That doesn’t sound like a good idea, either, but I don’t know the specifics and I’m in no position to make those decisions. I haven’t even spoken with a military recruiter concerning my graduate school debt yet.How about the way the military has relaxed its intelligence and criminal background standards to get more volunteers qualified, is that OK with you?
They don’t get kicked out, they get promoted. That’s no picnic, all the added responsibility and work.Why was Homosexuality removed from the Diagnostic and and Statistical Manual in 1973? Anybody?
Prior to a non-scientific vote in 1973, experts were telling the general population that there was a problem. Today, I’m reading articles in the local paper telling average, and presmably straight, Americans that we should be ashamed of ourselves. How we’ll look back at this and shake our heads.
Who started this? Experts exist to study a specialty and inform the public of the results. Back in the 1960s, more people were inclined to listen to experts. Today, which one newsweekly describes as the “post-trust” world, who do we believe?
Look up gays in the Israeli military. You’ll quickly learn that while they can’t get kicked out for being gay, that it’s no picnic either.
This entire issue should revolve around what military commanders see as the best solution to unit cohesion at all levels, including combat. I’m not saying gays should be excluded from the military, but that the military should make the final decision based on real world knowledge.
God bless,
Ed
That article so ridiculous that Martin appears to be pushing an agenda, ridiculous because of how it is written; I stopped reading after the paragraph:They don’t get kicked out, they get promoted. That’s no picnic, all the added responsibility and work.
sptimes.com/2007/01/08/Worldandnation/Israeli_experience_ma.shtml
Two people “of the University of California”. What are they, undergraduates? (There is no information establishing that what they say is authoritative or reliable.) This article is terribly biased, and what I read lacked surrounding context for its conclusions to be more than premises.“In this security-conscious country, where the military is considered to be essential to the continued existence of the nation, the decision to include sexual minorities has not harmed IDF effectiveness,” wrote Aaron Belkin and Melissa Levitt of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
It seems clear, then, that he is himself biased, and likely homosexual. My experience at universities has been that women major in women’s studies; blacks major in African American studies, and homosexuals run LGBT clinics or “support centers”.Belkin, director of Santa Barbara’s Michael D. Palm Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military
Is the Wall Street Journal better?That article so ridiculous that Martin appears to be pushing an agenda, ridiculous because of how it is written; I stopped reading after the paragraph: Two people “of the University of California”. What are they, undergraduates? (There is no information establishing that what they say is authoritative or reliable.) This article is terribly biased, and what I read lacked surrounding context for its conclusions to be more than premises.
Melissa Levitt appears no where else in the article. Since I, the reader, have no idea who she is, I can just as well assume she’s a nineteen-years-old idiot freshman, rather than make the assumption that she is a learned sixty-years-old triple Ph.D. in psychology, history and military studies, an assumption Martin wants the reader to make. “Since Martin writes an article on the internet, she must be a trustworthy source, and she must only interview expert witnesses” – bad logic.
Searching for Belkin’s name, it appears only one other time, where we learn: It seems clear, then, that he is himself biased, and likely homosexual. My experience at universities has been that women major in women’s studies; blacks major in African American studies, and homosexuals run LGBT clinics or “support centers”.
And by ‘homosexual’ I mean one who is struggling with deep-seated same-sex attractions; a man is not “a homosexual” like he is “a European”: It is an external attribute like weight, not an internal one like hair color. (And, like one’s weight, a problem gained over years of abuse or neglect, it can be very difficult to identify the source of the problem, can be very difficult to address the problem, and can be a lifelong temptation to avoid. The temptation to fornicate with men, in terms of psychological gratification and compulsion, is no different from the desire to eat all kinds of unhealthy, tasty junk food.)
portarica, try to avoid biased sources, read a variety to get more context for understanding, and be an active reader, asking who the source is, what motives there may be, etc. Often terrible sources, like MSNBC, show themselves to be biased and deeply flawed if one is an active reader. If one simply assumes they’re trustworthy and lets themselves be led by the nose, he’s led to the absurd left-wing ideology promoted by the media.
How about Foreign Policy Magazine?That article so ridiculous that Martin appears to be pushing an agenda, ridiculous because of how it is written; I stopped reading after the paragraph: Two people “of the University of California”. What are they, undergraduates? (There is no information establishing that what they say is authoritative or reliable.) This article is terribly biased, and what I read lacked surrounding context for its conclusions to be more than premises.
Melissa Levitt appears no where else in the article. Since I, the reader, have no idea who she is, I can just as well assume she’s a nineteen-years-old idiot freshman, rather than make the assumption that she is a learned sixty-years-old triple Ph.D. in psychology, history and military studies, an assumption Martin wants the reader to make. “Since Martin writes an article on the internet, she must be a trustworthy source, and she must only interview expert witnesses” – bad logic.
Searching for Belkin’s name, it appears only one other time, where we learn: It seems clear, then, that he is himself biased, and likely homosexual. My experience at universities has been that women major in women’s studies; blacks major in African American studies, and homosexuals run LGBT clinics or “support centers”.
And by ‘homosexual’ I mean one who is struggling with deep-seated same-sex attractions; a man is not “a homosexual” like he is “a European”: It is an external attribute like weight, not an internal one like hair color. (And, like one’s weight, a problem gained over years of abuse or neglect, it can be very difficult to identify the source of the problem, can be very difficult to address the problem, and can be a lifelong temptation to avoid. The temptation to fornicate with men, in terms of psychological gratification and compulsion, is no different from the desire to eat all kinds of unhealthy, tasty junk food.)
portarica, try to avoid biased sources, read a variety to get more context for understanding, and be an active reader, asking who the source is, what motives there may be, etc. Often terrible sources, like MSNBC, show themselves to be biased and deeply flawed if one is an active reader. If one simply assumes they’re trustworthy and lets oneself be led by the nose, one is readily led to the absurd left-wing ideology promoted by the media.
