Don't Ask, Don't Tell (and its depiction last night in Grey's Anatomy)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And neither are you Asher.

I certainly am physically fit to serve in the military?

There are many, many jobs that I could do, but because of their regulations I cannot perform them.

Bull****.

First of all, you admittedly can't even drive a ****ing mail truck.

Second of all, all military personnel need to be capable of combat situations. That's kind of the point.

Why should the army discriminate against someone for something they cannot control?

Because your handicap can endanger your life and everyone around you?

[snoopy369]

Ben... you are aware homosexual marriage is not legal in the US (generally), yes? Hence, how is a gay couple to get benefits other than by declaring as such (domestic partners etc.)?

Further, many companies (such as mine) give DP benefits regardless of orientation. I claim my GF (living together for about 8 years) as a DP for insurance benefits, and nobody has a problem with that... frankly, it's just recognizing that the old married at 18, house in the suburbs, 2.2 children formula doesn't apply anymore.

You can argue gays can't serve in the military if you like, but you're being pretty silly in the particular path you are choosing... and if you're doing it just to bait Asher into getting a ban, please believe that Ming and the rest of us have a bit more intelligence than that.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Being an officer in the army, I have a lot of power over if a Soldier can take off time due to any number of things.
My unit is about to deploy, so this makes it even more relevant.

If it was a girlfriend, then no, he couldn't stay behind.

Same for a close friend.

For fiancees, it would really depend on the relationship.

For wives or immediate family members, these people would be put on the "trail" party, which would give them maybe three or four weeks at most.

Furthermore....

In the month and a half before you deploy, there really isn't much to do. Most of your vehicles and equipment is on a ship. Presuming the Soldier is deployable and has current qualifications and whatnot, I wouldn't have a problem giving half-days to anyone with a good reason (like seeing a dying friend) as long as the Soldier isn't a **** bag and still needs help getting his **** together.

This is all true. The big unfairness I see though is that heterosexuals can marry while gays legally can't marry so effectively they can't get compassionate leave. I watch Grey's anatomy (I know it's as gay as Asher but I still like the show ) and as I recall they didn't say if the PVT had taken authorized leave or not though I do remember he was supposed to deploy in 5 days so I'm pretty sure most people would have been allowed leave if they had enough on their LES.

Now missing a movement date would be a huge problem. Also the Army can be extremely stingy when it comes to allowing compassionate leave (I.E. leave for family reasons) and when I was in Iraq several people in my units were denied compassionate leave when their wives were giving birth though I did receive compassionate leave when my mother died.

Assuming the gay couple could legally marry and his spouse was dying (as he was in the show) then he likely would have received compassionate leave which is where the inequality really shows itself because gays cannot legally marry. If it was just a boyfriend/girlfriend though then no compassionate leave would be authorized; certainly not if it meant missing a movement date.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
My brother said that in basic even admission wasn't enough to get you out. It pretty much had to be explicit sex...

This was back in 2000 or 1999 though.

JM

He's right, we had a DC2 who had somehow managed to be "busy" on every other deployment get sent on one deployment and he couldn't get out of it. He happened to have a stereotypical "gay" accent, so he told everyone in his chain of command he was gay.

Turns out the Chain of Command didn't give two ****s.

Then he told our lunatic Chaplain who thought that Catholics were "pagans" he was gay. The Chaplain raised enough of a stink about it that the DC2 was discharged....

...about a quarter of the way through deployment.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

You are asking for preferential treatment. A 'long term partner' what does that mean? What's to stop anyone from declaring someone that they care about to be a 'long term partner?'

So, your argument is that gays shouldn't be allowed to name a long term partner receive his benefits, while at the same time you argue that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry?

You do realize that if gays were "allowed" to be married legally and allowed to join the military, they wouldn't be giving their benefits to a long time partner, but to a spouse. Thereby, removing your argument of preferential treatment?

What if they stopped allowing Catholics to marry or join the military? Would that be okay with you?

After all, according to your beliefs, being Catholic is as much a choice as being gay is.

ACK!

[Apocalypse]

One thing....you can give up to $400,000 to people if you die. As of a year ago, you can give up to half of it to someone you are not related to. Thus, your gay lover can receive benefits kinda.

