CBS News Report on U.S. Military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy

[David Floyd]

Also, I'm on my 3rd bottle of red wine, and I don't intend on stopping anytime soon, so future posts may not be completely coherent. I apologize in advance

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fair enough. You are General George Marshall in 1942. You *KNOW* that integrating the armed forces is the *RIGHT* thing to do. You also know the turmoil it will cause in the middle of WW2. What's your decision?

You have the courage of Truman and do it. Realizing the troops will get over it quickly.

Typically, torture is NOT good for combat effectiveness, in the same way that mass executions are not. Even the SS had to rotate personnel quite frequently when conducting pre-gas chamber mass executions, as the troops could not take the strain.

Somehow now hypotheticals are not welcome, even though the entire line of questioning to MrFun was hypotheticals. Hmmm... wonder why that is?

Also, even in 1951-52, black soldiers weren't all that prevalent, so I'd say that the integration of the armed forces wasn't too relevant either way to the conduct of the Korean War.

So in your 1942 example, integration wouldn't be too relevant to the conduct of the war either, right? So when did racial integration actually cause all these problems that you think openly gay soldiers will cause? After all, in the 1950s, I can't imagine that integration was seen as a welcome thing for most whites serving.

No, I want the US military - and the civilian leadership - to "kowtow" to military necessity before political expediency or even moral right and wrong (which, IIRC, you don't really believe in anyway).

w00t for ad hominems. I assure you I do believe in moral right and wrongs, they are just acknowledged by me to be my own subjective view on things.

In addition, WHAT military necessity? You have shown NO facts that openly gay soldiers will effect unit cohesion or combat effectiveness. You are basing all of this crap on nothing more than your own beliefs, backed by nothing.

Hypos which suggest that forcing the military to accept changes it is not, by and large, ready for (such as desegregation, women in combat, homosexuals serving openly, etc.) is detrimental to cohesiveness and effectiveness is neither irrelevant nor disproven.

As it is not proven in any way, nor in my mind a rational argument due to examples in other countries, it is therefore, irrelevant. I'd say that seeing other societies integrating their militaries without problem indicates more of a "disproven" answer to the question.

whereas US troops saw first hand what happened in Vietnam

IIRC, our military performed well in Vietnam. It was just that the political situation could not be fixed.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Also, I'm on my 3rd bottle of red wine, and I don't intend on stopping anytime soon, so future posts may not be completely coherent. I apologize in advance

Some of your arguments though, weren't making sense in the beginning.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the motive of such changes is political in nature, then my guess is that the military will suffer.

Integration by Truman was a political motive. But also realizing that in the long term, it'd be highly beneficial for the military to be able to have that pool of potential soldiers to pull from.

[David Floyd]

You have the courage of Truman and do it. Realizing the troops will get over it quickly.

I'll refer you back to my example of the actual use of black squads/platoons as infantry replacements in the ETO. I can provide you with cites, if you like, although I'll have to refer to my library.

Somehow now hypotheticals are not welcome, even though the entire line of questioning to MrFun was hypotheticals. Hmmm... wonder why that is?

The difference was the realism of the hypothetical. Or do you deny that pushback to allowing homosexuals to openly serve is a realistic hypothetical?

So in your 1942 example, integration wouldn't be too relevant to the conduct of the war either, right? So when did racial integration actually cause all these problems that you think openly gay soldiers will cause? After all, in the 1950s, I can't imagine that integration was seen as a welcome thing for most whites serving.

Fair enough. My point, though, was that there weren't that many black soldiers serving with existing units in the Far East at the outbreak of the war, nor was the draft and shipment of personnel to Korea on a scale even approaching WW2.

OTOH, full integration of the Army in 1942 would have guaranteed infantry divisions by early 1944 consisting of a high proportion of black troops - although they would have had VERY few black officers, if any, which would have been yet ANOTHER reason to rethink integration in 1942. There really is more to this issue than you are imagining.

w00t for ad hominems. I assure you I do believe in moral right and wrongs, they are just acknowledged by me to be my own subjective view on things.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. I certainly don't intend to throw around ad hominems, and believe it or not, I do respect you enough not to do so.

In addition, WHAT military necessity? You have shown NO facts that openly gay soldiers will effect unit cohesion or combat effectiveness. You are basing all of this crap on nothing more than your own beliefs, backed by nothing.

At this point, I'm discussing principle. I've already implied, and will now simply say, that *I DON'T KNOW* the practical outcome of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. My point, again, is simply that throughout history there have been valid reasons not to let various minority groups serve.

OTOH, John McCain - a decorated combat vet - is very supportive of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". See, there's my Sacred Cow argument

IIRC, our military performed well in Vietnam. It was just that the political situation could not be fixed.

