Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-23-2011, 09:59 PM   #46
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,306
QuoteOriginally posted by newarts Quote
Santorum's initial response contained a sound logical core I thought. The fundamental issue is not one of gayness or straightness; rather he implied it was a matter of avoiding sex in a unit. I'd modify that to be a broader issue of romantic bonds within a unit.

Tight (esp secret) romantic bonds within a unit will certainly lead to divided loyalties which are clearly to be avoided in times of peril.

The inclusion of gay men (or straight women) into male units will increase the probability of romantic entanglements; it is such entanglements which must be avoided.

DADT increased the probability of secret romantic relationships in units so it is wise to discontinue the practice and replace it with strict prohibition of romance/sex within an operational unit.
To the best of my knowledge romantic relationships in the Canadian forces is prohibited and we have allowed gays and lesbians to serve for many years and women to be in forward combat units. Just recently an officer got demoted for having an affair in Afghanistan, his wife is also in the service but not in the same unit. The thought in the US that a gay soldier would act differently in saving his fellow soldiers if he was openly gay compared to secretly gay makes no sense. But the idea that he can show others pictures of his significant other would be harmful to others makes no sense at all. As US soldiers do interact with those of their allies in battlefield situations one would think think that they encounter opening gay soldiers. And to think that any thing could excuse sexual assault is not acceptable, women get sexually assaulted by men who think it is their right, not because they work in a 'man's' world.

09-24-2011, 07:05 PM   #47
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 317
QuoteOriginally posted by newarts Quote
He did exactly what we'd hope to see - he went to the aid of his unit - his friends.

What we do not want to see is for him to unexpectedly abandon his unit and instead go to the aid of his lover.

A unit trusts and depends on the loyalty of all its members; an inter-unit romantic entanglement can break that trust.

I really don't see that anything I said relates to his heroic actions; please let me know.
I think that is an gross underestimation of the discipline of the US armed forces. We don't have wild stories of a Male or Female soldiers abandoning their units to go to the aid of a lover in another unit.. The same will not happen for gay and lesbian soldiers.

The military has already banned the relationship that it should banned, which are liasons between people of a higher and lower rank. Relationships intra-unit is also seems to be not acceptable as well. But inter-unit are fine.

Last edited by Chwisch87; 09-24-2011 at 07:14 PM.
09-25-2011, 06:57 AM   #48
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
Original Poster
Not to mention that soldiers form strong bonds with one another without sex. There will always be close friends whom one would prefer to aid or save over another soldier with whom one has no ties.

It seems to me that with a ban on gay soldiers or even DADT, you put secretly gay soldiers who do want to serve in the position of disobeying from the outset. This may actually select for soldiers who are less likely to follow discipline.

I've also wondered about how "gay" someone had to be to be banned from service. Just where on the Kinsey Scale did one have to fall to be disqualified? Anything over 0?
09-25-2011, 07:22 AM   #49
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
...
It seems to me that with a ban on gay soldiers or even DADT, you put secretly gay soldiers who do want to serve in the position of disobeying from the outset. This may actually select for soldiers who are less likely to follow discipline.

....
I agree that DADT's requirement for secrecy was dangerous and fundamentally silly.

I have no problems with openly gay or opposite sex people being in a combat unit. I'm just exploring why it has been avoided in the past. I believe the fundamental reason is command & control's valid concern over split loyalty and power structures. Perhaps relationships along a chain of command are the most dangerous, I don't know. But there is sure a huge amount of historical evidence of strict avoidance of romantic entanglements within a hierarchical unit, be that unit a business, political, educational, military, ......

09-25-2011, 07:37 AM   #50
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by Chwisch87 Quote
...
The military has already banned the relationship that it should banned, which are liasons between people of a higher and lower rank. Relationships intra-unit is also seems to be not acceptable as well. But inter-unit are fine.
I agree a relationship-spanning-ranks prohibition may be sufficient in theory. But if I were a platoon leader I probably wouldn't put a husband in squad A and his wife in squad B - would you?

It seems to me that committed couples are just that - committed - and sometimes that commitment will rule. Why take the chance? Isn't it safer just to ban such assignments in the first place and to discourage their creation in the field?
09-26-2011, 10:46 AM   #51
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
I always thought there was another thread of thought going on, one which DADT absolutely made no sense around. This was the idea that someone closeted and gay could be blackmailed by enemy spies. With everything out in the open, there's not much to blackmail, is there?
09-27-2011, 01:47 AM   #52
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 317
QuoteOriginally posted by newarts Quote
I agree that DADT's requirement for secrecy was dangerous and fundamentally silly.

