Study: Gays in the military will not undermine effectiveness

[Wittlich]

I don't know how to embed videos, but here is a link to a 60-minutes piece that I was talking about:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3624176n

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wittlich
I don't know how to embed videos, but here is a link to a 60-minutes piece that I was talking about:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_vi...ml?id=3624176n

It's a gooder.

[Wittlich]

Oh, and on a side note: The Medic in the news piece is a stud!

[Asher]

Other things about Don't Ask Don't Tell Ben probably didn't know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office released estimates on the cost of the policy. Cautioning that the amount may be too low, the GAO reported $95.4 million in recruiting costs and $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003.[8]

In February 2006, a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission including Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary during the Reagan administration, former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Clinton administration, and professors from West Point U.S. Military Academy concluded that figure should be closer to $363 million, including $14.3 million for "separation travel" once a service member is discharged, $17.8 million for training officers, $252.4 million for training enlistees and $79.3 million in recruiting costs.[8] The commission report stated that the GAO didn't take into account the value the military lost from the departures.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.)[10] and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen[citation needed] spoke against the policy publicly in early January 2007: "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," General Shalikashvili wrote. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."[11]

In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy. They cited evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces, and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.[11]

On 4 May 2008, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, when speaking to graduating cadets at West Point, expressed the view "that Congress, and not the military, is responsible for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law banning openly lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans from military service." Admiral Mullen’s answer came in response to a cadet’s question asking what would happen if the next administration were supportive of legislation allowing gays to serve openly. During his senate confirmation hearing in 2007, Admiral Mullen told lawmakers that, “I really think it is for the American people to come forward, really through this body, to both debate that policy and make changes, if that's appropriate.” He went on to say that, “I'd love to have Congress make its own decisions” with respect to considering repeal.[12]

I think the fact that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili says it won't hurt the military effectiveness really should shut up people like Ben who make comments like:

Hmm, more extensive experience in the barracks. I have to applaud both you and Imran for telling me what it's really like in the military.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wittlich
Oh, and on a side note: The Medic in the news piece is a stud!

He was kicked out of the military for the interview:

http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?section=2&record=4922

Openly Gay Army Sergeant Discharged Under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Decorated Army Sergeant Darren Manzella has been discharged under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law banning lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans from military service, effective June 10. The Iraq war veteran was one of the first openly gay active duty service members to speak with the media while serving inside a war zone. In December 2007, Manzella was profiled by the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes. He told correspondent Lesley Stahl that he served openly during much of his time in the Army, with the full support of his colleagues and command.

“The discharge of battle-tested, talented service members like Sergeant Manzella weakens our military in a time of war. National security requires that Congress lift the ban on gays in the military and allow commanders to judge troops on their qualifications, not their sexuality,” said Adam Ebbin, Communications Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).

SLDN reports that a growing number of service members are also serving openly without incident. The organization is aware of more than 500 troops who are ‘out’ to their colleagues and, in some cases, their commands.

Sergeant Manzella said, “My sexual orientation certainly didn’t make a difference when I treated injuries and saved lives in the streets of Baghdad. It shouldn’t be a factor in allowing me to continue to serve.”

Manzella, 30, enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2002 and was twice deployed to the Middle East in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. While under fire on the streets of Baghdad, he provided medical care to his fellow soldiers, Iraqi National Guardsmen and civilians. He was awarded the Combat Medical Badge, and also received several other awards recognizing his courage and service.

[Ben Kenobi]

Finally some real arguments!

Why didn't you bring these out 100 posts ago Asher?

He should have been kicked out for that interview. I can understand a privacy argument if you choose to be discreet, but it's hardly privacy anymore if you choose to do an interview on it.

As for the rest of it, are you willing to concede the point that gay people should not be permitted to serve openly?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Finally some real arguments!

Why didn't you bring these out 100 posts ago Asher?

He should have been kicked out for that interview. I can understand a privacy argument if you choose to be discreet, but it's hardly privacy anymore if you choose to do an interview on it.

As for the rest of it, are you willing to concede the point that gay people should not be permitted to serve openly?

What the flying **** is wrong with you, boy?

