GOP again attacking Gays in the Military

[The Silver Thong]

I don't necessarily agree with Ven, but I think your just putting on your liberal Canadian hat there ST.

Well the min you said liberal Canadian the argument goes out the window with such a label does it not. Hey if gays in the military is really such a big concern then the so called right have an issue then, we better start seperating barracks as to who's political agenda you follow no.

Edited June 1, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[Startraveler]

The LAST thing you smarmy smart-ass civilians want to do, is tell a military member they serve at ANYONES discretion. That's like getting pulled over by a COP, and reminding him that he works for YOU, that YOUR tax dollars pay his salary. THAT is a bullstuff argument.

Civilian control of the military is one of the hallmarks of our system of government. Pointing out that policy-setting is rightfully done by civilian leadership isn't smart-assy, it's one of the bedrock principles of most Western governments.

[eqgumby]

Well the min you said liberal Canadian the argument goes out the window with such a label does it not. Hey if gays in the military is really such a big concern then the so called right have an issue then, we better start seperating barracks as to who's political agenda you follow no.

I hate to really get into it, but...

There is a lot more to "gays in the military" than there appears to be on the surface.

Number one, military service in the US is not like service in many other countries. I've known, and served with several other nations military members, and there is a much different mind-set and culture in the US, in particular among the branches that focus on combat and the units that are combat focused.

Number two, there is a logistical element that is rarely addressed. There are housing issues, pay issues, disciplinary issues, a host if "issues" that are hard enough to keep a grasp on when you can tell at a glance what "sex" someone is. I worked at a unit in which some genius CO decided there would be no "dating" between members of the unit. I laughed out load when they passed that one along.

I said, "OK, fine, what about sex?"

I got, "What do you mean?"

I said, "Can we just have casual sex. You know, get our jollies, high-five, and move-on? That's not "dating" right?"

"No, you can NOT do that!"

"Can I get that in writing? Because we all know of at least 5 couples that LIVE together in town, and I KNOW they're getting laid!"

Basically, it was an un-enforceable rule. They would have to prove two people were "copulating", and I know that I lived with a female once, and we never had a physical relationship.

Now add any vaguely homosexual haze to the already cloudy picture.

Number three, the UCMJ would need a major over-haul. Homosexuality, if "practiced', is a violation of the UCMJ, the laws that military members are required to live by in the US. This would be a HUGE issue, and would likely result in thousands of lawsuits by people charged and punished under the UCMJ over the past decade or more.

Number four, the rules/laws would need to be changed nationwide to accommodate the changes that would need to be made in the military. As soon as you "allow" homosexuals to serve, you must support their families, and that includes same-sex partners. Federal benefits, death-benefits, insurance, retirement, a host of benefits that no-one is ready to investigate. You have NO idea what a huge undertaking that would be.

With all that said...

What should happen, is "Don't ask, don't tell" should be extended, and the military should be given ONE YEAR to jointly solve these issues, including the HUGE array of Federal service issues (that's uniformed as well as civilian) that will pop up.

It's just NOT that simple, and the idiots that heckle Obama about it, are just that...idiots. If it WAS that easy, Clinton would have done it, rather than what he did do.

[eqgumby]

Civilian control of the military is one of the hallmarks of our system of government. Pointing out that policy-setting is rightfully done by civilian leadership isn't smart-assy, it's one of the bedrock principles of most Western governments.

True, as it is true that Joe-police officer is paid with taxpayer money, but you do NOT want to bring that up when he pulls you over.

It IS smart-assy when civilians that have no idea what serving your country is all about, try to make changes to the service that protects them and dies for them. You know, like when a civilian review board decided that service members with blown off limbs didn't really deserve free medical care for any longer than 5 years after the date of the injury? Or a civilian panel decided to cut education benefits to save a little money, so military people only received money to take one class a semester (but were still expected to take two)? Or that we should have to pay out of pocket for our own uniforms and safety glasses and boots, even though the average military guy was making about $8 an hour, and a years supply of uniforms equated to a months pay?

Yeah, it IS smart-assy to shove that in a service members face. Smart-assy and disrespectful, period. Say that to the vets in wheelchairs, with missing limbs, eyes, people that are so freaked out they resort to booze, drugs, suicide, men and women burned so bad their own spouses and kids don't recognize them.

Please, go ahead, tell THEM they serve at "your discretion". Your FREEDOM hinges on OUR discretion.

[ninjadude]

The LAST thing you smarmy smart-ass civilians want to do, is tell a military member they serve at ANYONES discretion.

REALLY? I was unaware that we live under a military dictatorship. If that's their attitude they rightfully need to be cut down a few notches.

