THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I;m pretty much in agreement with mgl, but I don’t think his argument (that bigotry is bigotry) is very effective, because the opposers have a counter. And that is that the magnitude of what the military does, along with the life and death nature, puts it in a different category than things like blacks in baseball, or womens’ right to vote, and that the usual rules cannot be assumed to apply. And they’ll point to other ways in which the usual civilian rules do not apply in the military.

So, the only way to get past that is for them to be completely convinced that gays won;t have a bad effect on morale (or whatever you want to call it). Arguing that “who cares what effect it has, it’s the right thing to do” is not sufficient.

Strangely, I notice as I’m about to post this that the code word is ‘army32’

Can’t gays have a POSITIVE effect on morale?

On top of that, imagine removing all Europeans from the NHL, and you still have 30 teams.  Guess what… you have alot of bad players in the NHL to take their place.

Removing or not allowing well-qualified gays in the military means that you have alot of replacement-level soldiers to take their place.

So:
1. you don’t know the effect of morale, but seeing that all the civilized countries in the world have already implemented gays in the military, well, don’t we have precedence to guide us?  it’s not like the USA is a pioneer… they are a laggard

2. you increase the quality of your soldiers

It’s a stupid silly and ridiculous discussion, much like ERA.

Look at Great Britain: their court has reached a verdict around 2000 that any policy that prohibits gays serving because they are gays is unconstitutional. So, they prepared the troops, opened anonymous phones for those who were concerned or needed expert advice (like “will gays harass me sexually?"), and it worked, gays are openly in, and morale and efficiency haven’t been affected.

As someone who is in the military and also taking a Constitutional & Military Law class I have a few comments to make:

Legally (not morally), the military can curb many of the rights of its members if it wants to, including First Ammendment rights as well as Equal Protection. The court recognizes the expertise of the military in matters related to training and combat, and defers to them if the military can show that striking down a policy would have a negativ effect on either morale, loyalty, discipline, or readiness. Furthermore if the government can otherwise show a ‘compelling government interest’ many rights can be ignored.

That said, I don’t have any problem with gays in the military and I don’t think it will affect morale one way or the other. Honestly the biggest issue I’ve heard from soldiers is how rooms and bathrooms in the barracks would work, and I imagine someone smarter than me can figure that out. I have heard from several company commanders who said they had a few gay soldiers in their unit while deployed, and soldiers knew it and didn’t care, and obviously no one reported it or anything. Furthermore in many other Western militaries (Britain, Israel, etc.) gays have been serving openly with no isssue.

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/study_finds_gays_do_not_undermine_canadian_military_performance

18 April 2000 - SANTA BARBARA, CA. A new 44-page study of gays and lesbians in the Canadian military has found that after Canada’s 1992 decision to allow homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces, military performance did not decline.

The study is the most comprehensive academic study of homosexuality in a foreign military ever compiled and reflects an exhaustive inventory of relevant data and research. Its title is “Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces; Appraising the Evidence”.

The study was written by Aaron Belkin and Jason McNichol. Belkin is Director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara. McNichol is Doctoral Candidate in Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley and Director of ELM Research Associates, a non-partisan research firm in Berkeley.

Key findings are as follows:

* Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.
* Self-identified gay, lesbian, and transsexual members of the Canadian Forces contacted for the study describe good working relationships with peers.
* The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment dropped 46% after the ban was lifted. While there were several reasons why harassment declined, one factor was that after the ban was lifted women were free to report assaults without fear that they would be accused of being a lesbian.
* Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems.
* None of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.

USA is so lucky that they can look to Canada as a testing ground for these kinds of issues.  Want to know about health care?  Well, Canadians felt just like Americans.  Want to know about gays?  Well, Canadians felt just like Americans.  Want to know about the metric system?  Canadians felt just like Americans.  Abortion? Nudity?  Drinking age?  Blacks in sports?

But, to hear it from the US media and US politicians, all these issues are fertile ground, untested in unchartered waters.

