• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Gays in U.S. military (merged)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nexxyboi
  • Start date Start date
S_Baker said:
I think it is important to point out that as a CDN you are reflecting "Modern" CDN values, which are not necessarily American ones.

So Canadian society is more accepting of peoples differences and tolerant?

[quote author=S_Baker]
  I do not support openly serving gays in the military and as such I have been ridiculed, called a bigot, and  homophobic, so much for tolerance.[/quote]

Why would anyone be 'tolerant' of a view that is inherantly intolerant? If I said I don't want blacks in my workplace do I expect people to be tolerant of my views?

[quote author=S_Baker]
  Without going into a long explanation I want to point out that I personally don't care what you do in private.  However I am well within my right to speak out against something I am offended by, the issue was not brought up by me, but I will not back down because someone wants me to acquiesce and say that a certain behavior is okay, when I believe it is not.[/quote]

Yes, you are within your right to say what you believe. Out of curiosity (when the mods crap on me for this, please just delete the one sentence), is it religious beliefs that lead you to make statements like 'something I am offended by', and 'when I believe it is not'?

[quote author=S_Baker]
As for Shalikashvili, I echo T-6 comments, he was a Clinton era Chairman....  [/quote]

Which automatically makes him bad? Again, I know nothing of the mans works. But stating he was a 'Clinton era Chairman' doesn't equate to being bad, to my knowledge anyway.
 
Just a friendly reminder to keep this topic on track.

It is not about one's own personal, religious or moral beliefs or others personal views about those beliefs.

The subject is "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military"

If you have nothing intelligent, non-personal or thought/discussion-provoking to add to the discussion in a rational and adult manner; don't post. Either that or be prepared for the C&P I'll slap on you. Fair warning.

Keep it non-personal and professional, it is becoming.

 
S_Baker said:
  Religion?  Why can it not be based on the humanistic philosophy that in-order to propagate the species one must have a male and a female?  My religion or personal philosophy, doesn't matter, its my business, and since when are ideas regulated?

Ideas aren't regulated, go right ahead. Just trying to see where you are coming from. I'd never seen a stance against homosexuals that didn't have some basis in religion, now I have. And I think the human species is doing a very good job at propagating itself even with a certain percentage of it being homosexual.

[quote author=S_Baker]
There seems to be a fixation on "your flavor of the month" rights.[/quote] 

My supporting of the right for gays to be in the military is not a flavour of the month for me, although it may be for others. I have felt this way for a long time.

[quote author=S_Baker]
Do I loose the right to say I find something abhorent?[/quote]

No, once again I state that you have the right to say what you want and that you find something abhorrent. I find it abhorrent that "Between 1998 and 2004, the military discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi speakers" for being gay (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206). This of course doesn't include the non-tranlaters that have been released from the military, or the people who didn't bother to apply and try to hide who they are. How does that help national security? How does denying fellow citizens the right to defend the country they love equate with the freedom and liberty for all mantra of the US?

 
The Librarian said:
Keep it non-personal and professional, it is becoming.


Librarian thanks for this thought. I have been tempted to throw back in kind to some replies I have read.

You have given me the guide I will use.



 
Also remember the differences in our two countries. The US is a far more conservative country. Gay marriage may be acceptable in Canada but in many states of the US it isnt [just an example]. The problem with changing this policy to allow gays would also require a change to the UCMJ where at present sodomy is a crime punishable by court martial. So this issue is rooted in military law as much as anything else.
 
Well,  this of course is one of the finer points that represent larger differences between us Canadians and our dear neighboUrs to the south.  I know this can be a heated debate,  I hope people look at the underlying message and not get to offended by what I write.  I know this is about Americans letting gays in.  But of course we brought up the topic of gays in our armed forces.

S_Baker,  it is my understanding that how you feel about someone for their race, religion, sexual orientation or shoe size is entirely your business. When you're in uniform how you conduct yourself is entirely the CF's concern. I am sure you're mature enough to deal with people you dislike. I bring this up not to slam you down for your views,  their yours to do with as you please, but to drive a point to other readuing the thread.

I know people (okay with one person in particular) who are frankly so homophobic it has scared me, I wish their comments were limited to only vulgar jokes.  However when they are in uniform,  they conduct themselves like professionals.  Their views are known,  but not brought up by anyone.  Just as they accept the gay guys in the unit,  the gay guys don't press the issue that they make others uncomfortable.  They just accept the situation and get on with the work that needs to be done.

That is the standard I've seen in the CF,  if you are unable to work with someone because you don't like "what" they are,  you're the problem not them.  I work with people all the time who make me feel like I'm chewing tinfoil.  I get over my feelings and get on with the job. 

(this is my humour part,  I don't want to impugn any one on this thread in any way,  I'm making a point ... please take what I say as intended,  farce)
Wait,  you know what,  it is time I followed the example set by others.  Just as others have come forward with their anti gay views,  I'll come out with mine.  I don't think left handed people should be allowed in the CF.

Left handed people have a higher risk for developing a psychological disorder, more likely to go to jail have a lower life expectancy and generally creep me out. There are several mentions about left handed activities in the Bible and look up the root word for Sinister,  see the left had connection?  Add to that the C7 is made for right handed people, as well as trucks,  sure lefti can overcome their disability, but in a fire fight would you really want someone who is struggling with a handycap, statistically more likely to become psychotic beside you or a normal person? Now imagine what this does to group cohesion,  you have someone genetically programed to do things in a different way. They will always be different,  I'm not saying they're wrong,  I'm just saying it creeps me out and there are legitimate reasons for excluding them from serving. I don't mind if a person is left handed, if they can keep it to themselves - just not in front of me.  I mean honestly do they actually offer the CF something of value?

Remember,  in the CF you salute with the right hand because that is the right way to do the right thing! And you Write with the right hand, do the right thing.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Also remember the differences in our two countries. The US is a far more conservative country. Gay marriage may be acceptable in Canada but in many states of the US it isnt [just an example]. The problem with changing this policy to allow gays would also require a change to the UCMJ where at present sodomy is a crime punishable by court martial. So this issue is rooted in military law as much as anything else.

I think it's interesting to see that the UCMJ's Article 125, was not changed after 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas and the reversal of the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick ruling. However, these decisions only applied to states that had laws that specifically prohibited same-sex sodomy.

From my understanding though, article 125 applies to "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal". From my understanding, this uses sodomy not specifically to refer to the specific act of anal intercourse, but the as a definition that also includes non-coital sexual acts, acts which are common among non-homosexuals.

If I follow that understanding, then I would say article 125 is definitely due for a change (such as ammending it to specify unnatuarl acts with animals), because I can GUARANTEE that MANY straight military members would be guilty of acts included in that definiton.

Personally, as far as the way I was raised, and my personal beliefs, I don't agree with homosexuality. But I have friends who are. I've served with members who are. Personally, I think if you have a DADT policy regarding homosexual activity, you should also have a DADT policy regarding ANY sexual activity.

What are the things soldiers ALWAYS talk about when they have downtime, or are up late in the field? We all know it's true. Personally, I don't care if your gay, a muslim, praise free spirits or Gaia or whatever. If you're wiling to serve, put your life on the line for you country, do your job effectively, then you're good to go.

Trudeau said "the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation"
 
zipperhead_cop said:
I have to imagine that by now most CF members have had contact with someone who was gay and of the same gender as them.

Not to mention knowing people, but not even KNOWING they're gay.  I've known people who've found out (much later) that colleagues they respected were actually gay.  It kind of saddened me a bit to see these folks seemingly so torn up, saying, "how could he be gay?"  I'd asked one, "Hey, did they do the job?"  In most cases, if they said, "Yeah, they were good", it slowly clicked that maybe that was the key thing to keep in mind.

If they're doing their job, who cares who they're with?  Punish behaviour that interferes with the job, or lack of performance, not what happens in one's off time.
 
S_Baker said:
Well here in lies the problem, some people equate sexual orientation with race.  I believe it is a choice, but it really doesn't matter, what I object to is the in-your-face you better accept it or else!

As for the left hand analogy that was silly, unless you live in Japan.  Japan is where lefties have their hands behind their back until they conform.   

Thank you,  I was going for silly.

Now about that in-your-face-attitude Yes,  I know a few people who are all about being gay and proud.  Within 30 seconds of meeting them they tell you they're gay, one way or another and then inform you of how proud they are. It gets very old very fast. I think it is because they hated themselves for so long,  and felt so bad about being that way that now they've accepted it themselves they are over compensating.  That or they think if they can get others to accept them,  they'll accept it themselves.  Either way,  poor socail skills.  I don't paint all homosexuals with the flag waving syndrome, just like I don't thinkall Christan's are out to convert me to their version of Christianity.  Most people are basically decent and honest wanting fundamentally the same things.

I don't believe that homosexuals chose to be attracted to what they're attracted to.  I do believe they choose to either accept it or doom themselves (and everyone in their lives) to increadable problems.

Now,  I'm getting off this thread.  I've put in more than my two cents .... which I kinda need because my OSAP (Student loan) got delayed.
 
Zell_Dietrich said:
I don't believe that homosexuals chose to be attracted to what they're attracted to.  I do believe they choose to either accept it or doom themselves (and everyone in their lives) to increadable problems.

That is exactly what some of the gay guys that I have know told me.  When the concept of "choosing" to be gay or gay guys "recruiting" young straight guys into being gay came up they always laugh.  As one guy put it "I would never choose to have to be an outcast, disappoint my family and have to hang out in dance bars" (Cruel fate struck him with a hatred of disco/dance music.  In fact he was a country/western fan, but I digress)
Maybe that is the crux of understanding the issue.  If we accept that people are gay from birth and can't be "talked out of it" or any such nonsense, then people can see it as just another thing they were born with, like skin colour or being left handed (which I am and you better watch your back, Dietrich!   :threat:)
And just for point of clarification, the American military gay prohibition is centered on a sodomy issue?  That would suggest that lesbians should be fairly green light then, wouldn't they be?
 
Sig_Des said:
I think it's interesting to see that the UCMJ's Article 125, was not changed after 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas and the reversal of the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick ruling.

That thought occured to me as well. Is it possible for a serving/former member to sue the US military in an attempt to get that reg changed given the Supreme Courts ruling in that case?

Trudeau said "the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation"

So Trudeau wasn't all bad  ;)
 
zipperhead_cop said:
And just for point of clarification, the American military gay prohibition is centered on a sodomy issue?  That would suggest that lesbians should be fairly green light then, wouldn't they be?

If only. There is a female enlisted Air Force type on another board I frequent and she remains deep in the closet to protect her career. The sodomy issue is a red herring used to justify bias against homosexuals.
 
sigpig said:
The sodomy issue is a red herring used to justify bias against homosexuals.

I don't think the use of the word sodomy is "a red herring used to justify bias against homosexuals".

While the word sodomy most commonly refers to a specific sexual act, in legal wording it is generally used as a catch-all to include anything that may be considered a unnatural sexual act or philias, and other acts.
 
Bottom line is that unless sodomy is amended or removed from the UCMJ the status of openly gay troops wont be changed.
 
Well then it's time to remove sodomy from the UCMJ as per the Supreme Courts decision. Why can't lesbians serve openly if sodomy is the big hangup?
 
sigpig said:
Well then it's time to remove sodomy from the UCMJ as per the Supreme Courts decision. Why can't lesbians serve openly if sodomy is the big hangup?

Someone explained that 2 posts before yours. Go ahead, use your google-fu on it's definition and answer your own question quoted above (Merriam Websters defines it well). Now see the issues being faced?

Some see simple solutions to what others see as very complex issues. If life were this easy, there'd be no problems and no need for debates.


 
The Librarian said:
Someone explained that 2 posts before yours. Go ahead, use your google-fu on it's definition and answer your own question quoted above (Merriam Websters defines it well).

"Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal" (one def I found) is way too vague and could include almost anything if someone wanted to get somebody. How many heteros could be slammed for this? But of course it's not heteros that would be persecuted.

To paraphrase Trudeau, the military has no business in the bedrooms of it's personnel.
 
Figured I'd add this one here as it seems applicable to the topic, or related, at least

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070313/pace_remark_070313/20070313?hub=World

Top U.S. general calls homosexuality immoral
Updated Tue. Mar. 13 2007 11:36 AM ET

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Senior aides to the chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff said Tuesday that Marine Gen. Peter Pace won't apologize for calling homosexuality immoral -- an opinion that gay advocacy groups deplored.

In a newspaper interview Monday, Pace had likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.

"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its website.

The group has represented some of the thousands dismissed from the military for their sexual orientation.

Pace's senior staff members said Tuesday that the general was expressing his personal opinion and had no intention of apologizing. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to speak on the record.

Rep. Martin Meehan, who has introduced legislation to repeal the current policy, criticized Pace's comments.

"General Pace's statements aren't in line with either the majority of the public or the military," said the Massachusetts Democrat. "He needs to recognize that support for overturning (the policy) is strong and growing" and that the military is "turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination."

In an interview Monday with the Chicago Tribune, Pace was asked about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and don't engage in homosexual acts.

Pace said he supports the policy, which became law in 1994 and prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace was quoted as saying in the newspaper interview. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.

"As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behaviour) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," he said.

The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.

Louis Vizcaino, spokesman for the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, said Pace's comments were "insulting and offensive to the men and women ... who are serving in the military honorably."

"Right now there are men and women that are in the battle lines, that are in the trenches, they're serving their country," Vizcaino said. "Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with their capability to serve in the U.S. military."

"Don't ask, don't tell" was passed by Congress in 1993 after a firestorm of debate in which advocates argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would hurt troop morale and recruitment and undermine the cohesion of combat units.

John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.

"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.

I respect that this is the general's individual opinion, but should he be making such statements in his position?

Edit to add: I realise that this is a touchy subject, and as previously on this thread, let's try to keep it civil.
 
Back
Top