(El Nino's Debate Hall Post) ***gots in uniforms: not cool

[Dragoon Fighter]

Link to original post: [drupal=3904](El Nino's Debate Hall Post) F*ggots in uniforms: not cool [/drupal]

Here is the quote from his debate hall post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
So, the U.S. Senate recently voted to repeal the controversial "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy banning openly homosexual persons from serving in the military. The policy allowed for people with homosexual orientation to serve, as long as their orientation was never made known. However, in cases where it was exposed (sometimes by accident), that person could be discharged.

Realistically, removing DADT isn't necessarily going to change openness in the military. A lot of servicemen and women are still going to keep it a secret because getting your *** kicked is no fun. But repealing DADT does allow for other policy changes such as allowing for someone's partner of the same gender to be eligible for survivor benefits.

Of course, this will all take time to be implemented. The legislation repealing DADT doesn't have any set timeframe; it is at the discretion of the U.S. military. But you'll know when it happens by looking out for the Nazis riding dinosaurs and the storm of hellfire raining down from the angry heavens.

Because that's what happens when gay people get rights.

One argument against the repeal (perhaps the chief argument) is that allowing for openness in the military is a distraction, and a potentially dangeorus one. "If a gay man can shower with other men, why can't men shower with women?"

Well, if you want to answer that question, ask yourself exactly why straight men can't shower with women. More on this later.

Currently, there exists no method for finding out who is gay and who isn't, and the "Don't Ask" portion of DADT means that recruiters can't ask a potential recruit his/her orientation. Meaning, homosexuals have already infiltrated the military and are already getting naked around members of their own gender. Signing up to join the military is like asking to get ***** at this point, amirite?

Or, wait, no, DADT is what protects straight soldiers from getting *****. Of course, that's it. DADT is what keeps gays in their place, or else they'd be rapin' ev'rybody out here.

Well, the fact of the matter is, sexual harassment is a reality. It does occur in the workplace, and the military is no exception. Reported cases of harassment include female on female, female on male, male on male, and male on female. The question is, is one form of harassment more acceptable than another? That is unlikely. The problem with sexual harassment is that it is sexual harassment, not that it is male on female harassment or male on male harassment. Either form is disruptive.

So, does DADT deter harassment? Well, women currently serve in the U.S. military alongside men, except in combat positions. There is no DADT equivalent to "protect" women or men from being harassed by a member of the opposite gender. Harassment does occur, but it is not the norm. A lot of the time, men and women can serve with each other without harassing each other sexually. What prevents the harassment from taking place since there is no straight equivalent to DADT? Probably the same code of conduct that guides most pro-social behavior. If straight people don't need a rule like DADT to NOT sexually harass each other, then we'd need to find something special about homosexuals to suggest that this group absolutely needs DADT in place or else everyone gets buggered.

And that special something is the group shower, the shared locker room, the shared restroom. The argument goes, "I am a straight man, and I would not be able to keep it in my pants if I were surrounded by naked women, so I don't see how a gay guy could control himself either when surrounded by naked men."

And this goes back to the question of why straight men can't control themselves around naked women, and how gay men and lesbian women are different from their straight counterparts in this respect.

Straight men have never had to learn that level of self-control. This is because society works hard to keep the genders separated, so they don't have to worry about it. Women have their own locker room; men have their own locker room. No self-control needed. So when most guys try to picture themselves in that situation of showering with a bunch of women, their eyes glaze over. Impossible, right? How could a gay guy or a lesbian woman handle it any differently?

Gays and lesbians do handle it differently. They have do. Society doesn't help them with separation. So they have to learn their own form of self-control. One of the most common stories about self-realization in the LGBT community involves being an awkward teen and being in the locker room. For a lot of people, that's the first time they realized what they were. But they keep it in their pants. The motivating factor for that involves numbers. As an LGBT person, you are the minority; you are almost always outnumbered. What this means is that the person who is the most at risk in the locker room is actually the gay guy or the lesbian woman. They are in the position where they have a high chance of being found out, and the consequences of being found out are not pleasant.

This is one experience from adolescence that you'll find in the LGBT community but you won't find in the straight community. It's a learning experience. People learn to conceal their attraction out of necessity. Even in a society that accepts homosexuality, the locker room isn't necessarily the place to be exploring that. And even in a society that accepts homosexuality, as an LGBT person, you will be required to conceal your attraction more often than a straight person will be required to.

From that experience, a gay man or a lesbian woman becomes conditioned to control themselves. They are not allowed to "give in", or to be as open about it, regardless of society's level of tolerance. Because of that conditioning, a lot of them can handle being around members of their own gender without showing signs of attraction. It is a form of social adaptation that some LGBT persons have and most straight persons don't.

Conclusion: I might be wrong, and in that case we will all burn when the apocalypse hits. Everyone put on your tin foil hats so the aliens can't read your thoughts.

