National Guard: Gay Iraq veteran must leave service

[Free Outer Eugenia]

Having a sizable portion of the troops living in constant fear because a fundamental part of their lives, if exposed, could end their careers has terrible impact of unit cohesion. And when such arbitrary rules lead to the loss of vitally needed specialists, the mission of the organization becomes threatened. And yet the policy basically states that tiptoeing around the military establishment's petty bigotries is more important to unit cohesion and the performance of the organization's missions than any of this. Bizarre.

[The Cat-Tribe]

...the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

And simply being homosexual is a 'personal behaviour' that is legitimately restricted by the military?

These restrictions are for, one presumes, combat efficiency. One wonders then what about being homosexual affects efficiency?

Homosexuals interfere with unit cohesion.
That is at least what the official story is.

Just like the darkies used to do.

[Parthenon]

So, in your opinion, Heterosexual families and relationships should not have any benefits and should not be recognized at all by members of the Military, correct?

Relationships, regardless of the sex of the partner, are of no relevance to the job description and should not be recognized at all.

Interesting. So you feel the spouses and children of military members shouldn't be able to receive health insurance through the military, I take it? They shouldn't be notified if anything happens to their spouse/parent? They shouldn't have access to military housing? They shouldn't be entitled to request a military funeral if their spouse/parent is killed in the line of duty?

A majority of those points are irrelevant as they have no bearing on person actually performing the job. The only one of those listed that is a problem with the given rationale is on base housing. This point however is quickly countered by the fact that how a soldier uses his salary is of no consequence to the military and can be used to fund off-base housing for their family.

[The South Islands]

If the "workplace policy" of the U.S. military, was that one is not allowed to engage in religious acts, declare one's religion, or get married in a religious ceremony, would you support it or might it be counter to the Constitution and/or American values?

Soldiers are restricted from certain religious activities.

Not responsive to what I said.

Soldiers are restricted from certain religious activities that would not be allowed in any other workplace. Many regulations (thinking specifically of Article 134) are counter to American values/the Constitution.

[Dyakovo]

And simply being homosexual is a 'personal behaviour' that is legitimately restricted by the military?

These restrictions are for, one presumes, combat efficiency. One wonders then what about being homosexual affects efficiency?

Homosexuals interfere with unit cohesion.
That is at least what the official story is.

Just like the darkies used to do.

Yup

[Maurepas]

Interesting. So you feel the spouses and children of military members shouldn't be able to receive health insurance through the military, I take it? They shouldn't be notified if anything happens to their spouse/parent? They shouldn't have access to military housing? They shouldn't be entitled to request a military funeral if their spouse/parent is killed in the line of duty?

A majority of those points are irrelevant as they have no bearing on person actually performing the job. The only one of those listed that is a problem with the given rationale is on base housing. This point however is quickly countered by the fact that how a soldier uses his salary is of no consequence to the military and can be used to fund off-base housing for their family.

So would you agree that this can be equally applied to Homosexuals as well? And that Heterosexual Members already living on base should have to find their own off-base housing?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Relationships, regardless of the sex of the partner, are of no relevance to the job description and should not be recognized at all.

Interesting. So you feel the spouses and children of military members shouldn't be able to receive health insurance through the military, I take it? They shouldn't be notified if anything happens to their spouse/parent? They shouldn't have access to military housing? They shouldn't be entitled to request a military funeral if their spouse/parent is killed in the line of duty?

A majority of those points are irrelevant as they have no bearing on person actually performing the job. The only one of those listed that is a problem with the given rationale is on base housing. This point however is quickly countered by the fact that how a soldier uses his salary is of no consequence to the military and can be used to fund off-base housing for their family.

Setting aside your false assumption that merely being homosexual or stating that one is a homosexual has a "bearing on [a] person actually performing the job," you don't seem to realize the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance inherent in your answers.

[Parthenon]

Interesting. So you feel the spouses and children of military members shouldn't be able to receive health insurance through the military, I take it? They shouldn't be notified if anything happens to their spouse/parent? They shouldn't have access to military housing? They shouldn't be entitled to request a military funeral if their spouse/parent is killed in the line of duty?

A majority of those points are irrelevant as they have no bearing on person actually performing the job. The only one of those listed that is a problem with the given rationale is on base housing. This point however is quickly countered by the fact that how a soldier uses his salary is of no consequence to the military and can be used to fund off-base housing for their family.

So would you agree that this can be equally applied to Homosexuals as well?

If they can somehow find a means of keeping their sexuality hidden while funding off base housing for their spouse I see no problem. Insurance benefits are already unable to be extended to homosexual partners in most states so the other points are pretty much nonissues.

[The Cat-Tribe]

If the "workplace policy" of the U.S. military, was that one is not allowed to engage in religious acts, declare one's religion, or get married in a religious ceremony, would you support it or might it be counter to the Constitution and/or American values?

Soldiers are restricted from certain religious activities that would not be allowed in any other workplace. Many regulations (thinking specifically of Article 134) are counter to American values/the Constitution.

