Gays in military: Do allies' experiences matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stanmaxkolbe

Guest
Most of America’s closest allies opted years ago to allow gays to serve openly in their militaries. As U.S. policymakers wrestle with the issue, there’s sharp disagreement over whether those allies’ experiences are relevant to the debate.

More than 25 countries let gays serve openly, including Israel’s battle-tested forces and nearly every NATO military except Turkey and the U.S. In each case, there have been too few problems to prompt any high-level talk of abandoning the policy.

Is that track record evidence that the U.S. could and should follow suit? Or is America’s military so different, in terms of its size, culture and global mission, that foreign examples are beside the point?

Among those pressing the case for irrelevance is Tony Perkins, a former Marine who is president of the conservative Family Research Council.

“The European culture is more permissive than ours,” he said. “And no other military does the work that ours does. When you’re looking at a military that has the burden we carry, we can’t afford to get this wrong.”

Read rest to story:
Gays in military: Do allies’ experiences matter?
kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=45926
 
We allow gays in the military here. But what I found when I was in was that many people still didn’t choose to share that information. How did I know that - because usually you had a reasonable idea of who was gay anyway.

I can’t imagine that it is any different in the US - if you are living and working in close contact with people, you get to know them, often even the things they don’t tell you. I just don’'t see that the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy could be all that effective - it seems pointless to me.

If someone is not professional enough to serve with someone who is gay, or with someone of another sex for that matter, I really don’t want to give them a dangerous weapon and send them out into the world in the name of my country…
 
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10080312.html

"Was Alleged Wikileaks Source a Homosexual with Axe to Grind against U.S. Military?"

By James Tillman

"August 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – SPC Bradley Manning, who has been arrested and detained in connection with the leak of thousands of classified documents recently released on WikiLeaks, is a homosexual activist who has spoken out against the U.S. military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

The connection has led Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins to speculate that there may be a connection between Manning’s activism, and his decision to leak the documents.

“In May, when U.S. authorities arrested Army Private Bradley Manning for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.org, there were whispers that he was politically motivated,” stated Perkins.

“It turns out that Manning is an extreme homosexual activist whose fury over the services’ homosexual policy may have led him to publicize highly classified documents about the wars.”

A childhood friend of Manning, Jordan Davis, has said that the young man “came out” as gay when he was only 13.

In addition, records of an instant messenger chat Manning held with Adrian Lamo, who eventually turned Manning in to the government, seem to indicate that he thought of himself as a woman. In the chat Manning says that he would not mind going to prison or being executed for leaking the classified documents if it was not for “having pictures of me … plastered all over the world press … as [a] boy.”

However, in his discussions with Lamo about why he leaked the documents, Manning made no mention of his sexual orientation. Instead he said he leaked the secrets because he wanted “people to see the truth … regardless of who they are … because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.” Lamo has said he was dissatisfied with certain military policies and wanted to affect U.S. foreign policy.

Manning’s Facebook page reveals that he was depressed over a recent breakup with his boyfriend. One photo on the page shows him holding a sign asking for equality on the battlefield. Among his “Likes and Interests” were "REPEAL THE BAN - End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” “QueerToday.com,” “Stonewall Democrats,” “LGBT America,” “Repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” “No on Prop 8 | Don’t Eliminate Marriage for Anyone,” and the homosexualist “Human Rights Campaign.”

He also “liked” Barack Obama and the openly homosexual congressman Barney Frank, who has worked to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT)."
 
It might be noted in passing that many of the European governments had no choice, having been ordered to allow open homosexuality in their militaries by the European Court. Until then, Britain, among others, did not.

Regardless, the U.S. is not Britain or any European state.

Interesting to note as well how European culture is denigrated by U.S. liberals until it comes to things that serve their political purposes. Then, of course, those “European” things are enlightened. Otherwise, third world values and cultures are always superior.:rolleyes:
 
stanmaxkolbe said:
Most of America’s closest allies opted years ago to allow gays to serve openly in their militaries. As U.S. policymakers wrestle with the issue, there’s sharp disagreement over whether those allies’ experiences are relevant to the debate.

More than 25 countries let gays serve openly, including Israel’s battle-tested forces and nearly every NATO military except Turkey and the U.S. In each case, there have been too few problems to prompt any high-level talk of abandoning the policy.