My opinion: I think over all I agree with him. To be honest I really have not said anything that was not said already in the debate hall which is why I did not post about this subject in there, but I think that this is a really awesome post over all.

I think it would be cool if strait people such as myself could learn the level of self control members of the gay and lesbian community have, because that type of self control seems very useful, but that is just me.

 

[Laem]

It's funny cuz sexual orientation should be irrelevant.

Yes, I suck at contributing.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You know what's even weirder about the self-control thing? As a bisexual, I have it around guys... but not around women!

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Oh dear it seems a bit long to read.

 

[BSP]

It didn't take that long to read, and it was pretty interesting

 

[§witch]

I have no idea why you posted that here.

 

[El Nino]

Oh dear it seems a bit long to read.

tl;dr - Gay people probably won't **** you in a public shower.

Probably. I make no guarantees.

I have no idea why you posted that here.

I think he just wanted to start a discussion with people outside of Debate Hall, considering that in DH it's usually just the same people posting.

But just to make this thread more personable and blog-like, the story behind that rant is just that I pooled together a bunch of information taken from discussions with people and some minor reading on the subject. It's not scientific or anything, but I've noticed a recurring theme with people's coming out stories that involves being in the locker room and realizing that you are not the same as everyone else.

On the DADT debate, I see a lot of people making comparisons between straight guys and gay guys (the talk is almost always about the guys rather than the girls). The fact is, the experience of being gay is different from being straight. One key difference is the subject of this rant. Society separates people by gender to control sexual behavior, but this only works for heterosexuals. LGBT people can't expect society to help them; they just have to control their own sexual behavior, and that's what they've been doing this whole time.

I always get the impression that straight men have a harder time with male homosexuality than women have with either male or female homosexuality. And I'm going to guess that it's because men know what they think about when they look at women, and the thought that some guy might look at them and think the same things just scares the pants off of them.

I don't have any solutions to that. I just think that the fear is largely irrational and ungrounded because in an all-male environment, a male homosexual is at greater risk than the other males, and it would be in his own interest to keep things low key.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I think he just wanted to start a discussion with people outside of Debate Hall, considering that in DH it's usually just the same people posting.

You guessed it, I just wish to hear other people expressing their opinion on the subject.

 

[MK26]

And I'm going to guess that it's because men know what they think about when they look at women, and the thought that some guy might look at them and think the same things just scares the pants off of them.

I certainly hope that, for their sake, their fear is not as literal as you make it out to be.

Good read btw

 

[Pikaville]

That was indeed a very good post.

I think his points are pretty spot on, good job.

I can actually kinda add to one of his points with a story of mine.

inb4thatssogay

One of our friends Aine had moved into this new Mansion house and was having a house warming/pool party.

So after a couple of drinks, my group of friends being as we are, decide to get naked and go into the steam room.

Now, as a closeted man I can say it was a pretty ridiculous situation to be in.It wasn't the 1st naked antics escapade I had even been on but....you know......Steam room with at least 3 really good looking guys, naked, and sweaty.......MY GOD!

But I didn't turn into a raging animal and **** all my friends so sorry to disappoint you.

I managed to keep myself at bay....in more ways than one.

Oh and I didn't mention where 4 of us squeezed into a shower together after either :o

 

[LordoftheMorning]

DADT wasn't meant to prevent sexual harrasment, DADT existed as an element of a very large over-arching military principle: non-individualism. The military doesn't have any use for a free-spirited tank driver or a whimsical pilot. In fact they create mandates for service men and woman that would not be accepted in civilian society. This includes an extremely strict dress code, mandatory haircuts, and also a prohibition of political decals on cars and such. The idea behind this is to prevent any threat to teamwork.

Diversity spawns disagreement, and that's something we just deal with in civilian life, but the military doesn't want to risk any form of dissent because it could endanger their mission and their very lives. They want people to follow orders quickly and dutifully, without question and without hesitation or backtalk. In principle that's the only reason for DADT: to provide a way for homosexuals to serve without threatening unit cohesion.

Overall, the military is not a place for civil rights. The military restricts several rights from the moment you're in their employ, so why should people draw special attention to the question of homosexuality? Soldiers are forbidden to display affection in public while in uniform. It's just how they roll.

 

[El Nino]

@everyone: Thanks for reading. I know I can throw up the wall-of-text in a bad way.

But I didn't turn into a raging animal and **** all my friends so sorry to disappoint you.

Son I am disappoint. Are you really gay at all?

Diversity spawns disagreement, and that's something we just deal with in civilian life, but the military doesn't want to risk any form of dissent because it could endanger their mission and their very lives.

If I am not mistaken, the U.S. military used to also be segregated racially, and the justification for that was almost exactly the same as the argument you offer here.

So my question to you is, do you feel that a military like that in the U.S. (or any other nation) is less effective, less competent, less unified now than it was in the past when its members were segregated based on race?

Overall, the military is not a place for civil rights. The military restricts several rights from the moment you're in their employ, so why should people draw special attention to the question of homosexuality? Soldiers are forbidden to display affection in public while in uniform. It's just how they roll.