Think before you type. If the military had the equivalent of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning any and/or all religion, would that be acceptable, Constitutional, and/or moral?

[Poliwanacraca]

Relationships, regardless of the sex of the partner, are of no relevance to the job description and should not be recognized at all.

Interesting. So you feel the spouses and children of military members shouldn't be able to receive health insurance through the military, I take it? They shouldn't be notified if anything happens to their spouse/parent? They shouldn't have access to military housing? They shouldn't be entitled to request a military funeral if their spouse/parent is killed in the line of duty?

A majority of those points are irrelevant as they have no bearing on person actually performing the job. The only one of those listed that is a problem with the given rationale is on base housing. This point however is quickly countered by the fact that how a soldier uses his salary is of no consequence to the military and can be used to fund off-base housing for their family.

Irrelevant how? If you are demanding that relationships not be recognized by the military, you are thereby demanding that one not be able to get health insurance for one's spouse, or have one's spouse contacted if you are injured or killed. I am questioning why you feel this is appropriate.

[Enadail]

If they can somehow find a means of keeping their sexuality hidden while funding off base housing for their spouse I see no problem. Insurance benefits are already unable to be extended to homosexual partners in most states so the other points are pretty much nonissues.

Ah, so basically... you don't actually want equal rights (no one should admit their sexuality).

[The South Islands]

Soldiers are restricted from certain religious activities that would not be allowed in any other workplace. Many regulations (thinking specifically of Article 134) are counter to American values/the Constitution.

Think before you type. If the military had the equivalent of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning any and/or all religion, would that be acceptable, Constitutional, and/or moral?

No, but the idea that people in the military have any sort of civil rights that civilians enjoy is patently false.

And yes, I am thinking before I type. It's hard not to.

[Enadail]

Soldiers are restricted from certain religious activities that would not be allowed in any other workplace. Many regulations (thinking specifically of Article 134) are counter to American values/the Constitution.

Think before you type. If the military had the equivalent of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning any and/or all religion, would that be acceptable, Constitutional, and/or moral?

No, but the idea that people in the military have any sort of civil rights that civilians enjoy is patently false.

And yes, I am thinking before I type. It's hard not to.

That's true, but their right to not be discriminated against is not one of the rights revoked.

[Parthenon]

Interesting. So you feel the spouses and children of military members shouldn't be able to receive health insurance through the military, I take it? They shouldn't be notified if anything happens to their spouse/parent? They shouldn't have access to military housing? They shouldn't be entitled to request a military funeral if their spouse/parent is killed in the line of duty?

A majority of those points are irrelevant as they have no bearing on person actually performing the job. The only one of those listed that is a problem with the given rationale is on base housing. This point however is quickly countered by the fact that how a soldier uses his salary is of no consequence to the military and can be used to fund off-base housing for their family.

Irrelevant how? If you are demanding that relationships not be recognized by the military, you are thereby demanding that one not be able to get health insurance for one's spouse, or have one's spouse contacted if you are injured or killed. I am questioning why you feel this is appropriate.

Who to notify in the event of injury or death can be mitigated by simple paperwork listing the appropriate party, male or female. For the issue of insurance benefits, this can also be mitigated by establishing a set number of policies each service member can opt into and adjust the member's salary accordingly.

That being said, I need to head to East Village, one of my brothers from undergrad is moving to Boston for his new job this weekend so we are throwing down tonight. So long everyone!

[Kryozerkia]

What are you stupid? Do I have to explain?

Aids= STD's = Sexually transmitted diseases? You people think gays spread it right? Good, I hope I don't have to break it down for you anymore. You are pretty slow are you? Sorry if I am being harsh, but I have never debated with someone as stupid as you.

Cut it out with the personal attacks. WARNED FOR FLAMING.

[Trippoli]

Well, that sucks.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Soldiers are restricted from certain religious activities that would not be allowed in any other workplace. Many regulations (thinking specifically of Article 134) are counter to American values/the Constitution.

Think before you type. If the military had the equivalent of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning any and/or all religion, would that be acceptable, Constitutional, and/or moral?

No, but the idea that people in the military have any sort of civil rights that civilians enjoy is patently false.

And yes, I am thinking before I type. It's hard not to.

Um. Soldiers do have civil rights. The Constitution still applies -- albeit not always in the same way. In fact, military rules provide greater protections to soldiers in some areas of civil rights -- like Miranda warnings and right to counsel -- than those afforded civilians.

[The South Islands]

Think before you type. If the military had the equivalent of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning any and/or all religion, would that be acceptable, Constitutional, and/or moral?

No, but the idea that people in the military have any sort of civil rights that civilians enjoy is patently false.

And yes, I am thinking before I type. It's hard not to.

Um. Soldiers do have civil rights. The Constitution still applies -- albeit not always in the same way. In fact, military rules provide greater protections to soldiers in some areas of civil rights -- like Miranda warnings and right to counsel -- than those afforded civilians.

