Spot on Opinion about DADT from Oliver North

vampsoul - it's okay. Zaphod hasn't finished his law school application yet. :wink:

Maximus - I think not. Most assuredly not. I think Hornetguy is right - his generation is actually quite tolerant and accepting, both in and out of the military. For a lot of these kids, being gay is no big deal.
From what I can tell the biggest objection to the repeal of DADT is coming not from those currently serving but those who served a generation or more ago.
Sec Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Petraeus all are in favor of repeal I hardly think they are out of touch with today's military.
General Sheehan made a fool of himself and managed to piss off the Dutch with his crazy testimony. Sheehan was commissioned back in 1962 and retired in 1997 - 13 years ago. A little out of touch, I'd say.

Getting back to our friend SamAca10 - anyone who is thinking of joining the military, especially as an officer who thinks he will find company with his bigoted views will probably be in for a rude awakening.
 
Zaphod said:
I'll assume this is directed at me.

The slippery-slope argument is 100% valid. Take a look at some of the comments that were made during the debate over the implementation of the Income Tax, and take a look at how far we've come since then. That (and other examples) cannot be rebuked.
Click to expand...

It was a general statement directed at everyone currently actively responding to this topic's posts. I simply believe the "slippery slope" argument is difficult to find creditability in, since both sides can use it equally. No offense was meant.
 
I can forsee lots of issues with the repeal of DADT. However, I don't think it makes any sense for someone, who as a member of the military and who does their job well, to get thrown out of the military simply because of their sexual attractions.

All in all, who a person is attracted to doesn't affect their ability to do their job. You'll always have those who do their jobs well and those who do not. Sexuality really doesn't have anything to do with it.

I think Pima makes an excellent point. This issue is far larger than the military. It goes to an issue of how our country views homosexual relationships/rights.

As someone living in California (where Prop 8 was passed 52% to 48%), I'd have to say that the people, in general, are not willing to accept gay relationships by giving them the same status as heterosexual relationships. However, I think that, for now, our military can handle not discharging those members that are engaged in homosexual relationships so long as said relationships do not affect their ability to preform.

Will it cause problems as far as rights/benefits go? Yes, it most certainly will. However, I think your gay service members will be content (for the most part) with not having to worry about losing their jobs solely because they are attracted to members of the same sex.


To Zaphod, your arguments against the repeal (like privacy "rights") are, frankly, ridiculous. Intelligence necessitates the realization that gays already serve in the military. Your argument concerning privacy is doubly insulting. It assumes that homosexuals are rabid out of control animals who can't help but stare in the shower, and it assumes that straight military members are unable to be mature and get over the fact that the person who is serving next to them is gay.


Ultimately, whether or not gays should be allowed to serve openly should be up to those who are currently serving in the military. Not people who are no longer in it, not citizens who have nothing to do with it, but with those who are currently in it and risking their lives for our country.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Maximus - I think not. Most assuredly not. I think Hornetguy is right - his generation is actually quite tolerant and accepting, both in and out of the military. For a lot of these kids, being gay is no big deal.
From what I can tell the biggest objection to the repeal of DADT is coming not from those currently serving but those who served a generation or more ago.
Sec Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Petraeus all are in favor of repeal I hardly think they are out of touch with today's military.
General Sheehan made a fool of himself and managed to piss off the Dutch with his crazy testimony. Sheehan was commissioned back in 1962 and retired in 1997 - 13 years ago. A little out of touch, I'd say.
Click to expand...

Just what am I wrong about in that post you replied to JAM??? And to quote you, don't you put words in my mouth this time.
Don't you dare assume you know my position because I disagree with changing a policy that's worked for quite a while, and popular culture thinks it's time for a strike...er I mean change. I'd like to analyze the whole thing out, and not just make a knee jerk reaction because it's the "flavor of the Month" There are hundreds of issues that need to be worked out, and as a few members here have stated, forcing the Military to work out a Liberal social experiment, while fighting a war(s), might not be the best timing. One great suggestion above would be to have Obama grow a set and make Gay Marriage legal. You and I both know he won't dare make that move because, he believes another Fabian Socialist move [like DADT] will be more prudent at this juncture.

I happen to think Hornetguy is correct in most of his position here (as I said it was a health attitude in my post to him) yet, he might want a little more life experience before saying: us "Old" guys are out of touch. You constantly seem to be on a crusade to pigeonhole anyone with the dreaded "Bigot" moniker if they dare disagree with your position. You even pose veiled threats to potential candidates here!

