Military's gay ban is unconstitutional

[Ridgerunner]

The Army isn’t in the morality business. ** Nor should it be endorsing something as moral that isn’t. **

I’d say, “Let’s see how is it working out in those armies that have gays serving openly.” Your concerns are speculative, those armies have the real life facts and the experience with the situation. Not to dismiss your concerns, but I’d rather rely on what has happened than on what might happen.

What armies that are any good, and that have a cultural heritage like that of the U.S. would you want to look at?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

What armies that are any good, and that have a cultural heritage like that of the U.S. would you want to look at?

United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada are very professional militaries and equal to ours.

 

[Ridgerunner]

United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada are very professional militaries and equal to ours.

Not to seem picky, but how many southern fundamentalists, traditional Catholics and Mormons are there in those armies? Can you assure anyone that there will be no attrition from those presently highly-represented groups if the military endorses overt homosexuality? I do not suggest that homosexuals can’t make fine soldiers. The Theban Band was, after all, famous for its prowess, partly because they found themselves defending the lives of their lovers. What I do suggest is that nobody knows how many potential recruits will not join the military under those circumstances, but would have otherwise done so. Yet, nobody seems to ever even consider that.

Regardless, for the government to endorse homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality is, in my mind, something governments have no business doing. As we all know, it is not a matter of whether they can serve or not. It’s a matter of whether they can advertise it.

It’s not the same thing, quite, and I know it, but the Catholic Church has had very unpleasant recent experiences from looking the other way when priests (or some few bishops) have been homosexual. The John Jay study clearly establishes that most victims were post-pubescent young men. And we’re supposed to believe there will be no homosexual sexual solicitation in the armed forces if DADT is abolished?

Seems like some lessons can’t get learned.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Not to seem picky, but how many southern fundamentalists, traditional Catholics and Mormons are there in those armies? Can you assure anyone that there will be no attrition from those presently highly-represented groups if the military endorses overt homosexuality?

Hardly endorsing overt homosexuality, but not denying those men and women the opportunity to serve. Keep in mind that it would be a patriotically motivated individual of whatever inclination who wants to enlist, not some Drag Queen or some heterosexual lout.

What I do suggest is that nobody knows how many potential recruits will not join the military under those circumstances, but would have otherwise done so. Yet, nobody seems to ever even consider that.

You are looking at the glass as half empty; Stan and I see it as half full. We’re more positive about it because of our experiences.

Regardless, for the government to endorse homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality is, in my mind, something governments have no business doing. As we all know, it is not a matter of whether they can serve or not. It’s a matter of whether they can advertise it.

No advertising needed. One enlists and serves. The government is not endorsing homosexuality any more than it endorse heterosexuality.

It’s not the same thing, quite, and I know it, but the Catholic Church has had very unpleasant recent experiences from looking the other way when priests (or some few bishops) have been homosexual. The John Jay study clearly establishes that most victims were post-pubescent young men. And we’re supposed to believe there will be no homosexual sexual solicitation in the armed forces if DADT is abolished?

Sure, there’ll be some guys trying to hit on other guys. Don’t you think that women in the Services get hit on right now by some men in the Services? And, as for your example regarding the Church - it’s not a good example because the overwhelming number of Catholic priests do NOT hit on teenaged boys. Almost ALL are faithful to their celibacy.

I’d think then that most gays will find their own, just as straight guys will find their own.

 

[kenofken]

Not to seem picky, but how many southern fundamentalists, traditional Catholics and Mormons are there in those armies? Can you assure anyone that there will be no attrition from those presently highly-represented groups if the military endorses overt homosexuality? I do not suggest that homosexuals can’t make fine soldiers. The Theban Band was, after all, famous for its prowess, partly because they found themselves defending the lives of their lovers. What I do suggest is that nobody knows how many potential recruits will not join the military under those circumstances, but would have otherwise done so. Yet, nobody seems to ever even consider that.

Regardless, for the government to endorse homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality is, in my mind, something governments have no business doing. As we all know, it is not a matter of whether they can serve or not. It’s a matter of whether they can advertise it.

It’s not the same thing, quite, and I know it, but the Catholic Church has had very unpleasant recent experiences from looking the other way when priests (or some few bishops) have been homosexual. The John Jay study clearly establishes that most victims were post-pubescent young men. And we’re supposed to believe there will be no homosexual sexual solicitation in the armed forces if DADT is abolished?

Seems like some lessons can’t get learned.