You refer to Article 31, which was around even before Miranda, as you probably know.

But the Bill of Rights do give the same protections to military personnel that they do for civilians. For example, people in the military have been prosecuted for publicly disparaging officers under Article 134. And, of course, there is Goldman v. Weinberger.

See, some people here say that these gay soldiers have a right under the constitution to be gay and not be dismissed from the US military. The fact is, they don't. There is certainly a powerful moral argument, but it seems to me that any legal argument made against the DADT policy is DOA.

[The Cat-Tribe]

No, but the idea that people in the military have any sort of civil rights that civilians enjoy is patently false.

And yes, I am thinking before I type. It's hard not to.

Um. Soldiers do have civil rights. The Constitution still applies -- albeit not always in the same way. In fact, military rules provide greater protections to soldiers in some areas of civil rights -- like Miranda warnings and right to counsel -- than those afforded civilians.

You refer to Article 31, which was around even before Miranda, as you probably know.

But the Bill of Rights do give the same protections to military personnel that they do for civilians. For example, people in the military have been prosecuted for publicly disparaging officers under Article 134. And, of course, there is Goldman v. Weinberger.

See, some people here say that these gay soldiers have a right under the constitution to be gay and not be dismissed from the US military. The fact is, they don't. There is certainly a powerful moral argument, but it seems to me that any legal argument made against the DADT policy is DOA.

Fine. You seem to wish to argue irrelevant points that are factually incorrect. I'm not playing anymore.

Regardless, where does this "fact" come from? What makes it a "fact" and not just your opinion?

[The South Islands]

Um. Soldiers do have civil rights. The Constitution still applies -- albeit not always in the same way. In fact, military rules provide greater protections to soldiers in some areas of civil rights -- like Miranda warnings and right to counsel -- than those afforded civilians.

You refer to Article 31, which was around even before Miranda, as you probably know.

But the Bill of Rights do give the same protections to military personnel that they do for civilians. For example, people in the military have been prosecuted for publicly disparaging officers under Article 134. And, of course, there is Goldman v. Weinberger.

See, some people here say that these gay soldiers have a right under the constitution to be gay and not be dismissed from the US military. The fact is, they don't. There is certainly a powerful moral argument, but it seems to me that any legal argument made against the DADT policy is DOA.

Fine. You seem to wish to argue irrelevant points that are factually incorrect. I'm not playing anymore.

Regardless, where does this "fact" come from? What makes it a "fact" and not just your opinion?

It's factually incorrect that the military can restrict constitutional rights on the basis of cohesiveness?

[The Cat-Tribe]

You refer to Article 31, which was around even before Miranda, as you probably know.

But the Bill of Rights do give the same protections to military personnel that they do for civilians. For example, people in the military have been prosecuted for publicly disparaging officers under Article 134. And, of course, there is Goldman v. Weinberger.

See, some people here say that these gay soldiers have a right under the constitution to be gay and not be dismissed from the US military. The fact is, they don't. There is certainly a powerful moral argument, but it seems to me that any legal argument made against the DADT policy is DOA.

Fine. You seem to wish to argue irrelevant points that are factually incorrect. I'm not playing anymore.

Regardless, where does this "fact" come from? What makes it a "fact" and not just your opinion?

It's factually incorrect that the military can restrict constitutional rights on the basis of cohesiveness?

False dichotomy. It isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.

[Enadail]

It's factually incorrect that the military can restrict constitutional rights on the basis of cohesiveness?

Where is the evidence that it disrupts cohesiveness?

And holy crap, can't believe I'm gonna suggest this... but what stops them from creating a squad/company of gay soldiers, like happened for blacks early on and Japanese Americans in WW2?

[The South Islands]

It's factually incorrect that the military can restrict constitutional rights on the basis of cohesiveness?

False dichotomy. It isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.

But the military can restrict constitutional rights on the basis of cohesiveness. Which is exactly the point. The military has the right to do this.

It's factually incorrect that the military can restrict constitutional rights on the basis of cohesiveness?

Where is the evidence that it disrupts cohesiveness?

And holy crap, can't believe I'm gonna suggest this... but what stops them from creating a squad/company of gay soldiers, like happened for blacks early on and Japanese Americans in WW2?

The decision doesn't impose a test on the military. It leaves the military to determine what disrupts cohesiveness.

[Maurepas]

Japanese Americans in WW2?

The Japanese were in separate Units in WWII?

[Phenia]

I can't believe people are still using the "it ruins morale" or "its bad for unit cohesion" arguments. Those same bullshit excuses were pulled out to ban women, to ban blacks, to ban pretty much any despised minority from serving in the military.

Even if it was true, I would say to those whose "morale" would be hurt if they knew a soldier was gay - suck it up, tough guy. If you're supposed to be defending the country, but are emotionally traumatized at the mere thought of homosexuality, you don't deserve to serve. It's that simple.

And the claim that it "disrupts cohesion" is just made-up crap anyway. The argument is not valid. It won't ever become valid through repetition. Just a FYI, South Islands.