As to Gates, Mullen and Petraius, normally these men would be ripe for your wrath about benefiting from the "Old Boy's Network" and yet here, when I believe they are overcompensating to save their own skin/legacy, you agree with them 100% lol

BTW,Was your father out of touch because he retired 48 years ago?
 
Maximus said:
forcing the Military to work out a Liberal social experiment, while fighting a war(s), might not be the best timing.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of racial desegregation was accomplished during the Korean War, and that seemed to work out okay. And desegregation was frankly a much larger and more complicated "Liberal social experiment."
 
TheKnight said:
To Zaphod, your arguments against the repeal (like privacy "rights") are, frankly, ridiculous. Intelligence necessitates the realization that gays already serve in the military. Your argument concerning privacy is doubly insulting. It assumes that homosexuals are rabid out of control animals who can't help but stare in the shower, and it assumes that straight military members are unable to be mature and get over the fact that the person who is serving next to them is gay.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that homosexuals somehow have more control over what they look at than their straight counterparts? Riiight. Where have I heard that argument before? How can you guarantee that they won't take a glance at the members of their same sex?

If you truly want this organization to be equal- and this goes further than the issue of DADT- then both straight and gay would be allowed to serve openly. All combat positions, excluding Special Operations, would have to be open to both men and women. This also means that men and women would have to be held to the same fitness standards, as well as being eligible for the draft.

Is our military ready for all of those changes to occur in an era of two wars and a recession?

sprog said:
Psychiatry is an ever-evolving branch of medicine. I'll tell you this, most of what is accepted by physicians in this field is observation-based, as the more concrete scientific reasons for many disorders are not readily apparent. Schizophrenia is a disease, because people observed to have it act a certain way that is detrimental to their well-beings (based on societal norms, it is not ok to have delusional behavior). There is no way to perform a blood test to see if someone has it (yet). In the future, it might be possible to use imaging or other more scientific methods than observation and reporting (there are studies showing different levels of dopamine in schizophrenics, for example).

Whatever may happen in the future, the DSM-IV is the current guide as to what constitutes mental illness, and it has been revised as understanding of what constitutes mental disorders moves forward. Societal understanding of behavior plays a big part in this. This is a huge detour from what the thread is about, but since you brought it up, you should know that a fair amount of medicine is art as well as science and thus the scientific method which seeks "proof" is not always a factor. Of all the branches of medicine, psychiatry is the most "artful," and while there is a continual search for empirical evidence, whether or not something is a mental disease is always going to be subject to societal acceptance of behaviors. If you believe RD Laing, it also involves cultural norms as well.

As homosexuality is much more accepted now than decades ago, the behavior is not observed to be "abnormal" and hence has been removed from the DSM-IV as a disorder. The acceptance of the behavior is what has "disproved" it as a disease, although both "proving" or "disproving" it is impossible to do, since it is not based on a specific biological indicator.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly why psychology is a Social Science and not a Natural Science; it can be bended to fit a society/group's agenda. Should we really be basing our policies and laws off of something that is so inexact and is vacillating?

Pima said:
Yes it would be just a federal certificate...guess what? When you enroll your spouse into DEERS and get them a military id, the military does not accept the one from your religious organization. The only way to enroll them is to show that it has been accordance to your STATE. They want a marriage certificate, in this case I am sure they will change the reg to say union certificate.

IMHO you need to understand the separation of CHURCH and STATE.

Now here's my question for you...DADT will be overturned, and probably within the next few yrs...are you so tied towards your religion that you will resign your commission because you are forced to work near them? What will you do when you enter the corporate world where it is out in the open...are you going to tell your employer I won't work with those people?
Click to expand...

Alrighty Pima, I was just making sure that we were on the same page here. Yes, I acknowledge the fact that the government could issue civil union certificates- which would entitle same sex couples to the medical, legal, and retirement benefits/costs of their heterosexual counterparts.

I DO understand the separation- I was just asking if you believed that, in your heart, this would be acceptable before the eyes of God, not before the eyes of a Justice of the Peace. And by God, I mean Himself and not a church...Unfortunately, some churches edit out parts they do not like out of the Bible.

