Pentagon study: Gays could serve with no harm

[Boota]

Anyone who takes the risk of serving as openly gay knows what they're dealing with and I suspect that if they were accosted or harassed it wouldn't be the first time and they'd handle it. If it wasn't something that could get them kicked out then there is another layer of protection. It's easy to beat someone up for being gay when they can't tell why it was done or risk being ousted. With the legal protection of allowing them to remain soldiers I have confidence in the ability of these men and women to handle themselves in any rough situations that may arise.

 

[AllardChardon]

I appreciate your input, Boxlicker, as well as most everyone elses' here. I agree with your thinking about the way the writer flavored her article and also wondered why spouses were asked? Let's hope the survey can stand on its own merits and will not be just another waste of money.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Here's a link to the complete report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/dont-ask-dont-tell/index.html
And especially for you wingnuts who distrust the Washington Post, here is another link to the report: http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf
When you have finished reading the 257 page report (and the 95 page support plan for implentation) go ahead and flail away, box.

 

[AllardChardon]

Thanks for posting the full survey this morning, soflabbwlvr.

 

[AllardChardon]

Army, Marine chiefs cast doubt on gay service

Army, Marine chiefs cast doubt on gay service
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Anne Flaherty

WASHINGTON – The top uniformed officers of the Army and the Marines told a Senate panel Friday that letting gays serve openly in the military at a time of war would be divisive and difficult, sharply challenging a new Pentagon study that calculates the risk as low.

Their assessment was likely to become political ammunition for Arizona Sen. John McCain and other Republicans fighting to keep Congress from repealing the 1993 law that prohibits gays from acknowledging their sexual orientation. Democrats have promised a vote this month to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law, although its chances of passing this year were considered slim.

"If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat," the Marine commandant, Gen. James Amos, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, who led the Iraq war under President George W. Bush, was somewhat more optimistic. He said the policy shift, if implemented properly, wouldn't keep the Army from doing its job, and he predicted repeal would pose only a moderate risk to his force.

But, he added, changing the law now would "add another level of stress to any already stretched force" and be more difficult on the Army, particularly its combat units, than the recent Pentagon study suggests.

McCain said the testimony by the service chiefs should be given special consideration.

"It is the job of the service chiefs to ensure that our military is ready and able to win the nation's wars," he said at the beginning of Friday's hearing.

President Barack Obama has called on Congress to overturn the ban on openly gay service. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed and ordered a 10-month study looking at the attitudes of service members toward gay troops.

Released earlier this week, the study found that a minority of troops — about 30 percent — predicted potential problems if "don't ask, don't tell" were repealed.

But most of the troops with concerns were serving in combat roles. Nearly 60 percent of troops in the Marine Corps and in Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said they thought allowing gays to be open about their sexual orientation would hurt their units' ability to fight on the battlefield.

"I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan," Amos said.

Gates and Mullen have said they believe resistance can be addressed through training and education. They also cite experience with gay troops as a mitigating factor. According to the study, 84 percent of Marines in combat roles who find they're working with a gay comrade said they did not see any negative impact on unit morale or cohesion.

"In terms of actual disruption experienced, as opposed to predicted disruption, the distinction between combat arms communities and the force as a whole is negligible," said Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the No. 2 officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Air Force and Navy chiefs offered milder assessments of repeal than their Army and Marine counterparts. According to the study, some 70 percent of airmen and sailors predict few problems with lifting the ban.

The chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, said it was likely that some highly trained combat sailors, including Navy SEALs, might refuse to re-enlist in protest of the personnel change. But, he said, he did not think any long-term damage would occur if certain steps were taken, such as increased training, and he recommended repeal.

The Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, predicted the risk to his force would be moderate. He suggested, however, deferring any policy changes until 2012 so as not to place any "additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres in Afghanistan at this particularly challenging time."

McCain has dismissed the military study as flawed because it did not ask troops whether they thought the law should be repealed in the first place, focusing instead on the impact repeal might have. McCain also contends that Pentagon leadership was glossing over serious objections expressed by troops in Marine and Army combat roles at a time of two wars.

Cartwright counters in his testimony that implementing change at a time of war might actually be preferable because troops are focused on their mission.

"The challenges associated with making a change of any kind that seem enormous during periods of inactivity become less distracting when you are defending your nation and comrades," he said.

___

Associated Press writer Anne Gearan contributed to this report.


I hate to say this is becoming more of a political pissing match every day, but that is how it appears to me.

 

[xssve]

"It's all sex", as they say in airframes...