I have no problems with openly gay or opposite sex people being in a combat unit. I'm just exploring why it has been avoided in the past. I believe the fundamental reason is command & control's valid concern over split loyalty and power structures. Perhaps relationships along a chain of command are the most dangerous, I don't know. But there is sure a huge amount of historical evidence of strict avoidance of romantic entanglements within a hierarchical unit, be that unit a business, political, educational, military, ......
Well its mostly for the reason that the christian/totalitarian power structure has always known that in virtually all countries in the OECD that have allowed minorities to serve equally in the armed forces, equal rights almost always follows.

The ban on gay soldiers was lifted in many eurozone countires (the most liberal of the liberal in europe) in the 1980's and equal marriage and adoption rights followed. In 2000, the UK lifted the ban on gay troops (after the european court on human rights said you have to let them serve openly if you want to be in the EU) and now the leader of the conservative party is looking to secure full marriage rights for gay couples by 2015. Currently the UK has marriage in all but name, which also came after the 2000 lifting the bag on gay soldiers.

In the 1950s, the navy did a study that showed that there would be no effect on allowing gay people into the military. The military in the US knew for a long time it didn't really cause a problem. As a matter of fact, if you came out to try and prevent getting deployed, the unsaid policy was to deploy you anyway and discharge you when you got home. If you being out really caused a problem, they would NEVER have deployed you in the first place.

09-27-2011, 07:06 AM   #53
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
Original Poster
That is a good point. The military was at the forefront of racial integration, and many on the religious right may be saying "look where that ended up."
09-27-2011, 07:13 AM   #54
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by Chwisch87 Quote
Well its mostly for the reason that the christian/totalitarian power structure has always known that in virtually all countries in the OECD that have allowed minorities to serve equally in the armed forces, equal rights almost always follows. ......
I doubt the basic reason was as general as to suppress equal rights; rather the basic reason was a natural conservative fear of disrupting unit integrity by romantic entanglements.

In the examples you gave are committed relationships permitted within a unit? Can a husband and wife serve in the same UK or Israeli platoon?

Please don't assume that I'm opposed to gays openly serving - I'm not opposed.

Similarly, committed couples serving in the same unit would probably cause far fewer problems than imagined - but the natural conservative view would be to not run the risk.

Last edited by newarts; 10-19-2011 at 06:39 AM.
10-19-2011, 05:11 AM   #55
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
Original Poster
The latest big applause line for the GOP audience "If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself." At least no one was being killed.
(Mike, he is after your heart in blaming the poor. He's a good Tea Party Calvinist)

It was followed by the stupid line from Herman Cain that "Wall Street didn't spend a trillion dollars that didn't do any good." True, it was more like $16 Trillion in loans after spending 3/4 Trillion in TARP.
10-19-2011, 07:27 AM   #56
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
Heh, Gene. Ain't that the way, though. Sometimes I think Cain just represents the worst form of tokenism, 'You can be a minority or a woman if you say the extreme right things




QuoteOriginally posted by newarts Quote
I doubt the basic reason was as general as to suppress equal rights; rather the basic reason was a natural conservative fear of disrupting unit integrity by romantic entanglements.

In the examples you gave are committed relationships permitted within a unit? Can a husband and wife serve in the same UK or Israeli platoon?

Please don't assume that I'm opposed to gays openly serving - I'm not opposed.

Similarly, I doubt that committed couples serving in the same unit would cause far fewer problems than imagined - but the natural conservative view would be to not run the risk.
I think a lot of this 'natural conservative view, by the way, is based on the rather defamatory notion that 'LGBT people are indiscriminately sexual' ...'So therefore they need to be closeted and treated unfairly... Cause if you don't they'll end up wanting to have sex with the nearest same-sex person.'

The notion itself is kind of rooted in bigotry, and it overlooks some obvious things about *being* among the LGBT population: a) We're quite used to living among people we may be attracted to in a fairly sex-segregated society, and actually we're a lot better at not-having sex with people than some may lead you to believe, (Or leering or whatever.) and b) We're still a numerical minority, y'know. The odds of just happening to actually have chemistry with one of the few others in any given smallish group like a graduating class or a military unit just *aren't that big.* Imagine, for a numerical analogy, you were only compatible with redheads. Odds are there's going to be four or five of them out of any hundred people.... What's the likelihood you're actually going to be *interested* in the few redheads at work, y'know? People tend to just ignore that.