No, I do not plan on resigning my commission. One of my friend's brothers is gay, and he is alright. What I am discussing is the practice itself. I do not like seeing that activity- like I said, it disgusts me. I mean, when/if DADT is repealed, would I like to see a sailor who has just arrived in port after a 6 month tour on an aircraft carrier being greeted by his same sex partner the same way that families greet their husband/father? NO (Even worse, it'd probably enforce some stereotypes about the Navy IMHO :shake:)

I mean like I said before in an earlier post, I do not like smokers smoking around me, but I don't mind the smokers as long as they are not doing the activity around me. A lot of this is the same principle...I'm not going to be asking about your sexual preferences, and you do not need to show me or tell me.


Just_A_Mom said:
Pima - well said.

SamAca10 -
I am just going to throw this out there - Regardless of which profession you choose, chances are you will have a gay co-worker, boss or subordinate at some point in your life. You may or may not know it. Don't join the military because you think this is an organization that is free from gay people.
Most people grow up in a sheltered environment that is not particularly diverse. Not saying this is bad - it's just the way it is. As you move out into the world either as a military officer or in some other profession you will realize that your personal success is somewhat dependent on you being able to get along with all kinds of people whether they be straight, gay, religious, atheist, white or black. If you are unable to do so then you will find your options are limited.
Open your mind, it will set you free.
Click to expand...

Actually, it would be a sad fact if I was joining the military for that reason. I'm joining to SERVE my country, not because I perceive it as free of gay people. And how do you know what environment I've grown up in? You know nothing about my upbringing or what I have seen, so don't assume. Of course, as a professional, I am not going to be espousing my beliefs on controversial topics. However, if it is an issue of integrity, I will...I do have common sense you know. It is different, though, if I am discussing it with somebody when I'm not in the professional mode- like say at home or with friends.

How do you know that my mind isn't open? Assuming that people who have the views that I have is pretty closed-minded in itself, IMHO.
 
JAM- I meant that assuming people who hold my views are closed-minded is closed-minded in itself.
 
I am not a military historian, but correct me if I am wrong, when AA's were integrated they received the exact same benefits as the white member. In other words, they were able to marry and their spouses received medical care, and their pay was the same as thei counterparts.

When women were allowed to enter the SA's they too got the exact same benefits and pay as men.

In the scenario regarding homosexuals, this is not true.

Please look at the bigger picture, and homosexual unions will play a huge part, more than any bigotry regarding the repeal of DADT.

SAM,

Let me tell you at least from the AF POV, socially you will see it alot more than just on the tarmac when the soldier returns. EVERY AF squadron hosts something akin to FIRST FRIDAY, it is where the families are invited to come and they welcome and farewell members. Spouses meet monthly for social support. Although, the club is a dieing breed it is still a place where everyone comes together. Now add on top of that Halloween, Christmas, Easter, 4th July parties. You will be seeing it much more frequently than you think. I would say on avg at least 2x a month outside of work IF YOU CHOOSE TO ATTEND. If you choose not to, you will be harming yourself much more than you realize and really hurting your spouse. Spouses rely on each other when the AD is deployed. They are each others babysitter, bunco pal, and confidant. There are wives who do not engage with others, and I can tell you they are the loneliest wives, and typically the reason the AD member leaves. The military is a family, it is not just 8-4 M-F.
 
Last edited:
SamAca10 said:
I mean, when/if DADT is repealed, would I like to see a sailor who has just arrived in port after a 6 month tour on an aircraft carrier being greeted by his same sex partner the same way that families greet their husband/father? NO
Click to expand...


We should keep DADT so that you don't have to be inconvenienced by seeing a sailor happily reunite with a loved one, in the same way you would be allowed to?
 
PIMA, I'll grant that homosexual union benefits will be a debate. But in the immediate sense, DOMA specifically defines marriage as man/woman for the purpose of all federal laws, rules, regulations, etc. So in the short term, no gay couples would be getting benefits. I'm sure it will become a political issue, but it will probably be folded more into the larger debate about gay marriage. So yes, it will be an issue, but I don't think in the way you seem to think it will be.
 
SteveHolt243 said:
The vast majority of racial desegregation was accomplished during the Korean War, and that seemed to work out okay. And desegregation was frankly a much larger and more complicated "Liberal social experiment."
Click to expand...

Hmm...