If all soldiers are forbidden to display public affection, then there is no reason for DADT. DADT targets homosexuals specifically. If everyone can't display affection, then that rule applies to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, and there is no reason for a separate clause aimed solely at homosexuals.

The issue is not "self-expression" in the armed forces. The issue surrounds things like government benefits which are offered to spouses and dependents, things like survivor benefits when a serviceman/women is killed. Also there is the problem of accidental exposures. If someone is caught with a photo image of a significant other who is of the same gender, that can be grounds, under DADT, for a discharge. But if someone is merely carrying around a photo that is not meant to be seen by anyone else, would discharging this person for this reason contribute to molding a better armed forces in anyway? Or does it needlessly punish people who are as dedicated to the service as their heterosexual counterparts?

With the removal of DADT, I don't predict that gays who are already serving are going to be jumping out of the woodwork and disrupting the conformity of the military. Fact is, military service attracts certain types, and the LGBT members of the military are no different. They are going to want to blend in with everyone else. However, the key difference is that now they might be able to get benefits for a spouse or partner. They are also protected from being discharged over an accidental exposure of their private lives.

 

[Pikaville]

I really think getting discharged if your found out to be gay is a bit extreme.

So the guy who may have saved your life yesterday is gay, why should he not be able to continue his job if he performs adequately?

Especially seeing as the problem with it is almost solely on the heads of straight guys who feel uncomfortable for nearly no reason at all.

So what if the gay guy in your squad might think your hot or whatever?

It's harmless.

It's very very very unlikely that he is EVER going to try anything funny with you.

I do understand that it can happen though, but I'd be willing to bet the numbers of reported cases are barely in double figures.

 

[UltiMario]

Essentially I think that arguments with gays are just the modern day's equivalent of Racial Segregation from years gone by. In the long run this is going to turn out just like that, people are going to be unhappy about it at first because its against their beliefs, but gays will be treated like everyone else in the long run.

Repealing DADT is just one of the big steps toward this.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

If I am not mistaken, the U.S. military used to also be segregated racially, and the justification for that was almost exactly the same as the argument you offer here.

So my question to you is, do you feel that a military like that in the U.S. (or any other nation) is less effective, less competent, less unified now than it was in the past when its members were segregated based on race?

At the time of the segregation, racially integrated units would have been a threat to cohesion, yes, because of the rampant racism of the time period. That's exactly why units were segregated. Not for reasons of prejudice, but for the sake of cohesion. The only reason segregation ended (or should have ended) is because today's people are much more racially tolerant. The discrepancy between this and homosexuals serving openly is that even today, there are many people who think that acts of homosexuality are immoral, or are otherwise intolerant of, or uncomfortable around homosexuals. It's important to understand that keeping DADT would not have been a case of the military supporting intolerance, but rather an attempt to avoid controversy.

It's all about pragmatism. There's no room or time for sensitivity or political correctness. The military has to go for maximum efficiency, no room for error, and greatest odds of survival. This is much more important than civil rights, which are, obviously, civil, derived from civilian, which is a distinct counterpart to militia.

If all soldiers are forbidden to display public affection, then there is no reason for DADT. DADT targets homosexuals specifically. If everyone can't display affection, then that rule applies to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, and there is no reason for a separate clause aimed solely at homosexuals.

There's no heterosexual equivalent of DADT because the assumption society makes is that you are straight. It's the most common and most accepted sexual orientation, and so no controversy can arise by someone "discovering" that you are heterosexual. Be reasonable. It does target homosexuals directly, but as I said before, it's not a matter of prejudice.

The issue is not "self-expression" in the armed forces. The issue surrounds things like government benefits which are offered to spouses and dependents, things like survivor benefits when a serviceman/women is killed.

This issue is more of a question of same-sex marriage, since it's usually the spouse that would get these type of benefits. This is a much larger debate than DADT. You can support same-sex marriage, but also support DADT, in fact I've met people who do. This is about the policy's effect on military readiness. Once gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, then we should go ahead and do away with DADT, but at the moment it's important.

Also there is the problem of accidental exposures. If someone is caught with a photo image of a significant other who is of the same gender, that can be grounds, under DADT, for a discharge. But if someone is merely carrying around a photo that is not meant to be seen by anyone else, would discharging this person for this reason contribute to molding a better armed forces in anyway? Or does it needlessly punish people who are as dedicated to the service as their heterosexual counterparts?

Is it really so impossible to keep your orientation a secret? Carrying around a photo of any random same-sex person isn't going to get you busted, especially since the policy forbids people from asking (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) any questions about a possible sexual relationship with that person. (Unless of course, you're an idiot who keep explicit images in his phone or wallet.)

There's an argument again DADT that asserts we are losing valuable service men and women because of this policy, and that this is not in the military's best interest. However, as it currently stands, RAND (Research and Development Corporation), whose job it is to look into these sort of issues, reports in Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy that the total number of discharges made because of this issue are only 1% of all military discharges, which hardly constitutes a great loss in manpower.

