OT: Gay Marriage

[NotCranky]

[quote=CA renter][quote=afx114]This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?[/quote]

IMHO, it’s all about the living quarters. If they aren’t living and showering with other military personnel, then it shouldn’t matter.[/quote]

I agree. Less of an invasion of privacy for sure. Certain enviornments make it less likely for gays to sexually harass co-workers(including subordinates) or have mutually consenting but illegal and potentially mission damaging relationship on deployments.Fact is, gays are everywhere or almost everywhere in the military, even if some ratings have higher populations.

Once there is trouble the military is faced with the conundrum, do we let this person known to be causing division and stress in the unit go, or preserve his/her expertise and the potentially hundreds of thousand of dollars the miltary(tax payer) has invested in him or her. If it weren’t for that money and the damage of losing important personnel rapidly,hurting planning, there might well be an attempt at a zero tolerance rule for
the U.S military.

Military harassment of people who want to get out due to sexual orientation claims(dishonorable discharge or worse) is based in the same things.Everyone pretty much knows who is who. Don’t ask, means “too bad mr. heterosexual they are here, leave them alone or else”, don’t tell means “don’t cross the line mr. homosexual , do your job, or else”.

More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?

On the other hand, if the ruling members of society and the military thought that getting every heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual and tri-sexual in uniform, even if by conscription, would serve a particular mission better, then we will see adjustments.It won’t be about anyone’s rights, gay or straight, even though it will most certainly, be conveniently framed that way.

[UCGal]

[quote=Russell]Once there is trouble the military is faced with the conundrum, do we let this person known to be causing division and stress in the unit go, or preserve his/her expertise and the potentially hundreds of thousand of dollars the miltary(tax payer) has invested in him or her. If it weren’t for that money and the damage of losing important personnel rapidly,hurting planning, there might well be an attempt at a zero tolerance rule for
the U.S military.
[/quote]

But what about cases like Maj Mike Almy. He never “told” in the DADT. They went into his personal emails after he’d been assigned to a different base specifically looking for proof he was gay. He’s testified before congress about what happened to him, and he testified in the recent case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans. In this case he was NOT causing division. He was in a different location. The military (or high ranking people in the military) went after him after he’d been transferred. He was eventually booted out because he refused to answer directly whether he was gay. The “don’t ask don’t tell” doesn’t work if the military asks. His record now shows he was booted out because he was gay – even though he never admitted it while in the military.

Google a bit about him – it’s an interesting case.

[UCGal]

[quote=Russell]Once there is trouble the military is faced with the conundrum, do we let this person known to be causing division and stress in the unit go, or preserve his/her expertise and the potentially hundreds of thousand of dollars the miltary(tax payer) has invested in him or her. If it weren’t for that money and the damage of losing important personnel rapidly,hurting planning, there might well be an attempt at a zero tolerance rule for
the U.S military.
[/quote]

But what about cases like Maj Mike Almy. He never “told” in the DADT. They went into his personal emails after he’d been assigned to a different base specifically looking for proof he was gay. He’s testified before congress about what happened to him, and he testified in the recent case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans. In this case he was NOT causing division. He was in a different location. The military (or high ranking people in the military) went after him after he’d been transferred. He was eventually booted out because he refused to answer directly whether he was gay. The “don’t ask don’t tell” doesn’t work if the military asks. His record now shows he was booted out because he was gay – even though he never admitted it while in the military.

Google a bit about him – it’s an interesting case.

[UCGal]

[quote=Russell]Once there is trouble the military is faced with the conundrum, do we let this person known to be causing division and stress in the unit go, or preserve his/her expertise and the potentially hundreds of thousand of dollars the miltary(tax payer) has invested in him or her. If it weren’t for that money and the damage of losing important personnel rapidly,hurting planning, there might well be an attempt at a zero tolerance rule for
the U.S military.
[/quote]

But what about cases like Maj Mike Almy. He never “told” in the DADT. They went into his personal emails after he’d been assigned to a different base specifically looking for proof he was gay. He’s testified before congress about what happened to him, and he testified in the recent case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans. In this case he was NOT causing division. He was in a different location. The military (or high ranking people in the military) went after him after he’d been transferred. He was eventually booted out because he refused to answer directly whether he was gay. The “don’t ask don’t tell” doesn’t work if the military asks. His record now shows he was booted out because he was gay – even though he never admitted it while in the military.

Google a bit about him – it’s an interesting case.

[UCGal]

[quote=Russell]Once there is trouble the military is faced with the conundrum, do we let this person known to be causing division and stress in the unit go, or preserve his/her expertise and the potentially hundreds of thousand of dollars the miltary(tax payer) has invested in him or her. If it weren’t for that money and the damage of losing important personnel rapidly,hurting planning, there might well be an attempt at a zero tolerance rule for
the U.S military.
[/quote]

But what about cases like Maj Mike Almy. He never “told” in the DADT. They went into his personal emails after he’d been assigned to a different base specifically looking for proof he was gay. He’s testified before congress about what happened to him, and he testified in the recent case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans. In this case he was NOT causing division. He was in a different location. The military (or high ranking people in the military) went after him after he’d been transferred. He was eventually booted out because he refused to answer directly whether he was gay. The “don’t ask don’t tell” doesn’t work if the military asks. His record now shows he was booted out because he was gay – even though he never admitted it while in the military.

Google a bit about him – it’s an interesting case.

[UCGal]

[quote=Russell]Once there is trouble the military is faced with the conundrum, do we let this person known to be causing division and stress in the unit go, or preserve his/her expertise and the potentially hundreds of thousand of dollars the miltary(tax payer) has invested in him or her. If it weren’t for that money and the damage of losing important personnel rapidly,hurting planning, there might well be an attempt at a zero tolerance rule for
the U.S military.
[/quote]

But what about cases like Maj Mike Almy. He never “told” in the DADT. They went into his personal emails after he’d been assigned to a different base specifically looking for proof he was gay. He’s testified before congress about what happened to him, and he testified in the recent case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans. In this case he was NOT causing division. He was in a different location. The military (or high ranking people in the military) went after him after he’d been transferred. He was eventually booted out because he refused to answer directly whether he was gay. The “don’t ask don’t tell” doesn’t work if the military asks. His record now shows he was booted out because he was gay – even though he never admitted it while in the military.

Google a bit about him – it’s an interesting case.

[afx114]

[quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?

[afx114]

[quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?

[afx114]

[quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?

[afx114]

[quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?

[afx114]

[quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]
More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?
[/quote]

It’s not an either or situation here.

If the military wants more recruits, they win. Where are the Bible thumpers gonna go?

With the repeal of DADT, the milary will gain homosexuals but they won’t lose the Bible thumpers (who may no longer be Bible thumpers after they get out of the military).

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]
More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?
[/quote]

It’s not an either or situation here.

If the military wants more recruits, they win. Where are the Bible thumpers gonna go?

With the repeal of DADT, the milary will gain homosexuals but they won’t lose the Bible thumpers (who may no longer be Bible thumpers after they get out of the military).

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]
More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?
[/quote]

It’s not an either or situation here.

If the military wants more recruits, they win. Where are the Bible thumpers gonna go?

With the repeal of DADT, the milary will gain homosexuals but they won’t lose the Bible thumpers (who may no longer be Bible thumpers after they get out of the military).

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]
More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?
[/quote]

It’s not an either or situation here.

If the military wants more recruits, they win. Where are the Bible thumpers gonna go?

With the repeal of DADT, the milary will gain homosexuals but they won’t lose the Bible thumpers (who may no longer be Bible thumpers after they get out of the military).

[Author]

Posts