Would we lose some potential good recruits among conservative Christians? Perhaps, but it’s just as well. If people have such strong beliefs that they can’t manage to suck it up and do a job when their country’s defense is on the line, it’s better for all that they find work elsewhere. I have no doubt there are white supremecists out there, probably some very good fighters among them, who won’t join an integrated army and others who just think our foreign policy is evil and can’t bring themselves to be part of it. It’s a volunteer force, so they can stay home. If you do join, you’re not bound to approve of or like any of your fellow soldiers. All you have to do is work with them well enough to get the job done. It’s not about the military “endorsing” homosexuality anymore than they “endorsed” black folk when Truman integrated the army. It’s just a matter of wisely using a good resource of people who are willing and able to serve.

The notion that homosexuality is the prime root of the Church’s crisis is a delusion which has prevented it from making any substantive progress on that issue. The problem is largely the result of a culture of secrecy and unaccountability of leaders who actively aided and abetted abuse. It was also the result of some naivete in putting adults in absolutely unsupervised situations with minors.

To the extent homosexual orientation had anything to do with it, it was largely because our social atmosphere in the past, formed partly by the church, made it impossible for gay men to acknowledge their orientation and develop in any emotionally mature way which would have led them toward healthy adult relationships instead of teens. It is also not clear that all of these men were even “gay” in the real sense of the word. Many abusers take victims where they can find them. For most of recent history, Catholic priests had far more day to day interaction with young men than women. If the Church had had as many girl altar servers in the 1950-80s as they do now, we’d be hearing from a lot more women victims and their attorneys, I suspect.

 

[Good_News_1]

Would we lose some potential good recruits among conservative Christians? Perhaps, but it’s just as well. If people have such strong beliefs that they can’t manage to suck it up and do a job when their country’s defense is on the line, it’s better for all that they find work elsewhere.

Aren’t you just saying that if they can’t set aside their beliefs, they aren’t good recruits because they don’t love their country enough?

That’s how I read your comment, anyway.

I have no doubt there are white supremecists out there, probably some very good fighters among them, who won’t join an integrated army

White supremacists seek to deny the civil rights of people of other races. Christian conservatives generally don’t approve of job discrimination, etc. for gays. They have an issue with certain behaviors, not certain people. It is an offensive comparison.

It’s a volunteer force, so they can stay home.

But this applies to gays, pacifists, and everyone else as long as they are not exercising a Constitutional right. If the gays don’t like the rules, they can stay out, just as conservative Christians. They aren’t a protected class, constitutionally.

But, as a matter of recruitment, I would guess that conservative Christians comprise a much larger percentage of the military than the general population. Alienating conservative Christians could have a significant impact on the size and ability of our military. I wouldn’t think it should be done lightly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Hardly endorsing overt homosexuality, but not denying those men and women the opportunity to serve. Keep in mind that it would be a patriotically motivated individual of whatever inclination who wants to enlist, not some Drag Queen or some heterosexual lout.

You are looking at the glass as half empty; Stan and I see it as half full. We’re more positive about it because of our experiences.

No advertising needed. One enlists and serves. The government is not endorsing homosexuality any more than it endorse heterosexuality.

Sure, there’ll be some guys trying to hit on other guys. Don’t you think that women in the Services get hit on right now by some men in the Services? And, as for your example regarding the Church - it’s not a good example because the overwhelming number of Catholic priests do NOT hit on teenaged boys. Almost ALL are faithful to their celibacy.

I’d think then that most gays will find their own, just as straight guys will find their own.

Yes, I know all the “homosexuality is just a variant of normal” talking points, and I’m sure this administration is more than eager to experiment with national security to sell the concept. I’m not. But then, I don’t run the government, so no need to worry. This administration will get it done. I’m confident of that.

But of course it is endorsing homosexuality, or perhaps more precisely “Homosexual relationships are just as normal as your mom and dad’s, kids. Look. Here’s dashing Captain Ken and his wife Pete at the post dance and in their cottage on post housing.” That’s okay with you, I take it. It isn’t with me.

And, of course, as has been repeated often in here, homosexuals can still serve. Everybody knows that, and nobody should maintain that they can’t with DADT. What we’re really talking about is the homosexual effort to persuade the society that “homosexuality is just a variant of normal.” Same old, same old.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The notion that homosexuality is the prime root of the Church’s crisis is a delusion which has prevented it from making any substantive progress on that issue. The problem is largely the result of a culture of secrecy and unaccountability of leaders who actively aided and abetted abuse. It was also the result of some naivete in putting adults in absolutely unsupervised situations with minors.

