Yes, I'm submitting this because I don't see any currently active threads on the issue :P
I'll just leave two statements that probe a little deeper than face value:
a) Exactly what motivates the military's policy here? One must admit that "don't ask, don't tell" is definitely less discriminatory than "search and destroy", but are there any grounds for the military to somehow be run with standards separate from the rest of civilised society?
b) On an individual level regardless of the above, is Choi's position compromised beyond repair? Has he sacrificed his military career for the sake of a political campaign? It would most definitely be construed as an act of defiance against authority and policy.
I'm strongly against that type of policy. People, quit complaining about gay marriage and take a look at real oppression. That is wrong. I think doing it publicly might have been odd but that's no reason discharge a good soldier. If want to get rid of them, send them on a tour in Iraq. Well, I'm still joining the army.
Also Having a gay member of your squad can be distracting by watching him so he doesn't take an interest in you.
The problem with this rationale is that it implies that all gay people are promiscuous and consider everybody of the same sex they see as a potential sex partner.
This kind of assumption (hopefully) doesn't apply to heterosexual people, does it? Well...not most of them :P
Either way this just makes me think that the policy is more to do with upholding deep rooted insecurities not in the minority but the purported majority.
There's no valid reason for this kind of behaviour. There are lots of women in combat or MP units deployed abroad - if it's supposedly a distraction, then wouldn't all of the heterosexual COs, NCOs, & enlisted men be incapable of doing their work with women around?
I hope they get over it soon, it's... pathetic really.
This kind of assumption (hopefully) doesn't apply to heterosexual people, does it? Well...not most of them :P
They wouldn't let my ex-girlfriend patrol near the Marine dorms because they thought they would carry her off and rape her. Airforce guys were better, but not by a lot. So, yes, it holds still to the heterosexual males in the military.
a) Exactly what motivates the military's policy here? One must admit that "don't ask, don't tell" is definitely less discriminatory than "search and destroy", but are there any grounds for the military to somehow be run with standards separate from the rest of civilised society?
The (US) military believes that openly gay people disrupt unit cohesion.
The ''unit'' cohesion argument though, is shameful. Rather than highlighting the problems with gays in the military, it merely shows the flaws within society and military training, in that it engenders fear and hatred to a degree that it would prevent teamwork.
Also Having a gay member of your squad can be distracting by watching him so he doesn't take an interest in you.
A mate of mine is in a unit of the Royal Marines with 2 openly gay guys. The whole insecurity thing is a hogwash argument. There's no tsuch thing as discrimination when you're under fire, you all pull together.
No army wants gay people and no sport team likes having gay athletes. The reason is that it may cause problems his actions and the actions of others towards him, insults and violence. Also there is the opinion that gay soldiers aren't that brave and effective during wars.
No army wants gay people and no sport team likes having gay athletes.
I'd need some kind of data to support that statement; it sounds rather baseless.
The reason is that it may cause problems his actions and the actions of others towards him, insults and violence.
This was a similar argument about women serving in the armed forces - but they're in there now, and in quite a few countries.
Also there is the opinion that gay soldiers aren't that brave and effective during wars.
And it's the opinion of an ignorant bigot, (I'm not implying it's yours) and as such, not someone that should be in control of public & government policy.
And it's the opinion of an ignorant bigot, (I'm not implying it's yours) and as such, not someone that should be in control of public & government policy.
i know that many officers think that gay soldiers are a major problem, which is only of our time, but I am certain that this problem exists many years. You are right wanting data here is about sports and an example. Also about the army read this :opinions of Military Personnel on Sexual Minorities in the Military. Read especially page 25.
Gays can`t be in the army, and do you really think they join it because they want to kill-no they join because of other men there.
Let's take it again: Gay guys do not look at every man they can get to look at. It might come as a surprise, but homosexuals do have standards when it comes to boy/girlfriends, and they do not hit on you just because you are a guy.
I am pretty sure there is plenty gay people who actually wants to serve their country, and these will not be able to, because the military still is against it. Thus the military lose good men (and women as well, I guess), and the homosexuals cannot do anything for the country they love.
Maybe they could make a platoon of gay soldiers, but probably they would have racist issues. So for now there is no real solution for this matter.
Well, there is a solution... Forget centuries of backwards ignorance and let them in the army. Funnily enough, most people I know who are serving, or have served in the forces don't give a crap.
You are right wanting data here is about sports and an example.
I don't think one coach constitutes 'no sports team'. I really liked the article though - it's an excellent example of how open hatred of another group of human beings is unacceptable in modern society.
Also about the army read this pinions of Military Personnel on Sexual Minorities in the Military. Read especially page 25.
I read the entire report. Questions I found of particular interest were:
13. Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?
Now the survey takes this as 26% agree & 37% disagree, but I think it's fair to say there's a difference between those that are neutral (don't care at all) and those who aren't sure (not sure). So.. if it's not important to the neutral demographic, there's no reason to keep gays out on the basis of their contribution to the survey. So the % that is indifferent, or agrees with gays serving is actually 58%.
27. Would you have still joined the military if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly?
78% said yes, only 10% said no.
Table 6 on Page 26 was also quite illuminating.
Now Beyond the study, I'd say that if anyone should be excluded from military service, it would be people that misrepresent the freedom, and values of acceptance, moral courage, and honesty of service men & women that should be kept from serving. If someone has a problem with a gay or lesbian in their unit & thinks it disrupts unit cohesion - that's *their* problem, not the person who's homosexual. For all of the people in the unit that don't have any preconceived issues with gay or lesbians, it's not going to disrupt unit cohesion or morale at all.
Gay pride activist will have much more to work with.
The 'don't ask, don't tell' deal is much better than the 'seek and destroy', since it gives gays a chance to serve there country. This is actually the last thing I would expect the US congress to do, since the gay pride activist are gaining much more ground than the Pro-Choice activist. I believe in Gay Rights, although I'm not gay, I think everyone should be equal, as stated in the constitution.
