Campaign Creations

So let's say you're an Asian-American who joins the Army, goes to West Point (which requires the support of a Congressman or Senator), is happily deployed to Iraq, and become an Arab interpreter.

Sounds like an American sucess story, right?

Well, let's say you're gay.  What happens then?

Nope.  Then the military kicks you out even after 150 letters of support.

DrumsofWar wrote: Well, let's say you're gay.  What happens then?

Nope.  Then the military kicks you out even after 150 letters of support.

That wasn't very bright. Now he's just another statistic.

If you're trying to elicit sympathy by the fact that he received 150 support letters, keep in mind that the Army by its very nature has to follow the law regardless of what their higher-ups really think about it; they don't have the luxury of civil disobedience afforded to private citazens by their very nature (one must give up some of their rights in order to serve in the armed forces).

The military currently has a rule: Don't ask, don't tell. Simple. He broke this rule and was discharged. Like RCX said, the military follows rules regardless of support or what's best (by matter of opinion). As Obama mentioned, he is attempting to seek a different approach to the current rule.

Rules are rules.  If everyone just broke them because they had their own special reasons for it then no rule would get enforced ever.

I stand by the principle that putting people (whether they are men and women or men and men) together in a war when they're attracted to each other is a horrible idea for reasons that have nothing to do with equality or the proper role of men and women.

Sodon wrote: I stand by the principle that putting people (whether they are men and women or men and men) together in a war when they're attracted to each other is a horrible idea for reasons that have nothing to do with equality or the proper role of men and women.

There's been a fair amount of self-control (and imposed discipline) between men and women in the military and certainly, it'd be even moreso for gays given the stigma against them in the military, even if the current rules limiting gays were withdrawn.

Also, I'm well aware of the "Don't Ask.  Don't Tell." policy, guys, but it doesn't change the fact that it's hurting the military at a time when recruiting is down.  (The Army was short by 10,000 in some of their recruiting goals over the past few years while it discharged more than the same number for disclosing their sexual orientation.)

Krazy wrote:

Sodon wrote: I stand by the principle that putting people (whether they are men and women or men and men) together in a war when they're attracted to each other is a horrible idea for reasons that have nothing to do with equality or the proper role of men and women.

When they can be attracted to each other, or when they are?  Are you saying you think all branches of the military should be gender-exclusive as well?

Yes. Or at least don't mix within a unit.

It's not that attraction has people humping each other instead of doing their job, DoW. But in a fight, you need to be able to make quick decisions that cannot be influenced by an attraction you feel to your mates. Self control doesn't have much to do with it - our biology is meant to work a certain way.

But that's how combat does work.  You always hear stories from vets who say that they never had friends or experiences in the civilian world like they did in the military because they bonded under fire.

We've become spoiled in expecting war to be this technological and professional affair and it's really not.  Keep in mind that one of the few countries which drafts women into its military is also the one considered one of the best - the Israelis.

You're lucky I'm on vacation regarding this subject.

The gay thing is just an excuse to kick an asian guy out of the military.




Seriously? He knew what was going to happen, and went through with it anyway.

There's always been a bit of leeway because of practical reasons; those people are needed.  It's likely that practicality is going to guide future reforms more than activism or popular sentiment, especially with the military.

It was for the same reason that the military accepted blacks in wars beginning with the American Revolution.  I do think we'll see females being allowed into direct infantry roles first before we see reform in this area for that same reason however.

DrumsofWar wrote:

Sodon wrote: I stand by the principle that putting people (whether they are men and women or men and men) together in a war when they're attracted to each other is a horrible idea for reasons that have nothing to do with equality or the proper role of men and women.

There's been a fair amount of self-control (and imposed discipline) between men and women in the military and certainly, it'd be even moreso for gays given the stigma against them in the military, even if the current rules limiting gays were withdrawn.

Also, I'm well aware of the "Don't Ask.  Don't Tell." policy, guys, but it doesn't change the fact that it's hurting the military at a time when recruiting is down.  (The Army was short by 10,000 in some of their recruiting goals over the past few years while it discharged more than the same number for disclosing their sexual orientation.)

Do you think you are going to improve the military's recruiting problems by repealing the dont ask/dont tell policy.

AA7Dragoon wrote: You're lucky I'm on vacation regarding this subject.

I'm sure once you get the juices flowing you'll put everyone in a line once more.

Aiursrage2k wrote:

DrumsofWar wrote: There's been a fair amount of self-control (and imposed discipline) between men and women in the military and certainly, it'd be even moreso for gays given the stigma against them in the military, even if the current rules limiting gays were withdrawn.

Also, I'm well aware of the "Don't Ask.  Don't Tell." policy, guys, but it doesn't change the fact that it's hurting the military at a time when recruiting is down.  (The Army was short by 10,000 in some of their recruiting goals over the past few years while it discharged more than the same number for disclosing their sexual orientation.)

