Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "

[Vandy Vol]

If I say that lawnmowers and helicopters both have engines will you infer that I need to file a flightplan for my Husqavarna lawn tractor?

There was no analogy.  I plainly stated that sexual proclivities do not indicate one's intelligence or ability to reason.  You said they did.  There is no, "I compared them to this and thus really meant this."  It was a very straightforward statement which showed that you view homosexuals as being less intelligent because of their sexual proclivities.  If you'd like to clarify what you meant, then go right ahead.  Otherwise, as I've already mentioned, we've come to a screeching halt because you'd rather insinuate that I've stooped to a level at which I'm attacking you personally when all I've done is point out what you plainly stated.  You can either clarify what you meant by that statement and we can move on, or we can listen to you repeatedly deny that you said anything of the sort without clarifying what you did actually say.

Other things are restricted as has been illustrated countless times.  Rules and all.

Those restrictions must have an objective, legitimate reason behind them.  You don't restrict a person's rights and privileges without some sort of justification.  The legislature is not going to exclaim, "Ah hell! You know what? I don't particularly like Rastafarians. They have a minority view, so let's prevent them from doing X while allowing others to do X."
 

I think it's telling that you completely skirted the concept of speech vs. consequences.  But I know why.  The fact is that as much as you'd like to portray it as such, this is not a free speech issue

Free speech means that you get to freely say it.  Hence the adjective "free" that's attached to the noun "speech."  There are no legal consequences to legitimate free speech.  Maybe the football team is going to smear the queer, or the military men are going to beat him with a bar of soap in a sock.  But those "consequences" aren't legal.  I skipped over it because, yet again, you didn't define what you mean by consequences, so there's no point in me attempting to address it.  If I did, you'd merely come back five posts later and attempt to redirect the conversation by claiming that you never stated what I was arguing against, and that I am merely attacking you personally by trying to put words into your mouth.

The right to speak is not being abridged in any way.  All the military does is make clear what the expression of those ideas will entail.

If the military is attempting to tell you what the expression of your ideas will entail, then they are not allowing free speech; they are giving you "allowed speech."  Telling you that you can express X idea but not Y idea without a legitimate reason is not allowing free speech.  Regardless of whether being in the military is a privilege, they are still United States citizens and have been given specific rights under the Constitution.  There are only a few limitations on soldiers' speech, and those limitations deal with speech which urges violence or encourages violation of military regulations, as well as communications with the enemy.  You might want to familiarize yourself with Articles 82, 88, 117, 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice if you're going to start arguing what the military does and does not suppress as far as speech.

Suppose I walk in the living room and the lamp is lying shattered on the floor.  I ask my daughter if she broke it and tell her that the consequence of her saying she did is that she will have to pay for the damage out of her allowance, have I restricted her free speech?  No. I've merely told her what the consequence would be.

Homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it an action that is legally punished in any way.  Owning up to a crime or action that is punishable will, of course, result in punishment.  The analogy is flawed.

There is no law restricting free speech in this case.  There is only a policy that outlines the consequence of that speech.

We create a law that states you will be kicked out of the military for announcing that you are Christian.  No other speech is limited in the military.  Not homosexuals, not Muslims, not Satanists, no one.  But that's just a consequence of your speech, right?  It makes no difference that you are being singled out as the only group that is punished for their speech.  So it's acceptable, correct?

[Kaos]

There was no analogy.  I plainly stated that sexual proclivities do not indicate one's intelligence or ability to reason.  You said they did.  There is no, "I compared them to this and thus really meant this."  It was a very straightforward statement which showed that you view homosexuals as being less intelligent because of their sexual proclivities.  If you'd like to clarify what you meant, then go right ahead.  Otherwise, as I've already mentioned, we've come to a screeching halt because you'd rather insinuate that I've stooped to a level at which I'm attacking you personally when all I've done is point out what you plainly stated.  You can either clarify what you meant by that statement and we can move on, or we can listen to you repeatedly deny that you said anything of the sort without clarifying what you did actually say.

You plainly stated that lawnmowers do not have engines.  I said they did.  You inferred, therefore, that lawnmowers could also fly.  

Do I question the reasoning ability of anyone who choses to be a homosexual, if the behavior is not genetic?  Yes I do.  I also question the reasoning ability of women who marry abrasive assholes, of men who judge their self-worth by how many deer they can shoot, of people who love the winter olympics, of fat women who squeeze themselves into bikinis, of people who think Dave Matthews is a musical genius, of people who believe in global warming (as they dig themselves out from under three feet of snow), and of people who get in their car to drive two blocks when they could have walked.  

By your illogical leap, I must also consider them all mongoloids.  

You know better.  Stop pandering.  Attacking personally?  Something else I didn't say. 