Wordplay has no place in real journalism, and referring to policy intended to strengthen a military and help individuals with psychological problems as a “continuing witch hunt” establishes that Kaplan has a bone to pick, and is not interested in considering things objectively. The very first sentence and he’s already saying, “Look at these nasty people persecuting these poor defenseless people.”Viewed from Israel, the continuing witch hunt against gays and lesbians in the U.S. military makes little sense.
I didn’t change the link, there are all types of links out there about gays doing well in many types of positions .I’m not interested in Bret Stephens’ opinion (much less one I must subscribe for), especially since I have no idea who he is. Apparently he’s just another layperson, one who’s position at a well-established publication demonstrates that he is good at writing.
It’s better to listen to people in authority (legitimate authority derived from education, experience, position, responsibilities, function). Being good at writing doesn’t mean he always writes the truth.
Edit: Seems you changed the link to something by Danny Kaplan, perhaps because one needed to subscribe for Bret Stephens. Fair enough, but my argument is unchanged, if not even stronger: Kaplan appears to be a poor writer, his first sentence being enough to see that it’s not something I’m interested in reading: Wordplay has no place in real journalism, and referring to policy intended to strengthen a military and help individuals with psychological problems as a “continuing witch hunt” establishes that Kaplan has a bone to pick, and is not interested in considering things objectively. The very first sentence and he’s already saying, “Look at these nasty people persecuting these poor defenseless people.”
Interesting topic but I think there is a misunderstanding on the DADT by some individuals. According to DADT, homosexual persons can serve the military without revealing their sexual orientation. Anyone who does, are chaptered out of the military.Please excuse me if this is an old topic, but with ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ coming under fire I thought now might be a good time to see where people stand on the issue and why they stand there. If your reasoning is religious based, I would appreciate if anyone can quote scripture or a message from the Church supporting their belief.
There is no right for active duty service personnel to engage in sexual relations. The only pertinent military law article is adultery. Like in the civilian world it is not prosecuted except as a lesser included crime when there’s insufficient evidence in a rape case. Single military men and women engage in sexual relations all the time. As long as it does not constitute fraternization, they are essentially free to do so. Applying this to gay personnel, it would would allow them to go wild, as long as they don’t commit fraternization. On ships and tents in isolated places, even on land, (Ok if they serve in different units and no supervisory relationships) as a pratical matter, this means the gays get to have relations and the straights don’t. This is like having one guy in a unit, getting to go out and have women left and right but the others don’t. That’s only part of the unit cohesion issue. The other part is that gays and straights have an extra hurdle to be able to relate to each other in a solid bonding way. It just ain’t happening – no matter what law they pass.All the evidence seems to state that since homosexuals were permitted to serve in the British military in 2000, there has been no negative effect on morale or unit efficiency. For my American brothers and sisters, I would say that they should be allowed to serve, but should abide by the prohibition of sexual relations while on active service as applies to all soldiers. The right of soldiers and of Military Chaplains to advocate the view that homosexualty runs contrary to natural law in a reasonable should be strongly defended.
Unwed pregnancies are a problem throughout the military, in particular on naval vessels. Submarines have not been that much of a problem, but that is about to change as it is my understanding that women are going to be allowed to serve on subs. Idiocy in the government knows no bounds.tafan, you’ve reminded me of something my mother said about a decade ago, that women were getting pregnant on submarines, that it was a problem. anyone know what i’m talking about? 'cause i don’t … i would’ve been around 12, back in the early 90’s.
Actually the military is a great place to run social experiments.I’ll weigh in on this topic, as I’m prior service (Army) and because I currently live with a gay roommate (best friend from highschool). I feel DADT is an excellent policy, that allows patriotic gays to serve their country honorably, without causing any discomfort to their heterosexual counterparts. Several posters have mentioned that other countries have integrated openly gay service-members without any loss to unit morale and cohesion, however, the majority of those countries tend to be more liberal in general than the US. Considering that the majority of our military’s recruits come from the southern and western parts of the US, with generally conservative leanings, I think many would feel a little uncomfortable serving with an openly gay member. On the other hand, I do think that in Combat Support, and Combat Service Support units could be integrated with little difficulty, because they tend to operate more like civilians in their housing and interactions with each other.
Combat Arms is an entirely different story though. Men are housed in extremely close quarters, and become very close to each other, opening up about things that they might not even tell their civilian friends from home about. Open gays WILL change this dynamic, especially in our current uber PC world, heterosexual soldiers will have to pick their words carefully as to not offend the gays and risk punishment from their CoC. This will create a crack in the wall that is our first line of defense for this nation. Some may say this won’t happen, but it will. Ever since my roommate came out of the closet, our relationship has changed. Some topics are now taboo, whereas before when he wasn’t open, even though I strongly suspected he was gay, we would talk about anything and everything. Even though he is one of my best friends, and I love him to death, we are not nearly as close as we once were. And this is with us only sharing an apartment! People tend to fear what they don’t know, and heterosexuals will never know what its like to be gay.
Now you add this additional stressor in a combat zone, where our troops already have ridiculous RoE’s and face a cowardly enemy who hides behind civilians and fights from afar, this cannot be a good idea. If Congress truly feels so strongly about this, they should at least wait until our current conflicts are over before implementing this. As another poster said, the military is not a place to run social experiments, which this clearly is.
Peace