 

[El Nino]

The only reason segregation ended (or should have ended) is because today's people are much more racially tolerant.

No. Segregation ended in the U.S. in the 1950-70s. It was a bloodly and volatile time. The civil rights movement was a struggle fought tooth and nail against intolerance and bigotry. The resistance was incredibly strong. Social progress is usually like this. People rarely shift their opinions gradually, after much personal introspection. Sometimes it takes a riot to even get the conversation going.

The rights that minorities have in this country are rights that had to be fought for, bled for, and constantly defended.

Tolerance is not the natural progression of a society. It is something that has to be built.

The discrepancy between this and homosexuals serving openly is that even today, there are many people who think that acts of homosexuality are immoral, or are otherwise intolerant of, or uncomfortable around homosexuals.

Racism is still real in U.S. society, and homosexuality is not the taboo it was decades ago.

Is it really so impossible to keep your orientation a secret?

No, it isn't. As I already stated, the military attracts certain types, and the LGBT people it attracts are no different from their hetero counterparts in wanting to maintain order and conformity. The entire point I was trying to make from the beginning has been that LGBT people have almost always kept quiet about themselves in situations like these. You really don't need a policy like DADT. Everyone knows, regardless of the rules, if the people around you don't accept you, the government isn't going to fly down and protect you. You protect yourself.

DADT doesn't do much besides form a legal barrier between possibly attaining family benefits and get people kicked out for something that has nothing to do with military readiness or competence.

(Unless of course, you're an idiot who keep explicit images in his phone or wallet.)

I somehow find it hard to believe that no enlisted solider has any explicit images of any type in some form stashed away somewhere.

There's an argument again DADT that asserts we are losing valuable service men and women because of this policy, and that this is not in the military's best interest. However, as it currently stands, RAND (Research and Development Corporation), whose job it is to look into these sort of issues, reports in Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy that the total number of discharges made because of this issue are only 1% of all military discharges, which hardly constitutes a great loss in manpower.

Then what does DADT do, exactly? Or, how does the military benefit from it?

It's all about pragmatism. There's no room or time for sensitivity or political correctness. The military has to go for maximum efficiency, no room for error, and greatest odds of survival. This is much more important than civil rights, which are, obviously, civil, derived from civilian, which is a distinct counterpart to militia.

There was a case a few years ago, a young Russian soldier had to have limbs amputated as a result of hazing. It angered a lot of people in Russia at the time.

Militaries in democratic societies don't just throw away the entire notion of human rights and civil rights. That would also be counter to their interests.

The U.S. military is not the proverbial well-oiled machine dedicated to maximizing efficiency and combat readiness all the time in all sectors. It often bills itself as just another industry looking for employees, and in many ways it functions like a commercial industry. The people I've seen sign up are not the all-American patriotic heel-click I'm here to defend my country against our enemies type of people. They are, actually, working class people looking for jobs. And the military does provide that for them. Not everyone who signs up for service ends up in the trenches with a gun (though many have in recent years). Military service includes office work and technical work. Like a commercial industry, it also offers benefits to its employees.

DADT is not a pragmatic policy. It does not contribute to military effectiveness. Gay guys in combat situations, surrounded by a bunch of other guys, dodging bullets, etc, are not going to be flaunting their homosexuality out in public. No matter what the higher ups may say about diversity and tolerance, none of that is going to help you out any. Common sense keeps you in check. And for the other sectors of the military in which the work does resemble civilian work in many respects, DADT makes even less sense.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

No. Segregation ended in the U.S. in the 1950-70s. It was a bloodly and volatile time. The civil rights movement was a struggle fought tooth and nail against intolerance and bigotry. The resistance was incredibly strong. Social progress is usually like this. People rarely shift their opinions gradually, after much personal introspection. Sometimes it takes a riot to even get the conversation going.

The rights that minorities have in this country are rights that had to be fought for, bled for, and constantly defended.

Let the civilians fight that battle! They don't have any other battles on their plate! The military has, frankly, more important things to worry about than equality, such as defending the nation, our freedom (no freedom is not the same as equality), and their own lives. If the end of segregation caused turmoil within the military, then it should have been withheld until a less volatile time, regardless of whether or not it was. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue that civil rights and equality are bad things, it's just that in this case, they are out-prioritized by a stronger value. Without a ready military, we won't have the freedom to pursue equality in the first place.

Tolerance is not the natural progression of a society. It is something that has to be built.

I disagree. Look at almost every social interaction, and you'll see it tends toward tolerance. New parents are often very strict with their kids, but as time goes on and they have more of them, a lot of their rules are no longer enforced. People living large cities are almost always heavily conditioned by their environment to be more tolerant, because of their constant exposure to people of different beliefs, skin color, orientation, etc. Fashion that was once considered freaky or outlandish is now common (earrings, tattoos, dyed hair, exposed ankles *gasp*), and I guarantee that there was no need to have such things as "earrings awareness" rallies for them to become accepted. It just happens.