Is that track record evidence that the U.S. could and should follow suit? Or is America’s military so different, in terms of its size, culture and global mission, that foreign examples are beside the point?

Among those pressing the case for irrelevance is Tony Perkins, a former Marine who is president of the conservative Family Research Council.

“The European culture is more permissive than ours,” he said. “And no other military does the work that ours does. When you’re looking at a military that has the burden we carry, we can’t afford to get this wrong.”

Read rest to story:
Gays in military: Do allies’ experiences matter?
kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=45926
Click to expand...
I think it’s relevant to the extent that the opposing view takes a Chicken Little attitude toward repealing DADT. In other words, it’s relevant to show that other modern militaries with large amounts of competency did it without the wheels flying off the cart.

But I continue to believe that the repeal of DADT will be met by our servicemembers with a collective yawn. Lots of us don’t really care. But even for those who do care, it’s a leadership issue. And we rather accustomed to doing things that we don’t want to do - it’s part of the job description.

Will there be bumps in the road? Absolutely; just like there were with the integration of women and ethnic minorities into our fighting forces. But those issues are almost non-existent now. Perhaps it might surprise many civilians that the military is far and away more integrated and far and away less affected by racial, religious, and sex discrimination or harassment. I’d submit were much, much better than the majority of the civilian population in the US. Ultimately - and far more so than the rest of the US society - the military is a merit-based society. And if someone is competent, I expect we’re less concerned with their religion, race, sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

I served at sea during the integation of women into the fighting fleet; and in my experience the senior leadership and civilians far underestimated our ability to shrug our shoulders and carry out the plan of the day. It just wasn’t an issue.

Based on what I hear when active servicmembers talk about DADT, I expect a similar lack of concern/interest.

Pax,
OA
 
Barbkw said:
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10080312.html

"Was Alleged Wikileaks Source a Homosexual with Axe to Grind against U.S. Military?"

By James Tillman

"August 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – SPC Bradley Manning, who has been arrested and detained in connection with the leak of thousands of classified documents recently released on WikiLeaks, is a homosexual activist who has spoken out against the U.S. military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

The connection has led Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins to speculate that there may be a connection between Manning’s activism, and his decision to leak the documents.

“In May, when U.S. authorities arrested Army Private Bradley Manning for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.org, there were whispers that he was politically motivated,” stated Perkins.

“It turns out that Manning is an extreme homosexual activist whose fury over the services’ homosexual policy may have led him to publicize highly classified documents about the wars.”

A childhood friend of Manning, Jordan Davis, has said that the young man “came out” as gay when he was only 13.

In addition, records of an instant messenger chat Manning held with Adrian Lamo, who eventually turned Manning in to the government, seem to indicate that he thought of himself as a woman. In the chat Manning says that he would not mind going to prison or being executed for leaking the classified documents if it was not for “having pictures of me … plastered all over the world press … as [a] boy.”

However, in his discussions with Lamo about why he leaked the documents, Manning made no mention of his sexual orientation. Instead he said he leaked the secrets because he wanted “people to see the truth … regardless of who they are … because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.” Lamo has said he was dissatisfied with certain military policies and wanted to affect U.S. foreign policy.

Manning’s Facebook page reveals that he was depressed over a recent breakup with his boyfriend. One photo on the page shows him holding a sign asking for equality on the battlefield. Among his “Likes and Interests” were "REPEAL THE BAN - End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” “QueerToday.com,” “Stonewall Democrats,” “LGBT America,” “Repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” “No on Prop 8 | Don’t Eliminate Marriage for Anyone,” and the homosexualist “Human Rights Campaign.”

He also “liked” Barack Obama and the openly homosexual congressman Barney Frank, who has worked to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT)."
Click to expand...
I don’t care what this traitor’s sexual orientation is he just needs to be thrown under the jail for treason. Even though I agree of ending DADT there is other ways to do it without being a traitor to the United States.
 
Orleans_Attny said:
I think it’s relevant to the extent that the opposing view takes a Chicken Little attitude toward repealing DADT. In other words, it’s relevant to show that other modern militaries with large amounts of competency did it without the wheels flying off the cart.

