Don't Ask Don't Tell: Obama Edition

[Philistine]

That and the fact that the IDF is frequently cited as the best military. Guess where they stand on this issue?

And Britain and Australia aren't exactly slouches, either. I just didn't wan't to particularly get into a pissing match about what constitutes the "best military."

I do, however, have to wonder what chase thinks happens when the US conducts joint operations with countries with openly gay members....

--Philistine

[I_luv_saber]

Hell, I was under the impression the Spartans fostered it.

Few can deny the military prowess of the Spartans.

EDIT: The little research I can glean shows it was widespread in Greece, but not as much in Sparta (though not non-existant)

[erooMynohtnA]

I don't agree with the validity of the comarison you're trying to set up. To a lot of people, the mere fact that a woman showed a disinclination to put out for douchebag guys constitutes proof that she's gay. The connection between harrassing a woman for sex and accusing her of being a lesbian is different from harrassing a woman for sex and accusing her of petty theft, etc. And then, what if she really is gay? Her commander is going to have an obligation under the UMCJ to follow up on the accusation, and then poof! there goes her career. Even if she isn't gay, she's still going to have to endure a grueling investigation and a cloud of suspicion -- assuming a conservative commander doesn't railroad her out. Not to mention, pressure to "prove" she's straight by, oh yeah, putting out. It all seems to depend on the luck of the draw -- are you lucky enough to get a decent commander who's not angry about women/gays in the military, and are you lucky enough to serve alongside decent fellow servicemembers. I can't believe how open some gay people are able to be while serving in the military; others live in fear every minute that they're going to be found out.

You can lecture me all you want about military culture and procedure, but you're not helping your case with glossed over hypotheticals. You're not going to convince me without something better than a blog post that speculates that it happens with no numbers or incidents cited.

I would like to see something concrete. Some statistics, a specific case, whatever. I'm not going all Inq and demanding proof that I will make a point not to find myself then ignore as irrelevant or false. I poked around and couldn't find anything.

[erooMynohtnA]

Hell, I was under the impression the Spartans fostered it.

Few can deny the military prowess of the Spartans.

EDIT: The little research I can glean shows it was widespread in Greece, but not as much in Sparta (though not non-existant)

I did some research on the subject too, but I found conflicting sources, some that said Spartans were all about pederasty, equal homosexual relationships, or just casual gay sex, and some that they weren't. I found nothing conclusive, or even helpful, on determining whether the Spartans had any difference in views or numbers of practicing homosexuality from other Greeks.

[Hauptman]

You seem confused on something (well, several somethings...but for this purpose)--our military lets gays in.

--Philistine

This is a critically important point.

It is common knowledge to everyone at this point that there are homosexuals serving in our military; the title "don't ask, don't tell" itself acknowledges this.

So what does this say about our view of our heterosexual soldiers? Are we saying that they just can't handle it? That they are weak-minded and unable to control their personal feelings in crucial life or death situations?

Because that is essentially what we are saying; that gays serve effectively and honorably in the service, as long as we don't say anything about it that will upset our apparently overly-sensitive heterosexual servicemen. I think that is incredibly insulting to our soldiers, and just simply absurd.

[erooMynohtnA]

This is a critically important point.

It is common knowledge to everyone at this point that there are homosexuals serving in our military; the title "don't ask, don't tell" itself acknowledges this.

So what does this say about our view of our heterosexual soldiers? Are we saying that they just can't handle it? That they are weak-minded and unable to control their personal feelings in crucial life or death situations?

Because that is essentially what we are saying; that gays serve effectively and honorably in the service, as long as we don't say anything about it that will upset our apparently overly-sensitive heterosexual servicemen. I think that is incredibly insulting to our soldiers, and just simply absurd.

I don't know, man. Homophobia is rampant as **** in the military.

My personal opinion is that the majority of homophobic soldiers are just like the majority of racist soldiers (there are some of those too), and are just casual about it. However, there are some diehards, and I see some bad stuff happening for a couple years afterwords.

Whatever the case, you can't cater to bigots.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Whatever the case, you can't cater to bigots.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f7js0mLwY4[/YOUTUBE]

[fencerchica]

You can lecture me all you want about military culture and procedure, but you're not helping your case with glossed over hypotheticals. You're not going to convince me without something better than a blog post that speculates that it happens with no numbers or incidents cited.

I would like to see something concrete. Some statistics, a specific case, whatever. I'm not going all Inq and demanding proof that I will make a point not to find myself then ignore as irrelevant or false. I poked around and couldn't find anything.