But, actually, just try walking around and ask yourself of the next four red-haired people you see out there, 'What's the actual likelihood we'd fall in love or want to have sex with each other?' (Whether or not they'd otherwise be your type or a sex you would be interested in, : the point here actually is the numbers. Also, factors like, 'I'm already in a relationship/would I cheat,/I'm in mourning/more focused on my career count, too: LGBT people have all these kinds of factors just as often as straights. ) You might see it's that much less bloody likely that any two LGB people in a unit would connect that way.

Hec, I'm *bi* and I don't think I ever dated anyone from high school or work, (My college was kinda small-city sized, so I don't tend to count that.) .It just doesn't happen that often.

..And I just don't see any reason for this 'concern' that LGBT people are somehow more likely to break fraternization rules than straights. (Maybe less, taken individually: it seems to be more of a *straight male* notion in society that close quarters or states of undress with someone of a generally-desired sex ....is automatically a potentially-sexual situation.)

The real issue is that conservatives want to play to a conservative 'base' by doing anything detrimental to LGBT people's rights and dignity they can, and fear 'punishment at the polls' or loss of 'moralistic standing' if they don't. When was the last time they said or did, or even let slide... anything *benign* towards us, anyway? They're screaming about the budget one minute, and the next wanting to spend more government millions to try and *roll back* DADT repeal. Even though their 'concerns' have long since been shown to be unfounded by many militaries in the world.

Cause, yeah, them being 'Concerned' about the 'Risk' that LGB people can't control ourselves or something, is just saying, 'Well, I'm just 'concerned' that you people are innately rapacious and immoral/undisciplined, etc.' What would you call that? Oh, right, their prejudice.
10-19-2011, 08:32 AM   #57
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
.....
Cause, yeah, them being 'Concerned' about the 'Risk' that LGB people can't control ourselves or something, is just saying, 'Well, I'm just 'concerned' that you people are innately rapacious and immoral/undisciplined, etc.' What would you call that? Oh, right, their prejudice.
I don't think that the actual "risk" is likely much if any different from straights (probably less). But from a statistical standpoint the highest probability of creating romantic entanglements is by mixing opposites. A unit with all one type is less likely to have in-unit romance than a unit with mixed types - be they straight males/females, gay/straight etc...

If the unit is to avoid entanglements then it is best to: 1 prohibit entanglements, 2 Know who's who and avoid mixing those at risk.

Probably best is to just be open & discourage entanglements.

I'm sure that LGB people are better than most RE controlling themselves .... they've played a hard game of hide & seek so far - it is time to ease up on the rules & let society see how the old rules have hurt us all rather than helped.
10-19-2011, 01:13 PM   #58
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
QuoteOriginally posted by newarts Quote
I don't think that the actual "risk" is likely much if any different from straights (probably less). But from a statistical standpoint the highest probability of creating romantic entanglements is by mixing opposites. A unit with all one type is less likely to have in-unit romance than a unit with mixed types - be they straight males/females, gay/straight etc...
Honestly, that kind of idea is just a way to create a ton of guaranteed logistical problems in order to 'avoid' the possibilities of a pretty rare eventuality, ...I'm on board with what those other militaries do: put the people where they're best suited to serve, work together, be professional about it, and if any romance of any sort happens to crop up, well, be professional about *that,* too. On a case by case basis, like.

QuoteQuote:
If the unit is to avoid entanglements then it is best to: 1 prohibit entanglements, 2 Know who's who and avoid mixing those at risk.

Probably best is to just be open & discourage entanglements.

I'm sure that LGB people are better than most RE controlling themselves .... they've played a hard game of hide & seek so far - it is time to ease up on the rules & let society see how the old rules have hurt us all rather than helped.

But, really, DADT repeal is about having the same rules, the same UCMJ, for everyone. Not isolating and imposing hardships on groups... while using prejudice to justify prejudice. Actually that kind of includes what's sometimes a conservative tactic to get votes and funding by delaying justice: try and make it seem harder and more complicated than it is. Also I think it's kind of odd how these folks seem to believe people are supposed to be all celibate and 'moral' by their terms... While insisting no one in the military could possibly be capable of it.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
audience, debates, reactions
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GOP audience applauds executions -sigh newarts General Talk 21 09-10-2011 02:28 PM
Marketplace Sellers have limited audience? EyeSpy General Talk 10 07-30-2010 07:25 AM
Oh Craigslist, you hurt me so. jadedrakerider Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 12-12-2009 03:26 PM
People that's gotta hurt... dcmsox2004 Post Your Photos! 3 10-07-2009 01:58 PM
The audience brkl Post Your Photos! 7 08-28-2009 01:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:28 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top