Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work

[Sarge]

Your argument gives me the most pause about my position, El. Things like this discussion are why I love this board, because I can honestly learn from other people's perspectives.

My question to those who have served is, at the risk of seeming insensitive, why are your rights more important than a homosexual's rights? Why do yours take precedence over theirs? Is it because there are more of you?

First off Goaldeje, no one has a "right" to serve. Everyone meets basis qualifications. To me, terming this as a "rights" issue is to play on the activists field, something I'm not willing to do. And yes, the military is probably made up of 95% straight people, so yes, the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few

And if your rights are more important, are their other groups that are being discriminated against or will be discriminated against?

No one is discriminated against. The military is the most discrimination free environment I've ever seen. That's not to say that it doesn't happen, it's just not tolerated. Now, I'me speaking of discrimination based on color and gender for the most part. Due to the current wars we're in, I've seen more than a few sideways looks at muslims, but considering who we're fighting maybe that is to be expected. But all of the things I mentioned above are based on factors that for the most part, can't be helped. Most people see the homo lifestyle as a choice, and a pretty disgusting one for that matter.

And if anything, the people that are discriminated against most are white males. Oh, not in a blatent way, but if I come down on someone, all they have to do is say "Sarge said this" or "Sarge did that" and Sarge is up **** creek until I can prove otherwise. It'll be the same way with homo's, only worse.


Also, are we talking about only male homosexuals, or are lesbians OK to serve?

Only if they're hot and have friends


Lastly, I would want to make sure that the discomfort with homosexuals doesn't stem from a moral issue, which would be a hard pill to swallow if true.

Some of it does

Not trying to be combative here, just trying to learn. And El's argument really does give me a lot of pause. On the other hand, I keep reading about this survey that was sent out, wherein a large majority of active service people now responded they were comfortable with the change. How do you respond to that?

Personally, and after talking to some of my old troops that are still in, I think the survey was constructed to reach that conclusion. Most of the troops didn't even see the survey, so it only reached maybe 5% of the military. Of that 5%, only about 25% answered

Now, I can believe the kids might be more tolerant of the situation simply because of the fact that they have been exposed to the Gay is OK" agenda all of their adutl lives.

 

[riggins44]

The other night talked with a couple friends (one retired Army and the other currently in Air Force) about this. Both were opposed to repealing DADT. Both of these men were or are officers.

They both echoed the sentiment regarding about the path this will take the military. Like previously discussed, they said what group comes forward next? Transvesties? Is it right to have seperate living quarters for men and women?

The biggest concern is how it will impact recruitment and retainment. You can say what you want, but it will have a negative impact.

 

[Elephant]

The biggest concern is how it will impact recruitment and retainment. You can say what you want, but it will have a negative impact.

And Goaldeje, this is my biggest concern. What about future recruitment? I have flower children liberals telling me, "Oh you have no certifiable statistics that will suggest a drop in recruitment won't happen!" Of course, they are trapped in their East Coast, elitists bubble.

I still don't care if gays serve in the military. As has been discussed, they are already there. Sarge has made an important point and in 50 years from now this could be a non-issue since, as a society, we are becoming much more tolerant of homosexuals.

My biggest problem with this whole situation is that we are in a time of war. Combat troops are looking at 3 or 4 tours because recruitment is down. Do we even take the chance the recruitment levels drop more by repealing DADT when we are at war on 2 fronts and the Korean Peninsula heating up?

 

[Goaldeje]

Personally, and after talking to some of my old troops that are still in, I think the survey was constructed to reach that conclusion. Most of the troops didn't even see the survey, so it only reached maybe 5% of the military. Of that 5%, only about 25% answered

Now, I can believe the kids might be more tolerant of the situation simply because of the fact that they have been exposed to the Gay is OK" agenda all of their adutl lives.

I appreciate your openness and honesty, Sarge. If your's truly is a representative view, then I can understand why there is a great deal of concern over the repeal.

Yours is not a viewpoint I share, but I can understand where you are coming from. I guess I have a hard time telling people who want to serve and are otherwise fit for service, no, you can not serve. But I also realize I have never served, and could not understand your perspective.

Someone mentioned recruiting, which I think is a valid point. Without offending anyone, or opening a whole other bag of worms, I think the military recruiting strategies are part of this entire problem, simply feeding into the problem and then trying to turn a blind eye to the problem they are perpetuating.

