Would You Refuse to Serve Because of Gay People? (1 Viewer)

[RightinNYC]

The title says it all - If you're currently in the military, have been in the past, or are considering it in the future, would you choose not to serve if you thought that you might have to serve with gay people?

 

[SpooK]

The title says it all - If you're currently in the military, have been in the past, or are considering it in the future, would you choose not to serve if you thought that you might have to serve with gay people?

Here is your poll on a much larger group.
Check this out:

SANTA BARBARA, Calif., Oct. 10 (AScribe Newswire) -- Data from a new poll of potential U.S. military recruits has set off debate among scholars and other military experts about whether allowing gay troops to serve openly would undermine recruiting efforts. According to the results of the survey, 76 percent of potential military recruits said that lifting the ban on openly gay service members would have "no effect" on their decision to enlist. Twenty-one percent of respondents said that lifting the ban would decrease their chance of enlisting, while only 2 percent said it would increase their likelihood of joining the military.

link
So just to spell it out for everyone, think of it like this.

It would have no positive or negative impact on 76% of people.
It would have a negative impact on 21% of the people.
It would have a positive impact on 2% of the people.
In conclusion, there would be an overall negative impact of 19% on the people.

Also, here is another link that I find very interesting.

When you, if you do this [a communal shower situation) with a man who professes that kind of orientation, I find it morally and personally
unacceptable.... I find it morally, morally incorrect. This is an act of rebellion.
against the God I believe in. This is an act of rebelling I am sorry, old, I am 32 years and I cannot divorce myself of who I am as of this day, or what I believe.... Now, I came into this service because yes, I was not lied to, and I knew that there were no gays, openly, allowed in the military.

But I will testify in front of this committee today and say that I hope, if Mr. Clinton decides to lift the ban and allow gays through, then also with that measure he gives us our outright release from active duty. Because Al Portes will refuse... to serve with gays in the military

This is from here


This is my response on the other thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/16237-should-gays-allowed-serve-openly-military.html

 

[RightinNYC]

Here is your poll on a much larger group.
Check this out:

link
So just to spell it out for everyone, think of it like this.

It would have no positive or negative impact on 76% of people.
It would have a negative impact on 21% of the people.
It would have a positive impact on 2% of the people.
In conclusion, there would be an overall negative impact of 19% on the people.

Also, here is another link that I find very interesting.



This is from here


This is my response on the other thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/16237-should-gays-allowed-serve-openly-military.html

And as I pointed out on the other thread, "less likely" does not have any impact on would/would not.

So how about it? What's your answer to the poll?

 

[Kandahar]

When you, if you do this [a communal shower situation) with a man who professes that kind of orientation, I find it morally and personally
unacceptable.... I find it morally, morally incorrect. This is an act of rebellion.
against the God I believe in. This is an act of rebelling I am sorry, old, I am 32 years and I cannot divorce myself of who I am as of this day, or what I believe.... Now, I came into this service because yes, I was not lied to, and I knew that there were no gays, openly, allowed in the military.

But I will testify in front of this committee today and say that I hope, if Mr. Clinton decides to lift the ban and allow gays through, then also with that measure he gives us our outright release from active duty. Because Al Portes will refuse... to serve with gays in the military

What a despicable traitorous deserter. People like this are the problem, not the gays who simply want to be allowed to serve their country.

 

[SpooK]

And as I pointed out on the other thread, "less likely" does not have any impact on would/would not.

So how about it? What's your answer to the poll?

As I pointed out on the other thread, it certainly decreases the odds. I am a numbers person and I would like the odds to be as beneficial as possible to the military.

My personal opinion, I wouldn't refuse to serve if things were changed.

 

[SpooK]

What a despicable traitorous deserter. People like this are the problem, not the gays who simply want to be allowed to serve their country.

Perhaps you should read the entire article. (If you did read the entire link, reading it again wouldnt be a bad idea). I can understand how the way he was raised, his morals, and opinions affected his decision.

 

[RightinNYC]

As I pointed out on the other thread, it certainly decreases the odds.

No. It. Doesn't.

Again, this is a simple statistical flaw with your argument. "Less likely" does not have ANY demonstrable bearing on "will/will not."

I am a numbers person and I would like the odds to be as beneficial as possible to the military.

