Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy fully repealed!

Take a guess at who's talking:

"DADT was repealed. 65 to 31."
"Son of a peach! They got 9 idiotic republicans. I have to figure out who they are."
"Why are you so angry about this?"
"Because attraction reduces battlefield efficacy. In Israel they tried to integrate their military force with women, but they found that men behaved erratically to save the women that may have endangered themselves. Here it will be the same story, but with gays trying to protect other men. The battlefield is tough as it is - why put gays through it? Why put straight men through it?"

I couldn't refute his point. Anyone care to take it on?

Your arguments with your Dad are quite entertaining.

=_=
It's the same thing. Whether you're a male or female, you're a soldier. Soldier's protect their own. Gender has nothing to do with looking out for your own.

The claim was that male Israeli soldiers who had females in their (combat) units, behaved erratically, being more protective of said women than of their other unit members, and that this somehow implies gay soldiers would behave equally erratically to protect male soldiers.

The claim was that male Israeli soldiers who had females in their (combat) units, behaved erratically, being more protective of said women than of their other unit members, and that this somehow implies gay soldiers would behave equally erratically to protect male soldiers.

Which brings us full circle to Fiel's father - The flaw in that implication is it assumes a causal link between unrelated details. The fact they were more protective has no implications without knowing why they were more protective and how it applies in other situations.
Were the soldiers protective of the females because they were attracted to them, or because they're from a culture that believes women need protecting?
In the latter, and more likely scenario, sexuality is irrelevant. A gay man is just as likely to try protecting a female as a straight man is if they both believe females need looking after.
Humans are wired to be protective of who they view as weaker. If anything there would be more risk of the straight men trying to protect the openly gay men than the gay men trying to protect the straight men they thought were cute

Which brings us full circle to Fiel's father - The flaw in that implication is it assumes a causal link between unrelated details. The fact they were more protective has no implications without knowing why they were more protective and how it applies in other situations.
Were the soldiers protective of the females because they were attracted to them, or because they're from a culture that believes women need protecting?
In the latter, and more likely scenario, sexuality is irrelevant. A gay man is just as likely to try protecting a female as a straight man is if they both believe females need looking after.
Humans are wired to be protective of who they view as weaker. If anything there would be more risk of the straight men trying to protect the openly gay men than the gay men trying to protect the straight men they thought were cute

Which is exactly what I was trying to say, and then you called me ignorant...

Which is exactly what I was trying to say, and then you called me ignorant...

That's Eos though. *shrug* Just gotta read between the lines.

I'm all for human rights, but how am I suppose to get out of serving with this passed?

Next up: let's put women on the frontlines. They've had it too good for too long...

Military or not, as I said human nature will take over, even on the battlefield. You can brainwash a human all you want for combat, but still, they are human at the core and they do have fears that no amount of training can conquer or erase. The mind is not the PC/Laptop hard drive we can upload, download, erase, format, and reinstall as we see fit. Core emotions of any human being, even military will show their ugly head from time to time regardless of what you have done. Talk to any recovering phobia patient and they will tell you how difficult phobias are to deal with.

I'm not talking about the military mindset of faithful to the corp. My argument is over basic human emotion and fears from a psychological standpoint. The pentagon and government leaders spew politics to make things sound good, seem appealing, and butter us up to think, "maybe it will all be okay".

And by the way, MEPS isn't perfect.

Well here's a good question to ponder:

How were homosexuals treated in the military BEFORE the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law was original enacted?

Not only that look at the age of people going into the military 18~21 years old. People those age still have levels of immaturity that any amount of training won't get rid of and often never does. Social stigmas, regional bias, and even religious indifference have always been a force to be reckoned with and still are. You honestly think that somebody isn't just going to not say or do anything in the military? That's wishful thinking and if you want wishful thinking here's a good line for you: Wish in one hand and take a crap in the other and then see which fills up first.

Publicly saying you are "whatever" is opening a door for any amount of scrutiny, bias, indifference, and feedback in the book regardless of positive or negative.