Not quite sure that was actually the case. Desegregation was HUGE in the military and the country. It's still an issue because in the past, oh, 30 years (IMO) the "races" have almost re-segregated themselves by choice.

But...as stated by several here...DADT while on the surface EASY to do away with (President writes an executive order and it dies with his signature) the implementation brings all sorts of issues that are NOT easily resolved.

In the 1947-1953 era when the majority of desegregation occurred in the armed forces, marriage was legal for all, familial benefits, insurance, medical, etc., etc., was no issue. It was all about race and skin color.

With DADT, when its removed and homosexuals are allowed to serve openly, then the "THIRD RAIL" will immediately come into play: What to do with the homosexual couple that married in Massachusetts and is now based in South Carolina, or Oklahoma, Texas, or any other state where homosexual marriage is illegal? For that matter, how do you treat them in the military as the military doesn't recognize homosexual marriage as its not recognized by the federal government?

Spousal benefits become the issue then: does the military issue a dependent ID card? Does the spouse have the same rights and privileges as the heterosexual spouse? Insurance, ability to enroll children in DOD schools overseas, etc...etc...

If I understand the law currently, NONE of this would be allowed because the federal government doesn't recognize homosexual marriage. So this will be a HUGE problem!

I think this is a bit more than racial integration was.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
SteveHolt243 said:
The vast majority of racial desegregation was accomplished during the Korean War, and that seemed to work out okay. And desegregation was frankly a much larger and more complicated "Liberal social experiment."
Click to expand...

Desegregation is apples to lawn mowers in this comparison IMHO
 
SteveHolt243 said:
We should keep DADT so that you don't have to be inconvenienced by seeing a sailor happily reunite with a loved one, in the same way you would be allowed to?
Click to expand...

So if they repeal DADT I should be forced to watch/witness homosexual activity? My rights and beliefs should not be respected? After all, I suppose I should be forced to tolerate it because "they can't help it." Is that correct? Typical Liberal position.


SteveHolt243 said:
PIMA, I'll grant that homosexual union benefits will be a debate. But in the immediate sense, DOMA specifically defines marriage as man/woman for the purpose of all federal laws, rules, regulations, etc. So in the short term, no gay couples would be getting benefits. I'm sure it will become a political issue, but it will probably be folded more into the larger debate about gay marriage. So yes, it will be an issue, but I don't think in the way you seem to think it will be.
Click to expand...

Which is why I brought up the civil union terminology. If this really happens, then "civil union" is a much better term because many people would recognize that it isn't a marriage, instead it is two people agreeing to accept the same financial and medical benefits for each other. The word marriage has religious connotations in our society, whether you wish to recognize that or not. As PIMA said earlier, there is a difference between CHURCH and STATE. More people would see the difference with different terminology. According to most of your arguments, homosexual couples just want the benefits that a heterosexual couple wants like medical, correct? Personally, I do not see very many churches recognizes homosexual unions.

flieger83 said:
But...as stated by several here...DADT while on the surface EASY to do away with (President writes an executive order and it dies with his signature) the implementation brings all sorts of issues that are NOT easily resolved.

In the 1947-1953 era when the majority of desegregation occurred in the armed forces, marriage was legal for all, familial benefits, insurance, medical, etc., etc., was no issue. It was all about race and skin color.


I think this is a bit more than racial integration was.
Click to expand...

Good point flieger. The enlisted force in particular will be dealing with many of these issues. Things are not as easy as signing a piece of paper. It takes implementation, which can take many years of work. The health care debate, and whatever happens after Sunday, is a good example of that.
 
SamAca10 said:
So if they repeal DADT I should be forced to watch/witness homosexual activity? My rights and beliefs should not be respected? After all, I suppose I should be forced to tolerate it because "they can't help it." Is that correct? Typical Liberal position.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Are you so uncomfortable with your sexuality that you can't see two men or women embrace each other. No one is making you watch gay porn, were talking about hugging or kissing, you don't even have to sit there and watch them.

Get over it!
 
Kero said:
Are you kidding me? Are you so uncomfortable with your sexuality that you can't see two men or women embrace each other. No one is making you watch gay porn, were talking about hugging or kissing, you don't even have to sit there and watch them.

Get over it!
Click to expand...