So you'd prefer the military to be have the chance to be as successful and talented as it could be? Me too. Banning 4-5% of the population from serving right off the bat doesn't seem to be a good way to do that.

My personal opinion, I wouldn't refuse to serve if things were changed.

There we go. I'm glad to hear that, and I commend you for your stance. I'm completely confident that the vast, vast majority of the armed forces would agree with you. :2wave:

 

[SpooK]

No. It. Doesn't.

Again, this is a simple statistical flaw with your argument. "Less likely" does not have ANY demonstrable bearing on "will/will not."

Yes it does decrease the odds. You cannot dispute that. If they are less likely to join because of allowing openly-gay people to serve, they are saying the probability of them joining will decrease, aka the odds.

You are right, that poll did not say will or will not but it does decrease their probability of doing so.

So you'd prefer the military to be have the chance to be as successful and talented as it could be? Me too.

Sure would. If it would in fact make some people quit, cause discomfort, disrupt cohesiveness and create other problems that arent outweighed by gays being able to serve openly - then I would vote against it. Whatever increases overall military effectivness is what I am for.

There we go. I'm glad to hear that, and I commend you for your stance. I'm completely confident that the vast, vast majority of the armed forces would agree with you. :2wave:

I think the majority would agree with me, but it doesnt mean there is still many many people who would disagree.

 

[Alex]

As everyone knows by now, I served openly for 4 years and I knew others who did also. My commanding officer knew, the sargent in charge of my section knew, all of my co-workers (enlisted and officiers) knew, and none of them left because of it.

I have yet to hear a valid reason why gays cannot serve openly. If you are not comfortable around gays, that is your problem, deal with it. I will not stop doing what I want because you have low self-esteem. There are tons of types of people that I am not comfortable around but I do not try to take away anything from them. Why? Because I am confident in myself. Take a lesson from that.

The argument that gay men will only think about sex is also silly. If I am in a combat situation, the last thing I am concerned about is getting it on with the guy next to me. Get real. If anyone is thinking about what the guy next to him is thinking about them sexually in that situation, they are the ones that cannot focus, and therefore, they are the ones who do not belong in the military. Heterosexual women were (and are) much more aggressive with me in a sexual way, should women not be allowed to serve openly female?

Gays are in the military, and they are serving openly. The days of white-heterosexual males ruling the world are over. Get used to it.

 

[SpooK]

As everyone knows by now, I served openly for 4 years and I knew others who did also. My commanding officer knew, the sargent in charge of my section knew, all of my co-workers (enlisted and officiers) knew, and none of them left because of it.

I have yet to hear a valid reason why gays cannot serve openly. If you are not comfortable around gays, that is your problem, deal with it. I will not stop doing what I want because you have low self-esteem. There are tons of types of people that I am not comfortable around but I do not try to take away anything from them. Why? Because I am confident in myself. Take a lesson from that.

The argument that gay men will only think about sex is also silly. If I am in a combat situation, the last thing I am concerned about is getting it on with the guy next to me. Get real. If anyone is thinking about what the guy next to him is thinking about them sexually in that situation, they are the ones that cannot focus, and therefore, they are the ones who do not belong in the military. Heterosexual women were (and are) much more aggressive with me in a sexual way, should women not be allowed to serve openly female?

Gays are in the military, and they are serving openly. The days of white-heterosexual males ruling the world are over. Get used to it.

I dont care how you served. No offense, but A) I dont believe you. B) It is in violation of the policy. What is your name, the name of your ex-commanding officer and where were you stationed? I think it would be interested to follow up with this.

Valid reason? How about because it will decrease overall effectiveness of the military.

 

[Kandahar]

Valid reason? How about because it will decrease overall effectiveness of the military.

No. Homophobes are decreasing the overall effectiveness of the military by threatening to desert over something as petty as this. THEY are the problem.

 

[SpooK]

No. Homophobes are decreasing the overall effectiveness of the military by threatening to desert over something as petty as this. THEY are the problem.

I would think a lot more people feel that way (or at least experience some sort of negative impact - whether it means quitting or not) than the number of gay people who want to join. Therefore, it would have an overall negative impact.

Having both of these threads is kind of weird. I dont want to have to keep making the same point on 2 threads. I mean, I'll do it but it seems a bit strange.

