Spot on Opinion about DADT from Oliver North

[Just_A_Mom]

Since "Confused" was banned permanently.....
Careful there, sprog. you are treading on thin ice. Your ideas will get you in trouble here. This is not a place for free thinkers - if you don't conform then you will be labeled as an Ant-American, Anti-Military commie. if you don't have the "right" sources (pun intended)- you information is wrong.
Your liberal ideas of women and gays serving in the military could land you in a heap of trouble here. Even though this is a forum for prosepctive and current cadets and mids and their parents - we have to tow the party line. Keep narrow-mindedness and bigotry alive. Keep feeding these kids these ideas so they can make a fool of themselves during their summer training.
You have seen the trouble that women have brought to the military, surely gays will too. Blame the victim - unless the victim is a white male.
Get with the program will you!! <sarcasm>

 

[flieger83]

So you didn't assume that they were straight?

Suppose you found out that the other was a homosexual, through no admission of their own? Does that person deserve to be thrown out of the service?

IMHO?

NO.

IF I understand the policy correctly, homosexuality is NOT prohibited by military service; homosexual "activity" is. If a person says nothing, then NOBODY is assumed to have violated policy. If a person says "I'm gay/lesbian" then the "assumption of fact" is that they have or will violate this policy and are subject to administrative discharge.

If I found out, by accident? It's NONE OF MY BUSINESS and that's how I'll treat it.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Zaphod]

You don't have to sense anything. I'm an ACLU member, Democrat, and proud left wing pinko.

Well, that explains it.

 

[Zaphod]

Since "Confused" was banned permanently.....
Careful there, sprog. you are treading on thin ice. Your ideas will get you in trouble here. This is not a place for free thinkers - if you don't conform then you will be labeled as an Ant-American, Anti-Military commie. if you don't have the "right" sources (pun intended)- you information is wrong.
Your liberal ideas of women and gays serving in the military could land you in a heap of trouble here. Even though this is a forum for prosepctive and current cadets and mids and their parents - we have to tow the party line. Keep narrow-mindedness and bigotry alive. Keep feeding these kids these ideas so they can make a fool of themselves during their summer training.
You have seen the trouble that women have brought to the military, surely gays will too. Blame the victim - unless the victim is a white male.
Get with the program will you!! <sarcasm>

True.

Just take a look at most of JAM's posts, and you'll see that no moonbattery is allowe here.

 

[sprog]

Being openly bisexual wasn't a problem for Alexander the Great. He was able to create one of the largest empires in ancient history as King of Macedon. He commanded legions of troops over Asia, Africa, and Southern Europe. So there is some historical precedent on the absolute irrelevance of sexual orientation and its affect on military service.

 

[sprog]

Well, that explains it.

Decorum prevents me from responding with the words I would like to use.

I think the thread has run its course. Could someone please close it before it gets too nasty?

Thanks

 

[flieger83]

Being openly bisexual wasn't a problem for Alexander the Great. He was able to create one of the largest empires in ancient history as King of Macedon. He commanded legions of troops over Asia, Africa, and Southern Europe. So there is some historical precedent on the absolute irrelevance of sexual orientation and its affect on military service.

Uh, no.

Revisit your history...Alexander the Great (and the entire Greek empire, city states, etc.) viewed homosexual relationships/conduct as the normal way of life in their societies. Makes sense that it would have no impact.

In the past, oh, millennium plus of time, that has NOT been the case and history shows you the results in the prosecution/persecution of individuals. Your statement "So there is some historical precedent on the absolute irrelevance of sexual orientation and its affect on military service. really isn't applicable here as the situations are 180 out: one way of life was fully normal, accepted, and part of the society on the whole. The other, it's not, has not, and is only now beginning to show signs of being accepted.

As you may have seen, I could care less...but you need a different argument from history to try to make your point.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[sprog]

Uh, no.

Revisit your history...Alexander the Great (and the entire Greek empire, city states, etc.) viewed homosexual relationships/conduct as the normal way of life in their societies. Makes sense that it would have no impact.

In the past, oh, millennium plus of time, that has NOT been the case and history shows you the results in the prosecution/persecution of individuals. Your statement "So there is some historical precedent on the absolute irrelevance of sexual orientation and its affect on military service. really isn't applicable here as the situations are 180 out: one way of life was fully normal, accepted, and part of the society on the whole. The other, it's not, has not, and is only now beginning to show signs of being accepted.

As you may have seen, I could care less...but you need a different argument from history to try to make your point.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

I'm fully aware of the climate in ancient Greece. Maybe we could learn something from them. After all, they did give us democracy, philosophy, and gyro sandwiches.

