The US Military is not a social experiement, its our country's fighting force. Their mission needs to be taken more seriously than some guinea pig social experiment.
Allowing gays to serve openly is not an experiment. They're already doing it in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, The United Kingdom and Uruguay.
It has been done for years now. Why would so many countries do it if it was a dangerous "social experiment"?
Erm... Actually that's not historically accurate.
Racial integration was first achieved in... Wait for it... Wait for it... The military. Religious integration was first achieved in... The military. Sexual integration was first achieved in... The military.
In each of these cases it was done long before it was popular in the mainstream.
Historically, the military is where we start social changes, not the other way around. This is one of the arguments in favor of a compulsary military service.
Our education system (schools) is another place where we've installed social change historically.
Both institutions have a precedent for being a productive place and way to enact social change.
While true, Military Leaders have to feel that the change is not going to cause great discipline problems within our units before enacting said change. Regardless of what has been done in the past.
If that had been true blacks would not have been allowed to serve in the military along-side whites in the late 40s. The Civil Rights movement didn't start until the mid 60s.
It's really not up to the generals. It's up to the President.
Erm... Actually that's not historically accurate.
Racial integration was first achieved in... Wait for it... Wait for it... The military. Religious integration was first achieved in... The military. Sexual integration was first achieved in... The military.
In each of these cases it was done long before it was popular in the mainstream.
Historically, the military is where we start social changes, not the other way around. This is one of the arguments in favor of a compulsary military service.
Our education system (schools) is another place where we've installed social change historically.
Both institutions have a precedent for being a productive place and way to enact social change.
But those were murderous, violent, savage, and uncivilized bandits!!!Actually, racial integration, religious integration, and sexual integration were all achieved aboard pirate ships in the mid-eighteenth century. =)
It might be up to the President and Congress, but they aren't the ones who have to deal with the day to day problems created by social experimentation with the military.
Any President worth his vote is going to carefully consider the advice of those who actually lead and run the military.
I love the argument against allowing gays to serve openly. In the movies soldiers are portrayed as these tough guys who take verbal and physical abuse all day long from some sadistic drill sergeant without flinching. But then so many people seem to think that they are really a bunch of sissies whose delicate feelings and insecurities need to be coddled and treated with sensitivity.
I think that if anyone can't handle being ogled by someone they aren't attracted to, then they just aren't cut out for the military. I think we should expect our soldiers to be made of sterner stuff than that.
I always wonder when I see these discussions how many of the commentators serve or have ever served in the Armed forces. How many have any idea what it's like other than what they've seen in movies?
You don't have to wonder too much on here. Many people who have served and post on here, have either their award for doing so or have referenced it somewhere on this forum. Checking out their profiles or checking out the military thread is a good place to start.
Not sure what you are going for though. We actually have people who have served on both sides of this issue. Even some in combat MOSs on both sides. I was Navy, and absolutely believe that gays should be allowed to serve openly. I served with some, and we had very little problems, and none actually directly because the people were gay.
I think the issue for the military services is more one of logistics than morality at this point. More specifically, birthing. Have you heard of any strong opposition from the services to repealing DADT? The services are just asking for some time to figure out how to implement.....however, a great majority of the folks I hear squaking about it have no real knowledge of what the impact is on the services. They think it's the same thing as allowing openly gay school teachers, or doctors into their communities. It's just not that simple in regards to the military.
However, to correctly implement this change with minimal impact, it seems an obvious necessity to prepare measures directed toward preventing and responding to the majority of issues that will arise.Doctors? Seriously? I'm pretty sure there are openly gay doctors. I don't even think it's legal for a hospital to fire a doctor for being gay.
Actually, really it is that simple. Even the berthing issue. Straight and gay men and women already share berths and heads.
As I've pointed out in other threads before, there are few times when many military personnel will actually have to share a shower or even really be naked for a considerable amount of time in front of others. Open bay showers are not common in the military. According to my husband, who has been in combat zones, they really aren't even common in those areas. Boot camp you have open bay showers, but from my experience in boot camp, 20 people have about 2 min to use 6 shower heads to completely wash their bodies (and this was the Navy). The only thing you are worried about in a boot camp shower is getting as clean as possible as fast as possible, gay or straight. Normally, military members do not actually share showers.
Berthing is different, but not exactly hard to regulate. Having sex on duty is still punishable. Raping or attempting to rape or sexually assaulting someone is still punishable. It doesn't matter what the sexuality of the person is. Inappropriate relationships are still punishable.
And besides all this, most of the homosexuals are not going to be flaunting themselves as homosexuals, even when they are allowed to serve openly. The social stigma attached with being gay isn't going to just go away. Many homosexuals may keep themselves in the closet on-duty voluntarily just to fit in. The biggest difference will be that they won't have to worry about something slipping about them actually being gay. They won't have to worry about getting turned in, and subsequently kicked out because someone seen them out in town with someone they are dating. They
Besides, name me one of those military organizations that have our efficiency and capability.
However, to correctly implement this change with minimal impact, it seems an obvious necessity to prepare measures directed toward preventing and responding to the majority of issues that will arise.
It is NOT as easy as flipping a light switch.
And issues WILL arise.
However, to correctly implement this change with minimal impact, it seems an obvious necessity to prepare measures directed toward preventing and responding to the majority of issues that will arise.
It is NOT as easy as flipping a light switch.
And issues WILL arise.
I quite agree. An immediate policy change to eliminate sexual preference (or however that works) as a discharge reason should be made.Some issues yes. Most will be due to intolerance of those that do decide to come out, and a few don't like it.
I am okay with waiting a while, but I don't like the fact that it is so open-ended. There really is no good reason to insist on continuing to discharge personnel, especially those who aren't causing disruptions. I absolutely think it is easy to say that there will be a halt to discharges of personnel who haven't shown themselves to be a problem and/or whose case has shown no disruptions to the unit. There is no reason to put that off.
No, now they will have to rewrite multiple regulations regarding multiple things.Those issues were pretty much taken of with DADT. People know homosexuals are in the military and all that will happen now is that gays won't get discharged for going home to their same sex partner.
And no, DADT caused many of those issues, and they will still exist until it is completely removed and any rules based upon it are rewritten.
And so forth and so on.
Not at all.As far as I know sex is illegal on military bases unless you are married. And as far as I know and everybody else knows gays are serving in the military. All that is changing is gays will not get discharged for being gay.
Not at all.
In effect, yes, but all the varied rules and regulations that enforce that fact must be in place to...Enforce it..
Are you serious?What rules and regulations? All that is changing is DADT.
Are you serious?
A soldier will adapt, and they'll follow the orders they're given. That's a soldier's job.
Just like it was when blacks were integrated. Just like when women were integrated.
It's been done before. It's worked well before. Anyone who claims the military isn't capable of handling it isn't being honest; they're making excuses.
I heard gayness is infectious like the common cold.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?