"Morale" and "unit cohesion" are real questions

Blasmaic-

"It is illegal to force a person to be naked in front of anyone who could become sexually or romantically attracted to him or her."

You keep saying this on multiple posts, yet you have never posted proof this "law" exists.

Living and working are too totally different things. No one is being forced to do anything. Don't want anyone to see your junk? You figure a way around that. So having someone who 'might" find someone sexually appealing (yet keeps it to themselves and never does anything about it) is wrong but its ok if they are only looking at your bits to make fun of you? Men and women (some of whom are statisticlly going tom be attracted to each other) work together all the time. Is it ok for a guy to reach out and molest a woman in any way? Nope, its called rules. Same thing applies in all other aspects of a soldiers life. Someone touches you in a way you do not like, or make you feel uncomfortable, turn them in and they will be dealt with according to the rules, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The GLBT soldiers all know this and, as professionals, will follow the rules, as they do now. If they would have an attraction to someone, how does pretending they have a wife at home when the guys talk about their families make any difference? DADT does "make them straight" or change their thought. It just makes people like you feel better (for some bizarre reason).

Most militaries around the world are completely ineffective. Using their policies as a template would not suffice. Whether open service by homosexuals would degrade military effectiveness is unknown and could be easily discerned by integrating them into some units and evaluating the effect. Alas, the entire issue has become so political that I doubt objective evaluation is possible now.

A previous poster mentioned "justice in the military."

Well, when I was in US Army Basic Infantry Training at Ft. Polk, LA in August 1966, we were shown a film which opened with a young recruit angrily yelling "There ain't no justice!"

An officer walks up to where he is sitting on the group and he tries to tell the guy about what's in the Military's Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the officer is a lawyer and a member of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps.

Well, I didn't know that after I got to to S. Vietnam, I would be asked if I wanted to work as a Clerk-Typist in the 196th Light Infantry Brigade's Staff Judge Advocate Section by a real JAG officer.

Well, in my years experience of working for JAG and knowing that in legal matters not all similar cases were treated the same, I can say like the recruit in the training film, "THERE AIN'T NO JUSTICE!"

«Moving forward on this issue will require that both sides take the questions raised more seriously. Not to mention that they are legitimate questions.»
«Posted by Brad Hirschfield | November 16, 2010; 12:59 PM ET»

O Rabbi, both sides, ¿why should they «take the questions raised more seriously» when the answer to the questions, the answer is a foregone conclusion, the answer must be an answer that does not offend the god of the West? Who is this «god of the West»», anyway? Hint: she is not the god of the Protestants, nor of the Catholics, nor of the Zionist Jews. No, the «god of the West» is Invidia, the old Roman goddess of equality and envy, the Greeks knew her as Nemesis. O Rabbi, Invidia/Nemesis is the goddess who persuaded the Scoliodox Jews to abolish the sexist, based-on-birth privilege of the Jewish «Priests» where they used to bless the congregations, first the Scoliodox Jews abolished the sexism by letting Priests' daughters do the blessing, then they threw the whole rite into the wastebasket because it was based on birth and offended the Goddess of Equality. Chaplains, the worship of Invidia, the cult of Invidia, she does not need chaplains, the brass, the chain of command, they are her chaplains, coercion, they have the power of coercion, soldiers, sailors, «airpersons», Marines, you must either worship Equality or get out of the Service, she is not to be trifled with, she is not to be contradicted, her word, it is Law.

USA Constitution, many articles, many sections, many clauses, maybe it gives Congress authority to make laws regulating Army and Naval forces, but all these articles, sections, clauses, they are all subordinate to the One Master (er, Mistress?) Clause that supersedes, overrides, everything else, that is the clause that says that Congress shall make no law that deprives any persons subject to its jurisdiction of the «Equal Protection of the Laws». Just look it up, it is right here in Article . . . wait a minute, the Article, I cannot find it, maybe it is in Amendment Number . . . wait a minute, I cannot find the Clause applying to the USA Federal Government in any Amendment, either, only a clause applying to the states . . . Oh well, if the Clause is not there literally, it must be there in Spirit, the Spirit, it is the Spirit that counts, right, O Rabbi? The spirit of Bolling, of Sharpe, of Invidia the Roman goddess of Equality, that is what counts!