Yeah, for the most part. My point was that the strikes against Vietnamese civilians differed from strikes against Japanese civilians. Had US troops been on the ground in Japan in 1945, I find it seriously hard to believe they would have cheered for burning unarmed civilians to death. My evidence, if you will, for that is the treatment accorded to German civilians and POWs in 1944/1945, even after the death camps were discovered.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


OTOH, John McCain - a decorated combat vet - is very supportive of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". See, there's my Sacred Cow argument

If a decorated combat vet would support the genocide of all blonde people, would you agree with his opinion simply because he's a decorated combat vet?

[David Floyd]

Come on, you know my "appeal to authority" was tongue in cheek.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by MrFun


Gay men and straight men use public showers at fitness centers without an outcry for separate showering facilities.

You dodged my question. The dodge tells me the answer is no, they use separate showers.

Why Mr. Fun? You can only be "professional" if it is same sex attraction? "Straights" can't be trusted not to behave like horny dogs but gays can?

I don't care about fitness centres, we are talking about the military and I'm calling you on a faulty argument.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think our discussion, David is spinning off, so let me just answer this one point (which is the crux):

The difference was the realism of the hypothetical. Or do you deny that pushback to allowing homosexuals to openly serve is a realistic hypothetical?

It is my opinion that there will NOT be that serious of a pushback. Some idiots may try to do stuff. But I think that having homosexuals openly serve in 2007 would even be less of an issue than blacks serving in integrated units in 1948. I do not think there would be that great of a backlash at all... especially since our greatest ally in the war on terror has openly gay service members, and I'm sure our troops have run into them at some point.

[Patroklos]

Gay men are already sharing showers with straight men in the military though; and this includes not only those who are closeted but also those who are open/honest with their comrades within their unit until they were discharged, or perhaps have never been punished at all under the "don't ask don't tell" policy.

I served on a ship for three plus years, and have probably served with thousands of sailors in other training/commbatant commands as well, and I never ran into an openly gay man.

I am not going to say there are no gay men in the military, as I am sure there are. I am also not going to say there are no members who have confided in their comrades that they are gay, statistically it is bound to be the case. But there are no "openly" gay men serving.

In any case, if they are showering with their male counterparts they are doing so secretly and pretty much doing their comrades not in the know a diservice. It would be the same as the famous peep hole scadals in navy female showers a few years ago.

Believe it or not, most gay men are professional in whatever career they choose to work in, and can control themselves. Saying that gay men lack as much control as horny dogs dehumanizes gay men in a gross, bigoted manner.

I think you are jumping to conclusions here Mr. Fun.

I don't think gay men have the self control of horny dogs. I think 17 year old straight men/woman AND gay men/woman have the self control of horny dogs.

Let me tell you something about the military. It is made up of young people. Young, imature, sexually active, sexually inexperianced, sexually curious 17-20 year old for the most party which most times display the intelligence of a toaster oven when it comes to personal matters. Is there any reason why I should expect anything else form a gay 17-20 year old?

So I am not worried about their professional ability. I can think of no reason why a gay man can't shoot a rifle, man a console, swab a deck, fix a gas turbine, or do a thousand other things work related as well as any striagh man. However, we don't do those things 24 hours a day, a good portion of our time is spent living sholder to sholder on a 466"x60"x66" tin can. I lived in a 12"x6"x8" room, and I shared it with two other guys and all the worldy possecions we needed for 6 months. If you are E-6 and below you live 100 to a berthing, which is basically, maybe, 800 square feet. Most of that being take up by the rackes, stacked three high, 12 in each bay.

So with those factors in mind, I wasn't asking you whether gays should serve, but rather what would the situation look like if they did? And I want to know, you being a gay man, what would you require for accomidations? And more importantly, since you know more gay men than me, what would the average gay man require for accomidations?

Maybe since there have been some straight teachers in elementary and high schools who have had sex with students that all straight men should be prohibited from working as teachers?

Nice strawman. I asked an honest/unloaded question, and it is about the realities of what your asking vice just some lofty concept. This is what happened with the integration of woman, which has been a disaster for military effectivness (not their fault, it is shared) because people didn't think about the realities of what would happen when they did it. It just sounded like the right thing to do so they pursued it regardless.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I served on a ship for three plus years, and have probably served with thousands of sailors in other training/commbatant commands as well, and I never ran into an openly gay man.

Doesn't serving on a ship make you openly gay, by definition?

[Patroklos]

Doesn't serving on a ship make you openly gay, by definition?

Doesn't being a hockey fan make you openly straight by definition?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Also, MrFun, do you at least concede the point that if abolishing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the US military, we should not abolish the policy?

I thought you were a Libertarian?

[DinoDoc]

He claims to be. What does that have to do with this?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Doesn't being a hockey fan make you openly straight by definition?

Yes, everyone thinks I'm straight.