The test cases are there.  The USA is alot like the big firms with all the middle management thrown at problems, while other countries are more lean in their social operations.

i think the isreali army is the best test case, since their soldiers actually do lots of fighting.  so much fighting in fact that they arent about to exclude perfectly good soldiers because of their sexual proclivities. 

i have heard arguments that troops in open relationships can hinder combat effectiveness, and makes sense to me, in that if you’re a platoon commander you’d be more likely to give safer jobs to someone youre in a relationship with, but that seems easily remedied by a simple transfer.  i’m sure there are procedures for men and in women in relationships that both serve, just use those. 

the really insane result of banning gays from openly serving is when people are turned away who would serve vital, non combat roles, like translators, that the military desperately needs right now.

ken, we’re trying to apply logic, reason and human value to an argument predicated on ignorance, exclusion and bigotry. 

No one can win.

It’s absolutely forbidden and in fact a criminal offense for a chain of command member to have a relationship with a subordinate in any case so that wouldn’t be an issue.

Incidentally, we have been focused on unit cohesion in combat.  But the vast majority of gay people in the military are women and the vast majority of them serve in non-combat roles.

Lots of our male politicians like to grandstand on this issue because they think that a gay guy would hit on them and they’re grossed out by it.  (Or, like our good friend in California this week and our friend from Idaho a couple of years ago, they’re over-compensating...)

But do we have any idea how women feel about this issue?  They probably don’t care anywhere near as much as bigoted politicians.

And on a related but unrelated note, Eric Massa proved that there’s a lot of creepy stuff that goes on between heterosexual men in the military.  You think it would be awkward serving next to a gay person in the military?  Think about how frigging awkward it would be if your boss Eric Massa came up and started tickling you all the time at work.  Things like *that* threaten unit cohesion.

The irony of all this is that there is so much gay shit that goes on in the military. Ask your sailor friend about what happened to them when they became “Shellbacks”.

Here’s a very tame version on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-crossing_ceremony

God forbid that the guy licking the maraschino cherry out of your belly button is gay. (I’m not making this up!)

This is a pretty obvious issue. I honestly think that everyone in favor of DADT is homophobic. I won’t budge on that, and think that morale excuses are either conscious or subconscious BS reasons for discrimination against gays.

I think the point about having to stock 30 NHL teams even if you delete all the Europeans is dead on.  What the military needs right now is men and women who are competent and willing to serve under very trying conditions of service.  Excluding anyone who meets that qualification right now is contrary to the best interests of the country.  Some of those people are not only gay but openly gay.  Ergo, the best interests of the country are to stop this silly argument right now.

As I suspected, intelligent, sensible, and knowledgeable responses to this issue on a baseball blog!

Why isn’t there such responses from at least a few of the people that we entrust (and elect) to run our country?

I guess most politicians are the Dayton Moores and Brian Sabeans of the political world.  If you are a Billy Bean or Theo Epstein you don’t get or stay elected or you don’t run (because you will be ostracized or run out of office).

I’d love to hear a response from the “other side,” someone who is against gays serving openly.

And I’d like to ask everyone to send a text of this thread to their Senator and Congressman.

Militaries should be worried about winning wars and protecting our country and its interests, not whether or not how politically correct they are.  If DADT is unconstitutional then let the SCOTUS strike it down.  I highly doubt any of us are SMEs on this topic.

I am niether for or against the DADT policy, as I have never served in the military nor lead a platoon into battle.  I defer to the SMEs and the US Constitution.
vr, Xei

I just sent an edited copy of the above discussion to my Senators and Congresswoman.

Some more blatant homophobia in the news:

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/aclu-sues-mississippi-school-canceled-prom-rather-let-lesbian-couple-attend

"And that is that the magnitude of what the military does, along with the life and death nature, puts it in a different category than things like blacks in baseball, or womens’ right to vote, and that the usual rules cannot be assumed to apply.”