[ninjadude]

True, as it is true that Joe-police officer is paid with taxpayer money, but you do NOT want to bring that up when he pulls you over.

It IS smart-assy when civilians that have no idea what serving your country is all about, try to make changes to the service that protects them and dies for them. You know, like when a civilian review board decided that service members with blown off limbs didn't really deserve free medical care for any longer than 5 years after the date of the injury? Or a civilian panel decided to cut education benefits to save a little money, so military people only received money to take one class a semester (but were still expected to take two)? Or that we should have to pay out of pocket for our own uniforms and safety glasses and boots, even though the average military guy was making about $8 an hour, and a years supply of uniforms equated to a months pay?

Yeah, it IS smart-assy to shove that in a service members face. Smart-assy and disrespectful, period. Say that to the vets in wheelchairs, with missing limbs, eyes, people that are so freaked out they resort to booze, drugs, suicide, men and women burned so bad their own spouses and kids don't recognize them.

Please, go ahead, tell THEM they serve at "your discretion". Your FREEDOM hinges on OUR discretion.

I think you're completely missing the point. This discussion is not about pay, or being pulled over by the military, or civilian review boards (whatever that is), or any other smoke you want to blow. The military does serve at civilian discretion. IF we the people want to end or limit it, we can. It's as simple as that. That simple fact seems to be missing from the a lot of military types.

[eqgumby]

I think you're completely missing the point. This discussion is not about pay, or being pulled over by the military, or civilian review boards (whatever that is), or any other smoke you want to blow. The military does serve at civilian discretion. IF we the people want to end or limit it, we can. It's as simple as that. That simple fact seems to be missing from the a lot of military types.

You're disrespectful attitude is a shame.

The discussion IS about all the things I mentioned, you just don't want to see it, and it's clear you care not a drop for the people that "serve" you at your discretion. The mere fact that you tell me that this isn't about something, and in the same sentence tell me you don't even know what that something is, makes clear your lack of experience, respect, and humanity as involves the men and women that serve this country.

YOU! SHUT UP WHILE WE PUT OUR LIVES ON THE LINE PROTECTING YOU!

[ninjadude]

You're disrespectful attitude is a shame.

The discussion IS about all the things I mentioned, you just don't want to see it, and it's clear you care not a drop for the people that "serve" you at your discretion. The mere fact that you tell me that this isn't about something, and in the same sentence tell me you don't even know what that something is, makes clear your lack of experience, respect, and humanity as involves the men and women that serve this country.

YOU! SHUT UP WHILE WE PUT OUR LIVES ON THE LINE PROTECTING YOU!

I'm not being disrespectful. And no, this discussion is about gays in the military. Telling you exactly how our society works in relation to our military is something we usually do in school. I guess some schools are negligent. One does not have to "know" about every facet of the our huge overgrown military complex to understand it. So no I will NOT EVER SHUT UP. Because you serve at the discretion of the people in society. And that means me. That fact is undeniable. I don;t know what high horse you're on. If we decide, you do. Maybe you live somewhere other than the US.

[eqgumby]

I'm not being disrespectful. And no, this discussion is about gays in the military. Telling you exactly how our society works in relation to our military is something we usually do in school. I guess some schools are negligent. One does not have to "know" about every facet of the our huge overgrown military complex to understand it. So no I will NOT EVER SHUT UP. Because you serve at the discretion of the people in society. And that means me. That fact is undeniable. I don;t know what high horse you're on. If we decide, you do. Maybe you live somewhere other than the US.

You're being amazingly disrespectful, and as usual toting the party line rather than applying an ounce of critical thinking to the question at hand. Politicizing everything for the glory of the left is a luxury you enjoy, at the expense of the lives and well being of those who "serve you at your discretion". I only wish you could experience a minuscule portion of the sacrifice these people make for you. Then again, you very likely wouldn't appreciate it, and chalk it up to faulty logic, a troubled childhood, or a desire to suffer on the behalf of those who serve you by their own choice.

Amazingly disrespectful.

[Paranormalcy]

Okay, got that out of your systems? Good. Next return to that line of "I'm better/nuh-uh" arguing gets a formal warning, and if it's dense enough, a suspension - so if you do it, might as well leave people with something to think about while you're vacationing for a week or so. The correct exchange would have been "I strongly disagree with that viewpoint, here's why", from either side, not "SHUT UP". It may work on FOX or CNN but sadly they lack actual moderators.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Paranormalcy

[venqax]

This is an odd argument going back and forth. Of course the military is subject to a civilian govt, and that govt is (in theory anyway, Obamacare aside) accountable to the public. But that does not mean that military policy should be made based on general public opinion. The military has a unique and particular mission and they are the experts about how to do that. So if you want them to be effective, you have to give them professional discretion re how to organize themselves and do their job. You give that discretion to ANY professional group, not just the military. You wouldn't dictate how surgical teams should be set up according to popular opinion polls. You don't leave it to public opinion to determine standards within professional practice. For the military, unlike most orgs, probably, questions about "gayness" have very real relevance and ramifications re how effective they are going to be. You can't randomly change culture. And, again, there is no reason to even try in this case. No reason to change DADT. The ones pushing for it don't have a dog in the fight.