Here are the professional opinions of Major General Otjen, Rear Admiral Redd, Major General Davitt, Rear Admiral Loy, and Brigadier General Miller. I am sure the general public has a much better understanding about the intracacies of the military, but here it is anyways.

After extensive research and prolonged deliberations, the MWG concluded the following:
A. Since it is impossible to determine an individual’s sexual orientation
unless he or she reveals it, sexual orientation alone is a personal and private
matter.
B. Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in
the military of individuals identified as homosexuals would have a
significantly adverse effect on both unit cohesion and the readiness of the
force - the key ingredients of combat effectiveness. If identified
homosexuals are allowed to serve, they will compromise the high standards
of combat effectiveness which must be maintained, impacting on the ability
of the Armed Forces to perform its mission.
C. for practical reasons, servicemembers should be discharged only when
their homosexuality is manifested by objective criteria - homosexual acts,
homosexual statements, or homosexual marriages.
D. Applicants for military service should be clearly advised of the military‘s
policy regarding homosexuals prior to their entering active duty. Specifically,
applicants should be briefed and acknowledge in writing that they
understand: (1) homosexuality is incompatible with military service; (2)
they may be denied enlistment or separated if they have engaged in
homosexual conduct (acts, statements, or marriage); or (3) they are not
required to reveal their sexual orientation, even if asked, but if they do, it is
of their own free will and can be used as a basis for separation from the
Armed Forces.
E. A single, clear investigative policy should be adopted to provide uniform
guidance to the Services for conducting inquiries and investigations into
allegations of homosexual conduct.
F. Ail serving members should be educated on the military’s policy on
homosexuals. This education should be factual in nature and should not
include sensitivity training or attempt to change deeply held moral, ethical, or
religious values.

link

 

[RightinNYC]

I would think a lot more people feel that way (or at least experience some sort of negative impact - whether it means quitting or not) than the number of gay people who want to join. Therefore, it would have an overall negative impact.

I'm a targeted candidate for recruitment and if I really believed that the military was as full of homophobes as you seem to think it is, I'd be a hell of a lot less likely to serve.

 

[SpooK]

I'm a targeted candidate for recruitment and if I really believed that the military was as full of homophobes as you seem to think it is, I'd be a hell of a lot less likely to serve.

a. The nation calls upon its military to be prepared to kill and destroy
- acts which, in any other context, would be immoral. The shared moral
values of the institution - the collective sense of right and wrong -- provide
the foundation which ensures that license will not be abused. This
foundation is the essential differe nce between a professional armed force
and a mercenary force. It also provides to individual servicemembers the
moral basis for personal service, commitment, and sacrifice in a profession
which is demanding in the extreme.
b. As citizen soldiers, military members bring their values with them
when they enter the Service. Whether based on moral, religious, cultural, or
ethical considerations, those values and beliefs are often strongly held and
not amenable to change. While we indoctrinate and train recruits, leadership
and discipline cannot - and generally should not - attempt to counter the
basic values which parents and society have taught. Indeed, efforts to do so will likely prove counter-productive.

link

 

[RightinNYC]

a. The nation calls upon its military to be prepared to kill and destroy
- acts which, in any other context, would be immoral. The shared moral
values of the institution - the collective sense of right and wrong -- provide
the foundation which ensures that license will not be abused. This
foundation is the essential differe nce between a professional armed force
and a mercenary force. It also provides to individual servicemembers the
moral basis for personal service, commitment, and sacrifice in a profession
which is demanding in the extreme.
b. As citizen soldiers, military members bring their values with them
when they enter the Service. Whether based on moral, religious, cultural, or
ethical considerations, those values and beliefs are often strongly held and
not amenable to change. While we indoctrinate and train recruits, leadership
and discipline cannot - and generally should not - attempt to counter the
basic values which parents and society have taught. Indeed, efforts to do so will likely prove counter-productive.

link

...........

relevance?

 

[SpooK]

...........

relevance?

While we indoctrinate and train recruits, leadership
and discipline cannot - and generally should not - attempt to counter the
basic values which parents and society have taught. Indeed, efforts to do so will likely prove counter-productive.

