Judge Orders Lesbian Nurse Back into Military

[Pangloss]

A federal judge ordered the military to take back a lesbian nurse today, citing that both sides seem to agree that her presence doesn't disrupt the unit, therefore it's not a violation of an earlier court finding that removals can only come if the military meets a test of disruption. This comes following a setback for gay/lesbian community last week, when Republicans blocked a bill ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, pushing its consideration until after the election.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jIWJ1V2EsAQ8O7sPsyfXG0OAQTBwD9IEJH380

 

I think this is an interesting case. It may ultimately become a sidebar if Congress does the right thing soon, but since that issue (like so many others) has become so politicized it may be that further court efforts are the only way to resolve the issue.

 

What do you all think?

[Ophiolite]

What do you all think?

I think the Spartan military didn't condone homosexuality, they insisted on it.

[Moontanman]

I can't see why homosexuality matters in the military, do they think a gay guy can't fire a gun? Is he or she going to seduce you in the fox hole? It's just more goofy religious conservatism blinding us to reality...

[jackson33]

Historical acceptance of virtually anything, might not be the best argument. Aside from this, most military (defenders) were chose, trained, educated and prepared from birth for that purpose.

 

 

The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his beloved. His beloved was called eromenos whose reward for his lover lay in his beauty, youth, and promise.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

 

In any event, what had been is or has rarely ever lasted all that long....

 

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Greece may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Both male and female same-sex sexual activity are legal in Greece, but households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal protections available to opposite-sex couples.[/Quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Greece

 

 

As for a Civilian Judge, telling the UNITED STATES MILITARY, what they must do, seems the ultimate display of arrogance toward authority. Judges are to rule according to current law and not from their emotional and sometimes subjective political opinions. What he said after the ruling IMO, should tell you how his decision was formed...(from OP link).

 

"Today you have won a victory in that struggle, the depth and duration of which will be determined by other judicial officers and hopefully soon the political branches of government," the judge told her, choking up as he recalled Witt's dramatic testimony about her struggles.[/Quote]

 

 

I can't see why homosexuality matters in the military, do they think a gay guy can't fire a gun? Is he or she going to seduce you in the fox hole? It's just more goofy religious conservatism blinding us to reality...[/Quote]

 

Moon, since the current law indicates sexually orientation is NOT a "matter", rather that demonstrating that preference IS (Don't ask, don't tell), then neither side this issue is concerned with your "goofy religious conservatism". If the accepted rule is lifted, military life then resembling life in say 'San Francisco', (gay bars/dress codes), would you oppose 100 or maybe 100,000 members of the military wishing an immediate honorable discharge, their wish? It's not the orientation that bothers folks, but the forcing of the acceptance on those that prefer we keep our sexual desires to ourselves....IMO.

[Moontanman]

Moon, since the current law indicates sexually orientation is NOT a "matter", rather that demonstrating that preference IS (Don't ask, don't tell), then neither side this issue is concerned with your "goofy religious conservatism". If the accepted rule is lifted, military life then resembling life in say 'San Francisco', (gay bars/dress codes), would you oppose 100 or maybe 100,000 members of the military wishing an immediate honorable discharge, their wish? It's not the orientation that bothers folks, but the forcing of the acceptance on those that prefer we keep our sexual desires to ourselves....IMO.

 

 

Well Jackson you are welcome to your own opinion but I happen to know for a fact that DADT is totally bullshit. Overt sexuality of any type should be discouraged in the military since women are there as well. Your assertion that gays would turn the military into Gay bar is totally off the wall, totally unsupportable, and it just shows your own religious prejudices against homosexuals and your total lack of knowledge about homosexuals. How is allowing a gay guy to serve in the military forcing his sexual orientation on others? Do you expect him to wear a dress and fawn all over the straight men? The idea that gays would force their sexuality on others is just more religious conservative fear mongering by people who don't have a clue....

 

BTW, gays serve in other militarys around the world and they don't turn into gay bars...

Edited September 25, 2010 by Moontanman

[jackson33]

Moon; "Don't ask don't tell", IS the policy of the US Military and the Nurse openly defied that rule. If then allowed to openly break that rule (will be lost on appeal) any other currently understood decorum for social activity, with in a confined group, could be subject to the rules of the open society.

