - 08:10 AM' timestamp='1269951023' post='2083193']
I think a homosexual should be able to join the army if he wants to and like a lot of posters here, including some devout catholics, can't see any logical reason to bar them. However, personally, I have no problem with the government not wanting to send me to their stupid war in Iraq.
[/quote]

DADT doesn't say a homosexual can't join the military. As for everyone who doesn't think homosexuals in the military would be a problem i wonder how many of them have ever been in the military?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='30 March 2010 - 06:59 AM' timestamp='1269957570' post='2083285']
DADT doesn't say a homosexual can't join the military. As for everyone who doesn't think homosexuals in the military would be a problem i wonder how many of them have ever been in the military?
[/quote]

it kind of does say they cant join. its like a bartender saying "we cant serve underage people. but since i want to sell drinks, if you dress up with fake ID's ill sell you some. if you are found out, ill throw you outside face first."


the same question can be asked of the people who do think it would be a problem. i have no trouble with gays in my life, and i know i wouldnt if i was in the military. so im basing my decisions off that. as far as anecdotal evidence from serving members, officers and soldiers, the majority of it supports my case, that real soldiers dont have problems with them.

[Socrates]

[quote]Well first the army isn't a religious organization so why should it adopt one Church's moral code? Not to mention, as Hassan pointed out, there are plenty of soldiers who engage in things that are viewed as sexually "disgusting and degrading" by the Church. In fact given that the army is drawn from the American population you can bet that 90%+ of the soldiers engage in pre-marital sex, use of contraceptive, oral sex, masturbation, anal sex and the use of pornography. Should they be discharged too?[/quote]
That's a non-argument. Yeah, people in the military do plenty of immoral things, but why lower the moral bar further?
And the practical difference is that homosexuality creates problems/tensions within a group of fighting men that heterosexual naughtiness outside the unit does not.

And it's not "once Church's moral code," but that of the One True Church, whose views on this matter until a couple decades ago were shared by pretty much all the major religions, homosexual behavior being contrary to natural law.

The U.S. Armed Forces were not religious organizations, nor specifically Catholic, yet there has been a ban on homosexual behavior since 1778.

It's not like this was an idea just now cooked up by right-wing Catholics.


[quote name='OraProMe' date='27 March 2010 - 05:13 AM' timestamp='1269681216' post='2081210']
Believe it or not homosexuals wont fall for the first guy they see. Maybe if a soldier sexually propositions another soldier they should be discharged, but the same would go for straight soldiers around women. So I really don't think that the off chance of a gay soldier developing a crush on a straight soldier would "weaken" the unit. Actually in ancient Sparta homosexuality was encouraged among their army because they thought it would make the men fight harder for eachother so your point doesn't make sense even if all gay soldiers developed crushes on the straight soldiers (which just wouldn't happen to begin with).

I think you're against homosexuals in the military because you're against homosexuality and want to force your own beliefs on others. I can't really see any valid reason to exclude homosexuals from the military. There are openly gay soldiers in the Australian Defence Force and that hasn't lead to some disaster.
[/quote]
We're not talking about a 9-5 office job, but men living in extreme close quarters for extended periods of time in extreme stress situations. Throwing unwanted homosexual behavior into the mix can make for an ugly situation.

[url="http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue8892.html"]USMC Commandant General James Conway has defended the ban[/url] on homosexuality in the military, as have quite a few other current and [url="http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45911"]retired U.S. armed forces commanders[/url].

Call me prejudiced, but I think these men know what they're talking about a lot more than any of the phatmass bleeding hearts.

[God Conquers]

How would homosexual activity be any different than normal sexual activity? They already have women in the army, and, this is a guess, there is probably some sex that goes on. (because women are temptresses! )

Wouldn't it make sense to limit any sexual conduct? YOu can't really prevent it... and I don't think all-women, or all-gay units would work. Plus, there's gay women too! So you need to have.... ah forget it. It don't make sense.

[Nihil Obstat]

What are official military rules regarding sexual activity between members?

[Socrates]

Women are still excluded from direct combat roles, though this line has lately been blurred somewhat.
Until recent times, the military was essentially all-male, except for nursing units and such.
I know I'll get hammered for saying it, but the inclusion of females in more and more military roles has created quite a few problems and complications in the military.


Fraternization rules prohibit sex between personnel of different rank. Basically, an officer isn't allowed to have sexual relations with his/her subordinates.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Socrates' date='30 March 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1269986241' post='2083619']

Fraternization rules prohibit sex between personnel of different rank. Basically, an officer isn't allowed to have sexual relations with his/her subordinates.
[/quote]
Has it ever been the case that all sexual contact was prohibited between personnel?
Sounds like it would work better, IMO.......