To the extent homosexual orientation had anything to do with it, it was largely because our social atmosphere in the past, formed partly by the church, made it impossible for gay men to acknowledge their orientation and develop in any emotionally mature way which would have led them toward healthy adult relationships instead of teens. It is also not clear that all of these men were even “gay” in the real sense of the word. Many abusers take victims where they can find them. For most of recent history, Catholic priests had far more day to day interaction with young men than women. If the Church had had as many girl altar servers in the 1950-80s as they do now, we’d be hearing from a lot more women victims and their attorneys, I suspect.

No we wouldn’t. The vast majority of “sexual abuse” cases were not with little boys, but with post-pubescent young men. The little boys would have been easier targets. The perps were not pedophiles, by and large. They were simply homosexuals.

Keep telling yourself the homosexualist mantra. “It’s just a variant of normal”. It had devastating consequences in the Church. Now some want it in the armed forces. Maybe in the Church again, too. Probably in the Church again too.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But, as a matter of recruitment, I would guess that conservative Christians comprise a much larger percentage of the military than the general population. Alienating conservative Christians could have a significant impact on the size and ability of our military. I wouldn’t think it should be done lightly.

But it will be, and all in the name of “politically correct thought”. I don’t know how many Muslims are in the service either, but I think you can count them out as well. Probably Mormons too. Here we are as a nation with our shorts all in a wad about some ignorant preacher going to offend Muslims worldwide and put a target on the back of every American soldier by burning the Koran in front of a 30 person congregation. But hey! Let’s have open homosexuality in the armed forces! No Muslim fanatic leader will be telling his followers that American soldiers are homosexuals whose death Islam mandates.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Look. Here’s dashing Captain Ken and his wife Pete at the post dance and in their cottage on post housing." That’s okay with you, I take it. It isn’t with me.

I haven’t any problem with your being opposed to it, even strongly. As you said, it is alright with me, with Stan, and with a number of others on this Forum, and may become alright with enough people to allow gays to serve in our Armed Forces as openly as they do in other armies.

We’ll just have to see how it plays out. My argument rides a lot on the fact that there hasn’t been the ruckus and problems over it overseas that there has been in the U.S. If it works for them, it may well work for us.

." Same old, same old.

If the gay guy can carry a gun and shoot and follow orders, then “same old” is fine with me.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Finally, it may be observed that volunteers for the military are very often people of strongly religious backgrounds. Very frequently, there is family encouragement or at least endorsement of a military decision. How many strongly religious people are going to think it’s just fine for their son or daughter to serve in a flagrant homosexual atmosphere? My suspicion is that those who would be lost to the military for that reason would outnumber the number of homosexual experts who just couldn’t stand being in the service without being openly homosexual.

If the people who serve with them are ok and probably 70% of Americans are ok with it, why are they being held hostage by a minority of homophobes. It is your interpretation that allowing gays to openly serve in the military would change the atmosphere to “flagrantly homosexual” they serve now. Is that same atmosphere too homosexual for those strongly religious people? Makes no sense to me.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I have posted this before so here it is again:

As I stated on other threads I have no agenda I am stating from my experience of over twenty years as a dogface. From Private to Senior Non Commission Officer I have serve with homosexuals in the United States Army to most of us it was not a big deal.
In over twenty years in the military I never got a complaint from one my soldiers about homosexual soldiers.

The problem I have with DADT is it is a security problem for closet homosexuals. During the Cold War that’s who the Soviets tried to recruit—cooperate [spy for us] or we will notify your superiors.

When it comes to being a Professional Soldier in the United States Armed Forces it’s all about integrity the American government is asking these people to give up their honesty.

It is against United States Military Ethics to have these soldiers live a lie.

Do I agree with their lifestyle? Nope. However they have always been serving in our military and still do; so let them serve. Like I said to me it’s more of a security problem than a moral problem.

Also my brothers and sisters you need to look at some of the U.S. Military leadership ethics and traits:

*Ethics are principles or standards that guide professionals to do the moral or right thing. *

*There are the four elements of the professional army ethics: *

Loyalty, Duty, Selfless service, and Integrity.

These are the character traits of a leader:

Bearing, Courage, Decisiveness, Endurance, Initiative, Maturity, Will, Candor, Competence, Commitment, Self discipline, Flexibility, Confidence, Integrity, Justice, Tact, Coolness, Improvement, Assertiveness, Empathy/compassion Sense of humor, Creativity, Humility.