[+DieChecker]

The point I think is that it is not as simple as saying, "Go". If you repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell", then you should be planning as to what the consiquences will be. Not just happier gays, but what everyone will do and in what degree.

Also, if they do repeal, there is no way that gays will get gay marriages recognized. To do so would require the Federal Government to recognize gay marriage. So you will have a lot of unhappy gays about that. One major reason people go into the military is to provide for a family that they otherwise could not. From my rememberances in the 90s, the married soldiers had it a lot better, house-wise, pay-wise and food-wise, then the barracks soldier. There is something like 80% marriage rate in those who serve more then 5 years. Gays are not going to like not being part of the "Free Goodies" that the married people get.

Edited June 2, 2010 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

Civilian control of the military is one of the hallmarks of our system of government. Pointing out that policy-setting is rightfully done by civilian leadership isn't smart-assy, it's one of the bedrock principles of most Western governments.

Representative Civilian Control. Just like we are not a true Democracy, but a Representative one, the Military is not controlled by the Public, but by a few elected officials. Claiming the Military is civilian controlled is ignorant.

[The Silver Thong]

Representative Civilian Control. Just like we are not a true Democracy, but a Representative one, the Military is not controlled by the Public, but by a few elected officials. Claiming the Military is civilian controlled is ignorant.

He wasn't really saying that the military is under any civilian control nor should it be. However the public can sway the government as to what the public deems acceptable and what is not. It has been done befor and well continue to happen. The civilian population has in it's power to change who is commander in chief and if said commander wish's to ignor the public he is replaced generaly with a new chief more in tune with the publics demand. However being America is of a one government party now, that trend could be gone forever.

As far as gay marriage goes though. I don't quit get what you mean that if gays are allowed to serve openly in the military it will destroy the movement to allow gay marriage. How so?

Edited June 2, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[Startraveler]

Are you unfamiliar with this phrase? Of course it refers to the civilian leadership ("...policy-setting is rightfully done by civilian leadership..."), not the general public. I'm well-aware that policy-making authority lies in the hands of...policymakers. And it appears that a majority of elected policymakers--the only majority that matters on non-election days in our form of government--now supports eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As does the commander-in-chief.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Startraveler

[eqgumby]

Okay, got that out of your systems? Good. Next return to that line of "I'm better/nuh-uh" arguing gets a formal warning, and if it's dense enough, a suspension - so if you do it, might as well leave people with something to think about while you're vacationing for a week or so. The correct exchange would have been "I strongly disagree with that viewpoint, here's why", from either side, not "SHUT UP". It may work on FOX or CNN but sadly they lack actual moderators.

Perhaps you've never heard the phrase "You! Shut up, while we defend your right to freedom!" There is a reason that this is a fairly well used quote (paraphrased though it may be). It has to do with the fact that people can talk all day long, but in the end, someone has to get off their asses and actually DO something.

Thanks for showing your colors. Let em' fly!

[Paranormalcy]

No, I have never heard it. Thank you for your clarification. Now please cease that line of pursuit and address the topic itself and not other posters.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Paranormalcy

[eqgumby]

No, I have never heard it. Thank you for your clarification. Now please cease that line of pursuit and address the topic itself and not other posters.

Actually, I was addressing the topic. If someone makes a statement such as, "Lemons are sweet.", and in the same breath mentions they've never tasted a lemon, or even know what a lemon is, expect them to be corrected.

Justifying a repeal of don't ask-don't tell, or the acceptance of openly gay service members by making statements such as "you serve at the discretion of the people in society. And that means me." will earn you nothing but disdain and disgust from any one that has an ounce of respect for the men and women that serve this country by laying their lives on the line every day.

For future reference:

I can think of dozens of very compelling arguments to allow gays to serve openly, but none of them are as whiney and self centered or self serving as "you serve at the discretion of the people in society. And that means me." from someone that has NO CLUE what a sacrifice it is to serve.

[venqax]

And it appears that a majority of elected policymakers--the only majority that matters on non-election days in our form of government--now supports eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As does the commander-in-chief.