 

The question was however, "if 100 or 100,000 military personnel asked for an honorable discharge" (for whatever reason, but connected to) would you then oppose those request? If you say yes (you would oppose) and the military cannot allow a mass exodus, then forcing acceptance of a social issue, will be a reality. Since maybe 5% of G/L folks are activist, try to impose their preference on the masses and fewer yet in the military are their to effect change, I have no idea what might happen if and when the rule is lifted (my assertion). What I do have a handle on, is what has happened in the open society and I certainly don't wish that in the confines of the Military Structure.

 

As for Women in the Military, this has long been a problem...

 

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/pregnancy.html

 

The Army general of U.S. forces in Northern Iraq has banned pregnancy among military personnel in his command, NBC News reported on Friday.

 

Anyone who becomes pregnant or impregnates another servicemember, including married couples assigned to the same unit, could face a court-martial and jail time, according to an order issued by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo. [/Quote]

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34483943/ns/us_news-military/

[Moontanman]

Moon; "Don't ask don't tell", IS the policy of the US Military and the Nurse openly defied that rule. If then allowed to openly break that rule (will be lost on appeal) any other currently understood decorum for social activity, with in a confined group, could be subject to the rules of the open society.

 

The question was however, "if 100 or 100,000 military personnel asked for an honorable discharge" (for whatever reason, but connected to) would you then oppose those request? If you say yes (you would oppose) and the military cannot allow a mass exodus, then forcing acceptance of a social issue, will be a reality. Since maybe 5% of G/L folks are activist, try to impose their preference on the masses and fewer yet in the military are their to effect change, I have no idea what might happen if and when the rule is lifted (my assertion). What I do have a handle on, is what has happened in the open society and I certainly don't wish that in the confines of the Military Structure.

 

As for Women in the Military, this has long been a problem...

 

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/pregnancy.html

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34483943/ns/us_news-military/

 

 

Jackson, just exactly what do you mean by "impose their preference"? how does simply being gay off base mean imposing their preference on others? I know for a fact that don't ask don't tell is no more than a bad joke, my son was asked and when he refused to say his superiors told on him so his class mates would beat him and they did, unmercifully to make him quit. so don't ask don't tell is bullshit and my son never flaunted his sexuality to his class mates and they asked everyone to sign a affidavit saying they were not gay. He simply refused to lie. So again I'll ask what do you mean by imposing their sexuality on others, how does simply being gay off base or outside the hospital impose anything on anyone, do you think gay people just drop and fuck each other at random? Unless of course the so called straights are so tempted by homosexuality they can't resit the temptation so they cannot work around anyone they know is gay...

 

And if military personnel are so damn immature they cannot work with someone who is gay then they need to be kicked out with dishonorable discharges. If gays are such a temptation they cannot keep it in their damn uniforms then they should be kicked out just like two heterosexual people who cannot keep it in their uniforms should be.

 

They said the same bullshit about blacks being in the military and guess what it worked out, sharing bathrooms with blacks, unheard of but it worked out and the people who couldn't handle it found themselves out and so it should be. Gays are part of the American public, nothing anyone can do about it, gays are no worse than any other human being and the idea that they should be black listed due who they like to have sex with is outrageous.

 

 

As for women in the military being a problem, no it's sexist bastards who think all women are nothing but sex objects that are the problem, if you can't work beside a woman with out playing grab ass then you are the problem not the woman. If she can't then she is the problem! Antiquated sexual morality taught by parents to their children is what the problem is, ridiculous religious sexual values that don't make sense, never did really but for sure not now...

Edited September 25, 2010 by Moontanman

[Pangloss]

they asked everyone to sign a affidavit saying they were not gay. He simply refused to lie.

 

That's interesting. Wouldn't that be a violation of the "ask" portion of DADT?

[AzurePhoenix]

I can't see why homosexuality matters in the military, do they think a gay guy can't fire a gun? Is he or she going to seduce you in the fox hole? It's just more goofy religious conservatism blinding us to reality...