[Ben Kenobi]

Then why are you trying to sell it as gay people have to be celibate in the service?

I'm saying they should be permitted to sleep with whomever they want, whenever they want so long as it is off duty.

I have no problem with that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then why are you trying to sell it as gay people have to be celibate in the service?

I'm saying they should be permitted to sleep with whomever they want, whenever they want so long as it is off duty.

I have no problem with that.

You seem to think "openly gay" means people have sex on the job...it doesn't.

People can have sex off duty, but if people find out about what happened, they would still be dismissed if they were not permitted to be "openly gay".

I'm not saying sex should be allowed on duty. It shouldn't and it isn't (hetero or otherwise). I'm saying if people find out one is gay off duty, it shouldn't be cause for dismissal.

So what you are saying then is clearly retarded.

[Ben Kenobi]

You seem to think "openly gay" means people have sex on the job...it doesn't.

People can have sex off duty, but if people find out about what happened, they would still be dismissed if they were not permitted to be "openly gay".

I'm not saying sex should be allowed on duty. It shouldn't and it isn't (hetero or otherwise). I'm saying if people find out one is gay off duty, it shouldn't be cause for dismissal.

So what you are saying then is clearly retarded.

There's a difference between 'finding out off duty', and between 'making it known on duty'.

Again, I have no problem with whatever they choose to do off duty, so long as they don't bring it to the office so to speak. And, as you so pleasantly noticed, straight people don't get to have sex on duty either. I'm pleased to see you shying from that double standard.

[Wittlich]

Psst Ben .... Most of the charged violations against the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy occurred "off duty" and "off post" for that matter.

The key point is: Heterosexual Sex between two consenting adults off duty is fine (as long as fraternization is not an issue). Homosexual Sex off duty will get one booted out - even a rumor to the effect will ruin a soldier's career.

You don't see a double standard here?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There's a difference between 'finding out off duty', and between 'making it known on duty'.

There can be, but not necessarily.

People have been dismissed from the military because someone looked them up on facebook and myspace and saw they had a gay partner or identified as gay in that context.

Again, I have no problem with whatever they choose to do off duty

If this was true, you would have a problem with "don't ask, don't tell" because it explicitly discriminates based on what people do off duty.

It is suddenly clear to me that, as usual, you don't have any idea what the **** you are talking about.

[Wiglaf]

And I will father a kid. I'll have one kid biologically mine, the SO will have one kid biologically his a couple years apart. It'll be glorious, though years down the road.

How does that work? It's probably not masculine at all and involves lab technicians. This is not the primal sort of masculinity you need in the army.

Originally posted by Wittlich
Oh and since you brought it up ... The HIV virus does not discriminate. It kills on both sides of the fence.

So what? If homosexuality is a blessing for population control, so is AIDS. Your logic is retarded.

You people who say gays should be out in the military should look at how open gays are treated. Look at the 60 minutes thing Wittlich linked. That gay guy was sent anonymous emails and threatened if he didnt 'turn down the flame.' Gays just get harassed and embarrass everyone else. We are not Britain or that jewish state, we are America and the only hot dogs we like come with mustard.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
How does that work? It's probably not masculine at all and involves lab technicians. This is not the primal sort of masculinity you need in the army.

Surrogate wombs, or lab technicians. There are possibilities.

Gay guys with money get what they want, Wiggy.

You people who say gays should be out in the military should look at how open gays are treated. Look at the 60 minutes thing Wittlich linked. That gay guy was sent anonymous emails and threatened if he didnt 'turn down the flame.' Gays just get harassed and embarrass everyone else. We are not Britain or that jewish state, we are America and the only hot dogs we like come with mustard.

Maybe if you actually interacted with gay guys outside of the context of airport restrooms and secluded public parks, you'd change your opinion.

[Wiglaf]

Everyone is so mean to gays. There is simply no way we can let gays near the bullies that have weapons in the Army. If you studied friendly fire incidents throughout history, you would see the overwhelming number of victims were homosexuals, going back as far as Alexander Hamilton and Stonewall Jackson.

I am just looking out for the gay population, and everyone calls me a bigot, this is my cross to bear.