Those restrictions must have an objective, legitimate reason behind them.  You don't restrict a person's rights and privileges without some sort of justification.  The legislature is not going to exclaim, "Ah hell! You know what? I don't particularly like Rastafarians. They have a minority view, so let's prevent them from doing X while allowing others to do X."

Really?  Does the phrase "hate speech" mean anything?
 

Free speech means that you get to freely say it.  Hence the adjective "free" that's attached to the noun "speech."  There are no legal consequences to legitimate free speech.  Maybe the football team is going to smear the queer, or the military men are going to beat him with a bar of soap in a sock.  But those "consequences" aren't legal.  I skipped over it because, yet again, you didn't define what you mean by consequences, so there's no point in me attempting to address it.  If I did, you'd merely come back five posts later and attempt to redirect the conversation by claiming that you never stated what I was arguing against, and that I am merely attacking you personally by trying to put words into your mouth.

If the military is attempting to tell you what the expression of your ideas will entail, then they are not allowing free speech; they are giving you "allowed speech."  Telling you that you can express X idea but not Y idea without a legitimate reason is not allowing free speech.  Regardless of whether being in the military is a privilege, they are still United States citizens and have been given specific rights under the Constitution.  There are only a few limitations on soldiers' speech, and those limitations deal with speech which urges violence or encourages violation of military regulations, as well as communications with the enemy.  You might want to familiarize yourself with Articles 82, 88, 117, 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice if you're going to start arguing what the military does and does not suppress as far as speech.

Failure here.  Yes, they are US citizens.  They have plenty of rights as civilians that they surrender as members of the military.  This is YOUR perception of how you think things should be, not a representation of how things are.  

Homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it an action that is legally punished in any way.  Owning up to a crime or action that is punishable will, of course, result in punishment.  The analogy is flawed.

Really? There's that whole homosexual marriage thing.  That's so super legal...

We create a law that states you will be kicked out of the military for announcing that you are Christian.  No other speech is limited in the military.  Not homosexuals, not Muslims, not Satanists, no one.  But that's just a consequence of your speech, right?  It makes no difference that you are being singled out as the only group that is punished for their speech.  So it's acceptable, correct?

Irrelevant.  

But since you're hellbent on making illogical analogies, if the military made the decision that the presence of active golfers in the unit was disruptive and led to inefficiency and put the squad in danger then they should have the right to exclude people who admitted to golfing.  

Simple concept.  You can say whatever you want.  Your rights are not denied.  But you should know that if you do, there are certain privileges in which you cannot partake.  That's not an abridgment of free speech.  (Trying to force arguments like this is why people hate lawyers...)

[GH2001]

You are all still taking the bait on this social issue.....while Obama schemes his Marxist agenda behind closed doors.

[Saniflush]

Little off main topic but nothing new for this place.


Freedom of speech is not the same as having a freedom from consequences for what you may or may not have said.

Too many people confuse them to be one in the same.  They are not.

[Godfather]

Did I mention I like oral sex.....with woman.

[AWK]

Did I mention I like oral sex.....with woman.

Just one woman?  Wait, I fixed it for you, accidently added a w and o.

[Godfather]

Just one woman? 

I am married

[Tiger Wench]

I am married

But only in Massachusetts and San Francisco.

[Kaos]

Simply put, this is not a free speech issue.  Why?  The reasons are simple.  You are not arguing for the right to say they are gay you are actually advocating that they be allowed to be gay. That's a significant difference. Free speech is a noble smoke screen. 

1) The military has a policy in place that bars admitted homosexuals from serving.  If that policy didn't exist neither would this discussion.  Whether you agree or disagree with that policy is not germane to this discussion. It's there. You are not asking that the policy be changed, you are clamoring for the repeal of a "don't ask, don't tell" restriction which, in essence, bypasses the policy.  

2) Gays are not prohibited from expressing their preference. They are only told what the ramifications of such disclosure are.  There is a societal rule against bigamy.  If I walk into a police station and proclaim that I have eight wives my expectation is that I would be charged with that offense.  The fact that I may be a perfectly capable husband to all (and I would be), that I serve the community with honor or that I love my lifestyle is of zero consequence.  The rule exists.  In society they're laws, in the military they're policies.  Apples, apples, apples.  

By attempting to claim free speech, you're actually pushing it to include freedom from consequence.  Again, it's a privilege not a demand so there's no ground to stand on there.  Gays are not being forced to serve in the military and keep their preference hidden, they are attempting to join the military and then force the rules to be changed.  Different circumstances.  

You're not asking for free speech.  That's just the bogus bleeding heart flag you hope will rally the cause.  Some will be duped by it.  What you're asking for instead is a completely different thing -- the revision of a military policy (and not the don't ask, don't tell portion).  