This is the clause that propitiates Invidia, the «god of the West». Once Equality is brought as an argument, the case is over, the case is closed, nothing is more important than Equality, not morale, not effectiveness, not terrain, not troops, not homophobia, not disgust, not the Marine Commandant's military judgment, nothing is more important than Equality! Even to argue against Equality, this is blasphemy against the Goddess, this will bring down her wrath and the wrath of her acolytes, just look at the postings on this Washington Post board today.

The rabbi is correct that these are real questions. Fortunately, there are readily available empirical answers for them. Learning from the actual experiences of others is much more productive than fretting about the future.

My own country, fully integrated gay servicemembers in 2000. Despite our military culture being every bit as conservative as the US's, there has been essentially no impact (except the retention of 60 skilled personnel per year who would otherwise have been discharged).

In Britain's case, the ending of our ban was imposed by the European Court of Human Rights, so it wasn't even a decision taken by our government. Our soldiers are professionals - I am confident that yours will be too.

'Unit cohesion.' Bah. It's nonsense on the face of it. You don't create 'cohesion' by creating a second-class 'out group.'

'Too fast' for you, you say, Rabbi?

It's going on twenty years since DADT was put up as a *half-measure* in resisting open service for gay servicemembers. During which time it's been proven worldwide that all the reasons that were claimed to cause a need for DADT instead of equality, *especially* the 'morale and unit cohesion' nonsense have been long since proven to be total bunkum by militaries all over the world.

(As if dividing the troops about who is secretly gay and enabling some to blackmail others over it while making all these defamatory statements that gays are both weak and will rape helpless soldiers in showers) is somehow helping 'cohesion' to begin with.)

This *has* been slow, Rabbi. Clergy and recalcitrant homophobes in the Pentagon and GOP trying to stir more homophobia when their own delaying study showed there isn't so much of it after all... Are only delaying and denying justice.

If they've painted themselves in a corner by standing for that injustice and hate, well, boo hoo.

It's not just time, it's long since *past* time. If someone still has a problem, then they can work it out on their *own* time. Why should people who have done them no harm have to 'wait' for their birthrights as American citizens and the dignity that should be afforded *all* loyal troops? Just cause a few phobes think their self-inflicted 'discomfort' is more important than LGBT people's *lives?*

The question really is: Do we believe that all men are created equal and deserve the same civil and human rights?

We went through this with the questions of blacks serving in the military, women serving in the military and the "good old boys" club saying no - but our military is stronger now than it was when there was segregation in the past.

How many reports have there been of gays attacking straights in the military as opposed to rapes of women in the military by straight males? Haven't seen any numbers on that question and you know darned well that if there were documented (or even undocumented) reports, the opposition would be dragging them out in the media.

We went through too many years of blacks and women being second-class citizens - we don't need to do it again when it comes to gays in the military.

Should there be JUSTICE in the military?

Should it abide by the Equal Rights Provisions
of the
United States Constitution???

Gee. This is hard.

"America and Americans will get through this process only when we decide that the real life issues for the people directly involved are more important than the social policy preferences and personal faith interpretations of the rest of us. When that happens, we will do what we have always done in this country - continue expanding opportunity for all people whether we agree with them or not, while maintaining the right to voice our concerns in ways that do not limit their access to opportunity."

This! I am totally in love with this section. Gay servicemembers are not some kind of abstract theological puzzle or test of faith. They are actual people who are leading actual lives, with actual partners and kids who are impacted in very real ways by the ease with which religious people dehumanize gay people into The Gay Question.

A lot of people think actively harming the quality of life of gay people is an appropriate way to make a statement about whether their relationships are Approved or Sinful, and I'm tired of certain sects stripping the humanity from gay people and turning them into an abstract theological question.

SEX iS NOt-LOVE! {LiFE is LOVE}. The rest is Pleasure,Fantasy, Hormones..

i[WE] are not too sure if DADT should be repealed. There is an "inherent Danger" for being too open in the military via "Gay" personal.