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='30 March 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1269986572' post='2083628']
Has it ever been the case that all sexual contact was prohibited between personnel?
Sounds like it would work better, IMO.......
[/quote]
Not sure, not that I'm aware. Remember, for most of their history, the armed forces were basically all male.

Fraternization applies to not just sex, but any outside social activity. It's basically so personal relationships won't interfere with command decisions.

[Jesus_lol]

yeah the purpose made brothels are so much more convenient.

[God Conquers]

Ah. Interesting.

The complications of a professional army!

It's kind of tough not to be friends with people you spend so much time with on duty.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Socrates' date='30 March 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1269983307' post='2083575']
That's a non-argument.
[/quote]

I disagree. Tell me why it's a non-argument? We don't work arbitrarily, we work by principles. If you want to say homosexuals should be excluded from the army because the Church says homosexual acts are sinful then by the same reasoning we have to exclude 90% of the American populace.

[quote]
And the practical difference is that homosexuality creates problems/tensions within a group of fighting men that heterosexual naughtiness outside the unit does not.
[/quote]

That's an unsubstantiated claim. Prove it. I can point to dozens of armies who don't have a DADT policy and they haven't been torn apart by the presence of homosexuals yet. If a heterosexual man isn't mature enough to work with a homosexual without freaking out then they're probably not mature enough to be in the army. No offence.

[quote]
And it's not "once Church's moral code," but that of the One True Church, whose views on this matter until a couple decades ago were shared by pretty much all the major religions, homosexual behavior being contrary to natural law.
[/quote]
It doesn't matter whether it's the One True Church's position or not. Defence forces an arm of the state not the Church. Your country is a liberal (I'm talking the political ideology not the "pc" left wing stuff you whine about) democracy which means people are entitled to their own beliefs, even if you think they're incorrect.

Edited March 31, 2010 by OraProMe

[Socrates]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='31 March 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1270014372' post='2083892']
I disagree. Tell me why it's a non-argument? We don't work arbitrarily, we work by principles. If you want to say homosexuals should be excluded from the army because the Church says homosexual acts are sinful then by the same reasoning we have to exclude 90% of the American populace.[/quote]
I've explained this before, and I'm not going to repeat it endlessly. And saying that because other evils exist, we must allow more evils is not a valid argument.
The military's reasons for not allowing homosexuals are not based on what the Catholic Church says, anyway. You're the one who keeps insisting this is an exclusively Catholic issue.

[quote]That's an unsubstantiated claim. Prove it. I can point to dozens of armies who don't have a DADT policy and they haven't been torn apart by the presence of homosexuals yet. If a heterosexual man isn't mature enough to work with a homosexual without freaking out then they're probably not mature enough to be in the army. No offence.[/quote]
Prove it? How, you want us to go spend a month in a foxhole together? Your claims are just as unsubstantiated. However, plenty of commanding military officers with decades of military experience behind them disagree with you. And most of my friends who have served in the armed forces agree with them. No offense, but I trust them in this matter more than you.
But sorry, I was forgetting that they're not 18-year-old kids who know everything. We should all bow to your wisdom.

As no one's asking you to join the U.S. military, I don't see why this should be such a big deal to you.


[quote]It doesn't matter whether it's the One True Church's position or not. Defence forces an arm of the state not the Church. Your country is a liberal (I'm talking the political ideology not the "pc" left wing stuff you whine about) democracy which means people are entitled to their own beliefs, even if you think they're incorrect.[/quote]
My point was, the military's ban on homosexuality had nothing to do with "one Church's position." The U.S. Army was not founded by Catholics. Opposition to homosexual activity is hardly some peculiar Catholic dogma, but is part of the entire Judeao-Christian moral tradition.
Homosexual activity was banned in the American military since we first had an army, and even Thomas Jefferson (about as liberal a Deist as you could find back then) thought sodomy a crime punishable by castration.
But it's nice we now have an 18-year-old Aussie to explain to the American founding fathers what their principles really mean.
People may be entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to military service, nor that the military cater to them.

I don't think either one of us are going to convince the other on this issue, as our principles are fundamentally different, so I see little point in arguing further.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Socrates

[CatherineM]

Ora-Part of this is cultural. I now live in a country where homosexuals can serve openly in the military and marry for that matter. It's almost a non-issue here. There is a different feel to how things work here that I can't put adequately in to words. In the US, that feeling is completely different, and if you had grown up in the US, it might make more sense. I'm not saying it is wrong or right, it is just the way it has been for a couple of centuries, and it might take a bit more time for the US to be ready to make that step.

And before you ask, I haven't served in the active duty military. I'm an Army brat who spent some time in ROTC, but couldn't serve because of a knee injury. That small amount of time I was in training, I met several lesbians in the unit, but back in the early 80's that wasn't unusual. 50% of the women in my forestry class were too.