Homosexulaity was accepted in Greece, Rome, and during the Renaissance as well (Shakespeare is believed by some scholars to have been bisexual...if you've read some of the sonnets, it's certainly possible). Seems to me they had the right idea of not judging one type of personal relationship as being "normal" while another is "abnormal." Whatever, that's a debate for a different day (and would most likely involve religion, which is never fun to discuss). The fact is that Alexander could lead his troops into battle, and he was bisexual (as were many of his generals and troops).

 

[sprog]

The ancient civilizations were also big fans of slavery and bloodsport, so I guess there are some things we definitely shouldn't take from them as well.

 

[Zaphod]

Decorum prevents me from responding with the words I would like to use.

That's OK.

I'll just DEEM that you sent me a nice note telling me how wrong you've been.

After all, if it works for Congress....

 

[flieger83]

Hmm...

Okay, let's expound on this a bit...I love intellectual "debate" and "discussion" as it takes me back to the Greek roots of public debate!

The fact is that Alexander could lead his troops into battle, and he was bisexual (as were many of his generals and troops).

I never really studied the sexuality of Alexander and his generals, troops, etc., as that had nothing to do with the strategic value of studying their battles, etc. But let's look at this for a moment.

Your position seems to be, from your posts, that BECAUSE he was "bisexual, etc....(as were many of his generals and troops)..." that it shows that a homosexual/bisexual can/is/would be a good leader.

I don't think there's anyone here that would argue against that position as leadership has NOTHING to do with sexuality.

HOWEVER...I think some of the folks here would take issue with your comments for the simple reason that you're making an "apples to oranges" comparison.

Back then, this was an accepted lifestyle and was openly practiced. There were no religious or societal prohibitions toward it. Then over time, both religious and societal "norms" may have changed or surfaced; I wasn't there so I can't say which came first. BUT they did change and when they did, homosexuality became a prohibited lifestyle, subject to persecution and prosecution. And as people are raised in that method/mindset, it becomes firmly entrenched and a lifestyle: ergo, "the norm."

Which brings us to current day.

There are MANY varied arguments against homosexuality but the predominant one is religion based (sorry, had to go there) from my studies. That is "probably" the root of societal non-acceptance over the last millennium or so. And it will still be a major factor for quite some time to come. And don't for a second think that won't surface, albeit subtly, in government/military circles.

Now...we have a movement nationally, and really, globally, to "normalize" homosexuality as an acceptable, normal, lifestyle. Is it so? I don't know, and I don't care. I can't tell you what is "normal" and not. I know what is "normal" for me but that's all I can tell you. And frankly, I don't care what is normal for the next person, as long as it doesn't affect or impact my life in a negative way. Hence I wouldn't really approve of a sexual predator, murderer, etc. But a person who is homosexual? I suppose I have as much right to "disapprove" of them as they do of me, a heterosexual.

Eh...no big deal, I don't care.

In time, society will determine what is the societally acceptable standard of conduct in all things. Slavery was accepted for several millennia...until one day folks started to say "nope, not a good thing." And then it died...for most of the world. It took time, but it happened. And the same will happen to the great argument of homosexuality and society.

And then folks will find another topic that they take on vigorously and that debate will begin...

And the cycle will continue all over again. It truly is a never ending process.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[sprog]

I have no disagreement with that. My using of ALexander was to show that someone's sexuality does not prohibit them from being an effective military leader. I recognize the difference in cultural contexts between his time and the current. You're correct, the societal change that precipitated homosexuality being relegated to persecuted status has everything to do with changing societal religious beliefs. I don't want to open up that box, no good can come of it.

You and I agree that societal values change (as they have for millennia), and that as this is the case, we can perhaps study the changes as something to learn from. Thus, I don't think it's apples to oranges, because in the end we are still talking about people. Maybe grapefruits to oranges....different, but still close enough to learn from.

 

[Bullet]

There are MANY varied arguments against homosexuality but the predominant one is religion based (sorry, had to go there) from my studies. That is "probably" the root of societal non-acceptance over the last millennium or so. And it will still be a major factor for quite some time to come. And don't for a second think that won't surface, albeit subtly, in government/military circles.

Now...we have a movement nationally, and really, globally, to "normalize" homosexuality as an acceptable, normal, lifestyle. Is it so? I don't know, and I don't care. I can't tell you what is "normal" and not. I know what is "normal" for me but that's all I can tell you. And frankly, I don't care what is normal for the next person, as long as it doesn't affect or impact my life in a negative way. Hence I wouldn't really approve of a sexual predator, murderer, etc. But a person who is homosexual? I suppose I have as much right to "disapprove" of them as they do of me, a heterosexual.