 

[Safe_Bet]

Army, Marine chiefs cast doubt on gay service
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Anne Flaherty

WASHINGTON – The top uniformed officers of the Army and the Marines told a Senate panel Friday that letting gays serve openly in the military at a time of war would be divisive and difficult, sharply challenging...


I hate to say this is becoming more of a political pissing match every day, but that is how it appears to me.

I'm about to the point where I'm going to say "fine!". Let all the knuckle dragging Neanderthals join up and be cannon fodder and all of the smart, talented gays and lesbians will loyally, faithfully and intelligently serve their country in the Navy and the Air Force.

It would kind of be like the Darwin awards. Eventually enough of the homophobic assholes will be killed off so that smarter people won't have to deal with them any more.

P.S. The Marines and the Army can walk to their next war too!

 

[ishtat]

A WWI executive order by Woodrow Wilson, I think. He was elected (twice) with the help of the black community, with the understanding he would initiate integration--and he, instead, pushed segregation after both elections.

I am intrigued as to how that understanding came about because Wilson was probably the most overtly racist President of the 20th century.

And did many blacks vote then?

 

[amicus]

We are speaking about the Democratic process of course; wherein debate and discussion and disagreement are the ingredients that fuel the conflict.

Liberals associate the homosexual activist movement with slavery and women's rights, and thus claim the moral high ground, with any one who disagrees being classified as 'neanderthal', or ignorant and misguided.

The truth and the facts of the matter are that homosexuality is an aberration to be viewed alongside Mormon multiple wives religious aberrations and other such fringe, bohemiam practices.

Homosexuals are demanding equal acceptance in society and that will never be achieved, or if so, momentarily, before the full ramifications to family, school, church, marrigage and community are realized and then the repercussions will be widespread and violent.

The Gay community should appreciate the tolerance thus far shown by society in general and savor what they have gain, lest they lose it all.

Amicus

 

[AllardChardon]

Well, I do not agree with Amicus' dreary point of view in the least. The youth of today are much more tolerant of gays and eventually all us old folks, liberal and conservative, will die off.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Homosexuals are demanding equal acceptance in society and that will never be achieved, or if so, momentarily, before the full ramifications to family, school, church, marrigage and community are realized and then the repercussions will be widespread and violent.


Amicus

What are these "ramifications"?

 

[Safe_Bet]

What are these "ramifications"?

Equality. (Which scares the hell out of knuckle draggers like Amicus.)

 

[Pure]

slight correction

ami: [homosexuality is] an aberration to be viewed alongside Mormon multiple wives .
----
unfortunately things are not quite so simple. for Jews, at least historicaly, polygamy is NOT in the same category as homosexual practices.


http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/08-06.html
Question 8.6:
I've heard polygamy is permissible among Sephardic and Yemenite Jews. Doesn't Judaism mandate monogamy?

In biblical times, polygamy was permitted. The Bible, in tolerating polygamy, gives evidence that the practice had long been an accepted social institution when these laws were written down. In the patriarchal age polygamy is regarded as an unquestioned custom. While the Bible gives a reason for the action of Abraham in taking Hagar for an additional wife and, in the case of Jacob, for having Rachel as a wife besides Leah, it only proves that polygamy as well as concubinage, with which it was always associated, was among the mores of the ancient Hebrew people (Gen. 16:1-4; 29:23-28). The same attitude is revealed in the episode of Abimelech and Sarah (Gen. 20:1- l3).
Polygamy was such a well established part of the social system that Mosaic law is not even critical of it. [...]

According to the Talmud the right to a plurality of wives is conceded, but the number of legitimate wives, as in the Koran, is limited to four. The taking of additional wives is held as sufficient ground for divorce for a woman who had previously been the sole wife.[...]

About the year 1000, Rabbi Gershom ben Judah issued an edict (Herem de-Rabbenu Gershom) which was considered authoritative among Ashkenazi [European] Jews. This edict substantially prohibited plural marriage. One exception was allowed: A man could marry more than one wife if he obtained the special permission of 100 rabbis in 3 countries.

 

[sr71plt]

I am intrigued as to how that understanding came about because Wilson was probably the most overtly racist President of the 20th century.

And did many blacks vote then?

Apparently they voted for him both times. Either the other candidate was much worse on the issues or, since Wilson was an intellectual academic, folks were fooled into thinking he had the brain to figure out what was best. He disappointed them in both of his terms.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I am intrigued as to how that understanding came about because Wilson was probably the most overtly racist President of the 20th century.

And did many blacks vote then?