Dave, while all of the arguments above about the fact that it is NOT likely that allowing gays to serve openly is going to lower morale and that not allowing them to serve likely decreases the quality of our soldiers, are probably true, my original argument still stands.

All progress is initially met with resistance, especially on the social front.  The only way to confront bigotry, fear, ignorance, and the like, is to confront it head on.

If your argument is valid (that the military is so important that the usual rules don’t apply), then why did we allow blacks and women in the military?  Don’t you think that had tremendous resistance (much more so than the resistance against gays today) back in the day?  Wouldn’t the same argument have applied back then?  Don’t you think that many people thought that blacks in the military would have lowered morale?

What about the police force?  Isn’t that important?  Why should we allow women on the force?  As you know many make police officers do not like women on the force and I am sure that many of them think that morale suffers when women are allowed to serve.  The military is more important than a police force?  Where do we draw the line?

There is always a price to pay for doing something that is right but that is met with resistance.  If we are not willing to pay that price then wrongs will never be righted and progress and justice will never be done.

And if it were true that allowing gays in the military would lower morale, the only way to get rid of that is to confront it, not sweep it under the rug.

As I originally said, there should be NO debate about morale and gays.  It should not matter.

MGL,

I’ve expressed my sentiments on the issue above, but I’d like to offer you a hypothetical. I understand it is nearly impossible, but that’s why it’s a thought experiment:

Let’s say the military was to find out with 100% certainty that allowing gays in the military would lead directly to the deaths of 500 Americans. Would you still do it?

Can’t answer that question.

What if there was 100% certainty that killing the 10 richest people in America would feed 1000 homeless people for life?  Would we do it?

I don’t like the question, because you are creating classes of people.  Once you do that, we are talking about something else.  Each person has human rights as under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.  Society will have to deal with the ramifications of that, whatever the consequences.

---"If your argument is valid (that the military is so important that the usual rules don’t apply),...”

Read my post again. That is not MY argument, it’s what I believe would be the refutation to YOUR argument in that initial post, by the naysayers.

And all of these ‘corrections’ that have been made that you cite, such as blacks in the military and women on the beat, were only actually made when this society was ready enough. When I took the EST training 30 years ago, this condition was called “an idea whose time has come”, a phrase which still makes some sense to me. Part of what causes that readiness is people like you who are willing to be in the forefront and married to principle and push the envelope. But I still think that average people will not be swayed by your argument until they are confident that what seems just in principle, in most situations, applies with no caveats to the military. Some of the info in these posts about how well it has worked in other countries, from Tango et al, is what really needs to be focused on and disseminated, from a practical viewpoint. That is the necessary, and perhaps more effective, accompaniment to your arguments from principle.

My point was simply this: there are times where the government can suppress rights for the benefit of the greater good. However, these have to be extremely overwhelming, devastating in nature and without question certain to happen. This is obviously not the case with regards to DADT.

Pat: Martial Law has been declared in Canada as recently as the 1970s.  If that’s what you mean, as a TEMPORARY measure, then fine.

I spent my six years in the navy on submarines and when I was in, it was pretty sensitive topic.

There were plenty of gays in the service.  With the people I worked with on submarines, it didn’t matter.  If someone found out you were homophobic, it was worse than being gay.  It was much worse than what happened in the above Shellback ceremony (#10).  (I am actually a “Golden Shellback” as I crossed the international dateline and equator at the same time.  I don’t even know what I ate during the process, but I that God they covered it in Tobasco to cover the taste.)

There are issues though and here are some personal ones.  The military’s gay stance normally effected me badly.

I knew one person that did have problems with gays and one night faked a sickness so he would not have to stay alone with the gay person on watch.  I was called in because I was the most sober person they could find (I had only had a six pack) and ended up watching a nuclear reactor that night.  I actually logged that I had a few beers to CMA.

At the time I was in, I think this may have changed some, people could say they were gay, could say they felt others would attack them and were than let out within a month.  This was the easiest and preferred way for people to get out.  Several times before a 6 month cruise we would lose several people to a “case of the gays”.