Eh...no big deal, I don't care.

In time, society will determine what is the societally acceptable standard of conduct in all things. Slavery was accepted for several millennia...until one day folks started to say "nope, not a good thing." And then it died...for most of the world. It took time, but it happened. And the same will happen to the great argument of homosexuality and society.

Well said, Steve.

Look, I wasn't trying to argue for or against DADT. Personally, I don't find homosexuality that big a deal for determining whether or not you can serve your country. Try to force your beliefs on my Church? That's a different matter.

And I do agree that simply just opening up the ranks will have some initial issues. Many identified in previous posts, both when it comes to ensuring equal rights for dependents and families, and to the levels of acceptance and the inevitable issues that will entail in the barracks.

I ONLY was pointing out the faults in the arguement Mr. North was espousing in the linked article. The flaws in his logic were too obvious not to point out. Keep DADT because it will cause some serious issues? Fine I can see your point. Tell me that there is no evidence that the DADT policy has not impacted readiness and operational effectiveness? Well, that dog don't hunt, Ollie.

Poor argument. He should have tried harder. But I honestly think he was stuck with what he had to use. The rest of the arguments against removing DADT are just as weak, as long as you properly prepare for the results.

BTW, I do agree that the military should not be the social experiment guinea pig for America. You want to show REA courage, Mr. President? Do the right thing and make homosexual unions a federal right. That shows courage, and kind of removes any of the "dependents" arguments the military would have to solve for you....

 

[hornetguy]

Sorry Bullet & Sprog, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this issue. I think that, particularly at the lower levels, and especially with combat troops, a homosexual serving will be viewed negatively. After all, combat troops base their humor around lewd, anti-homosexual jokes and often times sleep/shower/eat next to each other....I do not predict very many being comfortable with a gay man in the shower with them. Why do people keep wanting to experiment with the military? This is an organization created to PROTECT us, not for us to EXPERIMENT with for society. I'm sorry, but the USMC Commandant is correct. I respect all of you immensely for your service to our country but, no offense this isn't "your" Air Force anymore. It's the younger generations. And I think the majority of us would like to preserve the traditions, honor, integrity, and sanctity of our military.
Rant Finished

Sam, as a member of the 'lower levels' of the military, I can tell you the position is quite the opposite.

While I don't want to get hot and heavy in this discussion and the philosophizing, let me put out some facts of my experience at USAFA, carefully.

We may or may not know of several classmates/cadets who are not straight (bi or gay) and it doesn't bother anyone. Showers? People say hello, get on with their business and move on with life. No one stares, and quite honestly, not many are real modest around here. They aren't perverts and aren't treated like ones. People here, contrary to some outside perceptions (and pre-perceptions) it seems think that living in close quarters (not just dorms, jack's valley is pretty personal) means that straight and gay people can't interact effectively. FALSE. Absolutely FALSE. Go to a poli sci class here. Might find some debate. By and large, the consensus is, who cares? Repeal it so we can move on to more important things, like our jobs.

I surely don't want to protect any traditions or honors that would belittle others. We have plenty of fantastic traditions (combat dining ins! yahoo. etc.) that are great for unit cohesion and don't require belittling of anyone for any reason (except once they've had a bit too much grog. )

It appears that many of the older posters here have a perception of the military at the younger levels that don't exist. I AM NOT ATTACKING. Please don't get defensive with my thought. In my travels to others bases on ops and other trips, your military's younger generation is an incredible group, well-educated and motivated to get the job done. They also don't care about someone's orientation because people aren't defined by their skin, gender, or if they like the same sex. They are judged and labeled by how they do their job. Argue about cross-dressing rights, blah blah blah, those are other issues that won't impact most of the non-straight member that are forced to hide who they are already.

Let me sum it up. Most of us in the military, at least in my age range, are ready to accept bi and homosexual members with open arms. The logistics and laws will come as they need, but let my brothers and sisters serve and protect me and you by living their lives. They deserve better. They deserve not to live a lie. And they deserve the right to be a part of this incredible institution regardless of which gender they like.

 

[hornetguy]

Forgive the side-note.

When the Vice Chief of Staff, MARINE General Cartwright came and spoke to cadets here, he made it clear that DADT is on the way out. Get ready. He showed full support of the repeal from the Chief's position. If anyone is qualified to speak about the military, he and his boss, the Admiral, must surely be near the top. I trust their opinion.