I'm close with a former marine, and while he definitely thinks that the underlying foundation of the "ban" is hollow bigotry, he did explain that it was often explained in the form of a group cohesion issue, such as, while an open gay might not weaken a troop by themselves, prejudice and bigotry on the sly against them might, or, more of a stretch, should members of a troop form romantic attachments they might understandably prioritize each other over the mission and either reject their duty or take unacceptable risks. I don't know enough about women in the military to say how this is avoided if it is at all.

 

Seems almost half reasonable at first glance but both of us think its a copout.

Edited September 25, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[Moontanman]

I'm close with a former marine, and while he definitely thinks that the underlying foundation of the "ban" is hollow bigotry, he did explain that it was often explained in the form of a group cohesion issue, such as, while an open gay might not weaken a troop by themselves, prejudice and bigotry on the sly against them might, or, more of a stretch, should members of a troop form romantic attachments they might understandably prioritize each other over the mission and either reject their duty or take unacceptable risks. I don't know enough about women in the military to say how this is avoided if it is at all.

 

Seems almost half reasonable at first glance but both of us think its a copout.

 

 

I agree it is a copout, a similar thing was said about blacks in the military, it would undermine the group to have to live in close quarters with black people...

 

and yes pangloss i would think his superiors violated both don't ask and don't tell... the military is always looking to ferret out gays, any suspicion at all is used to kick them out...

Edited September 25, 2010 by Moontanman

[Pangloss]

I'm sorry you guys had to deal with that, but for what it's worth, I appreciate the service.

[Moontanman]

I'm sorry you guys had to deal with that, but for what it's worth, I appreciate the service.

 

 

I appreciate the military very much, i support them totally but i think this issue is being touted by a few bad apples and people who genuinely do not understand the issue. The popular image of the fagot as a infeminine sorry soul who lives to seduce straight men needs to be rebuked. yes there are gays like that just like there are straight men who only live to force women into submission. Why would men like that be used to label all men, straight or gay?

[lemur]

Has anyone noted that if the "ask" portion of don't ask don't tell is repealed, people may be asked to disclose their sexuality, At that point it may be illegal to discriminate as a result of admitting your sexuality, but that doesn't mean discrimination won't occur covertly, as it does in most forms of discrimination most of the time. If people fear covert discrimination, an open sexuality-disclosure policy may result in more people lying about their sexuality than by not telling about it. What would be the point of that? Why should people have to disclose sexual-orientation and why would people openly discriminate against them when they did, presuming there was some other means of covertly discriminating against them instead?

[jackson33]

Jackson, just exactly what do you mean by "impose their preference"?[/Quote]

 

Moon; I'll explain it this way since no two people are sexually attracted in exactly the same manner. I am a smoker, believe strongly it's a personal choice to smoke or not or for that matter indulge in any activity that is otherwise legal. Rather than trying to impose those beliefs on non-smokers, general do the opposite, I'll follow the many different rules on where I can smoke, pay the extreme taxes on what cost about .30/pack to produce and any additional cost for insurance etc., because it's believed smoking will harm others or cost others in time.

 

I'm sorry you were there, when your son was asked and interpreted his superiors reactions. If your operating on your son's word and his evaluation, well I could tell some of my excuses in life to gain acceptance, in my world....

 

Unless of course the so called straights are so tempted by homosexuality they can't resist the temptation so they cannot work around anyone they know is gay...[/Quote]

 

I'm not sure what "so called straights" means to you, but if that's heterosexual, I seriously doubt they are tempted sexually by their own sex, although a couple girlish looking guys in my youth, caused some temporary indecision. It has been my experience, or at least those I've discussed the issue with, that the first human contact sexual activity sets the pattern for future activity. This can be from displeasure, just as easily as pleasurable.

 

And if military personnel are so damn immature they cannot work with someone who is gay then they need to be kicked out with dishonorable discharges. If gays are such a temptation they cannot keep it in their damn uniforms then they should be kicked out just like two heterosexual people who cannot keep it in their uniforms should be. [/Quote]

 

The Military and a society at large are not the same thing or more to the point are prisons. An open society, IMO must accept a vastly liberal definition of socially normal (I favor G/L Unions, for instance), opposed to what the Military should demand or what is acceptable in a prison. If somehow, this is your answer to my question, or you feel if anyone is not wanting to continue their military work, under the conditions and rules they signed up under, should be dishonorably discharged, then we're done with discussion.