The more people are exposed to something, the less sensitive they are to it. That's a fact. The only way that tolerance is not the natural progression of society is in the case of perfect shelter and total isolation.

Racism is still real in U.S. society, and homosexuality is not the taboo it was decades ago.

I'm sure that even you realize this isn't a very strong argument. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that racism is less common than homophobia by a long-shot. You're trying to close the distance between the two, but the fact is they're still very different. For example, interracial marriage is hardly even controversial anymore, but gay marriage is still generally prohibited altogether.

No, it isn't. As I already stated, the military attracts certain types, and the LGBT people it attracts are no different from their hetero counterparts in wanting to maintain order and conformity. The entire point I was trying to make from the beginning has been that LGBT people have almost always kept quiet about themselves in situations like these. You really don't need a policy like DADT. Everyone knows, regardless of the rules, if the people around you don't accept you, the government isn't going to fly down and protect you. You protect yourself.

DADT was enacted by the Clinton administration after making a campaign promise to allow homosexuals to serve in the military. That's what's so ironic about people calling it discriminatory. You're argument here is that homosexuals don't need DADT to hide their orientation, but that's hardly a grounds for removing the policy altogether. The military is very careful with all of their operations. It's understandable that they ensure, not just assume, that homosexuals will keep themselves innocuous by enacting such a policy. Furthermore, DADT also offers protection from would-be priers.

DADT doesn't do much besides form a legal barrier between possibly attaining family benefits and get people kicked out for something that has nothing to do with military readiness or competence.

This statement makes me wonder if you're really trying to understand my argument at all. You can't say it has nothing to do with military readiness just by telling me that it doesn't. I've provided several arguments that link DADT to military readiness, and I can repeat them or clarify upon them if you wish, but you have not provided me anything in the way of evidence that DADT is not related to military readiness.

I already answered you argument about family benefits. The issue of gay marriage is where that argument belongs. Not DADT. There's only a handful of states that actually allow gay marriage in the first place, such as Connecticut. This argument is irrelevant until gay marriage is legalized in all or most states, because these benefits your talking about wouldn't be received unless the two were married in the first place.

I somehow find it hard to believe that no enlisted solider has any explicit images of any type in some form stashed away somewhere.

So do I. That was sarcasm. But you done goofed if someone else finds it.

There was a case a few years ago, a young Russian soldier had to have limbs amputated as a result of hazing. It angered a lot of people in Russia at the time.

Militaries in democratic societies don't just throw away the entire notion of human rights and civil rights. That would also be counter to their interests.

You're exaggerating the issue. I wouldn't support breaking the limbs of young Russian soldiers for the sake of cohesion either. The rights are not "thrown away", but some of them are suspended while you are on duty.

The U.S. military is not the proverbial well-oiled machine dedicated to maximizing efficiency and combat readiness all the time in all sectors. It often bills itself as just another industry looking for employees, and in many ways it functions like a commercial industry. The people I've seen sign up are not the all-American patriotic heel-click I'm here to defend my country against our enemies type of people. They are, actually, working class people looking for jobs. And the military does provide that for them. Not everyone who signs up for service ends up in the trenches with a gun (though many have in recent years). Military service includes office work and technical work. Like a commercial industry, it also offers benefits to its employees.

Section 654, chapter 37, part 2, subtitle A of Title 10 in the United States military code, as defined and published by the United States Government, says that “Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces. The unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society. It also says that “the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian society.” Sorry, but no.

DADT is not a pragmatic policy. It does not contribute to military effectiveness. Gay guys in combat situations, surrounded by a bunch of other guys, dodging bullets, etc, are not going to be flaunting their homosexuality out in public.

Please put the situation in a more realistic context. It'd be more like "Private Smith is gay. I'd rather not work with him. Come to think of it, I don't think I want to charge headlong into an enemy front with him either.", which leads to distrust among the unit and lower morale, which could be the difference between life and death when you're deployed. When my brother went to the Navy's basic training, one of the first things they did was teach him to jump on a grenade. The reason for this is that in a wartime situation, by jumping on it and covering it with your body, you save the rest of your unit from the explosion (even though you will surely die). That's the kind of commitment I'm talking about. The willingness to sacrifice one's life not only for his country, but for his squad mates. That sort of commitment isn't possible if there's resentment among the party. There must be absolutely nothing to disagree about. That's the whole reason behind military discipline.

I'm going to do some impact calculus now:

GET RID OF DADT:
-Promotes civil rights for homosexuals.
-Allow benefits for homosexual spouses in the military.

I argue that both of the positive impacts of dumping DADT are negligible. Civil rights movements for homosexuals will continue in the civilian arena regardless of DADT, and the civilian arena makes up the vast majority of the country. The benefits argument, as I said before, is made irrelevant by the fact that gay marriage is only legal in several small states, so these benefits aren't exactly sorely missed, because in 9 out of 10 cases (or more), they wouldn't exist.