But I continue to believe that the repeal of DADT will be met by our servicemembers with a collective yawn. Lots of us don’t really care. But even for those who do care, it’s a leadership issue. And we rather accustomed to doing things that we don’t want to do - it’s part of the job description.

Will there be bumps in the road? Absolutely; just like there were with the integration of women and ethnic minorities into our fighting forces. But those issues are almost non-existent now. Perhaps it might surprise many civilians that the military is far and away more integrated and far and away less affected by racial, religious, and sex discrimination or harassment. I’d submit were much, much better than the majority of the civilian population in the US. Ultimately - and far more so than the rest of the US society - the military is a merit-based society. And if someone is competent, I expect we’re less concerned with their religion, race, sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

I served at sea during the integation of women into the fighting fleet; and in my experience the senior leadership and civilians far underestimated our ability to shrug our shoulders and carry out the plan of the day. It just wasn’t an issue.

Based on what I hear when active servicmembers talk about DADT, I expect a similar lack of concern/interest.

Pax,
OA
Click to expand...
Don’t “yawn” yet. According to a poll I heard about, up to 10-15 percent of our Army People could quit if the DADT policy is finally cancelled.

You DO know DADT is a Policy, right?
That is different from the Law the SCOTUS has consistently upheld-----among other things, it states that:
  1. There is NO Constitutional Right to Military Service;
    2)Military Society is totally different from Civilian Society;
  2. The Military has the right to determine what or what not enhances or decreses morale and cohesion.
    Etc, etc.
The Military has determined that Opnely Gay People in the Military would undermine Morale, stability, and Cohesion within the ranks. You’re asking people to tolerate open immorality within their ranks that goes against their beliefs.

I agree with the previous poster. We’re more Moral and we are not as permissive as Europe.

Those countries may “tolerate” gays in the Military----but have you asked them whether they would RATHER have a DADT-type of situation?🤷
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
Don’t “yawn” yet. According to a poll I heard about, up to 10-15 percent of our Army People could quit if the DADT policy is finally cancelled.

You DO know DADT is a Policy, right?
That is different from the Law the SCOTUS has consistently upheld-----among other things, it states that:
  1. There is NO Constitutional Right to Military Service;
    2)Military Society is totally different from Civilian Society;
  2. The Military has the right to determine what or what not enhances or decreses morale and cohesion.
    Etc, etc.
The Military has determined that Opnely Gay People in the Military would undermine Morale, stability, and Cohesion within the ranks. You’re asking people to tolerate open immorality within their ranks that goes against their beliefs.

I agree with the previous poster. We’re more Moral and we are not as permissive as Europe.

Those countries may “tolerate” gays in the Military----but have you asked them whether they would RATHER have a DADT-type of situation?🤷
Click to expand...
As you can probably guess, I’m very familiar with the face that DADT is actually codified by federal statute (a law). And I’m also very familiar with the administrative aspects of the law - since I’m a Judge Advocate on active duty.

The DoD has not yet published the results of its study, which included a very, very large survey of active and reserve personnel. Those results are due in December, and will undoubtedly be the most accurate indicator of how servicemembers may respond to a repeal of DADT by Congress and the Executive.

As to your last point: What servicemembers prefer is relevant, but not overly so. Ultimately, our military’s capability will not be lessened by a repeal of DADT.

And I had to laugh about your comment about servicemembers tolerating open immorality in the ranks. . . . . Have you ever met our servicemembers???:cool::eek:🤷

Pax,
OA
 
Perhaps it would be more effective to look at removing gang members from the American military.
 
Orleans_Attny said:
… And we rather accustomed to doing things that we don’t want to do - it’s part of the job description…
Click to expand...
whenever I hear a politician say that they want to poll the service members and study the issue more, I wonder if they think it is routine to ask if an order will be obeyed before it is given
 
Orleans_Attny said:
As you can probably guess, I’m very familiar with the face that DADT is actually codified by federal statute (a law). And I’m also very familiar with the administrative aspects of the law - since I’m a Judge Advocate on active duty.

The DoD has not yet published the results of its study, which included a very, very large survey of active and reserve personnel. Those results are due in December, and will undoubtedly be the most accurate indicator of how servicemembers may respond to a repeal of DADT by Congress and the Executive.