 

[Maximus]

Maximus, not to stir the hornet's nest, and you know I truly respect your opinion, but I have several answers to Mr. North's "ultimate question" on whether we have any examples of how getting rid of DADT will help us do the mission.

I'll leave you with one.

Guy I knew in my sister squadron, very good combat aviator. Tons of experience under fire when it matters, with the citations and medals to prove it. Solid leader, respected for his sound judgment, strong knowledge of tactics, and even-headed temperament under pressure. A proven warrior greatly respected by his peers and the junior aviators who worked under him, who relied on his experience to get them ready for the next round of conflict.

Relieved of duty and forced out of the service with less than 2 years before retirement because a police informant was going to testify that he was a homosexual. The AF lost a good aviator and leader. And most importantly, the mission readiness and capability of his squadron WAS negatively impacted by his removal.

Sorry, Ollie. You'll have to do better than that.

The Generals, molded in a military experience from a generation ago, are just too timid to admit they are backing a policy mostly because of their own prejudices. The majority of the young men and women they lead just couldn't care less about their buddy' sexual orientation, as long as they can do their job when under fire.

Just my $0.02.....

I agree with your post 100% Bullet; my point is North is right about leaving DADT alone IMVHO.
I also agree with the statement: "Generals [and Admirals], molded in a military experience from a generation ago", and I add: are now punishing this current generation with bad over compensation for social ills, they benefited from....again IMVHO.

As to your example, sounds like the AF lost a great Officer, what were the rest of the details? I understand if you don't care to share but, it's a troubling example. I have a few Gay friends that are decent respectful people, therefore they have my respect and friendship. One of the reasons I think the policy should stay is: the people that are decent and respectful homosexuals, aren't the ones that will benefit from the new policy Obama is talking about, I think most here would agree with that statement, and know it would bring the Military to it's knees, no pun intended...

 

[flieger83]

Sam, as a member of the 'lower levels' of the military, I can tell you the position is quite the opposite.

While I don't want to get hot and heavy in this discussion and the philosophizing, let me put out some facts of my experience at USAFA, carefully.

We may or may not know of several classmates/cadets who are not straight (bi or gay) and it doesn't bother anyone. Showers? People say hello, get on with their business and move on with life. No one stares, and quite honestly, not many are real modest around here. They aren't perverts and aren't treated like ones. People here, contrary to some outside perceptions (and pre-perceptions) it seems think that living in close quarters (not just dorms, jack's valley is pretty personal) means that straight and gay people can't interact effectively. FALSE. Absolutely FALSE. Go to a poli sci class here. Might find some debate. By and large, the consensus is, who cares? Repeal it so we can move on to more important things, like our jobs.

I surely don't want to protect any traditions or honors that would belittle others. We have plenty of fantastic traditions (combat dining ins! yahoo. etc.) that are great for unit cohesion and don't require belittling of anyone for any reason (except once they've had a bit too much grog. )

It appears that many of the older posters here have a perception of the military at the younger levels that don't exist. I AM NOT ATTACKING. Please don't get defensive with my thought. In my travels to others bases on ops and other trips, your military's younger generation is an incredible group, well-educated and motivated to get the job done. They also don't care about someone's orientation because people aren't defined by their skin, gender, or if they like the same sex. They are judged and labeled by how they do their job. Argue about cross-dressing rights, blah blah blah, those are other issues that won't impact most of the non-straight member that are forced to hide who they are already.

Let me sum it up. Most of us in the military, at least in my age range, are ready to accept bi and homosexual members with open arms. The logistics and laws will come as they need, but let my brothers and sisters serve and protect me and you by living their lives. They deserve better. They deserve not to live a lie. And they deserve the right to be a part of this incredible institution regardless of which gender they like.

Hornet...

If I can find a way to be at ya'll graduation, I'd love to meet you.

You have said it VERY well...and reaffirmed MY faith (it never has wavered, as an ALO I see this all the time) in the "coming generation" in MY air force.

Very nicely said.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
(PS: If you know Charlie Arden, say Hi from his old ALO)

 

[DevilDog]

DADT is forcing people to live a lie. How can someone be asked to live a lie and expected to uphold an oath to their country?
I am not gay, I don't have gay children that I know of. I have a daughter, and a wife. In the hierarchy of organizations, my wife is further up the totem pole than I am. I make $ 10.00 more per hour than she does. She accepts this as a fact of life, women get paid less. I would never want my daughter to make less than any man doing the same thing she does. Why should a person that has never done anything wrong, and has served his country faithfully, be run out of his/her career because of his sexual orientation? The DADT policy was a joke from the start. It should never have been passed and gay men and women should have the same opportunity to live and die for this country as anyone else does.