When these people put on Bars or Chevrons they have given oaths and just by being dishonest on whom they are; they are breaking that oath. They are being forced to break it. What’s the saying you can’t serve two masters?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I haven’t any problem with your being opposed to it, even strongly. As you said, it is alright with me, with Stan, and with a number of others on this Forum, and may become alright with enough people to allow gays to serve in our Armed Forces as openly as they do in other armies.

We’ll just have to see how it plays out. My argument rides a lot on the fact that there hasn’t been the ruckus and problems over it overseas that there has been in the U.S. If it works for them, it may well work for us.

If the gay guy can carry a gun and shoot and follow orders, then “same old” is fine with me.

One more time, then I have to go do some work.

Homosexuals can serve presently. Nobody is preventing them from doing it. The only thing DADT does is prevent the government from overtly equating it with heterosexuality.

I realize many are fine with the idea of experimenting with “fixing something that ain’t broke”. Seems we have a lot of expermentation nowadays, seeing how far we can push on the structures that hold society together without breaking them apart entirely. Doubtless it’s possible, as with a building, to push out this support here, and that brace there without making the whole thing fall down. Nobody but an engineer would know for sure which ones, if removed, would be fatal to the whole. Trouble is, there are all these people out there who think they are “societal engineers”, when there’s really no such thing.

In a way, I suppose this whole discussion is academic, since this government is going to do away with DADT as sure as the sun comes up in the morning. But, as long as we still have freedom of speech, a person can lament it and all the other removals of societal structures the erstwhile “social engineers” think they can do for the sake of goals that really have nothing but abstract value. Very little, it seems, retains respect or adherence anymore, so long as some interest group applies what seems a shamefully mild amount of pressure. People vote themselves money earned by others. People don’t have children. People abort. People divorce and remarry. More and more people don’t even bother to marry. More and more people don’t seem to think there’s anything inappropriate about living on the dole for generations. People look at things like “gay marriage” and cast off the meaning of an institution that is actually a central pillar of civilization because some tiny minority puts pressure on those who think they understand human nature enough to tinker with it. And each time that happens, some other brace in society gives way; something unforeseen. So, okay, some say, let’s let all those traditional minded people go hang. To hell with their mores notwithstanding they have stood the test of millenia. We’re all social engineers now and the thought that popped into our minds the day before yesterday is surely superior because we’re the ones who thought it.

And people then wonder why this society seems so polarized. One of the reasons is that people are so willing to turn society on its head for the sake of trivial goals.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

• They’re not like us!
• They’re different!
• Serving side by side with them? It will never work!
• Living in the same barracks with them? No way!
• Shower with them? There will be trouble!

On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9981 integrating the military and mandating equality of treatment and opportunity. It also made it illegal, per military law, to make a racist remark. Desegregation of the military was not complete for several years. The last all-black unit wasn’t disbanded until 1954.

A lot of the same arguments I hear today is being said about homosexuals serving openly in the military; yes I know it a totally different issue but the arguments are still the same.

Top military leadership did not like or want President Truman’s EO 9981 but once it happened they saluted and marched on.

All President Obama has to do is sign an Executive Order ending DADT. IMHO he should do it.

 

[kenofken]

One more time, then I have to go do some work.

Homosexuals can serve presently. Nobody is preventing them from doing it. The only thing DADT does is prevent the government from overtly equating it with heterosexuality.

I realize many are fine with the idea of experimenting with “fixing something that ain’t broke”. Seems we have a lot of expermentation nowadays, seeing how far we can push on the structures that hold society together without breaking them apart entirely. Doubtless it’s possible, as with a building, to push out this support here, and that brace there without making the whole thing fall down. Nobody but an engineer would know for sure which ones, if removed, would be fatal to the whole. Trouble is, there are all these people out there who think they are “societal engineers”, when there’s really no such thing.