As to your last point: What servicemembers prefer is relevant, but not overly so. Ultimately, our military’s capability will not be lessened by a repeal of DADT.

And I had to laugh about your comment about servicemembers tolerating open immorality in the ranks. . . . . Have you ever met our servicemembers???:cool::eek:🤷

Pax,
OA
Click to expand...
Immorality may be "tolerated’ within the ranks, but the Military Code and power strucuture actively discourages it, though, if I remember correctly.
Remmber, Military Justice considers Adultery a crime. 👍
And it does not bother you the 10-15 percent of our service members MAY quit if this is totally implemented?
Hmmmmmmmmm.:doh2:
 
catholicnewsagency.com/news/chaplains-opposed-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-being-told-to-leave

*Chaplains opposed to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal coming under pressure *​

From the middle of a CNA piece:

Asked about reports that active chaplains can be accused of insubordination if they publicly oppose changes to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ADF attorney said that the servicemen have been informed through their chain of command that “they should not be commenting on this at this time.”

“One chaplain stood up in a high-level meeting created precisely for the purpose of getting service members’ thoughts on the repeal of the policy.

And he asked ‘What should chaplains do? What should people of faith do if this policy changes and we have problems of conscience with how it’s going to affect us?’”

Blomberg said, “That individual was told by a high-ranking member of the panel that they should just get out of the military.”
 
“Having said that the chaplain you mention obviously feels it does and it seems a stupid way to treat him rather than perhaps asking him to explain how from his point of view it does cause him such problems.”

The Catholic Chaplains and other Chaplains of protestant denominations preach from the Bible where noncelibate sexual acts are immoral.

When the military allows same sex attracted people to be openly noncelibate, it allows for open displays of the homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexual married (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, transexuals) from the states that legalized it will be entitled to housing, will they not?

The homosexual partnered will want their marriages blessed or they will want the military Chaplains to marry them.

I can see that being a difficult problem for a protestant Chaplain who is not willing to blaspheme Sacred Scripture.
 
catholicnewsagency.com/news/chaplains-opposed-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-being-told-to-leave

Blomberg reported that congressional opponents of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy have added non-discrimination regulations to the relevant bill. The original language would treat homosexuality under “a form of class protection like you would see for race or sex.”

Because chaplains have officer proficiency reports like any other officer, they will be judged on whether they are complying with the equal protection goals of the military.

If the policy is repealed, Blomberg explained, **“one of those goals will be being supportive of the military’s mission of incorporating and supporting homosexual behavior in the military.” **

“The concern of the chaplains is if they counsel, if they preach, if they do their ethical teaching duties, and indicate that homosexual behavior is not good, or is a form of sin, then they would be treated as if they had said being black is sinful, or being a woman is wrong. That would be viewed as on that same level of discrimination.”

Blomberg deemed the proposed change to be “very far reaching.”

Archbishop for the Military Services Timothy J. Broglio has opposed repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In an interview with CNA last month, he warned of a “latent” danger to religious liberty in the agenda advanced by some people in the name of tolerance.

“(T)here is an agenda to force everyone to accept as normal and positive behavior that is contrary to the moral norms of many religions, including the Catholic Church,” he commented, voicing concern that teaching morality or forming young people in their faith could be misconstrued as intolerance.
 
OK.

When a Catholic Archbishop says no to the repel of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, follow his lead.

Why are being recalcitrant?

"Archbishop for the Military Services Timothy J. Broglio has opposed repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In an interview with CNA last month, he warned of a “latent” danger to religious liberty in the agenda advanced by some people in the name of tolerance.

I post again:

"If the policy is repealed, Blomberg explained, “one of those goals will be being supportive of the military’s mission of incorporating and supporting homosexual behavior in the military.”

“The concern of the chaplains is if they counsel, if they preach, if they do their ethical teaching duties, and indicate that homosexual behavior is not good, or is a form of sin, then they would be treated as if they had said being black is sinful, or being a woman is wrong. That would be viewed as on that same level of discrimination.”"
 
Because you know better than the Church who ordained this Archbishop and gave him this mission to serve in the military.

How wonderfully protestant of you.
 
Have you read any of Pope Benedict’s statements about noncelibate same sex attraction and gay marriage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top