 

They said the same bullshit about blacks being in the military and guess what it worked out, sharing bathrooms with blacks, unheard of but it worked out and the people who couldn't handle it found themselves out and so it should be.[/Quote]

 

Well, I doubt you were around when blacks first fought in the US Military (War for Independence) and homosexuals were automatically discharged, Washington just discharged them but Jefferson wanted to dismember them. In 3 of the 13 States, any conviction warranted the death penalty. While special units were created for WWI & II, Eisenhower simply integrated the Military in 1953 or so and it's been that way since.

 

As for women in the military being a problem, no it's sexist bastards who think all women are nothing but sex objects that are the problem, if you can't work beside a woman with out playing grab ass then you are the problem not the woman.[/Quote]

 

Moon, where are you coming from here, men revere their women, nearly to a fault, especially at the age of most the military 18-25. I hate saying this, but it's a human reaction and most men would save a woman first, then a man if possible and not having ever made the choice, hope I would do the same and by the way, I seriously feel the race of that woman would not make any difference.

 

AzurePhoenix; Both you and your Marine friend currently live in the general society, as of course do I. We've basically adapted to whatever is our current society, where the Military is dependent on people from 50 States and no telling how many different religiously different philosophies. To add to this we're currently fighting mostly in Muslim Nations or have bases in many Counties that don't accept American Cultural differences. All this adds up, in my opinion to some rather strict cultural behavior and DADT, seems to be as liberal a definition as possible for the world to accept. Every Gay or Lesbian (in the thread OP) signed up, understanding the policy and in taking their oath (everyone takes) knew the consequences. There are dozens of careers, from Government to Entertainment, Sports, Media and some business, where you must have a legal agreement signed to be hired and can be fired on the spot for failing to follow that agreement (generally a morality clause) .

[Moontanman]

Moon; I'll explain it this way since no two people are sexually attracted in exactly the same manner. I am a smoker, believe strongly it's a personal choice to smoke or not or for that matter indulge in any activity that is otherwise legal. Rather than trying to impose those beliefs on non-smokers, general do the opposite, I'll follow the many different rules on where I can smoke, pay the extreme taxes on what cost about .30/pack to produce and any additional cost for insurance etc., because it's believed smoking will harm others or cost others in time.

 

So what are you saying? That second hand homosexuality is harmful? You can't seriously equate homosexuality with choosing to smoke? As long as homosexuals don't engage in sex on base or on duty your comparison fails totally...

 

I'm sorry you were there, when your son was asked and interpreted his superiors reactions. If your operating on your son's word and his evaluation, well I could tell some of my excuses in life to gain acceptance, in my world....

 

So you are insinuating my son is lying? fuck you, he got his ass kicked so hard he was hospitalized and only his superiors could have known and told his "friends" officer and a gentleman my ass!

 

 

I'm not sure what "so called straights" means to you, but if that's heterosexual, I seriously doubt they are tempted sexually by their own sex, although a couple girlish looking guys in my youth, caused some temporary indecision. It has been my experience, or at least those I've discussed the issue with, that the first human contact sexual activity sets the pattern for future activity. This can be from displeasure, just as easily as pleasurable.

 

More total bullshit

 

 

 

The Military and a society at large are not the same thing or more to the point are prisons. An open society, IMO must accept a vastly liberal definition of socially normal (I favor G/L Unions, for instance), opposed to what the Military should demand or what is acceptable in a prison. If somehow, this is your answer to my question, or you feel if anyone is not wanting to continue their military work, under the conditions and rules they signed up under, should be dishonorably discharged, then we're done with discussion.

 

So one of the prerequisites to joining the military is that you don't have to associate with homosexuals?

 

 

Well, I doubt you were around when blacks first fought in the US Military (War for Independence) and homosexuals were automatically discharged, Washington just discharged them but Jefferson wanted to dismember them. In 3 of the 13 States, any conviction warranted the death penalty. While special units were created for WWI & II, Eisenhower simply integrated the Military in 1953 or so and it's been that way since.

 

This is true and it did not cripple the military any more than allowing a person who is gay to serve would, as long as his behavior in public and or on base is simply human then you have no argument other than homophobia...