Now let's look at my impacts.
KEEP DADT:
-Promote cohesion and readiness for the US military.

There's only one significant impact, but there are no arguments presented that render military readiness a "negligible" concept. As a matter of fact, the success of our military is vital for us to even consider things like civil rights. Even a little dissent among our armed forces is downright dangerous, and our military is paramount to the survival of our nation, Preserving DADT will contribute to that.

 

[El Nino]

So do I. That was sarcasm. But you done goofed if someone else finds it.

That's why you tattoo it on your arm and blame it on a bad night of drinking.

I had a longer version of this response, but I aim to be more concise these days so I cut my point by point rebuttals (but if you really want to see 'em...). The heart of the issue is here:

Now let's look at my impacts.
KEEP DADT:
-Promote cohesion and readiness for the US military.

There's only one significant impact, but there are no arguments presented that render military readiness a "negligible" concept. As a matter of fact, the success of our military is vital for us to even consider things like civil rights. Even a little dissent among our armed forces is downright dangerous, and our military is paramount to the survival of our nation, Preserving DADT will contribute to that.

Countries that currently allow LGBT members to serve in their militaries (without a ban or a DADT equivalent policy) include: Russia, Switzerland, Germany, Canada, Israel, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Slovenia, Uruguay, the Philippines, and South Africa.

The full list is here (there are 2 lists complied by two different organizations held in side-by-side comparisons):
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/CountriesWithoutBan.pdf

A comparison of military LGBT policy across different countries, with a special note on Israel being a possible model for the U.S.:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8494617.stm

Military concerns and home defense are not concerns unique to the U.S. Other countries have found that allowing LGBT people to serve in their militaries without a policy like DADT does not endanger their nations' security.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

That sort of argument is a logical fallacy known as ad populum. You cannot, with sound logic, tell me that we should drop DADT just because other countries don't have it and they seem to be fine. The US is a unique country with a unique culture and a unique diplomatic situation. Not to mention that most of the countries on your list are not major military powers. I find it confusing that you decided to drop all of the other points and resort to a fallacy as your sole argument.

That'll have to be my closing statement. I sense your getting tired of this, and likewise, I feel we've exhausted the potential for intellectual stimulation here.

 

[El Nino]

The US is a unique country with a unique culture and a unique diplomatic situation. Not to mention that most of the countries on your list are not major military powers. I find it confusing that you decided to drop all of the other points and resort to a fallacy as your sole argument.

The U.S. is not unique enough in culture or human psychology to suggest immunity from behavioral traits that appear across societal and cultural lines. The countries listed in my post are also highly diverse and vastly different from each other in many ways. Their acceptance of LGBT members in their militaries is the one thing that they have in common despite those differences. Russia is still the political and military power in Eastern Europe. Canada is a modernized country and an American ally that committed troops to U.S. operations in the Middle East. Israel is also an American ally located in a volatile region, receives military support from the U.S., and has a highly modernized, advanced military due to its association with the U.S.

Also listed in the link (though I didn't mention it) is the UK, also an American ally, also a modern military.

I choose not to get sidetracked and stick to the main point. I also choose to seek out evidence rather than formulate armchair philosophy. I don't have access to classified security information, and I'm guessing neither do you. So I have to make a leap of logic in presuming that the heads of states in countries other than the U.S. also have similar goals as the American heads of state in that they want to maintain effective militaries to defend their territories and that they can no more allow that goal to be compromised by "liberal" policy any more than the U.S. can. So the evidence and my own deduction suggest that having an open acceptance policy on LGBT members in the military does not harm a military's ability to function. If it did, Israel would have been swallowed up by now considering the disruption caused by the homosexuals in their military and considering how many of their neighboring countries just seriously dislike them. And the U.S. would not need the military assistance of the UK or Canada to help defend its oil interests overseas because LGBT people have already infiltrated and crippled the militaries of both the UK and Canada.

If you believe that the U.S. heads of state know what they're doing when they decide on policies like DADT, do you believe that they know what they're doing when they choose their allies? How much cultural/societal difference can you find between the U.S., the UK, Canada, and Israel on the matters of LGBT and military culture to suggest that the U.S. military would exhibit traits that deviate drastically from what we've seen?

Edit:

The UK and Canada are also member countries of NATO, as are other countries which appear on that list (Germany, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, to name a few). The military readiness of each member country affects the strength of the alliance. If there were any hard evidence that LGBT members of the military constituted a risk, then NATO would currently be at risk, and it is questionable that the U.S. would not have tried to stop the other member countries from adopting such a dangerous policy.