[Patroklos]

Are you talking about SGLI? That is just life insurance, and only if you opt to pay for it (which invincible 18 year olds often times chose not to do).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I can't serve in the military due to disability. That isn't discrimination, it is a fact that there are certain expectations that are required of all military recruits that are considered essential to the safety of everyone else there. If what you are looking for is self-affirmation, then the military is the wrong place for you.

I don't know about Asher, but when I protest "don't ask, don't tell" I am not protesting because I have a personal interest in joining any branch of the U.S. military.

I protest this policy on the principle of equal rights protection and in addition, the military branches are simply wasting human resources by refusing to allow gays and lesbians with valuable skills from openly serving.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Tuberski


After all, according to your beliefs, being Catholic is as much a choice as being gay is.

ACK!

Great point! This is why I am very weary of using the "it's not a choice" argument in advocating for equal rights protection for gays and lesbians.

Whether or not sexual orientation is a choice is irrelevant in granting gays and lesbians equal rights protection. They are entitled to equal rights protection even given the fallacious idea that sexual orientation is a choice.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Assuming the gay couple could legally marry and his spouse was dying (as he was in the show) then he likely would have received compassionate leave which is where the inequality really shows itself because gays cannot legally marry. If it was just a boyfriend/girlfriend though then no compassionate leave would be authorized; certainly not if it meant missing a movement date.

well said

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben... you are aware homosexual marriage is not legal in the US (generally), yes? Hence, how is a gay couple to get benefits other than by declaring as such (domestic partners etc.)?

It's not about the benefits, again. If the military doesn't wish to provide benefits or recognition, why then shouldn't all the other provisions apply as well. If the military is permitted to discriminate against people with disability why are they forced to give out benefits in other cases? It should be up to the military to decide.

Further, many companies (such as mine) give DP benefits regardless of orientation. I claim my GF (living together for about 8 years) as a DP for insurance benefits, and nobody has a problem with that... frankly, it's just recognizing that the old married at 18, house in the suburbs, 2.2 children formula doesn't apply anymore.

Fair enough. That is a private business. If they are willing to provide benefits then they ought to be allowed to do so. If they do not wish to provide domestic partner benefits, that should be the case.

[Asher]

I could fit my enormous penis through the logic holes in your argument.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If the military is permitted to discriminate against people with disability why are they forced to give out benefits in other cases?

How can you use the example of disabilities with sexual orientation in this thread's topic? Certain types of disabilities directly affect your capability to perform various physical tasks/duties. One's sexual orientation has no impact on your abilities in this regard.

[snoopy369]

Ben - the point is that the military ought to provide benefits to homosexual partners. There's no logical reason to allow people who cannot perform the job (ie, disabled) to do so, however. If you want to argue that disabled people SHOULD be allowed to be in the military, please feel free to argue that...

[Ben Kenobi]

So, your argument is that gays shouldn't be allowed to name a long term partner receive his benefits, while at the same time you argue that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry?

I believe that if a gay person wished to serve in the military that they ought to follow the rules and regulations that everyone is asked to abide.

I have no problem with private businesses disbursing domestic partner benefits however they see fit.

You do realize that if gays were "allowed" to be married legally and allowed to join the military, they wouldn't be giving their benefits to a long time partner, but to a spouse. Thereby, removing your argument of preferential treatment?

I don't believe the military should be required to provide any benefits at all. Married folks, etc. If they choose to do so, that is their decision. If you happen to fall out of the category then that's tough luck.

If we are arguing that the military ought to be treated in the same way as the rest of the public service, then they have to drop the disability requirements as well. You cannot selectively argue one and not the other.

What if they stopped allowing Catholics to marry or join the military? Would that be okay with you?

Joining the military? There have been examples where they have barred Catholics from the military, simply because they were suspected not to be loyal to their state. I wouldn't be surprised to see it again.

Would it be ok to me? From my perspective it would be irrelevant I can't join anyways, but I do believe there are a significant number of Catholics who are proud to serve their country. I think it would be counterproductive to exclude them. It would not be a violation of their religious freedoms to bar them from joining. It would be a violation to fire those who are Catholics from the service.

After all, according to your beliefs, being Catholic is as much a choice as being gay is.

It is. There are certain qualities associated with religious freedom, none of which should come up with military service. There is no conflict for Catholics to serve.