Free speech is a red herring.  It's, as I said repeatedly, the shield of last defense for desperate lawyers when they have nothing else on which to rest.  

[jadennis]

Simply put, this is not a free speech issue.  Why?  The reasons are simple.  You are not arguing for the right to say they are gay you are actually advocating that they be allowed to be gay. That's a significant difference. Free speech is a noble smoke screen. 

1) The military has a policy in place that bars admitted homosexuals from serving.  If that policy didn't exist neither would this discussion.  Whether you agree or disagree with that policy is not germane to this discussion. It's there. You are not asking that the policy be changed, you are clamoring for the repeal of a "don't ask, don't tell" restriction which, in essence, bypasses the policy.  

2) Gays are not prohibited from expressing their preference. They are only told what the ramifications of such disclosure are.  There is a societal rule against bigamy.  If I walk into a police station and proclaim that I have eight wives my expectation is that I would be charged with that offense.  The fact that I may be a perfectly capable husband to all (and I would be), that I serve the community with honor or that I love my lifestyle is of zero consequence.  The rule exists.  In society they're laws, in the military they're policies.  Apples, apples, apples.  

By attempting to claim free speech, you're actually pushing it to include freedom from consequence.  Again, it's a privilege not a demand so there's no ground to stand on there.  Gays are not being forced to serve in the military and keep their preference hidden, they are attempting to join the military and then force the rules to be changed.  Different circumstances.  

You're not asking for free speech.  That's just the bogus bleeding heart flag you hope will rally the cause.  Some will be duped by it.  What you're asking for instead is a completely different thing -- the revision of a military policy (and not the don't ask, don't tell portion).  

Free speech is a red herring.  It's, as I said repeatedly, the shield of last defense for desperate lawyers when they have nothing else on which to rest.  

I haven't read a whole lot through these 14 pages, but I tend to agree with everything just written here.

[CCTAU]

I am married

But only in Massachusetts and San Francisco.

I caught it. +1

[GH2001]

I haven't read a whole lot through these 14 pages, but I tend to agree with everything just written here.

I do too - because he's right.

[GarMan]

I'd love to see the research that has been done.  That is not a sarcastic comment; seriously, if you've taken the time to research and have found resources that state otherwise, I'd be interested in reading them and seeing the statistics on how open homosexuality in the military has caused a drop in efficiency. 

Well, I didn’t think it was my responsibility to do this, but if you help me secure a $10M gubm’et grant to conduct such a study, I’ll be happy to track down all of the “experts” to say and publish whatever you want to hear.  It’s just overwhelmingly obvious that if you take a person with differences and place him into a situation where those differences deviate substantially from the local norm, some level of disruption is to be expected.  As a white boy working in predominantly black Detroit, I can confirm that I’ve been approached more than once for being the only white boy in a bar.  It’s not that hard to figure out the local psychology, and the models usually hold true across different situations. 

It was also "common sense" one hundred years ago that minorities in the military would cause an absolute break down of efficiency due to the majority's views on minorities.  That common sense view didn't seem to pan out.  Psychology's great for theories on how people should likely interact in certain situations.  Sure, there may be statistical studies which also back up these theories (although I've yet to see any relating to homosexuals and the military other than the one I posted)...but we can't trust any studies, right? 

Oh no…  There were lots of studies that also suggested that minorities in the military would be disruptive, and early on, there were disruptions.  I don’t disagree with all studies.  I just don’t accept every single one of them, or any of them for that matter, as the final word.  You seem to be more willing to trust one of these so-called "studies" more than common sense psychology...  Does that make sense?
 

Yet it's acceptable to introduce challenges by allowing individuals of different religions, races, etc. to interact within the military and freely express themselves regarding those topics?  Either way, their values have the potential to be challenged and imposed upon.  I don't see why one should be banned and not the other, at least not without some sort of objective reason other than "it will pose a challenge." 

It’s the social experimentation side of this that presents challenges.  Once upon a time, you didn’t have to worry about serving pork chops or bacon to the troops at meal time, but now, the military has had to adopt requirements to account for Jewish and Muslim religions.  I see that as accommodation.  When will we be forced to account for the cross-dressers? 

But when they place such a bar, they have to make an objective showing that the restriction is due to an actual effect on military efficiency.  Your examples of psychological conditions and religions that require sacrifices exemplify situations in which someone will be doing something to actually interrupt military efficiency overall, or make the individual incapable of performing required tasks.  Openly being able to state that you are homosexual does not affect efficiency.  In theory, yes, you can state that heterosexual males will freak out, be uncomfortable, and generally refuse to do anything with or around homosexuals.  However, that's in theory.  There are no surveys or studies which show that this has actually happened (at least none that I've found or been shown thus far).  And although we have only had posts from a limited number of retired military members on this forum, none of them indicate that this has actually happened in the United States military. 