My opinion the anti-gay problem starts at the top with the old guard.  Everyone below the old guard must do what the old guard says or be sent to the Brig or kicked out.  In fifteen years this will not be an issue, but not much can be done between now and then.  As much as people bitch and moan, these old dogs can’t be taught new tricks.  It will be interesting to see if the first gay male athlete, in their prime, comes out or the military changes their stance.  I actually see sports being more harse on gay athletes than the military on gay soldiers.

I just want to object to this whole division of the military into “combat” and “noncombat” roles, at least in the way it’s being done here.

Yes, such a distinction exists, but it’s a far fuzzier thing in real life than is being depicted here. When I was in the Marine Corps, I had what most people would consider a non-combat billet - I was in public relations. I still got shot at.

Given the current nature of war, especially, any job in the military can entail being shot at as a part of carrying it out. With that in mind, everybody in the military should (and is) expected to be able to conduct combat operations. There is no such thing as a military noncombatant. (Okay, for those pedants - the chaplain doesn’t carry a weapon, but the chaplain’s assistants do.)

re #14:  “Let’s say the military was to find out with 100% certainty that allowing gays in the military would lead directly to the deaths of 500 Americans. Would you still do it?”

Ending slavery and keeping the union intact directly led to the deaths of over 600,000 Americans.  “Would you still do it?” I’m sorry, but it’s a ridiculous question.  We do things that lead to people’s deaths all the time, whether it’s going to war, not fixing bridges or not providing people healthcare.

I don’t think the issue is whether or not having gays in the military will affect morale, that seems a smokescreen.

The issue is that during elections it is much easier to beat your opponent than it is to win yourself.  That is why we see so many attack ads during election time.

No matter how reasonable an argument might be, the other side can point and shout “They are for gays...They are against god....They are against family values” etc etc.  It is much harder to attack from the other side as most people have less emotional connection to the issue.  Most people (my assumption) do not care who serves in the military as long as it is voluntary and they are well trained.  But it is so much easier to bring in these types of smokescreen issues to help differentiate yourself from your opponent and hammer home all that will go wrong if they are allowed to stay in office or win office.

The same thing happens with any reasonable attempts to change drug laws to help drug addicts as oppose to incarcerating them.  “My opponent is soft on crime...”.

I think this is the real issue.  Circulating these types of discussions, facts from other countries, studies, testimonials from people in the armed services will do little until the voting population at large realizes that this should really be a non issue and stop reacting to negative political campaigns.

Not sure that all made sense like it does in my brain.

David, sure, I knew that you were referring to the counter-argument, and I was arguing against that, not you.

So, if most people don’t care who serves as long as they are well-trained and suitable, and most people agree that military morale won’t crumble to the ground, why is it necessary to have hearings and debates and why are politicians and military leaders dragging their feet?  That is mostly a rhetorical question, but I think it is sad.

I agree that from a practical standpoint, you cannot change some things before people are ready, but that does NOT mean that you can’t speak up for it loudly and clearly at any time and with sincerity and conviction.  Civil rights activists didn’t wait for people to be ready before they spoke out about injustices towards minorities.  This is exactly the same issue.  Exactly.  Some people make it out to be different, but it is not.  Some day our children will be surprised and disgusted the way gays have been treated by our government and by some people, just as the current generation is often shocked and outraged the way that ethnic and religious minorities (and women) were treated in the past, both by our government (Dred Scott, Korematsu - I originally typed Wakamatsu, etc.) and by people in general.

so, just to play devil’s advocate, below is a link to a a counter argument for gays in the military i remember reading in the WSJ a while back. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033601528093416.html

Owens, the author, basically says gays in the military would lessen combat effectiveness because of potential romantic love, rather than acceptable philia. 

personally i dont see how this can be a big problem when you already have women serving in the military.  and though i could see physical attraction causing jealousy and all sorts of emotional problems that would mess up military effectiveness, 1) even with gays officially banned from serving i doubt you could ever eliminate this problem 2) i’m incredibly skeptical that the actual threat this poses (ie, how many times a unit would be sabotaged by gay relationships that wouldnt have been identified and handled prior it becoming a problem) out weighs the benefits of having a larger and inherently more skilled talent pool of potential soldiers.

but i’ll couch my opinions with the caveat that i have zero experience in the military and virtually zero with people who have served (recently anyway), as evidenced by my clumsy reference to non-combat military occupations.