Only a small percentage of black people voted then. In the South, where most Blacks lived, voting was "discouraged" by poll taxes and violence. They did vote in the North and West, but the great migration of black people did not start until US involvement in WW1, which occurred AFTER Wilson's second election in 1916.

BTW, Wilson was a Democrat.

 

[Pure]

on the wrong foot

i think this thread got off on the wrong foot. the core issue was never "harm", though it was often mentioned. the issue was approval--or lack of disapproval. boths sides are, in fact, aware that this is the issue.

as the 'debate' trails off, inconclusively, the pro DADT side has become more open: they don't want the military to be seen as approving or condoning such acts.

this same issue has come up in the prostitution thread: should the authorities take an official stand? if you stop arresting prostitutes, is that saying "it's ok"? if you stop discharging gays doing their thing openly [or, as openly as anyone else], are you saying, "we approve"?

 

[sr71plt]

=BTW, Wilson was a Democrat.

Well, yes, so what? I assess people as they come individually. Not by their group affiliation.

Neither party was particularly progressive on racism at that time. And Wilson was a Virginian--a southerner--and has been deemed by many to be a cultural environment racist regardless of anything else he did.

 

[Boxlicker101]

We are speaking about the Democratic process of course; wherein debate and discussion and disagreement are the ingredients that fuel the conflict.

Liberals associate the homosexual activist movement with slavery and women's rights, and thus claim the moral high ground, with any one who disagrees being classified as 'neanderthal', or ignorant and misguided.

I don't believe anybody associates gay rights with slavery, because there is no comparison. Women's rights are closer, but sexual orientation has never been a hinderance to voting or owning property, and women have always been free to marry whom they chose, within some racial limits. Females sometimes had even more rights than males in this regard. Gay rights are more closely akin to laws governing racial equality, because of the anti-miscegenation laws, found to be unconstitutional and certain employment limitations.

The truth and the facts of the matter are that homosexuality is an aberration to be viewed alongside Mormon multiple wives religious aberrations and other such fringe, bohemiam practices.

It is a biological aberration, since the biological purpose of sex is procreation, and gay sex cannot produce children. For that matter, neither can oral or anal sex between men and women, and I am certainly not going to say anything against those fun practices. Neither homosexuality nor polygamy are social aberrations, having existed throughout recorded history. I don't know what you mean by "fringe Bohemian practices," unless you are referring to recreational sex in general.

Homosexuals are demanding equal acceptance in society and that will never be achieved, or if so, momentarily, before the full ramifications to family, school, church, marrigage and community are realized and then the repercussions will be widespread and violent.

The Gay community should appreciate the tolerance thus far shown by society in general and savor what they have gain, lest they lose it all.

I think you're wrong about that. I believe the time will come when sexual orientation will be considered strictly a personal matter, and of no concern to the population at large, although I don't expect that to happen during my lifetime or yours. People will realize homosexuality poses no threat to family, school, church, marrigage or community, and it will seem bizarre that anybody ever thought it did. I know there are gay pedophiles, but they are strictly individuals, and there are far more straight pedophiles. Actually, from what I've heard, real pedos don't make much distinction between little boys and little girls.

 

[AllardChardon]

More posturing over the DADT issue will ensue, the subject being perfect fodder for the political arena. Therefore, stay tuned...

 

[Katyusha]

The bottom line is that they are already THERE!!!! Nothing has to change. No str8 guys are getting ass raped now and no str8 guys will be getting ass raped after the change. The only difference is that the bullshit will be gone and everybody will be treated as equals.

I think that's the biggest thing I don't understand about those who oppose repeal. I saw a whole slew of comments awhile back about this on CNN and the few who were being very vocal about how sick it makes them were saying things like, "I don't want some guy in my unit lusting after me," and, "Knowing there's a guy staring at me in the showers and wanting me will make me sick," and "God knows what gay shit they'll try on me while I'm sleeping," and other such nonsense, and I couldn't understand it. Especially all the comments about "lusting after me," and "checking me out," and "wanting me," do these men think every woman that gives them the merest glance wants them sexually too? If not, then why assume that every gay man in their unit will be lusting after them?

Got news...if the gay guy isn't already lusting after you while he's hiding is identity, he won't be lusting after you when he comes out! And further, if he was going to be a sex offender ("god knows what gay shit they'll try on me while I'm sleeping"), he would have already tried something on you while you were sleeping!

The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is far, far more accepted today than it was even 20 years ago. I don't think enough soldiers care anymore for it to be much of an issue, even an issue of their own safety, that DADT should not be repealed and repealed now. Plus, the few who still did care enough to try and engage in some hazing or something a bit more violent simply because the person was gay would likely find themselves in a world of trouble real quick.