 

 

 

 

Moon, where are you coming from here, men revere their women, nearly to a fault, especially at the age of most the military 18-25. I hate saying this, but it's a human reaction and most men would save a woman first, then a man if possible and not having ever made the choice, hope I would do the same and by the way, I seriously feel the race of that woman would not make any difference.

 

What does sexual harassment of women have to do with this? And what does this have to do with homosexuals?

 

 

 

AzurePhoenix; Both you and your Marine friend currently live in the general society, as of course do I. We've basically adapted to whatever is our current society, where the Military is dependent on people from 50 States and no telling how many different religiously different philosophies. To add to this we're currently fighting mostly in Muslim Nations or have bases in many Counties that don't accept American Cultural differences. All this adds up, in my opinion to some rather strict cultural behavior and DADT, seems to be as liberal a definition as possible for the world to accept. Every Gay or Lesbian (in the thread OP) signed up, understanding the policy and in taking their oath (everyone takes) knew the consequences. There are dozens of careers, from Government to Entertainment, Sports, Media and some business, where you must have a legal agreement signed to be hired and can be fired on the spot for failing to follow that agreement (generally a morality clause) .

 

So homosexuality is immoral? how are the people we are fighting going to know if a soldier is gay, do they have fag tattooed on their forehead? you are still totally clueless about gay people.... As I said before DADT is bullshit, the least excuse can result in a person being investigated for their sexuality, DADT is totally inadequate, the only prerequisite should can the person do the job and leave their sexuality outside much like your smoking....

Edited September 26, 2010 by Moontanman

[Pangloss]

Calm down, there's no call for that. I definitely did not get "liar" out of that quote, in fact he seemed to be saying that he's happy to take your word for it. Your questions are fine just... (to borrow from Jon Stewart)... take it down a notch, please.

 

---

 

By the way, I meant earlier that I appreciate your son's service, not the jerks who beat him up. I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression there.

[Moontanman]

Calm down, there's no call for that. I definitely did not get "liar" out of that quote, in fact he seemed to be saying that he's happy to take your word for it. Your questions are fine just... (to borrow from Jon Stewart)... take it down a notch, please.

 

---

 

By the way, I meant earlier that I appreciate your son's service, not the jerks who beat him up. I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression there.

 

 

No I didn't take what you said the wrong way, nor did I take what he said wrong, my wife read it too and took it the same way... he insinuated my son was lying and while my son is not perfect I am quite sure he was not lying in this case...

 

well I could tell some of my excuses in life to gain acceptance, in my world....

[Mr Skeptic]

Moon; "Don't ask don't tell", IS the policy of the US Military and the Nurse openly defied that rule. If then allowed to openly break that rule (will be lost on appeal) any other currently understood decorum for social activity, with in a confined group, could be subject to the rules of the open society.

 

Some rules are illegal. What then? You have to follow the highest ranking rule, not just any rule you want.

[jackson33]

Some rules are illegal. What then? You have to follow the highest ranking rule, not just any rule you want.[/Quote]

 

Skeptic; While it's true no person can enter into an illegal contract, any person by any means (contract/oath) agreeing with the terms for employment/enlistment, by signing/voicing has agreed the to the terms and sentiments of the agreement. The "Nurse", then when taking her oath agreed to any/all conditions that were applicable to any other person. Technically, even if the "policy" were lifted today, any person previously subject to it and having been discharged (even if other than honorably) would have no recourse ("what then?"), for say back pay or any other claimed 'harm' received.

 

Now using Moon's son as an example; While he no doubt agreed to the terms of his enlistment, in NO WAY would it authorize a pending "beating" or apparently an actual beating (hospitalization), for any reason and had recourse available to him. Since a beating would be obviously detected and hospitalization occurred, there have been criminal reports made up and are available (not protected medical records) or he has signed a "waiver of responsibility", which was the standard "policy" when I was in the service (1950's).