All I'm saying is this: Being gay or straight is no one's business, but your own and your partners. If you, or both of you, choose to be public with your lifestyle then do so, but be aware of the feedback you may get, and don't complain when you get negative feedback for your actions. Your going public with the issue was your responsibility, no one else's. And don't forget, sometimes digression is the better part of valor. People are more often willing to accept differences if they get to know people slowly, rather than have everything dropped in their lap like a 5,000 page manual you have 1 day to learn and memorize.

I'll say it and you can think of me afterwards however you like:

People who go public with issues, flaunt themselves and show off, and then cry "woe is me" when people stigmatize them, chastise them, and ridicule them for their actions are nothing but childish, immature, belligerent, attention whores who deserved their treatment whether they like it or not.

....

The same thing could be said to justify racism.

If people feel, deep down in their gut, that Negros are stupid and cowardly, then in the heat of battle they will fail to trust their Negro teammates to cover them, or will doubt the commands of a Negro squad leader. Maybe it's better to keep Blacks out of the armed forces. Or in separate units.

Somehow, nowadays, the number of people who feel that way about blacks is much smaller than it was 100 years ago. You know why? Because of education and because of laws. Because of not giving in to racism and allowing it to control us because "people can't help how they feel".

Same thing with homosexuality. Letting homophobia dictate laws only perpetuates it. Only by repeatedly overruling it can we hope to eradicate it.

Jamie, I think what you don't get in the end (and which is understandable since you're not LGBT) is that the vast majority of us already fully comprehend the entire cornerstone of your argument revolving around open publicity of one's sexual orientation. We're not stupid. We get the implications of acting or even saying what we are in various public situations, and how there are some places it's more accepted, and how in some it's best to cover it up for the sole purpose of personal safety, be it with regards to physical or mental health. You don't give LGBT people enough credit for already philosophizing over all of these issues, whether they're in the Armed Forces or not.

Also, please do your research before making false comments, or proposing rhetorical questions with answers you don't even know or provide, and thus are most likely irrelevant or, to use your previous term with my content, "inappropriate" for the debate at hand:

Example:

The pentagon and government leaders spew politics to make things sound good, seem appealing, and butter us up to think, "maybe it will all be okay".

The Pentagon survey found that some two-thirds of troops don't care if the ban is lifted. Of the 30 percent who objected, most of them were in combat units.

Opposition was strongest among combat troops, with at least 40 percent saying repeal would be a bad idea. That number climbed to 58 percent among Marines serving in combat roles.

A summary of the report said 69 percent of respondents believed they had already served alongside a gay person. Of those who believed that, 92 percent said their units were able to work together and 8 percent said the units functioned poorly as a result.

"We have a gay guy. He's big, he's mean and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay," the report quotes a member of the special operations force as saying.

The report says that many gay troops would be likely to keep their sexual orientation quiet even after the ban was lifted. That discretion would probably be more common in the military than in the civilian world, the report's authors said.

Of those respondents who said they were gay, only 15 percent said they would want that known to everyone in their unit.

The summary included anonymous quotes from gay troops currently serving.

"I will just be me," one person said. "I will bring my family to family events. I will put family pictures on my desk. I am not going to go up to people and say, 'Hi there. I'm gay.'"

While clearly some troops have an issue with the repeal, the vast majority (see: 2/3) are fine with it. Plus, the contention your arguing about mass open gay flaunting is factually disproven in the above quote as well. Glad I could do your research for you.

And finally,

How were homosexuals treated in the military BEFORE the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law was original enacted?

You tell us. You brought up the question to bolster your argument, so bring in the evidentiary support to make the question relevant. Otherwise, you're just throwing around rhetoric with no purpose and wasting bandwidth.

Military or not, as I said human nature will take over, even on the battlefield.

Right. Because when people are shooting at me my deep seated survival instinct is to fear the people defending/covering/supporting me who I've trained with for weeks/months/years are going to spontaneously ass-rape me, not to defend myself against the obvious threat and focus on it. Clearly that's the more important thing in that situation. You need to grow up or something. You may speaking from your personal concerns or fears but they really sound quite childish when you put them in the very context you're explaining they'll cause everything to fall apart in.

Bigotry is not human nature. It's a learned response. Learned responses are almost always trumped by basic biological imperatives such as survival and easily trumped by more heavily enforced learned responses, such as trusting your team and supporting your fellow soldiers. More important those two trumps tend to erode learned bigotry as you get to better understand the subject of your bigotry and discover that what you've learned may not be the whole story and that your fears are misplaced. For that to happen though they can't be hidden away like a boogey-man where they remain a dark scary thing that may be lurking in the bed next to you waiting to get you at night.

Which is exactly what I was trying to say, and then you called me ignorant...

I called your lack of awareness of "gays acting that way to protect other men" an appalling ignorance. Lack of knowledge is the dictionary definition of ignorance, and you apparently being unaware of that basic relevant history but still feeling qualified to be in this discussion was rather appalling. I also like to point out the sky is blue and grass tends to be green.

I'd like to say this news makes me very happy. I don't know how it works in Brazil right now but I think it still goes by something on the lines of DADT. I'm straight myself but I'm a whole lot on the S of LGBTS (sympathizing).

People relate strange things to sexual preference, it's the same type of prejudice by association that happened to black people.

Right. Because when people are shooting at me my deep seated survival instinct is to fear the people defending/covering/supporting me who I've trained with for weeks/months/years are going to spontaneously ass-rape me, not to defend myself against the obvious threat and focus on it. Clearly that's the more important thing in that situation. You need to grow up or something. You may speaking from your personal concerns or fears but they really sound quite childish when you put them in the very context you're explaining they'll cause everything to fall apart in.

Bigotry is not human nature. It's a learned response. Learned responses are almost always trumped by basic biological imperatives such as survival and easily trumped by more heavily enforced learned responses, such as trusting your team and supporting your fellow soldiers. More important those two trumps tend to erode learned bigotry as you get to better understand the subject of your bigotry and discover that what you've learned may not be the whole story and that your fears are misplaced. For that to happen though they can't be hidden away like a boogey-man where they remain a dark scary thing that may be lurking in the bed next to you waiting to get you at night.

Learned responses also are taken from your culture and subculture and even religious sects.

Look at this... take someone from a more rural section of say Arkansas and compare them to someone from the inner city of San Francisco. In a perfect world we say they will get along, treat each other equally, and have no animosity towards each other. Again in a perfect world. But the world isn't perfect even when we want it to be and again perfection is wishful thinking. Someone from a rural section of the country probably might have some learned indifference towards other people due to religious and family upbringing. There is still plenty of racism towards other cultures and ethic groups and indifference towards GLBT people in many places still in the world. Due to that there are plenty of people even from the most unlikely places that still are uncomfortable around people who are different than themselves.

Shidoshi you hit the nail square on. The prejudge of man is the same regardless of situation. Fear of difference is still the same as it has been for thousands of years.

People want the world to change overnight in some miraculous way to accept everyone in the same ways. As much as we would all want that and wish for it, it's still a wish, and mankind still even in the 21st century has a long road to travel before everyone is truly considered equal.

There are Muslims who still hate Jews, Whites who still hate Blacks, and thousands of other instances, even some heterosexuals who might not feel truly comfortable around homosexuals.

For all our technological achievements, humanitarian charities, scientific progress, educational improvements, and cultural diversity, mankind is still afraid of what it does not understand, and thus is the fallacy of man for his imperfection.

...

What you don't seem to get is that in response to that deeply rooted prejudgements we shouldn't "go slowly" by protecting the people that prejudge. We should be going after those who prejudge and change how those things are viewed, it's not the homosexual wanting to enter the military that should suffer because people have a problem with homosexuality, it's the opposite. People who find a problem with being around an homosexual should suffer because they don't adapt to the new world.

Change that is due for a LONG time for these things, those who can't adapt should feel grinded by the changing system.

But what of equality if one side should suffer and the other prosper? Is that not doing the exact same thing as the fore did to the latter?

For everyone who doesn't bother reading Jamie's posts anymore, let me tl;dr her last wall of text for you:

1. She reiterates what Eos said earlier.

2. She discusses prejudice and ignorance related to emotions of diversity in the most grandiose, general scope possible, from which, of course, any conclusions drawn are irrelevant to the debate at hand as they don't address the specificity of DADT repeal. In other words, she is, yet again, trying to compare two different contexts, one that exists in an infinitesimally small corner of the other, in a way that is logically fallible.

Oye vey.

But what of equality if one side should suffer and the other prosper? Is that not doing the exact same thing as the fore did to the latter?

No, the change with abolishing DADT was a step towards equality. Those who can't adapt to equality should suffer the consequences. The changes are exactly to promote equality, why can't people with different sexual options have the same rights? Those who can't live in a world with this ideal should have a hard time until they can.

So intelligent thought and conversation with insight into society should be prejudiced against as well I take it? Shun reason and fact for quick results and immediate progress?

Those who can't adapt to equality should suffer the consequences.

And so people like that have to be prejudiced against as well? Where's the equality in that inequality? You just proved my point.

why can't people with different sexual options have the same rights? Those who can't live in a world with this ideal should have a hard time until they can

Because the perfect world is a dream and will never be achievable until even more drastic changes in society's roots are done. Wanting this level of perfection is a dream and even if it is a nice dream, it's only just a dream.

You have things like the civil rights movement that are a step forward, and groups like the KKK that are a step backwards, but also you have instances, laws, and movements that are neither but a sidestep that change one aspect for the better but another for the bad. DADT's repeal is making no progress or regression in the way people will be treated by their peers.

You don't think as someone half-Japanese I don't still see prejudice? I do. I see it every day from people everywhere I go. I've been called all types of racial slurs to my face by people who don't even fit the stereotype of where you would think a comment would come from.

I still don't see how DADT could be a step backwards. It only offers a CHOICE, gay people are already aware of the prejudice they suffer. A choice to revelate yourself or not without fearing losing your job (in the military, in this case) has no bad sides.

Besides, the less the regulations give way to prejudice the less people will treat the "different" badly. Having a regulation that singles out homosexuals only feeds the belief that they are not the same.

Anyway, I'll stop arguing here. From all of the posts I've seen from Jamie it's really pointless to argue. He/she doesn't seem to assimilate new knowledges about things and just clings to her own view of the world. Maybe I should add someone to me block list...

until even more drastic changes in society's roots are done

Like I said before, educate yourself, peach:

History of LGBT Social Movements

The LGBT Rights Movement isn't something that "began overnight with the repeal of DADT" like you're making it out to be. It's a near 150 year movement with roots all across the world and landmark strides occurring all over the place that change the very foundation of social acceptance for LGBT. What bothers me the most is that the comments you make are disproven with a 5 second Google search, which really makes you appear incompetent and ignorant.

So intelligent thought and conversation with insight into society should be prejudiced against as well I take it? Shun reason and fact for quick results and immediate progress?

And so people like that have to be prejudiced against as well? Where's the equality in that inequality? You just proved my point.

There is no such thing as a "right to bigotry". You can have your opinion about anyone, but your opinion of them is not allowed to justify actions that infringe upon their rights by using your rights as an excuse.
You for example don't have the right to not hire Asians because you think they're untrustworthy. That's not providing Asians any special protection, it's prohibiting you from treating them differently than someone else.
At no point is that slighting your rights because it's honoring theirs. You have the exact same right to be hired for a job you're qualified for that they do.

You can't say the people who want to diminish the rights of others are being wronged for not being able to do so. Denial of oppression is not the oppressing of the people who would deny.