 

[sr71plt]

Looking for rationality where it doesn't exist. Also, it doesn't matter what the majority think (or say they think). It matters if only if a few still exist on line who don't like it and feel threatened by it and are action prone and have the means--which is what we have in the military situation.

The difference between the current and the proposed (and it isn't DADT--it's that it's illegal to serve in the service as a homosexual) is that those living in fear of being hit on (false or otherwise. If they have it, they have it) now can just report being hit on and a process leading to expulsion starts. When a homosexual can serve legally in the service, they can't be dismissed just for hitting on another guy--and thus the power in the hands of the guy of fear is lessened.

I want DADT (actually, the law behind it) repealed too. I just think there continues to be a lot of political correct posturing on this thread and others about the issue by those who are not under any threat by the reality of the situation and thus can live on their nice theories--and project them on others who aren't quite as detached from what can easily really happen in the current real circumstances.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Yes, I think that's one of the worst effects of the law - that gays and lesbians can be blackmailed out of the service.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I think that's the biggest thing I don't understand about those who oppose repeal. I saw a whole slew of comments awhile back about this on CNN and the few who were being very vocal about how sick it makes them were saying things like, "I don't want some guy in my unit lusting after me," and, "Knowing there's a guy staring at me in the showers and wanting me will make me sick," and "God knows what gay shit they'll try on me while I'm sleeping," and other such nonsense, and I couldn't understand it. Especially all the comments about "lusting after me," and "checking me out," and "wanting me," do these men think every woman that gives them the merest glance wants them sexually too? If not, then why assume that every gay man in their unit will be lusting after them?

Got news...if the gay guy isn't already lusting after you while he's hiding is identity, he won't be lusting after you when he comes out! And further, if he was going to be a sex offender ("god knows what gay shit they'll try on me while I'm sleeping"), he would have already tried something on you while you were sleeping!

The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is far, far more accepted today than it was even 20 years ago. I don't think enough soldiers care anymore for it to be much of an issue, even an issue of their own safety, that DADT should not be repealed and repealed now. Plus, the few who still did care enough to try and engage in some hazing or something a bit more violent simply because the person was gay would likely find themselves in a world of trouble real quick.

Contrary to the blather that followed your post, I think you've expressed the reality of the situation very well.

I'd add one more thing that is usually overlooked: If you ain't queer we DON'T want to have sex with you EITHER!!!!

If you're not queer, or at least queer curious, we feel the same distaste about having sex with you as you heteros do with having gay sex. It's not a matter of being homophobic or heterophobic, it's a matter of that's just not our thing, along the lines of I don't get sexually stimulated by the thought of having sex with children, bondage queens, men or hetero women. Just doesn't do anything for me.

BTW, if I DO look at you with admiration in the shower it's in the hopes that you might be queer, but if you ain't = poof goes the fantasy!

 

[Safe_Bet]

Looking for rationality where it doesn't exist. Also, it doesn't matter what the majority think (or say they think). It matters if only if a few still exist on line who don't like it and feel threatened by it and are action prone and have the means--which is what we have in the military situation.
The difference between the current and the proposed (and it isn't DADT--it's that it's illegal to serve in the service as a homosexual) is that those living in fear of being hit on (false or otherwise. If they have it, they have it) now can just report being hit on and a process leading to expulsion starts. When a homosexual can serve legally in the service, they can't be dismissed just for hitting on another guy--and thus the power in the hands of the guy of fear is lessened.

I want DADT (actually, the law behind it) repealed too. I just think there continues to be a lot of political correct posturing on this thread and others about the issue by those who are not under any threat by the reality of the situation and thus can live on their nice theories--and project them on others who aren't quite as detached from what can easily really happen in the current real circumstances.

So there are absolutely no bigots in the military that still hate black people???? Not a single member of the Klan or Aryan Nations?

What bullshit!

 

[AllardChardon]

Amy, I am glad you used the word 'queer'. It is the word I was raised with and yet I hardly ever see it anymore.

I admire the fact that Lady Gaga has named her latest album, "Born This Way". A nice way of saying the same thing. Being homosexual is not a choice, as you know. And 'born this way' has nothing to do with the person's capabilities, whether military or civilian.

Thanks for bringing up the subject of attraction and lust. Just because a person may be attracted to their same sex, does not mean they are sexually attracted to everyone they set eyes on, in the showers or elsewhere.

Why must they paint homosexuals as promiscuous, when so many are really monogamous? And how can a monogamous gay person be a threat to a heterosexual, unless in combat, which is always political?