RECOMMENDATION: They Should Be Separated. Yes "G" Units should then be Segregated from "S"traight Brigades.

AS a Cub-Scout, Boy-Scout, Military High School'r , U.S. Merchant Mariner & via Mercenary work & as an ex-International Smuggler, experience of many and Master
of None and now,

Talkin about "F" TROOP" or "A" TEAM etc.. So lets think here about the "G"-TROOP" mentality or perspective which 'DADT' shall apply.. We shall today ask, "DO WE CLOSE the MILITARYs Revolving Door (a "Volunteer" Army entirely to ALL GAYS for fear that they will be too-open to the unscrupulous?

This ? should be left to The Generals & Rule-Makers, not to Theocrats nor Gay's advocates. They both want ATTENTION & Want to Make Money over this Moral? or
iMORAL ??. So,

The PENTAGON and da Congress must Think NATIONAL-SECURITY 1st, Not SEX Preference
or Sex Orientation-Security 1st! sorry.

See, The History of our Almighty U.S. military is rife with "Segregation" or "Discrimination" of some ethnic "Outfit"
or "Special group" etc.. EXAMPLE:

America, in the Beginning of Colonization has had it's "MINUTE MEN" [i.e., Sons of Liberty, Paul Revere {pbuh et al}], TUSKEGEE AIRMEN [Negro Pilots of WW2]", "CODE TALKERS [Navajo/Comanche Unit of WW2]" et al: AND

Since "G" TEAM"s or "G" TROOPS or their Advocates 'Equate' [Demeaning] a "G"ay or its ORIENTATION or 'Preference' as being tantamount to RACISM? or demeaning of "G" platoon/Unit folks is equated with
HUMAN-RIGHTS violations etc.. OYE...!

Think about This: The most "DANGEROUS" part about Repealing DADT can have a open "HONEY-TRAP" effect on unsuspecting "G" Military Personnel via unsuspecting Encounters via "G" Romances with "THE-ENEMY". Example:

IFa Openly Gay Airman Goes to a Gay Bar in Christopher Street, N.Y. C. or Even in KARACHi that he or she can spill secrets if picked-up by a Foreign Gay-Agent and gets Satisfied beyond Fantasyiation. OR A Russian male None-STRAIGHT'r [secret Agent, SPY] or a Chinese or Ishlami agents etc. can have a 13" Tool (or like a Weapon) between his/her legs. And of course using their experienced Tongues etc TO INFILTRATE, let alone PENETRATE or Compromise...

RECOMMENDATION: DON't Fix What Is Not Broken and Leave "D A D Tell" as is! There is only 2-Options:

1) Best to Utilize, take Advantage of "G" TROOPS at hand to Infiltrate other Foreign
Enemy "G" AGENTS or Nationals or Locals. Note: ARABS, Irani's, Afghani's military are the Best to Infiltrate, since they are into Big Tools & Sexual Fantasy. OR

2) ELIMINATE "G"ays into the Military Altogether. Note: Training Them can always back fire if they wanted to set-up their own private armys against Straights.

PS: There's a Saying "NEVER VOLUNTEER" [In the Army].

"Morale" and "unit cohesion" are real questions"

Yes, and drumming committed, effective, professional members of a team out of the service just because you dislike their sexual orientation is bad for morale and unit cohesion...

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/09/ap-lesbian-maj-margaret-witt-seeks-reinstatement-091310/

...Former colleagues who testified Monday disagreed that Witt's firing accomplished anything — especially because it came during a shortage of flight nurses.

"We were at war at the time," said Lt. Col. Vincent Oda. "It was the loss of an able flight nurse is what that was."...

"Morale" and "unit cohesion" are so vague that it's reasonable to suspect that these may be euphemisms. From the arguments I've heard over the years, I suspect these refer to the baseless fear that gays are predators and that gay service members would sexually harass their straight comrades relentlessly.

Religion aside, if you're offended or repulsed by someone's homosexuality, isn't that your problem and not the gay person's? I find it strange that people have those reactions to homosexuality, which isn't intrinsically harmful to others. I would think one would have those reactions to instances of actual harm, such as witnessing someone abuse a child or an animal.