It’s amazing how some politicians would jeopardize America’s safety to appease homophobes. How many Arab linguists have been fired since the beginning of the Afghanistan war?

I have to say, though, that hearing Mike Mullen argue in favor of repealing DADT was one of the greatest political moments of my lifetime.

#29. In effect that is my viewpoint too.  I am not s subject matter expert, and my guess is that most of the people yelling the loudest here aren’t ones either.

#30. I don’t know, how many?

vr, Xei

I also tend to defer to the subject matter experts here.  I am not very interested in what “most people” or an academic activist writing about the Canadian military think about morale.  I am pretty interested in what people in the military think.

That said, I don’t really know what the majority of people in the military think, and I am also pretty interested in what the Israeli military thinks (ken/6).

And just to clarify, the argument isn’t just about morale, it’s about military effectiveness.  We are not balancing doing the right thing or the rights of gays versus certain persons’ personal happiness or comfort.  We are balancing them against the ability of the military to protect all our rights.

It may turn out that this ability would not be affected--or would in fact be improved--if DADT were reversed, in which case I’d be in favor of changing the policy.  But I don’t think a time of war is the time to make a change to army culture if most of the people in that culture think that the change would be harmful.

But I don’t think a time of war is the time to make a change to army culture if most of the people in that culture think that the change would be harmful.

Unless of course conscripting black people to be placed in the front of the line is going to help the existing white soldiers.

Or keeping qualified black people away from important jobs so that less-qualified white people can carry them out.

When it’s time of war, that’s when you DO want to do this stuff.  Being a bigot makes way for survival. 

Beggars can’t be choosers.

US General: “Ah-hahaha… we just won this war.  Did you see what the enemy did?”

Subordinate: “No, what did they do?”

US General: “They conscripted gay people!  That’s great, this is going to kill their morale, and we’ll win this war.”

Subordinate: “I heard those gay guys they got were their best soldiers, better than our special ops guys.”

US General: “Maybe, but don’t you understand… morale… MORALE… that’s what wins this war.”

Subordinate: “But, won’t having the best soldiers in their world IMPROVE morale for the enemy?”

US General: “Of course not, because the non-gay guys will lose complete concentration as a gay guy looks at him.”

Subordinate: “Yes, that makes perfect sense.  You know, if that’s the case, why don’t we send them all our gay guys.  The more gay guys they have, the fewer we have.  It destroys their morale, and improves ours.  Am I following your logic?”

US General: “Genius!”

***

Later…

US General: “I guess I was wrong.”

***

When did US Generals become an expert in human pyschology?  And when was it better for them to base their decision on their experience and ignorance when ACTUAL experience is out there to be analyzed by other countries?

Colin @ 25: “non-combat” isn’t meant to imply that these soldiers can’t come under fire or get killed.  But the argument you so often hear is that when you’re fighting next to someone in a foxhole, you want to know that they’re not gay.  Why that would be, I don’t know, but that’s the argument.

My point was that we’re actually talking about people working regular (albeit dangerous) jobs and we’ve already established in the civilian world that sexual orientation is of no consequence, usually only strength, conditioning and intelligence. 

But the demagogues on this issue want to ‘ick’ people out by implying that when there’s physical closeness, you’d have to be worried about your fellow soldier grabbing your package.  Ironically, there’s a lot of package-grabbing in the military already, but nobody ever says it’s a threat to morale.

