• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military (1 Viewer)

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html?th&emc=th

When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the longstanding view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.

In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve.

The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has.

Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.

This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.

I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.

But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.

By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.

John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997.

I can't wait to see the response to this from those who have been arguing so fiercely that the military is not ready for this change and that the only reason I could possibly support this is because "I don't know what it's like."

So, spook/jamesrage/et al...the chairman of the JCOS who was in charge of implementing DADT now says, verbatim,

I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces.


Is he wrong?
 
So, spook/jamesrage/et al...the chairman of the JCOS who was in charge of implementing DADT now says, verbatim,

I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces.


Is he wrong?

Most definitely. It was definitely a nice catch on spotting the article, and it certainly does qualify as breaking news, but do you really feel we need a 4th thread? :shock:

I would agree of course that our society is changing and everyday it gets closer and closer to heading down that path. However, I will stand by my original decision that altering the current policy prematurely will result in causing our military exceptionally grave damage.

He also mentioned other countries. I wanted to note that we cannot compare our society to another. What works in one place doesnt mean it will work in another. I've brought up examples of polygamy, beastiality and infanticide, to name a few.

In conclusion, I think that eventually the policy is going to be changed, but not just yet. Our society still needs more time to adapt before the alteration could be made without causing a negative impact on our military. (I am curious on how he plans to accomodate everyone on a Navy ship though).

**It is unlikely that I will respond to any responses on this thread, due to the fact that we have 3 others discussing the same topic in the polls forum. I would be very happy to address any questions that anyone else has on one of the other 3 threads.
 
I wanted to note that we cannot compare our society to another.
It didn't take long for the special pleading to come up.
 
Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines
I wonder how he found out they were gay, unless they violated the "don't tell" part?

He also mentioned other countries. I wanted to note that we cannot compare our society to another. What works in one place doesnt mean it will work in another. I've brought up examples of polygamy, beastiality and infanticide, to name a few.
People are people, and homosexuality is not bestiality or murder. The only reason this wouldn't work in our culture is because of bigots, not because of right or wrong.

I am curious on how he plans to accomodate everyone on a Navy ship though
There are already 2 separate berthing spaces for male/female, or at least there was when I was on the Kitty Hawk in '97. Maybe they could expand and have 4, but that might be a lot of work.
 
Hey, why not solve the problem altogether, bring back the draft for Homosexuals and Lesbians only.
Suggest Rosie is signed up first and sent to Iraq, possibly by ship as she is too dammed big to fit in an aircraft.
 
I wonder how he found out they were gay, unless they violated the "don't tell" part?


People are people, and homosexuality is not bestiality or murder. The only reason this wouldn't work in our culture is because of bigots, not because of right or wrong.


There are already 2 separate berthing spaces for male/female, or at least there was when I was on the Kitty Hawk in '97. Maybe they could expand and have 4, but that might be a lot of work.[/QUOTE]

Give me a frigging break.............:roll:
 
I wonder how he found out they were gay, unless they violated the "don't tell" part?


People are people, and homosexuality is not bestiality or murder. The only reason this wouldn't work in our culture is because of bigots, not because of right or wrong.


There are already 2 separate berthing spaces for male/female, or at least there was when I was on the Kitty Hawk in '97. Maybe they could expand and have 4, but that might be a lot of work.


Give me a frigging break.............:roll:


Or maybe people could just get over it and realize that not every gay person wants to **** every straight person.
 
Quote by RightatNYU
(Or maybe people could just get over it and realize that not every gay person wants to **** every straight person.)
Is this a generalization or said from personal choice or experience?
 
Quote by RightatNYU
(Or maybe people could just get over it and realize that not every gay person wants to **** every straight person.)
Is this a generalization or said from personal choice or experience?

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that much like I do not desire to **** every female I see (or even the majority of them), gay men do not desire to **** every man they see. If you have evidence that would imply otherwise, feel free to contribute it.
 
Or maybe people could just get over it and realize that not every gay person wants to **** every straight person.

This is an important piece of information that anti-gay people doesn't seem to understand. :roll:
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that much like I do not desire to **** every female I see (or even the majority of them), gay men do not desire to **** every man they see. If you have evidence that would imply otherwise, feel free to contribute it.

Just to play devil's advocate with the previous comments then....do you think most new buildings should just do away with the dual bathroom design and have completely unisex bathrooms as not every male/female wants to **** every other male/female?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom