Studies of Gays in the US military?

[armyvern]

You are honestly retarded if you can not tell the difference between how we are awarded with medals and charter of rights and freedoms issues.

Speaking of retarded; I was talking of your ability to use the opposite argument of "soldiers should have a say in policy" BUT only when it suits your purposes. IE: Wanting your cake and eating it too. When, how, why, how many medals we are awarded is a matter of policy as is this nations policy on equality for all of us.

I am smart enough however to recognize that the Canadian Charter of Rights is not, nor has it ever been, applicable to the policy of the United States of America and whom, or whom not, the citizens and law makers of that country allow to serve which IS the subject of this thread.

Now, I'm not calling you retarded, but you do have a distinct and very obvious streak of believing that you are the smartest thing since sliced toast (just that much more advanced over bread), that you are always correct, that you are the only one who truely can see "the big picture and truth in the world", and that anyone who believes just one mere iota differently than you ... must be the retarded one.

Suggest you go take a good long look in the mirror.

 

[Greymatters]

Looking at your profile I'll retract the comment about the military - you state that you are in the CF.

However, some of your comments are rather strange for a person in your position. 

Soldiers have opinions and have had opinions covering every range of topic.  From what types of food should be in IMPs to what they think of our leadership to how we should work in the field or what equipment we should be using.  Many of the changes we see in how we work and are equipped are due to input from soldiers.  Many changes in policy covering administration, pay, entitlements, housing and support services are also affected by soldier opinions. 

Thus your comments are a bit unusual...

Edit - This looks like it is getting pretty off-topic... 

 

[SeanNewman]

Vern,

I have admitted that I have been wrong many, many times.

In this case though, these matters are beyond different, so yes it can be a matter of soldiers being able to have a say on one thing and not being able to have a say on others.

It's not about flip-flopping or changing arguments, because my argument has always been "There are some things that soldiers can have a say in, and some things they can't".

Beyond that, if it makes you feel better about yourself and sleep better at night to spend long hours quoting and sub quoting my posts then more power to you.  I have opinions, and I will not apologize for having strong opinions.

When I am wrong, I apologize for being wrong, but until you convince me that gays in the military and medals deserve the same thought processes then I will make that confession.

Grey,

As per above, do you really think soldiers (to include all ranks) having an opinion about what should go in IMPs is in the same ballpark as what sorts of missions we should conduct or who is allowed to serve in the military?

I seek out and ask listen to soldiers' opinions every day for policy matters where their opinion is crucial.  However, having a vote about something like "should we have gays in the military" is completely wrong (understood it was a US study, which is why my original post only stated that it was "interesting").

Humans in leadership positions need to know the difference between the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and IMPs.

If you feel it is unusual that there are some things that soldiers' opinions are valued for and some things that they aren't technically allowed to voice their opinion on, then, well, I'm not sure where I can go with that.

 

[Greymatters]

Ref IMPs vs 'who gets to serve':

This is the very root of many leadership issues - that a decision is made by the leaders based on 'this is not important so we'll let you have an opinion' and 'this is very important and we dont want your uneducated opinion bothering us'.  All important issues need feedback in order to create effective change or adaptation, even from the lowliest in rank at any organization.  It doesnt matter that the soldiers opinion wont change the law or stop something they dont like.  But it will give the leaders an idea of how much opposition there is to an idea and how they can change the minds of workers.  You might have heard of this principle while you were at university, its called 'change management'. 

I would propose that the CF does do a survey of soldiers opinions - no soldier expects them to act on the results, it would give all participants an idea of the issues involved.  If done properly and discretely enough it might give military leaders an idea of just how many gay members there are in the military and how many soldiers actually have no problem with them.  Pretending the issue will go away by just passing a few regulations only leaves a big white elephant in the middle of the room that everyone pretends isnt there.

To sum up - is this a drastic concept? Oh yes, but thats where the business world has gone over the past 20 years and I believe that it will become a part of the military process over the next 20 years just like so many other ideas from the busines world that have migrated to the military...

 

[armyvern]

I don't sleep Petamocto; I am an insomniac.

But, I think thou dost flatter yourself too much. Given my post count - I hardly think that 5 or 6 responses in relation to your spouted bullshit & flip-flopping relates remotely as to how I spend my time.

But you just carry on thinking that my my world too rotates around you - as it obviously makes you feel better.

I accept your apology.

 

[SeanNewman]

...I accept your apology.

Get your own lines! 

I respect what you are saying, and I insist that I am not flip-flopping (which I have done on occasion on other issues if the factors that led to my first decision changed).

Flip flopping would be if one day I said soldiers should have a say on gays in the military and next week said they didn't.

Soldiers should by all means be able to voice their opinion in matters that relate to their workplace that do not involve charter rights.  If you ask anyone I work with you'll see how often I really do ask their opinions and advice on work-related matters.

I do not see how you can draw a parallel to that and Charter matters though.  If it involves human rights, it's a non-starter; full stop.  Nobody wearing green or tan has any say in who we allow to serve in our organization.  Prove me wrong and you'll get my apology.

 

[Loachman]

Soldiers should by all means be able to voice their opinion in matters that relate to their workplace that do not involve charter rights.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Charter-protected Rights and Freedoms include freedom of opinion and expression thereof.

 

[gcclarke]

Soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen should by all means be able to voice their opinion in matters that relate to their workplace. We're allowed to do so, as long as we don't sign a petition in regards to defence policy. None of this obligates anyone higher up in the CF or DND who might actually be making these decisions, or in the case of the topic matter at hand, the United States Congress and President, to base their decisions upon what those stated opinions are.

 

[SeanNewman]

Just so we're all clear here for the record, to ensure that everyone who reads this understands what you are arguing against me when the BOI is held:

I am saying that soldiers have no say that gays should or should not serve in the military.

Lots of you people are saying that they should have a say in the matter, and are calling me a retard for saying so.

There, now that it's out in the open I can claim I have done due diligence in this matter.

 

[Greymatters]

I think you're just stuck on this concept of a soldier arguing against a law, statute or regulation.  Just because a regulation is passed doesnt mean the subject is closed and no further discussion is allowed.  Any law statute or regulation can be rescinded withdrawn overruled or struck down if there is enough opposition against it regardles of how legal any government body makes it out to be.

In regard to this particular issue, no I dont think that gays should be barred from military service, in either Canada or the US.  However, there is an undeniable resistance to the idea, especially in the combat arms.  And its also a commonly understood concept that the more you try to force someone to believe in something they dont like, the more they will resist it, even if its for their own good (or a minority's own good).  In this case discussions on the subject wont change the rules, but would allow for the issue to be confronted and understood instead of maintaining a passive resistance among CF members.

And just in case you think this is a 'troopie' issue, Ive heard anti-homo comments from the officer levels as well...

 

[SeanNewman]

There are openly gay people in the military in all trades at (just about) all ranks. 

People are allowed to think in their heads whatever they want about this, as long as their actions don't in any way discriminate.

When I stated "opinion" above, it was in the context of having a say, not so much thinking one way or the other.

Of course there is always going to be resistance to anything new, that's what old people are for.  Just like people resisted guns over arrows, planes over ships, and new C7 drills vice canting the weapon to the left.  Resistance is a given.  If they want to keep it in their own head then that is their right.  If they discriminate at the work place and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then they will be punished.

I disagree with one fundamental thing you have mentioned, and that is that all laws can be voted on and changed.  Granted most laws can be, but laws regulating human rights can never be voted on.  You can't vote on whether or not we should have slavery, and we can't vote on whether or not gays should be allowed to marry.

 

[gcclarke]

I must disagree with you there. From a purely legal standpoint, there is nothing about the Constitution Act, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that cannot be amended. In fact, said charter does not explicitly provide any protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Section 15 of the charter merely says that we have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination, and then goes on to list 9 factors that "in particular" cannot be the basis for discrimination. The courts however have typically ruled that sexual orientation is analogous to those factors, and while protection from discrimination is implicitly granted.

But I digress. Regardless, these things can be changed. We can certainly add to the list. We could also abolish the list entirely. Protection of the law is very much so a function of the law, and it can be amended. Your statement that " laws regulating human rights can never be voted on" is rather erroneous, as the law which outlines these human rights was voted on, in 1982. And, should Canadian society undergo sufficient change, it is possible that at some point in the future, we may wish to restrict some of the rights that have currently been granted.

Whether such an action would be morally acceptable is, of course, an argument for another day.

 

[SeanNewman]

Yes, I do stand corrected on your points about the "letter of the law" (if you will).

I think we are going in the opposite direction of your hypothetical example though.  Blacks and women* used to have limited rights and they are now 100% equal, so gays are so absurdly close to 100% that even if it's 99.999% there one must logically conclude that it will soon also be 100%.

Heck, even animal laws are getting closer and closer to equal rights.

That being said though, just because the trend supports my argument toward everyone being equal, I still admit the error of my position in terms of those rights being infallible. **

*Granted that Natives are still a bit of a mixed bag due to all the assorted treaties promising certain things over the years.  On some things Natives are granted even more rights than average citizens, but at the same time a person seeing the overall context would have a hard time seeing Natives as lucky or well off.

**See Vern, that's twice in a week now I've admitted I was wrong about something 

 

[Strike]

Yes, I do stand corrected on your points about the "letter of the law" (if you will).

I think we are going in the opposite direction of your hypothetical example though.  Blacks and women* used to have limited rights and they are now 100% equal, so gays are so absurdly close to 100% that even if it's 99.999% there one must logically conclude that it will soon also be 100%.

The problem with that statement is that, in this situation (U.S. Military) it's false.  Women are not yet considered 100% equal to men as they don't have the right to participate in every trade that is available to men.

Now, if you were referring to the CF, then yes, you would be right.

 

[SeanNewman]

I am talking about Canada.  My first post stated that it was "interesting" it was seen as that way in the US.

Then it got taken off the rails because a chosen few would rather argue semantics than concepts or ideas.

 

[Greymatters]

Unfortunately, anytime you are talking about laws and regulations, semantics becomes very important, annoying as that may be...

 

[Strike]

And, although there's nothing wrong with comparing the two militaries, the topic of this thread is about gays serving in the US military, so everyone's arguments about Cdn laws are essentially moot.

Petamocto, sorry about the error, but, as this is suposed to be a thread about the US military and you didn't say anything about the Cdn military in your post that I quoted, one can understand my reply.

 

[SeanNewman]

...one can understand my reply.

Ack, and I do.  Same team, here.

 

[armyvern]

**See Vern, that's twice in a week now I've admitted I was wrong about something 

Geez, for someone who posted that I spent all my hours thinking of him ... I see you're still thinking constantly about me.

1) I'm taken;

2) You're "ability" as you put it "to only be able control your own actions" a few posts ago may not be applicable to your ability to control your thinking about me.

3) If you're ever in Borden - hit me up ... I'd even buy you a beer ... if you promise to control yourself; I know, I know ... it's hard ... but heck - it's a free freakin' beer (or tequila).

 

[SeanNewman]

Kudos to you for taking the first step towards maturity.  I thought we were both going to have to go on being right about everything forever.

As enticing as a 41 year old "bitchy redhead" (self-proclaimed) may be, the fact that you're taken drains a man's mojo.

That being said, it is part of my catechism to have dash and pay "polite attention to the ladies", but alas...I too am taken.

...and far too useful to the CF to ever go to Borden... ;D