Philwelch wrote:They may or may not be a big deal. As it stands, we have DADT and the military seems to function quite well.
Yeah I mean both the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are going splendid.
Besides this is a stupid argument for the status quo, would you have banned women from higher education since after all, universities seemed to be functioning "quite well" before they were allowed?
The function of a university is to educate adults and perform research. There's no good argument that allowing women at the time that we did
would have interfered with that goal. Whereas when you consider the attitudes in society at this time, the sensitive nature of sexuality, and the close quarters that military personnel regularly live in, there's good reason to suspect there would be problems integrating open homosexuals into the military.
Philwelch wrote:Considering the millions of human beings throughout the world who rely upon the strength of the US military for their bodily security and basic human rights every day, it's imperative to keep the US military functioning. Show me the evidence that changing the DADT policy will either create a net benefit or at least not get in the way and I will support it.
There are militaries that have open homosexuals, show me that these armies have experienced any serous trouble.
Different cultures and different military needs. Show me the consequences of integration in those militaries and make an argument that our experience would be similar.
fjafjan wrote:Secondly, around the world?
Japan remains disarmed because they have assurances that the US military will defend them. South Korea remains militarily weaker than the North because of similar security guarantees--this has allowed the level of economic development (and thus the standard of living) that South Korea has reached now. Western Europe still has significant US security guarantees. So does Taiwan. If you add up the number of people around the world who rely upon the US military for the protection of their human rights against potential aggression from authoritarian regimes, they probably approach or outnumber the population of the United States itself.
So far we have very good evidence that disallowing openly gay service members allows this military, in this culture, at this time in history, the ability to function well. There is no corresponding evidence about allowing openly gay service members.
So far we have tried A. We know there are some problems with A, but A is not horrible. Therefor we should not try B, which would remove the problems of A, but might cause others.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try B, I'm saying that maintaining the effectiveness of the military is a matter of fundamental security, and that risk mitigation is an extremely
I'm not saying we shouldn't allow openly gay service members. I'm saying we should be very careful about making sure it doesn't effect our military efficacy before we do so.
fjafjan wrote:Look it's like this, Homosexuals have a right not to be discriminated against.
The people of South Korea also have the right not to be murdered and repressed by the North Korean army.
fjafjan wrote:So you make the argument that discriminating homosexuals is necesary to provide (some arbitrary level of) adequate security. You then give no evidence to support this claim but to say that right now there is this level of security. You refuse to look at the data from countries with similar, mind you not identical, but similar cultures that have allowed homosexuals in their armed forces. Armed forces that have worked together with American forces without any known major problems.
You misunderstand. I make the argument that DADT causes an acceptable level of negative consequences, and that changing the policy in any way
should be contingent upon strong evidence that the resulting negative consequences will be similar to the negative consequences we see now.
I'm asking you to actually provide me that evidence. Instead you're misrepresenting my position and calling me a bigot. Which makes it pretty funny—I'm an openly bisexual man who, but for some medical problems, would have happily served in the military, abiding by the DADT policy.
Lucrece wrote:What the current evidence shows is that the military functions as it currently is; i.e. , discharging homosexuals is not so detrimental.
Yup. You articulated it better than I did.
Lucrece wrote:That's not the debate, though. The debate is on the ethics of the policy, and how much of it is actually grounded on effectiveness and not on a desire to politicize the army.
The ethics of the policy are these: the US military needs to be extremely effective or else there is significant risk to the human rights of millions of people around the world who live under the protection of US security guarantees, and whose standard of living depends on the ability of their governments to limit their defense spending due to those guarantees. Requiring tens of thousands of gay service members to remain closeted seems like an acceptable tradeoff, but if you can show me it's unnecessary, I'll support the policy.
Indon wrote:Barring a military wealthy enough to provide individual quarters and other relevant facilities to all its' members even when deployed (to most locations - exceptions can be made when established to be impossible such as with special ops units in field conditions)
I'm all for higher taxes in order to reach the point where we no longer have a significant need for shared facilities, though.
1. The biggest military vessels ever built aren't big enough to house all the crew in individual quarters. Submarines are even more problematic. Nuclear missile silos similarly.
2. Sometimes it's not feasible to only have one man per foxhole.
3. There are very good psychological and sociological reasons why housing troops in a squad bay is better than housing in individual quarters. Like it or not the military is a collectivist culture and shared living arrangements are a big part of enforcing that cohesion.
Somehow it just seems easier to restrict homosexuals (and for that matter, women) to roles where they don't have to live in such close quarters with heterosexual men.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
Perfection is an unattainable goal.