Look, maybe when you disagree with someone your reaction is to "lecture them all you want." That wasn't my intent, so please don't project that onto me. I don't understand why I'm getting a hostile reaction from you because I certainly didn't have any hostile intent towards you in disagreeing with your opinion. If in some way I gave you an incorrect impression I was "lecturing" you, I apologize, but having said that, I think coming to that conclusion was a big stretch. *I* had thought we were basically coming from a general place of agreement. Anyway, moving on:

I don't have firsthand knowledge of military culture because I'm just a civillian contractor. In fact, DADT is precisely the reason why I'm not wearing a uniform today; I could not and would not accept an unjust requirement to hide my identity for the sake of my career -- anyway, I don't think I would've fooled anyone for a second, LOL. My opinions as discussed above were gained from reading books and articles, and a few personal conversations with servicemembers. That and a little common sense, too. I don't see why I need to furnish exact incidents to back up the concept that if a CO gets a report that so-and-so is a lesbian, he's going to have to investigate, and that if she is clearly gay, he's going to have an obligation to fire her. Whether or not the whistleblower was motivated by having been sexually rebuffed by her isn't going to be relevant to the state of her career afterwards unless the CO is willing to break regulations in order to look the other way, which is what I meant about how much rides on luck. Having said that, if I find anything I'll post it, although I can't promise due to not having much time at the moment.

[erooMynohtnA]

By lecturing, I mean you're arguing from the position of how things work in the military. I know how things work, and I know how they don't.

I also think you're glossing over commanders who are pro-gay, commanders who don't want to do paperwork, commanders who know the accuser is a douche, or commanders who want to punish sexual harassment. They're a lot more common than commanders who are on a witch hunt for gay soldiers. In my own experience, there is a higher incidence of homosexuality among the officer corps anyway. But why even bring it up? I have no evidence, and it's just lecturing on military culture.

My point being that this sort of thing would require unusual circumstances to happen. While it's not outside the realm of possibility It certainly doesn't happen "frequently."

DADT needs to be repealed now and the arguments surrounding DADT are important. They should be clear, strong, and accurate. The sexual harassment argument is none of those, and only detracts from the validity of the opposition.

For instance, I could argue that DADT contributes to motor vehicle accidents (#1 noncombat killer of soldiers), because gay soldiers are afraid to meet their partners anywhere near a base, and as such are pushed to drive long distances in bad conditions and are involved in motor vehicle accidents at a higher rate. Has this happened? I guarantee it. However, it is a bad argument and its disingenuousness would reflect poorly on valid arguments being made.

[fencerchica]

My point being that this sort of thing would require unusual circumstances to happen. While it's not outside the realm of possibility It certainly doesn't happen "frequently."

I'm def. willing to grant that you obviously have more personal experience of military culture and can speak to that better than I. But if your thesis -- that DADT has little responsibility for exacerbating sexual harrassment of female servicemembers -- is true, then how does that jive with the point MP brought up, that women account for a wildly disproportional percentage of the personnel discharged under the policy?

All this is kind of a relatively minor side debate though, so I can agree to disagree.

[I_luv_saber]

Perhaps there are just more gay women in the military than gay men? Is there really any way to tell?

[Philistine]

Perhaps there are just more gay women in the military than gay men? Is there really any way to tell?

According to this report, using 2000 numbers, "the proportion of lesbians among active duty female personnel is approximately four times higher than the proportion of gay men among male personnel." Which would mean that the numbers of those discharged are more or less equal on a percentage basis for men and women--possibly with a slight overinclusion on the male side (which I wouldn't find surprising).

While I'm sure there are a number of accusations that a woman is gay becuase she doesn't want to go out with a particular male soldier and both overt and veiled threats that if she won't have sex with him, he'll "out her", I find it difficult to believe that there are a significant number of occassions where such an accusation leads to dismissals.

--Philistine

[erooMynohtnA]

I'm def. willing to grant that you obviously have more personal experience of military culture and can speak to that better than I. But if your thesis -- that DADT has little responsibility for exacerbating sexual harrassment of female servicemembers -- is true, then how does that jive with the point MP brought up, that women account for a wildly disproportional percentage of the personnel discharged under the policy?

All this is kind of a relatively minor side debate though, so I can agree to disagree.

Women are discharged at a rate slightly higher than four times you would expect given an equal distribution of male and female homosexuals. However, in the link Phillistine pointed to, the statistics state women on active duty are four times as likely to be lesbians.