Maybe. We still don't know if it would pass a vote in Congress. But regardless, just because a majority of Congress or the Pres supports it, in theory, does not automatically mean it should happen. The primary concern has to be military efficacy. Letting anything else get in the way of that is simply irresponsible. Congressmen and Presidents are not military experts. While they have the authority to destroy or cripple our military, they should not do that. How do you think a public opinion poll would turn out regarding whether most people really care if DADT is changed? This is not a "hot" issue to anyone but gay activists. The more knowledge people have re the subject, the more they tend to be against gays openly serving.

[ninjadude]

You're being amazingly disrespectful, and as usual toting the party line rather than applying an ounce of critical thinking to the question at hand. Politicizing everything for the glory of the left is a luxury you enjoy, at the expense of the lives and well being of those who "serve you at your discretion". I only wish you could experience a minuscule portion of the sacrifice these people make for you. Then again, you very likely wouldn't appreciate it, and chalk it up to faulty logic, a troubled childhood, or a desire to suffer on the behalf of those who serve you by their own choice.

Amazingly disrespectful.

I guess you're just going to believe whatever fantasy you wish. I don't recall politicizing this issue. This must say more about you than me. So you're claiming that unless civilians "experience the military sacrifice" that we don't have the right to direct the military. And telling the military what to do is "disrespectful"?!! It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that civilian control and direction of the military is a bedrock principle of our nation. You are really out there. More so that usual. And then you're making outlandish wild assumptions about my personal "appreciation" that are not warranted. In the slightest. I'm not going to parade my families military history out for your inspection. Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything under discussion here.

[Startraveler]

Maybe. We still don't know if it would pass a vote in Congress.

We do know that it did pass the House on Friday, and we know that in completing its markup of the defense authorization bill and voting it out of committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee gave repeal its stamp of approval on Thursday. That leaves a Senate floor vote and votes in each chamber on a conference bill.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Startraveler

[Alien Being]

I'm not being disrespectful. And no, this discussion is about gays in the military. Telling you exactly how our society works in relation to our military is something we usually do in school. I guess some schools are negligent. One does not have to "know" about every facet of the our huge overgrown military complex to understand it. So no I will NOT EVER SHUT UP. Because you serve at the discretion of the people in society. And that means me. That fact is undeniable. I don;t know what high horse you're on. If we decide, you do. Maybe you live somewhere other than the US.

The military does not serve at your discretion and you are delusional to think that it does.

All you have is a ballot paper with which to put your x on.

[ninjadude]

This is an odd argument going back and forth. Of course the military is subject to a civilian govt, and that govt is (in theory anyway, Obamacare aside) accountable to the public. But that does not mean that military policy should be made based on general public opinion. The military has a unique and particular mission and they are the experts about how to do that. So if you want them to be effective, you have to give them professional discretion re how to organize themselves and do their job. You give that discretion to ANY professional group, not just the military. You wouldn't dictate how surgical teams should be set up according to popular opinion polls. You don't leave it to public opinion to determine standards within professional practice. For the military, unlike most orgs, probably, questions about "gayness" have very real relevance and ramifications re how effective they are going to be. You can't randomly change culture. And, again, there is no reason to even try in this case. No reason to change DADT. The ones pushing for it don't have a dog in the fight.

Thanks for at least answering the argument. I'm not sure that's completely true however. I guess the limits would be in the details. The integration of blacks and women into the military was equally "upsetting". And we do tell professionals how to operate by giving them guidelines and laws to operate from. For instance, many states have "dictated" to surgical teams how and when abortions may occur. The change being requested is by no means random but a big part of our society. Like it or not. We need these people in the military doing their jobs. Not being discharged. And it's not like this is something hidden that someone sprung on them. DADT has not been working and unpopular for years. The military should have been preparing for it (if they were not).

[venqax]

We do know that it did pass the House on Friday, and we know that in completing its markup of the defense authorization bill and voting it out of committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee gave repeal its stamp of approval on Thursday. That leaves a Senate floor vote and votes in each chamber on a conference bill.

True. There are still a lot of wrinkles-- the fighter engine problem, the Pentagon review, the sign-off by the secty and the chair of joint chiefs-- but it may very well get at least the votes. The point remains, tho, that that doesn't make it a responsible action on their part or a good thing for the military. Of course no one is surprised at where the left's priorities lay.

[Alien Being]

The LAST thing you smarmy smart-ass civilians want to do, is tell a military member they serve at ANYONES discretion. That's like getting pulled over by a COP, and reminding him that he works for YOU, that YOUR tax dollars pay his salary. THAT is a bullstuff argument.

Some people are attention seekers and like to think the world evovles around them. It doesnt.

If I was a cop and got a mouthy civilian telling me I served them then I'd cart them off to the Police Station for the afternoon just to teach them a lesson.