Few things cross cultural barriers and can be considered "universal" human traits. However, few things look as similar across national lines than the groups that human beings form in the attempt to kill the everlasting h*ll out of a rival tribe. And the one difference between militaries and other aspects of human society and culture is that when one tribe has a more powerful gun, a better strategy, the other tribes will watch and copy. This is why modern militaries and police forces in non-Western countries often build themselves off of the Western model. People cling to unique cultural artifacts that reaffrim their own ethnic identities in just about every other category in life, but not when it comes to military science, if modern history is anything to go by. In that regard, one could make a case for drawing comparisons of modern militaries across national and cultural barriers.

Edit2: Ad populum refers to what the majority believes, not what the majority is or is not. There's a distinction between the two.

A) 75% of the people in society think that smoking causes cancer, therefore smoking causes cancer.

Compared to:

B) 75% of the people who smoke get cancer, therefore smoking causes cancer.

Or, in our case:

1) ___ number of countries think it's okay to have open LGBT people in the military, therefore it is probably okay.

2) ___ number of countries have open LGBT people in the military, to no consequence, therefore it is probably okay.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

You've dropped all your previous arguments in what I hope is not an attempt to ignore all the points I made earlier, and you still have yet to provide any significant positive impact for the removal of DADT.

The abolition of slavery "should" have been just fine and dandy for the U.S., if you're going to base your conclusions on what other countries had done, but instead the issue contributed to the Civil War, the worst war (in terms of U.S. casualties) the U.S. has ever suffered through.You've also assumed that just because these countries haven't been wiped off the map, they must have experienced no negative repercussions. Lack of evidence does not provide evidence to the contrary, that's yet another logical fallacy. Therefore your statement remains an ad populum fallacy, because you have not proven there were no negative repercussions. Your argument is based on these countries opinions because you haven't provided enough information on their experiences to justify it. Even if you had, you're still overgeneralizing by assuming that U.S. society works just like the societies of other countries.

Additionally, your evidence is weak. That video about Israel's policy on gays doesn't really provide anything in the way of factual information, other than that there was controversy (which, by the way, doesn't imply that it's going smoothly in Israel). Everything else is also just some short little blurb that doesn't tell you much more than "they have homosexuals in their military", which is fairly useless information. I hope you aren't accusing me of using merely "armchair philosophy". I provided you with evidence and statements from government documents and nationally recognized research corporations, as opposed to some random news story pulled off the web.

 

[El Nino]

You've dropped all your previous arguments in what I hope is not an attempt to ignore all the points I made earlier, and you still have yet to provide any significant positive impact for the removal of DADT.

I ignored those points because they are distracting from the main issue. I don't have time for detailed responses, but in brief:

-Tolerance is not the main trend of society. People in highly diverse areas get along if they have their basic needs met, and if the environment and the economic situation are good. With the recent economic hardships, crime rates have gone up in certain areas, and intolerance has started to build up between different ethnic communities in the areas affected. Gangs often recruit along racial and/or ethnic lines, and this contributes to the racial/ethnic divide.

-Prior to DADT, homosexuals did serve in the military in the U.S., and they did it in secret, but they did not require a policy like DADT in order to maintain that secrecy.

-Benefits and marriage: Even if same-sex marriage were legalized, if DADT were to remain in effect, the spouses of LGBT service members would not qualify for benefits. Metaphorically, it's a safe with two locks, and both locks have to be turned in order for the safe to be opened. It does not matter which lock is turned first, but they both must be turned in order to open the safe. I don't see the point in arguing that Lock B can't be turned before Lock A.

The abolition of slavery "should" have been just fine and dandy for the U.S., if you're going to base your conclusions on what other countries had done, but instead the issue contributed to the Civil War, the worst war (in terms of U.S. casualties) the U.S. has ever suffered through.

Another detour. If the lives of enslaved people mean nothing, then the casualties of soldiers also mean nothing. All wars are costly. Governments make the decision to enter war if the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived costs. It may have been a right or a wrong decision to enter that war, but the fact remains that all wars are dictated by political conerns. If there was a political aim to outlaw slavery, then that aim outweighed the military costs in the eyes of the political leaders of the time.

Ultimately, it is never about morals or ideology. It is all about political and economic gain. This is the driving force behind war.

You've also assumed that just because these countries haven't been wiped off the map, they must have experienced no negative repercussions.

I believe you were the one who said that civil rights are not the issue because matters of national defense are greater precisely because the consequences would be dire. On that note, a crippled national military would result in such negative consequences that it would be noticeable to everyone, particularly to people watching international politics. It is impossible to hide an ineffective military, especially ones as constantly engaged in operations as those of Russia and Israel.

Therefore your statement remains an ad populum fallacy, because you have not proven there were no negative repercussions.

Ad populum has nothing to do with having bad proof. As stated before, ad populum confuses popular belief with fact. I base nothing on popular belief. That list is a small list; it does not even contain the majority of the countries in the world. I'm using those few examples (a minority) to prove that it can be done.

Your argument is based on these countries opinions because you haven't provided enough information on their experiences to justify it.