Because you’ve grown or evolved to socially accept homosexuals, others must be forced to accept them…  That just doesn’t make sense to me. 

Seizures occur in about 3-13% of Down patients.  40 to 50% of children with Down syndrome have congenital heart defects.  Having Down syndrome increases the risk of leukaemia 15-20 times.  66-89% of Down patients have some level of hearing loss in at least one ear.  The risk of pneumonia is 62 times higher than in non-Down syndrome individuals.  100% of people with Down syndrome will develop some physiologic signs of Alzheimer’s when they are over 35 years old in the U.S.   

Not all homosexuals are qualified to serve in the military either, and many more just don’t want to serve…  The threat of breaking a nail or having to wear those beastly uncomfortable uniforms is just too much.  I’m also certain that you can find statistics for other groups, minority and otherwise, for increased health issues and other defects.  So what? 

The statistics show that it is next to impossible to find an individual with Down syndrome who doesn't have a medical disability or disease which would prevent him from efficiently serving in the military.  Impossible?  Maybe not, but if you're going to make accommodations for individuals with Down syndrome by searching the nation for a handful of acceptable enlistees, then why not scour the nation for timid homosexuals who won't cause problems? 

Sorry…  You’ve got it backwards.  If you’re willing to “scour the nation for timid homosexuals” willing to serve or open the fag gates, why not do similar for other groups? 

You seem to be all for making accommodations for individuals who have an astounding risk of failing to efficiently serve in the military, yet you're not willing to accommodate those who, according to studies, don't affect efficiency. 

Until we physically allow homosexuals in the military, there is no study that can be accurate or convincing.  It’s like all of those economic studies that claim Socialism and Communism are superior economic systems.  Conducting the study in a third-world country, or limiting your study to third-world standards, and applying it to America doesn’t work. 

[AUJarhead]

My only thought on removing the DADT is are we going to have to build separate barracks for gays/lesbians/bi/transgendered?  If so, how much is it going to cost?  Are we going to have separate boot camps for the same?  Is that going to cost us more money as taxpayers?

What about on a boat in the Navy?  Different squad bays?  Or do we take all the gays, and put them on their own boat?

[Kaos]

When will we be forced to account for the cross-dressers? 

What?

[GarMan]

My only thought on removing the DADT is are we going to have to build separate barracks for gays/lesbians/bi/transgendered?  If so, how much is it going to cost?  Are we going to have separate boot camps for the same?  Is that going to cost us more money as taxpayers?

What about on a boat in the Navy?  Different squad bays?  Or do we take all the gays, and put them on their own boat? 

That's not my only thought... 

What happens when one of your military comrades is injured in the field?  If you suspect or know that he's gay, are you as willing to plunge your hands into his chest, abdoman or thigh to pinch-off an artery to save his life?  And if the answer's yes, would you do so knowing that gay men are far more likely to contract HIV, hepatitis and other great lifetime benefits?  Now, that may seem extreme to some, so let's forget about the critical injuries for a moment.  Let's just consider the close-quarters nature of the military and combine that with the increased incidents of serious communicable diseases in the gay community.  I'm completely unwilling to force others into that situation just as much as I would not want to be forced into that situation.  Yet others in this thread don't seem to have a problem with that, and I find that seriously disturbing and F'd Up...

[Pell City Tiger]

Wouldn't a person run the same risk, if not greater, in administering first aid to a whore hopper? Just saying, because the likelihood of encountering blood borne diseases is the same in hetero and homosexuals.

[GarMan]

Wouldn't a person run the same risk, if not greater, in administering first aid to a whore hopper? Just saying, because the likelihood of encountering blood borne diseases is the same in hetero and homosexuals.

Initially, I would be inclined to agree, but the incidents of blood borne diseases is greater in homosexual and bisexual men than in heterosexual men.  Of course, I realize that it's not Politically Correct to point out that fact, but it's the truth.

[Pell City Tiger]

I'm the least politically correct guy on the planet. The numbers just don't add up, though. The odds of being exposed to hepatitis, herpes, and the like are higher with heterosexuals simply because there are more of us. Unprotected sex is unprotected sex; be it with a chick or a dude.

Repealing DADT isn't going to open a floodgate to deviants. Also, every swinging dick and split tail in the military is required to undergo mandatory HIV testing annually, in addition to normal bloodwork common with a physical.

[AUChizad]

Initially, I would be inclined to agree, but the incidents of blood borne diseases is greater in homosexual and bisexual men than in heterosexual men.  Of course, I realize that it's not Politically Correct to point out that fact, but it's the truth.

Blacks are almost twice as likely as whites to contract HIV!!! Better kick the negros out as well!!!

The sad thing is if you probably agree with that logic. And if you don't now, I guarantee you did (or would have) forty years ago.