 

[riggins44]

Once again I dont think you understand because you havent served. Ive seen a guy try to cut his best friend with a plastic spoon for the simple reason that we were all cramped up in the same small space for 45 days straight. He couldnt even tell you why he was mad after he got out of the brig. Couple that together with the stresses of war, being away from home, etc and having a gay person in your ranks is just another factor in an already explosive situation.

I have never served in the military. My son has been considering joining after college. This area of Virginia has a large military population, thus have many friends either in or retired military. I fully understand where you are coming from.

Would the same people wanting to repeal the DADT allow women and men to serve together in a small area, like you mentioned above? I may be completely off base, but I think if you put men and women or straights and open gays in a small space you have the potential for problems.

 

[Henry]

I'm not going to argue with those of you actually in the service. You have a perspective that I lack and I can respect that.

I can only point out that societal changes are often very difficult, especially for those on the front lines (pun intended) but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be made. Sometimes we must accepts some short term pain for long term gain.

Is this one of those times? I honestly don't know. But it's something to think about.

 

[fansince62]

I'm not going to argue with those of you actually in the service. You have a perspective that I lack and I can respect that.

I can only point out that societal changes are often very difficult, especially for those on the front lines (pun intended) but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be made. Sometimes we must accepts some short term pain for long term gain.

Is this one of those times? I honestly don't know. But it's something to think about.

Henry....he said respectfully....

1) Societal change is not congruent with normative change. That is part of the struggle underway now. this move is more symbolic than anything else..a subtext to a much larger set of forces in play to redefine values, roles, etc., etc.

2) I have argued that anyone who wants to take the same risks serving should do so openly. And be respected for the service. However, I have also argued that since the argument has been positioned as a matter of rights there are competing equities that the powers that be better attend to; else, this is all fraudulent and just another political ploy. more simply: you can't argue rights on one hand and then deny it on the other.

This argument, btw, is separate from the consequences/impact on discipline & morale argument.

 

[Elephant]

Henry, valid points as fs62 has mentioned. The only thing I would add to your comments is that I do not think this is the right time to repeal because we are at war.

50 years from now it will almost certainly be a foregone conclusion that gays are openly serving in the military, although there are many logistical issues that need to be worked out. Those logistics simply cannot distract the military during a war.

 

[Sarge]

I appreciate your openness and honesty, Sarge. If your's truly is a representative view, then I can understand why there is a great deal of concern over the repeal.

Yours is not a viewpoint I share, but I can understand where you are coming from. I guess I have a hard time telling people who want to serve and are otherwise fit for service, no, you can not serve. But I also realize I have never served, and could not understand your perspective.

Someone mentioned recruiting, which I think is a valid point. Without offending anyone, or opening a whole other bag of worms, I think the military recruiting strategies are part of this entire problem, simply feeding into the problem and then trying to turn a blind eye to the problem they are perpetuating.

Well first, I'll return the appreciataion for the tone of your posts. Most people on the "other side" of the issue would have long ago hit the "Sarge is a homophobic bigot" button.

As far as serving, gays can serve abd are already there. We know it, but as it stands, they just can't be "open", whatever that entails. And just so you know, neither can hetero's. There's a thing in the military called "PDA", public displays of affection. They govern how people conduct themselves in public, ie "no holding hands in uniform" etc. That entails on the "rights" of everyone in the service.

Which leads to another point that I've previously mentioned, "rights". No one has a "right" to serve. Once you are serving, everyone's "rights" are curtailed. Your 1st Amendment "right" go out the window. So do your "rights" under the 14th Amendment and a few other Amendments. It's just the way it is in the military.

So as I said before, when this issue is framed in a "rights" context, I don't play that. Gays that are fighting for their "rights" are fighting to get into an organization that will take away many of their "rights" once they are in. What are they going to do, continue to fight for their "rights"? That's just not the way the military works

 

[Sarge]

I can only point out that societal changes are often very difficult, especially for those on the front lines (pun intended) but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be made. Sometimes we must accepts some short term pain for long term gain.

What "gain" would that be Henry? As it is, the US military is the best in the world. Recruitment is high. What would making this change do to improve the efficiency of the military?

That should be the bottom line

 

[Henry]

What "gain" would that be Henry? As it is, the US military is the best in the world. Recruitment is high. What would making this change do to improve the efficiency of the military?

That should be the bottom line

It would increase the pool of volunteers. Capable soldiers who have been 'outed' won't lose their jobs, and therefore the military won't lose that capable soldier. For example, the Arabic linguists who were discharged for being gay. As Elephant says, we are at war. Is this really the best time to be losing Arabic linguists?