"Morale" and "unit cohesion" were supposedly real questions for the bigots who opposed desegregating the Armed forces as well. Once the Commander and Chief gives a legal order, the only correct response is for soldiers to shut up and soldier. If their religious "convictions" prevent them from serving, they're free to leave the service.

As for the 70% claim... it's not about majority rule.

A majority of people in Georgia would like prayer in public school.

A majority of people in Texas don't want abortions practiced there.

Is prayer returning to the classrooms in Georgia? Is abortion illegal in Texas?

A person's right to privacy is not a majority-rule thing.

It is illegal to force a person to be naked in front of anyone who could become sexually or romantically attracted to him or her. That's why there are seperate mens and womens locker rooms at work.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, if people feel we need to better harmonize our laws with Europe, then okay.

Gays serve openly in European military forces, and girls as young as 13 can legally consent to have sexual intercouse. Everyone knows girls like older guys, so stop criminalizing the sexuality of young men.

If an 18 year old heterosexual male is expected to so sophisticated that he can shower naked next to a gay male, then that same man should not be made a criminal because a 13 year old girl wants to give herself completely to him.

Let's act with fairness toward all when becoming more like Europe.

Hirschfield wrote: "America and Americans will get through this process only when we decide that the real life issues for the people directly involved are more important than the social policy preferences and personal faith interpretations of the rest of us."

Not in an America that has a Constitution and a clause requiring equality under the law. Too long have parts of society been denied equality Rabbi. The same "unit cohesion arguments were used to keep blacks and women out of the military. How can women serve along side men, without a unit cohesion problem, but not gays, who have served and continue to serve even today? To bring up what a few old men have to say, and ignore what that the pentagon's own large study shows makes me believe you have your own beliefs on this issue and are grasping at straws to justify the unjustifiable, that of denying gays a right their fellow countrymen have. You argue for discrimination, you defend those who are wrong. You and those like you are why this nation is still, 250 years later, trying to live up to its own Constitution. Makes me want to ask about gay Rabbis ... are their any?

Well, we have to ask ourselves about the leadership of the Marine Corps, since that seems to be the only branch of the service that is not ready.

Perhaps it is time for Gen. Amos to take that well earned retirement.

70% of the military say it is okay. There will never be 100% ready - there are still military people who are prejudiced against blacks.

Folks, the military is ready to grow up. It seems to be the civilians, particularly civilian politicians and right-wing religious nuts, who can't let go of their prejudices. Military people serve in the military, not as members of a particular religion, but as citizens. Religious opinions about the morality of their sex lives do not impact their ability to do their duty to their country. The only ones affected are those who have the negative opinion and, as far as I am concerned, they can just get over it.

"questions about morale and unit cohesion, are real and serious questions which deserve real and serious attention. And like most real public policy questions, there are real answers to be found, if we really want to find them. "

How did those studies go when it was about inclusion of all races?
How did those studies go when it was about women serving in the military?

Oh - there were no studies? It was enacted, and the military survived anyway? Harumph.

These questions are all about deflection and postponement of the full inclusion.

There is no "search for answers" in these questions, and you well know it. You don't hold back progress til the bigots are ok with it, or progress never comes.

But yeah, "legitimate questions" would be welcome... do you know of any?

I served in the military. When danger arouse, I didn't care about anyone's sexuality, religion or politics. It was about survival. Those preaching anything else either never served or faced danger.

Gee Brad, looked around lately? Every function of society has OPEN LGB except the U.S. Military. How many western nations? Oh, wait, we're number 1 so they don't count. Center for Learning and Leadership, really, can't lead if you're charging to the past, say 1880s.

Brad, crawl out of that hole, it's bright and sunny out here.

"Morale" and "unit cohesion" are real questions"

But they are questions not at all unique to the military. Police, Fire departments, oil rig workers, even everyday team-related vocations have the same issues, cohesion and morale, and yet gays serve openly, honorably and admiraly in all these realms. The military is just about the last bastion (excepting sex-obsessed conservative churches) in this ridiculous war on love choices.
Trust me, the military can handle it, especially now while they are slightly distracted by other silly little morale buzz-kills, like being targeted with IED's