 

[Kandahar]

I would think a lot more people feel that way (or at least experience some sort of negative impact - whether it means quitting or not) than the number of gay people who want to join. Therefore, it would have an overall negative impact.

No, because there are plenty of straight people who are repulsed by this homophobic nonsense too. If I was in the military, I wouldn't have any problem at all serving with someone who was gay. I would have a big problem serving with someone who had a problem serving with someone who was gay.

 

[RightinNYC]

While we indoctrinate and train recruits, leadership
and discipline cannot - and generally should not - attempt to counter the
basic values which parents and society have taught. Indeed, efforts to do so will likely prove counter-productive.

Bullshit. One of the fundamental tenets of Marine training is that society teaches people to be lazy, racist, and shirk responsibility. The main goal of training is to stomp those "societal values" OUT of recruits.

 

[SpooK]

Bullshit. One of the fundamental tenets of Marine training is that society teaches people to be lazy, racist, and shirk responsibility. The main goal of training is to stomp those "societal values" OUT of recruits.

You consider being a lazy racist an American value?
That is not the conclusion the generals/admirals came to. Not to discredit or disrespect you, but I would think they have more experience than you do in the field.

 

[Alex]

I dont care how you served. No offense, but A) I dont believe you. B) It is in violation of the policy. What is your name, the name of your ex-commanding officer and where were you stationed? I think it would be interested to follow up with this.

Valid reason? How about because it will decrease overall effectiveness of the military.

You keep saying that and yet you can not provide any reasoning for it. That makes it an empty argument, as well as irrational. That would lead a rational person to believe that your opinion on this subject is based on nothing but your own selfish emotions. That is not a reason to make rules or laws.

The effectiveness of my squad was not decreased because I served openly gay. I can say that from experience. What experience do you have serving with openly gay men? What would be less effective? Why? You are dodging obvious questions and it is time to step up to the plate and answer them.

 

[cherokee]

Bullshit. One of the fundamental tenets of Marine training is that society teaches people to be lazy, racist, and shirk responsibility. The main goal of training is to stomp those "societal values" OUT of recruits.

You got that chit right. You will be ripped down to your core then rebuilt.
Marines are not born, they are made in boot.

 

[SpooK]

You keep saying that and yet you can not provide any reasoning for it. That makes it an empty argument, as well as irrational. That would lead a rational person to believe that your opinion on this subject is based on nothing but your own selfish emotions. That is not a reason to make rules or laws.

ROFL. It is not an empty argument. It is an argument that is ongoing on three different threads with supported links and interesting points. If you are eager to get the most understanding of my opinion, I suggest you read all 3 of the threads in the poll section.

The effectiveness of my squad was not decreased because I served openly gay. I can say that from experience. What experience do you have serving with openly gay men? What would be less effective? Why? You are dodging obvious questions and it is time to step up to the plate and answer them.

Your argument is the unsupported one. You have said this same little thing a couple of times and it doesnt amount to squat. Please show me a link of someone in the US military who is openly gay and serving with no problems. Just because you are claiming it happened doesnt make it true. Prove it.

 

[cherokee]

Would You Refuse to Serve Because of Gay People?

Hmm if you sign up and then decide you don’t want to serve, you have the right to refuse. They have the right to throw your azz in jail.
You sign a contract, you swear an oath.
Breaking either of those is not taken to lightly.


Cant anyone here just wait and see how the brits work this chit out?
Dont ask Dont tell is working for us right now...

 

[SpooK]

Would You Refuse to Serve Because of Gay People?

Hmm if you sign up and then decide you don’t want to serve, you have the right to refuse. They have the right to throw your azz in jail.
You sign a contract, you swear an oath.
Breaking either of those is not taken to lightly.


Cant anyone here just wait and see how the brits work this chit out?
Dont ask Dont tell is working for us right now...

DADT has been an outstanding policy.

 

[Alex]

ROFL. It is not an empty argument. It is an argument that is ongoing on three different threads with supported links and interesting points. If you are eager to get the most understanding of my opinion, I suggest you read all 3 of the threads in the poll section.



Your argument is the unsupported one. You have said this same little thing a couple of times and it doesnt amount to squat. Please show me a link of someone in the US military who is openly gay and serving with no problems. Just because you are claiming it happened doesnt make it true. Prove it.

More dodging.