That information is most likely to be classified. I don't have access to it, and unless Wikileaks wants to have a field day with it, I don't think I'll ever see it.

Once again, I base nothing on the opinions of the people in those countries. As far as opinion goes, Russia is not particularly tolerant of LGBT people in the military; they just don't bother to discriminate; their LGBT personnel keep things to themselves at their own discretion. Israel's policy is controversial among its own politicians. Both of those situations are reflective of public opinion.

Fact is a different matter, and the fact is that LGBT people serve in both those militaries. Those militaries are functioning militaries, operating in volatile regions. If LGBT openness were a problem, it would be stopped. Russian politics are not particularly concerned about liberalness and promoting tolerance. Israel also has a lot of security concerns that take priority. Neither can afford a disruptive presence in their ranks. So far, the heads of state have not banned LGBT people from serving or imposed a DADT-like policy. They would if it were a problem. There's nothing stopping them.

Even if you had, you're still overgeneralizing by assuming that U.S. society works just like the societies of other countries.

No medical or scientific study is ever conducted on 100% of the world's population. Results are taken from a small group and extrapolated to the rest using statistics. I'm not going to apply statistics here because I don't have the resources for that.

There are many traits that the U.S. shares with other countries. Military cultures are different, but also the same in many ways. Warfare is as close to a universal language as anything we're likely to find. No matter how different all the world's tribes are, the one thing we share in common is the understanding that sometimes you just have to kill the h*ll out of someone else because they either have something that you want, or you have something that they want.

Because of this, military culture can cross the lines between societies. In B.C. China, The Art of War was written. In the 20th century, military academies in the West make this older than dirt text required reading. Meanwhile, in China, the modernizing Chinese military sets the Sun Tzu aside and turns instead to Western studies of warfare.

One thing that military cultures around the world seem to have in common is their ability to adapt to the demands of the time and place, something often achieved by borrowing and stealing ideas from each other. This is something that comes from necessity, and in many ways I would say that good militaries around the world are more adaptable than the societies they are connected with. If you can train a guy to throw himself on a grenade, you're going to have a hard time telling me that you can't train him to not care about who his squad mate is screwing at home.

My point is, it is not an incorrect approach to look at existing examples and speculate on how they would affect a certain population.

I hope you aren't accusing me of using merely "armchair philosophy". I provided you with evidence and statements from government documents and nationally recognized research corporations, as opposed to some random news story pulled off the web.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I meant that statement for myself. You have provided the reasoning behind the government's policy. What you have not provided is proof that their reasoning is consistent with reality. Your smoking gun here would be a military with an open acceptance policy towards LGBT that was crippled by that policy.

You can argue that civil rights take a back seat to security priorities. However, the main purpose of a military is to carry out the political goals of the state (in the case of a military dictatorship, the military is the state, and we can call that the exception to this rule for now). Military goals are dictated by political goals. The kings rule over the generals. The military is the means to an end, not the end itself. The end is to serve the political aims of the government, whether those aims are home defense or protecting national interests overseas. LGBT rights are also a political aim of the current U.S. government. It may not be a top priority, but it is still something of political interest that the military will eventually be expected to carry out as it would its many other obligations to the government.

Edit: I missed your point about how this issue belongs to the civilian arena and how the military will change when society changes. Servicemen and women of LGBT orientation served in the U.S. armed forces prior to DADT; they did so in secret to conform to the social norms of the time. No DADT policy was necessary then. I don't see why one would be necessary now. Social norms of the current time still have a hold on members of the LGBT community, whether they serve in the military or elsewhere. If society as a whole has not yet changed enough to permit openness in the military, I expect this attitude to be reflected in military society as well, and since it has been proven to be the case historically, I would expect that LGBT service members would conduct themselves in accordance to the level of tolerance that they experience while in service. I think this system is self-regulating. I don't think DADT is a necessary policy, not even from a pragmatic point of view.

 

[§witch]

I don't have time for detailed responses.

Oh, I see.

 

[john!]

isn't the debate hall basically user blogs with less people and all the spam topics filtered out? i never understood why it was there.

 

[El Nino]

Oh, I see.

That post was heavily edited afterward, in case that wasn't obvious. I get long-winded, even when I'm dead tired.

 

[TigerWoods]

@LOTM: After highschool the Navy contacted me and went to extensive lengths to try and recruit me for my skills. I thought long and hard about it, but I decided to defer their offer.

I could've had an incredibly cheap upper level education and free medical school in exchange for a years of service but...

Things like DADT turn me off.

Me aside... There are PLENTY of contributions LBGT members can make to a millitary... whether it be through their phyiscal strength or mental capacity. Excluding a group would cut down its maximum effiency.

Half-joke: Plus removing all the L's out of the army would cripple the women's divisions...

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

What have you done to my eyes, man.

 

[Wild ARMs]

Quite an interesting read...
My compliments to El Nino for a very well-thought and intriguing post.

 

[Teran]

Omnicron and Switch, stop pissing around.