 

[Pima]

YES, it is forcing them to live a lie, and I believe the majority of us believe that is inherently wrong. It goes against the grain of every military member...to fight for everyone to have the same human rights.

I see it like your wife...in your words she has her more prestigious position, but because of something that is out of control she is paid less.

That is what we will be doing to homosexuals if the govt doesn't acknowledge that they are entitled to ALL military benefits, including health care and BAH. We are saying, JUST BE HAPPY WITH WHAT WE GAVE YOU!

Sorry, but DADT has proven one thing, it is wrong to do it half arse. Is your wife happy knowing that she should just take the title, while her colleagues are making more based on genetic make up? Did she have control that she has 2 XX's and they have an X and a Y? Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? I don't.

Why is it that we are willing to say, AT LEAST, and hope that it will be tweaked in the future. Isn't that what homosexuals settled for almost 20 yrs ago...well at least they can't court martial me if I don't acknowledge it! The homosexuals that have served in this quiet torment have waited for 17 yrs to see some tweaking. If they are career they will have lived their entire career hoping, and in the end got squat. Do we want another generation to hope that it won't take another 20 yrs to tweak?

Why is it that people take the leap that if you don't support the repeal of DADT you are homophobic. Maybe, you don't support it because you want it done right due to the problems with DADT. That you see other larger issues, such as the fact of recognizing homosexual unions as the bigger issue than the repeal.

I swear I need to be carted off to the looney bin, because it seems to me, I am the only one seeing how the fact that we do not recognize homosexual unions on a federal level is going to be a huge issue with the repeal from a legal standpoint. Maybe it's because 20 yrs I handled the checkbook and knew how tight money was...maybe it's because Bullet was stationed in the UK when we had to take a medical red cross flight on the AF dime...maybe it is because I lived it as a dependent regarding insurance and housing...MAYBE because it is all of those issues and they were all tied to the AF solely based on one little item...A MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE.

Repealing DADT does exactly what, if they do not acknowledge homosexual unions? Will it create cohesiveness? Will the gay military member with a committed partner feel any better when they go to another members house and realize that the reason, they have a smaller home is due to the fact that the military does not acknowledge their union and their BAH pay shows that? Will they feel better hearing of the heterosexual couple moving on base because their marriage is recognized, while they are not even offered that option? Will they feel great knowing that if they are given orders to Germany, the military will not pay for their spouse to accompany them? Will they love the fact that the heterosexual spouse gets points for fed jobs while their mate doesn't? And I have not even addressed the question of health insurance, which is a hot bed.

Or do you believe like me, they will be thankful for a few days, and then say HEY WAIT A MINUTE...WHAT ABOUT? That it will place right back into the same scenario as DADT.

Finally, maybe it is because my godmother who is a lesbian lost her life partner of 27 yrs the day before NJ recognized homosexual unions, and that hurt her more than anything that the govt would not recognize their commitment.

Repeal DADT, but as you are demanding it don't be shocked or surprised that it will take yrs of litigation to solve the new plan, just like it did for DADT because you cared more about the big print than you did the fine. If you think that there will not be a lawsuit brought on day one regarding housing/BAH/insurance/PCS, I have a great piece of property in Florida for you, it might be a little wet, but I am sure the state and county will be willing to give you tax credits to pump out the water...I also know of a bridge in NY, that I hear is constantly up for sale. I don't have the listing yet, but I am sure I can get it for you!

This issue is not about sitting in a foxhole, serving in a sub, flying in a plane and sexual orientation, it is about how do you give all of the rights if our govt doesn't. I will reiterate again, I don't think any military member believes homosexuals are not good military members and are more than willing to say, serve, no problem by me. Heck, the way the military has become PC regarding sexual language, I doubt it will ever be a topic.

Finally, I think homosexuals will be able to serve openly in the next yr or so, I am just praying that it won't take their entire career the right to have the same rights as heterosexuals. I would rather see people waste their energy writing to MOCs and demanding that their unions are recognized. The minute the govt does this, DADT will fly through the system and be repealed.

 

[DevilDog]

Just for clarification Pima, if my wife and I worked in the same place, I would be reporting to her. I am in a support position. Does she like or accept the fact that males earn more? No, but she also went thru almost a year without work. She is happy to be working.