Ah yes, another typical argument/accusation: That people who do not like homosexuality are uncomfortable with their own sexuality. FYI, I'm completely comfortable with myself and know what I like and dislike. You are arguing that I should accept homosexual behavior; well, I argue that you should not criticize my ideas/thoughts. It's rather hypocritical. oh, BTW, did I say there was anything wrong with two men or women embracing? How can that be misconstrued as sexual?
 
SamAca10 said:
So are you saying that homosexuals somehow have more control over what they look at than their straight counterparts? Riiight. Where have I heard that argument before? How can you guarantee that they won't take a glance at the members of their same sex?
Click to expand...
I didn't say they have more control. I take a look at myself and assume that a gay guy is the same way. When I see a beautiful woman, I am not an out of control animal. Especially if I have respect for her. Yes, I do think it's nice to notice her beauty, but my respect for her as a person supercedes my sexual feelings. I assume a gay man is the same way.

Besides, there is no guarantee that you won't be glanced at by those of the same or opposite sex in any way. If that's what you're worried about then the issue here is more deeply lodged in your psyche.


Is our military ready for all of those changes to occur in an era of two wars and a recession?
Click to expand...
I don't care about equality. I care about logic. A woman and a man are obviously physically different and in general have differing capabilities. A gay person is not any less able to preform their duty.

I DO understand the separation- I was just asking if you believed that, in your heart, this would be acceptable before the eyes of God, not before the eyes of a Justice of the Peace. And by God, I mean Himself and not a church...Unfortunately, some churches edit out parts they do not like out of the Bible.
Click to expand...
As a committed believer and follower of the Bible, I find it absolutely astounding that you could say the same for yourself and believe as you do on this issue. From a Biblical standpoint, God views homosexual activity as a sin.

That, however, is not at all relevant to the matter of whether or not they should be allowed to serve in the military. If you think that sin means we shouldn't let people fight for our country, then no one should be allowed to fight for our country because everyone sins.

From the Biblical Theist's point of view, God loves all people. He even loves us when we do things that are contrary to what He wants us to. That being said, how can we say to someone that they do not deserve to provide for themselves and their family based on those parts of their behavior that we disagree with?


No, I do not plan on resigning my commission. One of my friend's brothers is gay, and he is alright. What I am discussing is the practice itself. I do not like seeing that activity- like I said, it disgusts me. I mean, when/if DADT is repealed, would I like to see a sailor who has just arrived in port after a 6 month tour on an aircraft carrier being greeted by his same sex partner the same way that families greet their husband/father? NO (Even worse, it'd probably enforce some stereotypes about the Navy IMHO :shake:)

I mean like I said before in an earlier post, I do not like smokers smoking around me, but I don't mind the smokers as long as they are not doing the activity around me. A lot of this is the same principle...I'm not going to be asking about your sexual preferences, and you do not need to show me or tell me.
Click to expand...
So this is a matter of what you do or don't like to see. If that's the case then consider the country you want to fight for. Consider the Constitution that gives people, of various religious beliefs, the right and ability to live together in peace and harmony.

Consider the fact that our Constitution, our wonderful founding document, does not concern itself with sex, gender, race, religious, or orientation, but with the equality of man in terms of value.

From a Constitutional and Biblical standpoint (the two are NOT one in the same), a man is equal in value to another man. One human being is equal in value to the other.

So how can we say, based on our own personal tastes and likes, that a person can't fight and defend a nation who's founding documents state that all men are created equal? How can we, as future leaders, be so controlled and led by our personal opinions that we allow it to taint our view of another human being? Or worse, that we allow it to have us treat human beings as second class citizens?

I understand the religious arguments against homosexual behavior, I understand the disagreement one might have (and I agree with said disagreement). However, as a loyal patriot to this nation, I refuse to let my personal beliefs go against the foundation of our country and the goal of our founding fathers to establish a place of freedom for all its inhabitants.



SamAca10 said:
So if they repeal DADT I should be forced to watch/witness homosexual activity? My rights and beliefs should not be respected? After all, I suppose I should be forced to tolerate it because "they can't help it." Is that correct? Typical Liberal position.
Click to expand...
I want you, as an obviously bright young man, to stop for a moment and consider what you've just written. Read it. Think about it, and read it again.

Do you honestly think it is a violation of your rights to see people doing things you don't agree with? If you do, then you have the wrong perception of our country. You don't have a freedom from anyone's views. You have a freedom to express your own.

To say that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve because you don't want to see them is awfully selfish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top