@30/31,

Well, this article from a couple years back says 58: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html

It’s an editorial in the same paper that employed Jayson Blair, so take it for what it’s worth. But clearly, since the author himself is one of the 58, the number is >0.

while i personally think support for DADT comes from some combination of discrimination/homophobia/stereotyping, i don’t think a comparison to racial segregation is particularly helpful to the discussion.  the difference between a black and white person is a purely artificial difference.  its a phenotype that has nothing to do with how well someone can be a soldier and the decision to exclude one group of people over another based on skin color has to be based on either ignorance, bigotry or both.  someone’s sexual orientation can (as in possibly, whether or not it actually does or to what degree it does if thats the case is completely unknown to me, though i have some opinions) have an affect on the relationships between how groups of men interact, which is why i think DADT is still around and was not chucked away when most institutions in america were desegregating. 

now, again, i dont think it should be an issue and it i would need to see some evidence to the contrary that the benefits from scrapping DADT wouldnt out weigh the perceived negatives, i dont see it following that segregation was wrong, therefore DADT must also be wrong.

@35 hawerchuk: are people actually making that argument? i can imagine hearing people say something like in random conversation but does anyone supporting DADT actually think the reason gays should not be in the military is because they wouldn’t be able to control themselves from groping other soldiers?  thats a pretty ridiculous stance to be discussed seriously.  by the same logic youd have to have all professions be segregated by gender.  the article i linked to in the WSJ certainly doesnt go there.

@38 kendynamo I don’t see how it’s a big difference from the nebulous ‘affects morale’ argument. I’d love to see someone break that down. Arguments that there should be different facilities/housing for gay and straight soliders (as there are for male and female) seem quite ridiculous to me and stem from the same problem. If not gay panic, then what is it?

Back when blacks were integrated with whites, white people were actually murdering black people.

Today, straight people are not so contemptuous of gays today that they would think of killing them.

***

It’s a blight on any human being that would support DADT.  This is not my opinion, but rather codified in the charter of rights and freedoms of human beings in many countries.  It’s a basic human right.

You know you are in the wrong when you see eye-to-eye on this issue more with the Iranian government than with the Canadian one.

For what it’s worth, I’m all for total equality in the military in general. It seems ridiculous to me that women cannot get official combat certification. There was a great article in the NYT the other day from a female soldier about her experiences in the military. comparing it to the fully gender-integrated Israeli army.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/womens-work/

#33/#34, I thought we were trying to have a serious discussion.
vr, Xei

Xei: I am being serious.

#37, I think the comparison to racial segregation is perfectly apt.  Or any discrimination based on the argument that discrimination is necessary to retain morale or effectiveness in the military and in other important contexts (as in I contend that police are equally important).

Again, my argument is that if you accept or agree with the contention that it is OK to ban gays from the military if it can be “proven” (whether it actually can or cannot is another story) that they will negatively affect morale or readiness, then you have to also agree that if blacks or Jews (or any other group) do the same (for whatever reasons), then they should be banned as well.

You (Kendy) are arguing that you think gays might but that blacks won’t, because the color of one’s skin SHOULD not have anything to do with military morale or combat readiness.  How do you know that?  What if some of the people in the military (white southerners, for example) simply don’t like serving with blacks for whatever reasons and overall morale would suffer?  Again, given the same argument, blacks would have to be banned!  That is the point of comparing the two groups!  Not that they should or should not engender an effect on morale, which is your argument, but that they certainly COULD, and if they do, then they should all be banned.

i dont think gays would have an affect on combat readiness.  i never came close to saying that.  i just linked to a opinion piece by a veteran who thinks DADT is important because he believes relationships between gay men have a detrimental affect on the combat effectiveness of military units.  i dont think its a stretch to imagine why romantic relations between members for the same combat squad are a bad idea. where the author gets it wrong is his contention that DADT is the best solution to this problem, when examples in the police or the isreali army can plainly show that gays can openly serve in the army with out this being a problem.

i also think it would help if people read that article and realize the author is not arguing that its just a morale problem, or that gays should be banned because lots of straight homophobic soldiers don’t like gay people. 