 

Moon; If you and your wife feel I have directly "called" your son for lying, I do apologize. However, I find it hard to believe ANY authority (especially in the Military) would advise in advance the consequences for NOT signing a paper, then somehow perpetrate those actions and then not being called for those actions. IMO, any attorney in the Military or out with 50% confirmation of what little you have told me, would run with this case, get some form of compensation for your boy and get the person responsible held responsible, probably jail time and dishonorable discharge. I further worry about your alarming use of religious motivation in actions of people with in many issues. You already know I claim to be agnostic and why, but I simply don't believe religion (especially Christian) are behind everything you feel is wrong or corrupt in the US. I won't argue their case, but many people feel the exact opposite or that what's wrong is the result of lost religious faith from the time of our founding.

[Moontanman]

Skeptic; While it's true no person can enter into an illegal contract, any person by any means (contract/oath) agreeing with the terms for employment/enlistment, by signing/voicing has agreed the to the terms and sentiments of the agreement. The "Nurse", then when taking her oath agreed to any/all conditions that were applicable to any other person. Technically, even if the "policy" were lifted today, any person previously subject to it and having been discharged (even if other than honorably) would have no recourse ("what then?"), for say back pay or any other claimed 'harm' received.

 

Now using Moon's son as an example; While he no doubt agreed to the terms of his enlistment, in NO WAY would it authorize a pending "beating" or apparently an actual beating (hospitalization), for any reason and had recourse available to him. Since a beating would be obviously detected and hospitalization occurred, there have been criminal reports made up and are available (not protected medical records) or he has signed a "waiver of responsibility", which was the standard "policy" when I was in the service (1950's).

 

Moon; If you and your wife feel I have directly "called" your son for lying, I do apologize. However, I find it hard to believe ANY authority (especially in the Military) would advise in advance the consequences for NOT signing a paper, then somehow perpetrate those actions and then not being called for those actions. IMO, any attorney in the Military or out with 50% confirmation of what little you have told me, would run with this case, get some form of compensation for your boy and get the person responsible held responsible, probably jail time and dishonorable discharge. I further worry about your alarming use of religious motivation in actions of people with in many issues. You already know I claim to be agnostic and why, but I simply don't believe religion (especially Christian) are behind everything you feel is wrong or corrupt in the US. I won't argue their case, but many people feel the exact opposite or that what's wrong is the result of lost religious faith from the time of our founding.

 

 

Jackson, you are the most disingenuous person i have ever tried to talk to, you have no need for the truth and only your own world view counts. you make lots of claims and nearly all of them are based in your own self serving world view which has little or no connection with reality. You repeat things that people have shown you to not be true over and over as though repeating them will somehow make them come true. Your views are homosexuality are nothing but homophobia and based on ideas that have been over turned and this has been pointed out to you many times. I see no reason to continue to discuss anything with you.

[Mr Skeptic]

Since the military forces of other countries, such as Germany, allow gays to serve openly and there don't seem to be any problems, I can't see what is so different about the U.S. Army that problems with gays would be inevitable. Also, since there are now women in the American military, it shouldn't be assumed that gays or lesbians being attracted to other men or women, respectively, would place inordinate strains on life in military service, since the same tensions must already be present among the much larger populations of straight males and females.

 

What is most interesting about the whole issue is how quickly homosexuality, which until about 30 years ago was criminal if acted upon, and was often very severely punished by state laws, now designates a legal category of persons who are protected not only against criminalization but also against discrimination. Can you imagine a future era in which a Pedophile Rights movement gets going and suddenly it becomes illegal to discriminate against pedophiles in the military, in teacher hiring practises, among church staff members, etc.? This was the ultimate sense of the questions raised by Justice Scalia in the homosexual rights Supreme Court cases: Is society allowed to declare certain types of person or the actions certain types of persons perform to be criminal simply because it doesn't approve of them, or does it have to prove first that those actions are objectively harmful? If the state can't prove that the actions which characterize the preferred behavior of a certain class of people are objectively harmful, must it then grant that group not only freedom from being punished by the criminal law, but also legal protection from discrimination?

 

Quoting this one because it is related to the OP but I moved it with the tangent.

 

!

Moderator Note

Split off "Pedophile Rights" tangent

[JohnB]

Moontanman and Jackson33, I think that you are talking past each other to a degree.

 

Generally the concern about women and gays in the Defence Forces has not been about inappropriate conduct as such. It is more simple acceptance of the fact that a human will attempt to save a loved one who is in danger. How many fathers have drowned trying to save loved ones from floodwaters?