Do you think you are going to improve the military's recruiting problems by repealing the dont ask/dont tell policy.

It will improve their retention problems, that much is obvious.  It's also more advantageous for the Army to keep soldiers, gay or otherwise, who have already served a tour and have more experience than continually relying on one-tour volunteers.

We might all be a little uncomfortable at first with having gays openly in the military, I included, if we were serving right alongside with them but the same could be said for trying to integrate any group into the military in the past, steps which have worked out for mutual benefit.  It might take a while but it's obviously inevitable and more preferable than the current recruitment tactics of taking in more people with a criminal history or non-US citizens, both of which could cause more practical and political problems.

All right.  I've decided to do a general reply to cover all of the arguments presented so far.

Essentially, what some of you are saying is that "rules are rules" and that this officer deserved what he got because he knew what he was getting into when he joined.  This is a convenient excuse to hide the true feelings that Sodon had no problem expressing.  The feelings being that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals as soldiers nor equal members of society.  As Sodon stated:

sodon wrote: "I stand by the principle that putting people (whether they are men and women or men and men) together in a war when they're attracted to each other is a horrible idea for reasons that have nothing to do with equality or the proper role of men and women. ...  It's not that attraction has people humping each other instead of doing their job, DoW. But in a fight, you need to be able to make quick decisions that cannot be influenced by an attraction you feel to your mates. Self control doesn't have much to do with it - our biology is meant to work a certain way."

In other words, Sodon is saying a homosexual is incapable of making a quick decision in combat because they are "influenced by an attraction" towards their fellow soldiers.  Would he mind describing such a situation where a highly trained individual in combat is incapable of fulfilling his duties as a soldier because he or she is gay?

This is the same logic as the military prior to the full integration of the U.S. military.  According to a U.S. military website regarding the subject:

The Navy rationalized its inability to attract African-American recruits by claiming that "Negroes favored the Army because they were not a seafaring people."

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/intchron.htm
As Sodon mentioned. "Self-control doesn't have much to do with it - our biology is meant to work a certain way" so too did the Navy believe that the biology of African-Americans did not allow them to be capable navy soldiers.  This is the same bigotry, only manifested differently in a generation less backward in thinking.  If I am wrong, then the burden of proof rests on Sodon or another forumer here who has evidence proving homosexuals will harm the U.S. military.

With that in mind, according to Aaron Belkin, director of Center of Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military of the University of Santa Barbara, he estimates there to be 60,000 homosexuals currently in the military.  Regardless of whether gays should be allowed in the military is irrelevant.  They already are, and since they can't control their biology, Sodon, they must be doing considerable harm to our military as we speak.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/2/pub2987.html

Perhaps numbers are merely a feelingless statistic.  Who cares if 12,000 soldiers have been kicked out for being gay since Don't Ask Don't Tell started in 1994, right?  It's just a number.  Well, let me introduce you to a personal story:
[youtube=425,350]8NZDRjEKwtQ[/youtube]
See this video and tell me Victor is incapable of protecting you and serving our country.  Here is a man who has dedicated his life to protect this country.  To say he "deserves what he gets for knowing the rules" is an insult to his patriotism and calling to serve.  There are gay men and women who still join the military not in defiance of being unwelcome (if you believe that you're a fool), but to respond to their patriotic desire to join the military or to better their future with experience and opportunities.

Finally, I will accept the burden of proof to prove to you that allowing gays in the military will not harm our military and make us less safe.  According to globalfirepower, the most powerful militaries are ranked as follows: http://www.globalfirepower.com/
1. U.S.A.
2. China
3. Russia
4. India
5. U.K.
6. France
7. Germany
8. Brazil
9. Japan
10. Turkey
11. Israel
12. South Korea
13. Italy
14. Indonesia
15. Pakistan 
Of the 15 most powerful militaries in the world that I outlined, all the ones bolded openly allow homosexuals to serve in the military.  Yes, even Israel, a nation that has known war since its inception and requires a highly disciplined and powerful military to survive, openly accepts gays in the military.  David Saranga, consulate in New York stated his nation's views in an interview, "It's a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.” http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362505,00.html

For more detailed information on the success of integrated forces by our allies, please read this article that was published just days ago by the Associated Press:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gicrnmbgnYjQ21mRq3hgw5tGjgAAD99DB3002

NEW YORK (AP) — When it comes to dealing with gay personnel in the ranks, the contrasts are stark among some of the world's proudest, toughest militaries — and these differing approaches are invoked by both sides as Americans renew debate over the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Now before you reply, you need to take into consideration that I have spent over an hour preparing this post.  I take your opinions very seriously and expect any kind of rebuttal to have substance and evidence to disprove my arguments.  The U.S.'s "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is an unjustice of epic proportion.  It has destroyed lives, cost our government billions of dollars, and has created a chain effect that has left many of our soldiers dead because incompetent bigotry has robbed our armed forces of resources and talent simply on the basis of sexual orientation.