and i dont think it’s really that similar to blacks or any other group should be banned because they are inherently inferior.  whether the racist white southerner (also a stereotype by the way) is bothered by serving with a black person is not analogous to whats going on.  and thats not what this particular DADT supporter is saying (that gays should be banned because they make inferior soldiers).  he’s just prescribing a poorly thought out remedy (in my opinion) to a legitimate concern.

it’s more like saying being physically fit is important to being a police officer is important to being a police officer, therefore all women are banned from being cops. this is overly broad when a specific, measurable, objective and applicable fitness test can be administered to candidates of either gender. likewise, if romantic relations between soldiers, rather than philia, is a concern, make rules and regulations to stop that, don’t use a blanket ban on gays openly serving.

anyway, i just brought up that article to illustrate an point of view that supports DADT that is different in several key ways then what a lot of people seem to be assuming what what most DADT supporters are saying.  HOWEVER, i still think the reasoning of the author is obviously flawed and that DADT is a stupid, ineffective and divisive policy.

Just to clarify a point, blacks have always served in the military.  It’s just that until Truman’s order to integrate, they were in segregated units. 

I’ve never understood the idea that DADT somehow derives from an allegedly straight guy’s fear that gay people will grope or otherwise molest him.  Doing that, in or out of the military, in a nonconsensual way, is illegal.  DADT doesn’t stop it from happening any more than the regular laws against assault and the regular rules against military personnel of certain degrees and ranks having sexual relationships with one another. 

To me, getting rid of DADT makes the military more representative of the population, more honest in the way people can deal with one another, and stops the ability of some to blackmail people by threatening to out them (it’s my understanding that the “DA” part of DADT is enforced only by lip service).  Combat effectiveness is better served by people being in a position to be honest with one another than creating a mandatory area where people cannot question one another.

>> t’s a blight on any human being that would support DADT.  This is not my opinion, but rather codified in the charter of rights and freedoms of human beings in many countries.  It’s a basic human right.

You know you are in the wrong when you see eye-to-eye on this issue more with the Iranian government than with the Canadian one.
<<

I am going to (respectfully) call B.S. on this one.  Are the non-sports posts held to lower standards than the sports ones as far as critical thinking goes?  Seems like it to me.  Emotion and hyperbole vs scientifical proof.
vr, Xei

Xei: what you are talking about?

This is how Canada interprets the rights of gays based on their Charter of Human Rights:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0413-e.htm

It’s a b.s. position to support DADT.  It’s the oppressor setting the rules on the oppressed, and they get their way because they are in the majority and they are ignorant.

Suppose that there’s no war, and so DADT is repealed.  And most of the country was still against repealing.  Then a war starts and you have a new government.  And the first thing this new homophobic government wants to do is to bring back DADT.

Would the argument “we’re in a war… don’t change the rules” apply?  No, of course not.  A homophobic government will enact DADT regardless of the crisis at hand.

The discussion point is not that there is a justification for DADT.  The discussion point is how ridiculous DADT is as a matter of law.

This is a beautiful thing isn’t it:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/10/22/11493446-cp.html

...has not made a ripple in Canada since Oct. 27, 1992.

On that day Canada’s Federal Court ruled that barring homosexuals from military service violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a landmark verdict that prompted more openly gay men and women to join the ranks of the Army, Air Force and Navy.
...Canadian Forces chaplains have been blessing same-sex weddings on military bases since 2005 and, over the last four years, military recruiters have participated in gay-pride festivals in Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal and Vancouver.

[Navy Commander and gay man] Cassivi spent 15 years in tight quarters as a submariner. He said he’s experienced his share of awkward moments and uncomfortable jokes. There were even times he considered leaving the military.

But once the rules changed, he says, so did the culture. Opportunities began to surface. These days, Cassivi says, success is dictated by performance.

Again, it’s pure ignorance that says that if people can come out, it will make things MORE uncomfortable.  Exactly what is the difference between Toronto and Chicago?

When old white ignorant men stop making the rules that everyone else has to live by, it will be a great day.