If we're really talking about the bottom line here, I would think more able-bodied soldiers serving in the military would be better than less. That's the ultimate bottom line.

That said, the reality is the points that fansince62 and others have brought up must be taken into consideration. Is this the right time to rip off the band-aid, so to speak? I don't know. But as Elephant says, 50 years from now change will be a reality one way or the other. And in some cases there is no perfect time to facilitate such a change. This might be one of those cases.

That's all I'm saying.

As far as serving, gays can serve abd are already there. We know it, but as it stands, they just can't be "open", whatever that entails. And just so you know, neither can hetero's. There's a thing in the military called "PDA", public displays of affection. They govern how people conduct themselves in public, ie "no holding hands in uniform" etc. That entails on the "rights" of everyone in the service.

I think such codes of conduct are entirely appropriate and shouldn't be changed. Would repealing DADT remove these things, or would it simply stipulate that a serviceman (or woman) can't be discharged just for being gay, even if he (or she) has made no public displays whatsoever?

 

[Henry]

the military isnt society though. they live by a completely different set of rules. If you get arrested in the civilian world you face 2 courts. The civilian and military one. And I feel that any short term pain would result in deaths..are you willing to accept that in the name of change?

I don't know, Mike. I'm not a huge advocate for revoking DADT. I'm just throwing another point of view out there.

I will say I don't think this is being done just for the sake of change. This has been an issue for 20 years, and it will have to be resolved eventually. I would sure like to have that happen with the fewest, uh, deaths. But I wouldn't presume to suggest I'm an expert on how to make that happen.

 

[Henry]

I know and I fully appreciate your point of view bro. I just dont think that swinging the pendulum the opposite way and saying "if youre straight and have a problem with it you now cant serve" is the way to go.

Yes, that was a very badly worded statement. He should have said 'this is going to happen so we all have to figure out a way to deal with it' or something. Going adversarial like that is rarely a good idea.

I think its fine how it is. There are gay people serving. Every person who has served has already mentioned we all know it. But sometimes its better to NOT mention the big pink elephant in the room.

Personally I agree with you, to a point. Though I do think it's a shame that if a servicemember with a solid record is 'officially' discovered to be gay, for whatever reason, he'll get drummed out of the military. Seems like we're only hurting ourselves when that happens. If there was a way to nudge DADT a little so that the military could overlook situations like that I'd be for it. Sadly, I don't know that that's possible.

If I had a solution I'd gladly grace you all with it.

 

[fansince62]

What "gain" would that be Henry? As it is, the US military is the best in the world. Recruitment is high. What would making this change do to improve the efficiency of the military?

That should be the bottom line

Sarge...the whole is that this is just a symbolic move toward the overall goal of reshaping societal realtionships and value systems. the military is irrelevant in this larger landscape.

 

[fansince62]

Well first, I'll return the appreciataion for the tone of your posts. Most people on the "other side" of the issue would have long ago hit the "Sarge is a homophobic bigot" button.

As far as serving, gays can serve abd are already there. We know it, but as it stands, they just can't be "open", whatever that entails. And just so you know, neither can hetero's. There's a thing in the military called "PDA", public displays of affection. They govern how people conduct themselves in public, ie "no holding hands in uniform" etc. That entails on the "rights" of everyone in the service.

Which leads to another point that I've previously mentioned, "rights". No one has a "right" to serve. Once you are serving, everyone's "rights" are curtailed. Your 1st Amendment "right" go out the window. So do your "rights" under the 14th Amendment and a few other Amendments. It's just the way it is in the military.

So as I said before, when this issue is framed in a "rights" context, I don't play that. Gays that are fighting for their "rights" are fighting to get into an organization that will take away many of their "rights" once they are in. What are they going to do, continue to fight for their "rights"? That's just not the way the military works

interesting take I hadn't thought about Sarge.

 

[fansince62]

hey Sarge...do you think gay significant others should be entitled to all military benefits that married spouses receive?


see where this is all REALLY headed?

 

[Elephant]

...the big pink elephant in the room.

What did you call me?

 

[Goaldeje]

What did you call me?

Big gay Elephant?

<ducks>

Sorry, couldn't resist!

 

[Elephant]

Well, it looks like this will be put down for a while. Congress would not even hear it because of a possible Republican filibuster.

 

[Sarge]

Maybe not. Thanks to Joe Liberman, who's going ot introduce a "stand alone" bill for DADT

Gee, why couldn't they do that for health care?