 

If (God forbid) both my wife and I were in a combat situation and she were in extreme danger then bugger the mission objectives, I would try to save her. It is this narural human behaviour that "weakens the unit", not the sex or sexuality of those involved. It weakens the unit because those around me know bloody well that they can't fully count on me if my wife is in danger. I would expect exactly the same actions of a gay trooper towards his/her love. Again, nothing about right or wrong, but simply about what is a basic human response in a crisis.

 

A second simple reponse in our society is that if we see both a man and a woman in danger, a male will attempt to save the woman first, virtually always. Saving the damsel in distress is bred into the male psyche almost from birth. Note that sacrificing the woman for mission objectives goes against this concept which means that troopers might not obey neccessary orders in order to save the woman.

 

So it's not about fears people will be seduced in foxholes. It's about accepting the fact that any human will protect and aid their significant other above all others. There are those who say that this wouldn't be so, but I call Bullsh*t on that. Of course you will try to save your own husband, wife or partner first.

 

So how do you avoid this favouritism on the battlefield? The obvious answer is by not having loved ones in combat with you. It shouldn't take more than 15 seconds thought to realise the rules that you would need to impose to try and prevent the situation occurring.

 

I add that another difficulty is the way that war has changed. Those that came up with the rules (aside from probably being hidebound homophobic) were thinking in terms of long field deployments. Nowadays while deployments can be long, they are comprised of relatively short patrols. Contrast the situation in Iraq with the Desert Campaign of WW II and you'll see what I mean.

 

On a final note I have to take issue with a statement in your first comment Jackson;

As for a Civilian Judge, telling the UNITED STATES MILITARY, what they must do, seems the ultimate display of arrogance toward authority.

Civillian Authority must always tell the Military what to do, any other option where the Military are above civillian control is a Military Government, either Junta or Dictatorship. I can't speak for the USA, but down here the Military is subservient to and always answers to, civillian authority. And a Judge and the Courts are the ultimate arbiters of that civillian authority.

 

Cheers.

[Marat]

There is also the problem, closely related to your point, of the cultural sacredness of the female body. One general once crudely answered the question, why women are not allowed in combat roles, by saying "No one wants to see women coming home with their tits shot off." Since it would be disproportionately costly to society's morale in supporting a war to have women crippled by combat visible on the streets, which is always more shocking than men equally damaged by war, that is an important consideration in the argument.

 

However, it all comes down to an issue of balance. Society now values the equality of the sexes so highly that women are allowed to be firefighters, even though there may be a cost to fire safety in permitting this. So some practical costs may be worth accepting to promote female equality by allowing women to serve in combat roles in the military.

[padren]

Out of curiosity are there any studies done by countries that have already passed through various stages of integration? It seems like the sort of thing military brass would like to study: how has the introduction of women into combat operations impacted the chain of command? Can men still do as they are told in German to do? Do the Israelis have women-linked (either due to their actions or that of men because of women) failures?

 

It feels like we can intellectually talk about all these gender-focused hardwired behaviors all day, but the real question is how it pans out in the field.

[JohnB]

Marat, I don't think it has anything to do with a "cultural sacredness" of the the female body. It's pure survival of the tribe. A society with 3 men and 50 women has a chance of survival whereas one with 3 women and 50 men doesn't. This has been true since before we first walked upright and animals demonstrate it all the time. Like it or not, in the survival game the life of an individual female is worth more than the life of an individual male. The demise of the Tasmanian aboriginal probably had far more to do with their habit of selling their women as slaves than meeting white man.

 

Society certainly has changed and women are now in jobs that put them in dangerous situations. There has always been the element of risk for females, a lion might attack while the males are out hunting. However there is a world of difference between accepting risks to females by allowing them to be in dangerous situations and actively sacrificing them in situations where someone is trying to kill them. It goes against millions of years of evolutionary biology.

 

Padren that's an interesting question, I don't know if such studies have been done. Depending on the findings, I don't know that they would get published either. Given the way the Art of War has changed, would studies based on patrols from relatively safe areas be applicable to being stuck in the field for weeks or months? Being able to return to base on a virtually daily basis is a relatively new thing.