In a way, I suppose this whole discussion is academic, since this government is going to do away with DADT as sure as the sun comes up in the morning. But, as long as we still have freedom of speech, a person can lament it and all the other removals of societal structures the erstwhile “social engineers” think they can do for the sake of goals that really have nothing but abstract value. Very little, it seems, retains respect or adherence anymore, so long as some interest group applies what seems a shamefully mild amount of pressure. People vote themselves money earned by others. People don’t have children. People abort. People divorce and remarry. More and more people don’t even bother to marry. More and more people don’t seem to think there’s anything inappropriate about living on the dole for generations. People look at things like “gay marriage” and cast off the meaning of an institution that is actually a central pillar of civilization because some tiny minority puts pressure on those who think they understand human nature enough to tinker with it. And each time that happens, some other brace in society gives way; something unforeseen. So, okay, some say, let’s let all those traditional minded people go hang. To hell with their mores notwithstanding they have stood the test of millenia. We’re all social engineers now and the thought that popped into our minds the day before yesterday is surely superior because we’re the ones who thought it.

And people then wonder why this society seems so polarized. One of the reasons is that people are so willing to turn society on its head for the sake of trivial goals.

Slavery was a central and ancient pillar of civilization and a fundamental brace in its order for millenia. It too was torn down by liberal social engineers. Unlike the situation with gays, which has caused no demonstrable harm, ending slavery came at a cost of 600,000 lives, almost ended our nation and left half of it economically moribund for a century afterwards. Should we have left well enough alone?

 

[kenofken]

• They’re not like us!
• They’re different!
• Serving side by side with them? It will never work!
• Living in the same barracks with them? No way!
• Shower with them? There will be trouble!

On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9981 integrating the military and mandating equality of treatment and opportunity. It also made it illegal, per military law, to make a racist remark. Desegregation of the military was not complete for several years. The last all-black unit wasn’t disbanded until 1954.

A lot of the same arguments I hear today is being said about homosexuals serving openly in the military; yes I know it a totally different issue but the arguments are still the same.

Top military leadership did not like or want President Truman’s EO 9981 but once it happened they saluted and marched on.

All President Obama has to do is sign an Executive Order ending DADT. IMHO he should do it.

That, is the absolute flawless genius of the military command structure and the civilian leadership over it. They may be strict, but they are not heartless. You don’t have to like an order or the guy who issues it. You just have to carry it out.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

That, is the absolute flawless genius of the military command structure and the civilian leadership over it. They may be strict, but they are not heartless. You don’t have to like an order or the guy who issues it. You just have to carry it out.

As anyone who ever served in the Armed Forces understands.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

• They’re not like us!
• They’re different!
• Serving side by side with them? It will never work!
• Living in the same barracks with them? No way!
• Shower with them? There will be trouble!

There are arguments against having gays in the military that aren’t as frivolous as you make them out to be. If showering with people who have attraction to your sex isn’t a big deal, then why don’t I get to shower with the females out in the field? If being roomates with people who have an attraction to my sex isn’t a big deal, then why aren’t male Soldiers rooming with female Soldiers?

In order to be consistent, we’ll either have to:
a) have males and females rooming/showering together

b) create separate living facilities for lesbians and gays so that they have their own personal rooms and showers, since you can’t have lesbians sharing arrangements, nor can you have a lesbian sharing an arrangement with a straight female, nor can you have a lesbian sharing an arrangement with a straight male.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

There are arguments against having gays in the military that aren’t as frivolous as you make them out to be. If showering with people who have attraction to your sex isn’t a big deal, then why don’t I get to shower with the females out in the field? If being roomates with people who have an attraction to my sex isn’t a big deal, then why aren’t male Soldiers rooming with female Soldiers?

In order to be consistent, we’ll either have to:
a) have males and females rooming/showering together

b) create separate living facilities for lesbians and gays so that they have their own personal rooms and showers, since you can’t have lesbians sharing arrangements, nor can you have a lesbian sharing an arrangement with a straight female, nor can you have a lesbian sharing an arrangement with a straight male.

Why do you presume that everyone that is homosexual is lusting in the shower stall? i don’t believe that most people chose this inclination. I think that most people can restrain themselves from inappropriate sexual activity. Are you assuming that the sight of same sex people showering will excite soldiers beyond thier ability to control themselves? I think they can.

 

[Sonic]

Why do you presume that everyone that is homosexual is lusting in the shower stall? i don’t believe that most people chose this inclination. I think that most people can restrain themselves from inappropriate sexual activity. Are you assuming that the sight of same sex people showering will excite soldiers beyond thier ability to control themselves? I think they can.

You haven’t actually been exposed to the gay lifestyle have you? If it were possible to show some examples without violating the rules or exposing anyone to a near occasion of sin, then I could really open a lot of people’s eyes. It’s just not possible to actually show what is going on in the gay lifestyle without actually showing it.