Now on the surface that jives (4 X gays = 4 X discharges), but digging a little deeper reveals that it may or may not be the whole case, although most likely the major contributing factor.

What that data doesn't account for is the incidence of lesbians vs gays in the reserves and national guard, which is much closer to normal. So overall, the lesbians make up approximately 25% of the gay population in the military, vs 40-45% of discharges.

There are several explanations for that, but I think the easiest (and also the one that could be proven or disproven) is that the vast majority of DADT discharges occur from active duty, so the reservist percentages shouldn't be factored in. My own experience would suggest that, but my sample is much too small to be meaningful in any discussion.

Other explanations would include women being more open about it (I don't know). People disliking lesbians more (doubt it). Leadership targeting women (possible).

[Philistine]

{snip}
Other explanations would include women being more open about it (I don't know). People disliking lesbians more (doubt it). Leadership targeting women (possible).

Another explanation that I've heard (though not in this context) is that many commanders are very disinclined to investigate or discharge gays in combat units, which, of course are male only (at least Army).

--Philistine

[fencerchica]

Another explanation that I've heard (though not in this context) is that many commanders are very disinclined to investigate or discharge gays in combat units, which, of course are male only (at least Army).

--Philistine

Which just goes to show how the "unit cohesion" argument in favor of keeping DADT is utter b.s.!

[Inquartata]

I did some research on the subject too, but I found conflicting sources, some that said Spartans were all about pederasty, equal homosexual relationships, or just casual gay sex, and some that they weren't. I found nothing conclusive, or even helpful, on determining whether the Spartans had any difference in views or numbers of practicing homosexuality from other Greeks.

Well, apart from institutionalizing it, you mean?

In Sparta it was part of the military training of young boys to have an adult male lover. This was not a practice in any other Greek city-state, that I can recall. Unless you count Thebes, where it was just a condition of service in the Scared Band, not all men eligible for military service...

[erooMynohtnA]

Evidence please?

[keith]

Evidence please?

Eye witness account?

[Inquartata]

Hey, I was in Syracuse, I swear!

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I'm def. willing to grant that you obviously have more personal experience of military culture and can speak to that better than I. But if your thesis -- that DADT has little responsibility for exacerbating sexual harrassment of female servicemembers -- is true, then how does that jive with the point MP brought up, that women account for a wildly disproportional percentage of the personnel discharged under the policy?

All this is kind of a relatively minor side debate though, so I can agree to disagree.

Now I am only dealing with the issue: "Which arguments should be put forth to sway those voters/policymakers which are presently undecided?"

To say something like, or somthing which will be interpreted as, "DADT should be repealed because it hurts lesbians in the armed forces extra hard" is, I would assume, a bad idea from that standpoint. That statement obviously resonates will all lesbians, and presumably with 99%+ of all gays. However, those people already were in favor of a better situation for gays.

Instead, those in favor of repealing DADT should think up some argument which appeals to people who only worry about the military strength of the USA, and do not give a d-mn (either way) about the quality of life for gays in USA. If the same argument could win over some people who actively dislike gays, then so much the better.

When I have read gay-issues debates on the internet, I have often gotten the impression that many of the self-identified gays in those debates are under the assumption that "Those that are against us are only so because they were brought up so, and almost all can be made to embrace our side if we only explain ourselves clearly and eloquently. In due time, just about everyone will be on our side." Now I am trying to give words to what I guess is going inside their heads. I might be wrong but unless proved otherwise I will assume that I have captured the gist of it.

Well, this sounds like a let-down, but I think those who argue the pro-gay side in those discussions should take a long and hard thought about it and instead consider whether it is not better to operate under the assumption that "A very significant proportion of all non-gays will never find being gay is OK, and I must take that into consideration when planning a persuasive argument."

I also have some ideas for why those defending the pro-gay side have this incorrect opinion about other people.
1. Many people are perennial optimists in general, and in long-hard-slog situations this helps them to function.
2. Some people are wont to believe that others will be on their side, and they will keep that belief even after there is evidence that it is not true in the specific case.
3. "Birds of a feather" applies to people who argue the pro-gay side of issues, just like any other concievable subset of people.
4. When those people meet others, who are decidedly against a gay agenda, the latter will in many cases keep mum - they do not wish to get in an argument just then, they are polite, or whatever. This causes thos who are arguing the pro-gay side to subcounciously underestimate the strength of their opposition.

Note that #1-4 all apply to just about any other set of people arguing on one side of a topic which is know to be controversial. Just that the list applies here also.

All of this is of course completely irrelevant to the topic "Should DADT be repealed?".


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson