Gays in U.S. military (merged)

[aesop081]

Glad I'm in the CF.

So am i.  That being said , the policy in question is THEIR policy and , right or wrong, we have to accept that.

I'm sure if alot of US people logged in here and started telling us to kick gays/lesbians out of the CF, alot of you would pretty quck to tell the to mind their own buisnes.



(Librarian, this isnt aimed at you, just used you for a quote  ;D )

 

[FredDaHead]

And I don't care if the soldier next to me is white, black, male or female either, as long as they are the best ones for the job and neither Olga, FL or myself has said anything different. Only you have actually. Funny you kind of missed the "regardless of age, sex, religion, race, or sexual orientation." You are trying to use another argument of a whole different discrimation to justify another type of it. Glad I'm in the CF.

Actually, I'm saying that all discrmination must be eliminated, starting with but not limited to the DADT rule. In effect, I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're accusing me of saying; I say that because one type of discrimination must be eliminated, all discrimination must be eliminated.

Besides, you only adressed one of a long series of discriminatory policies, in your reply. Does that mean you agree with the rest of them, too?

 

[armyvern]

Actually, I'm saying that all discrmination must be eliminated, starting with but not limited to the DADT rule. In effect, I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're accusing me of saying; I say that because one type of discrimination must be eliminated, all discrimination must be eliminated.

Besides, you only adressed one of a long series of discriminatory policies, in your reply. Does that mean you agree with the rest of them, too?

Fred,

We are adressing the topic title of this thread. Which happens to be US Policy on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" causing the discharge of a US soldier who was then recalled for duty.
So far, you are the only one who hasn't noticed that little tidbit. Ergo the "Strawman" argument comment to you from Olga. It's simply not relevant.

CDN Aviator,

No problem with your using of me for my quote. If you had quoted me earlier, you'd see that I said I didn't agree with the US policy on this but that I am a Canadian so it didn't really matter what my opinion (ie vote) would be on it.

 

[aesop081]

you'd see that I said I didn't agree with the US policy on this but that I am a Canadian so it didn't really matter what my opinion (ie vote) would be on it.

I did notice, hence why i wanted to make sure it was clear i wasnt aiming my comment at you.

 

[niner domestic]

Not so long ago, in our own country, the issue of same sex relationships/benefits/rights were before both parliament and the courts.  In the decision, the SCC set out that there appeared to be a will from the population to correct this oversight, but it simply wasn't the right time.  The next case pushed the envelope a little further and then the next case one little step closer and so on - The Mossop, Egan, Haig et al cases all moving society closer to finding the right time.  Finally, as a society, we came to terms with same sex legislation - found a place for it in our Charter and Human Rights Code and welcomed LGBT members into the equality circle.  A concise legislative history of these rights can be found at:  http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/921-e.htm

What we are witnessing right now in the US are those tiny steps that we took not so long ago (1977 in Quebec was the first instance of same sex rights being granted and more recently, 2005 with the amendments to the Civil Marriage Act).  One case at a time.  Who knows, one day these types of threads will simply be redundant.  

 

[armyvern]

I did notice, hence why i wanted to make sure it was clear i wasnt aiming my comment at you.

Hence why I wrote "No problem" in my last comment!!  >    ;D

 

[Journeyman]

Trying to equate a life style choice with racism or sexism in my opinion is stretching it, just a bit.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is, by definition, sexism. It's not merely an opinion.

Mirriam Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: sex·ism
Pronunciation: 'sek-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

The topic is very polarizing, remember to follow the rules....

Just remember you are Canadian, it is not a Canadian government policy but a US government policy.  You can banter all you wnat about the injustice of it all, but when all is said and done the U.S. Congress doesn't care what Canadians think.

Apparently any and all discussion of US issues, if not accompanied by a rousing John Philip Sousa soundtrack, is "polarizing" to some people here.

But then, this is "The Mess" -- you know, where discussion occurs; I don't think too many people actually assumed that this was the best route for Canadians to go about changing the US Constitution.  :

 

[geo]

SB

Did I say anything contrary or moralize? don't think so...
I took the information that was provided and pointed out things that just didn't make sense.... even to the Stars and stripes.  It the sailor right, is the sailor wrong?.... not for me to comment upon

 

[armyvern]

Bottom line ladies and gentlemen, you can stand at your bully pulpit, but the US military is not the CDN military.  It is funded by the U.S. congress and not by the CDN parliment, CDNs don't have a vote, a say, and the empty moralizing gets old real fast.  The American people decide not the CDN people, it doesn't matter that CDNs think homosexuals should openly serve, nor does it matter what websters dictionary says either.  I want the current rules to remain in effect and so  does the majority of Americans. 

SB

I think we all agree with you here. We, as Canadians, don't get to decide for the US.

But, we can discuss whether or not we agree with that without being accused of moralizing etc can't we?

After all, there's a thread running here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60955/post-567483.html#msg567483

where the US media is discussing Canadian policy and whether or not it is acceptable, and they don't get a vote here. That doesn't mean they have to keep quiet about whether or not they agree or not though.  They can still have an opinion. And hey, I actually agree with the Wall Street Journal on their take of this matter.

Just because some of us have an opinion that differs from yours, doesn't make us "empty and moralizing". The same statement could be used in reverse.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

SB
I agree with you 100%.
As long as the US military has no problem at a group or individual level with interacting with LGBTQ soldiers in the CF, then it is there bussiness. If the Americans had problems with serving with/under/over (no pun intended) a LGBTQ individual in the CF then it would be our bussiness.

 

[FredDaHead]

Bottom line ladies and gentlemen, you can stand at your bully pulpit, but the US military is not the CDN military.  It is funded by the U.S. congress and not by the CDN parliment, CDNs don't have a vote, a say, and the empty moralizing gets old real fast.  The American people decide not the CDN people, it doesn't matter that CDNs think homosexuals should openly serve, nor does it matter what websters dictionary says either.  I want the current rules to remain in effect and so  does the majority of Americans. 

Are you sure that the majority of Americans actually feel that way, or do they just not care strongly either way, or simply don't know/care about the issue? I'd say it's a lot like the gay marriage debate in Canada: most people didn't care, as it doesn't affect them in any way. The only ones who care are those who deeply oppose the status quo, and those who deeply want to conserve it.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

They would care if they understood how much it costs their country in terms of trained people and money. Not even including people who just dont sign up.
esp at a time like this when every person would be useful to the war effort.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Mr. Baker needs to listen to ' Tuesday Morning' by Melissa Etheridge.

"Tuesday Morning"

10:03 on a Tuesday morning
in the fall of an American dream
a man is doing what he knows is right
on flight 93

Loved his mom and he loved his dad
loved his home and he loved his man
but on that bloody Tuesday morning
he died an American

[chorus]
Now you cannot change this
You can't erase this
You can't pretend this is not the truth

Even though he could not marry
Or teach your children in our schools
Because who he wants to love
Is breaking your God's rules

He stood up on a Tuesday Morning
In the terror he was brave
And he made his choice and without a doubt
A hundred lives he must have saved

[chorus]

And the things you might take for granted
Your inalienable rights
Some might choose to deny him
Even though he gave his life

Can you live with yourself in the land of the free
And make him less of a hero than the other three
Well it might begin to change ya
In a field in Pennsylvania

[chorus]

Stand up America
Hear the bell now as it tolls
Wake up America
It's Tuesday Morning
Let's roll

 

[Journeyman]

Ms Librarian, Piper, Bruce......let it go.

You're trying to argue rationally against a position of moralistic hatred and unquestioning jingoism.
Discussion simply isn't possible against that mindset.

 

[tomahawk6]

Ref your bold Fred. Nice attempt to spin this another way from what Olga has put there. Drug use is also an optional lifestyle choice correct? One that is forbidden with the CF. That is applicable to every member of the CF.

The point is, the US does indeed use the "Don't ask, don't tell" rule. The problem with that rule, is that it's NOT applicable to all their personnel. A heterosexual female or male soldier could go into work down there tomorrow and mention his wife (or her, her husband) and no one would even suggest that discharge action be taken against either one of them for mentioning their heterosexual partner.

Yet, if the member next to that same heterosexual male, dares make mention of his own homosexual partner the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" rule all of a sudden becomes applicable.

You see, there are no special rules being set up for women, men etc. It's just that the heterosexual ones are being excluded from having the same policy apply to them. That is where it becomes discriminatory.

Yes, we all lose rights and freedoms when we join a military organization; but we should lose them equally. That's not the current situation in the US Military. I don't agree with the current US Policy that is only applicable to the select few they chose to apply it to. That being said, you're right, I'm Canadian so my vote doesn't count.

Like FL said below, I have no problem with the policy, as long as it's applied equally to everyone. You and I both know that's not the case in the US.

Here's where you're wrong Librarian. The "dont ask dont tell" policy applies to all military personnel of the US armed forces. From a practical standpoint only a small percentage is probably gay.As long as they arent openly homosexual they shouldnt have a problem. As I have stated a number of times sodomy is a crime and is punishable under the UCMJ. Adultry is another crime under the UCMJ. The UCMJ thus punishes equally.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

  I look at it this way, If I had my neighbor sticking his nose over the fence telling me how to raise my children or cut my grass, etc I would tell him to go * himself.        

I really, really cannot believe you just posted that............the bowl of shit-flakes you obviously have beeen eating ALL DAY has really clouded your perception of YOUR countries past 60 years.

...and , trust me, I'm not digging at your country, I happen to love it, but I am digging at the pile of poop you have been posting all over today.

Get some sleep and try again tomorrow......

 

[Michael OLeary]

Ladies and gentlemen,

I believe we can call this one done, and all can retreat to their neutral corners having agreed to disagree.

I WILL ASK MY FELLOW MODERATORS TO NOT POST THROUGH THE LOCK.


ARMY.CA STAFF

 

[The Rifleman]

Chemical To Turn The Enemy Gay

http://www.modoracle.co.uk/


Wednesday, June 13, 2007
 



Make love not war may be the enduring slogan of anti-war campaigners but in 1994 the US air force produced its own variation on the philosophy.

What if it could release a chemical that would make an opposing army's soldiers think more about the physical attributes of their comrades in arms than the threat posed by the enemy? And thus the "gay bomb" was born. Far from being the product of conspiracy theorists, documents released to a biological weapons watchdog in Austin, Texas confirm that the US military did investigate the idea. It was included in a CD-Rom produced by the US military in 2000 and submitted to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002. The documents show that $7.5m was requested to develop the weapon.

The documents released to the Sunshine Project under a freedom of information request titled "Harassing, Annoying and Bad Guy Identifying Chemicals" includes several proposals for the military use of chemicals that could be sprayed on to enemy positions. "One distasteful but non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behaviour," says the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.
The Pentagon did not deny that the proposal had been made: "The department of defence is committed to identifying, researching and developing non-lethal weapons that will support our men and women in uniform."

Aaron Belkin, director of the University of California's Michael Palm Centre, which studies the issue of gays in the military, said: "The idea that you could submit someone to some aerosol spray and change their sexual behaviour is ludicrous."

 

[Yrys]

Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html

US military pondered love not war (article of January 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4174519.stm

 

[armyvern]

It would seem that a thread was started just the other day using the below articles.

It has since disappeared.

Moderator Warning

This thread is obviously going to be controversial. Keep your posts relevent to the subject itself regarding any possible development, use, or possible effects militarily of a weapon of this sort upon an enemy and there shouldn't be a problem.

Turning it into yet another debate on US DADT Policy or Is Homosexuality Moral? thread will result in its removal once again.