1. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using the military as a social policy guinea pig, and I'd rather that we err on the side of caution than rush headlong into something. If it turns out that those with SSA can serve effectively, then perhaps we should evaluate changing the policy. Then again, we don't want a situation like the Roman Catholic Church had recently and so, again, I'd prefer to be overly cautious.
2. The feasibility of this at an Army base may be different for that aboard a Navy ship. I'm personally opposed to having men and women serving on the same ship (and if we want to have all-female crewed ships that could be worth considering); serving sailors have enough stress and boredom (yes, I know that's a paradox) as it is without having sexual temptation as well.
The Army changes policy all the time, and so far is still functioning. In point of fact the current policy is now over 15 years old and nothing bad has come of it. Experimenting with further changes is certainly not a horrible idea, especially since the current policy also obviously causes undesirable problems.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that gays are any more likely to be child molestors than straights. Sorry, there isn't. There is no link between the two conditions.
To point 2: It seems reasonable to me that different services might want to have different policies. However, what Navy are you familiar with? Women have been serving on Navy ships for decades now.
'Gay' has never been a problem in my experience. Several guys I served with might have been - they were not overly excited about porn, they kept to themselves or went off by themselves on liberty. Or (hey I fit that profile!) they could be have been well-mannered. Either way as long as the guy did his job not a big deal.
Which is not to say it didn't happen - simply that I was never aware of such.
If a guy was harassed by his peers for 'being gay' - it's a leadership problem, plain and simple. Marines who will do that are also going to be discipline problems in other ways.
I have to wonder how much of the attitude that "it's not a problem" is because society - and almost 15 years of the current policy - has acclimated our young people, and thus the majority of those currently serving, to really be okay with it. Alternately, how many servicemen are not okay with the situation personally, but being good soldiers they enforce self-discipline and their officers maintain unit discipline.
In other words, let's assume we got to the completely unrealistic and purely hypothetical point where there are no outward signs of any problem with implementation of the policy. No soldier needs to ever be disciplined for harassing a fellow soldier, and all homosexual soldiers are content with circumstances such that no one is ever discharged because of it. The question is: is there any degradation of unit effectiveness caused by each soldier having to devote some of his attention to these concerns, and if so do the benefits outweigh the costs?
I have some thoughts in answer to my own questions, but I believe the questions themselves are more important for everyone to consider than anything I have to say - so I'll shut up for now.
I know the Army changes policy all the time. I'm just thinking that, especially when we're actively at war, this may not be the best time to consider allowing those with SSA to serve openly. In fact, there's a bit of a contradiction there: a person looking to serve, by definition, seeks to accommodate others. Is it something we should revisit later? Maybe. Integrating by race was hard enough and there are far, far better arguments for our current attitude towards race than toward our acceptance of people acting out on their same-sex attraction.
As for the Navy, there's officially not supposed to be any sex between men and women while aboard ship. Somehow, though, female sailors become pregnant (and I've heard claims that this number can dramatically increase as ships get deployed to combat zones). It's not about whether women are "as good" as men, as each group has its own strengths and weaknesses, but about effectiveness.
Let me ask this: if soldiers prefer to wear jeans and a Metallica t-shirt should we allow them to wear those instead of their uniform? Of course not, for the very simply reason that uniforms provide a number of benefits to a military that casual clothes do not.
Let me be clear: if it were determined that white people, or Anglicans, or graduates of Virginia Tech were considered harmful to the effectiveness of the military then I would support policies that exclude them from service.
Are you talking about something like a negative version of the Michael Jordan Effect, where a person's individual contributions aren't so important as their effect on the group? The 1990s Chicago Bulls were a powerhouse team and Michael Jordan was one of, and perhaps the very, best basketball players of all time. However, I'm convinced that his skills alone, while fantastic, weren't as important as how it seems that everyone else on the team played better themselves when he was on the floor with them.
The question is: is there any degradation of unit effectiveness caused by each soldier having to devote some of his attention to these concerns, and if so do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Perhaps. But consider that you have a bunch of guys where you are living in very close quarters - right in each other's pockets - for months at a time. You're going to get on each other's nerves - be it their choice in music, personal habits, whatever.
What I'm saying is that soldiers devote a considerable amount of attention to getting along with people but the crap out of them. In terms of what bugs them, sexual preference might come way down on the list in favor of 'music' or 'annoying accent'.
Or at least that is my experience; some of the Marines I served with were unpleasant people to be around - but they were my brothers in arms and I'd die for them - and they for me - if it came down to it.
I was a sub-sailor (there are 2 types of ships, submarines and targets) for 6 years &saw two people on the boat in separate, unrelated events removed from service for homosexuality. I was personally fine with serving with either of the two, although I might not have categorically been OK with serving with other personalities and I clearly understand why the USN would prefer not to absorb the liability.
The evolution and spread of AIDS in the US is clearly linked to homosexual men. The Center for Disease Control keeps statistics, and anyone can see a simple correlation without judging (although it takes some effort to wade through the system at http://wonder.cdc.gov/AIDSPublic.html). The US military provides medical support for servicemen (I don’t know if this is a universal practice for all countries). The cost of HIV/AIDS treatment is high. Therefore, accepting homosexuals in the military places carries a large burden in medical costs. Keeping homosexual men in close quarters (like ship/boat deployments) is likely to allow more sexual activity linked to the spread of AIDS. It is not unreasonable that policy makers don’t want to adopt practices that encourage the spread of AIDS.
I don’t think anyone has actually thought beyond the heartfelt desire to accept people (can we get a hug here?). The USN (and the public in general) offers two kinds of restrooms -- Men's and Women's which is based solely on sex. You could make all kinds of suppositions and arguments for different facilities but I think it boils down to privacy from being observed by others who might consider you a potential sexual partner. Whatever the reason for having separate restrooms, it would seem that if there is a legal recognition and endorsement of homosexual service then there should be a third (or 4th) category of facilities for homosexuals.
6.11.2007 12:01pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
1. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using the military as a social policy guinea pig, and I'd rather that we err on the side of caution than rush headlong into something. If it turns out that those with SSA can serve effectively, then perhaps we should evaluate changing the policy. Then again, we don't want a situation like the Roman Catholic Church had recently and so, again, I'd prefer to be overly cautious.
2. The feasibility of this at an Army base may be different for that aboard a Navy ship. I'm personally opposed to having men and women serving on the same ship (and if we want to have all-female crewed ships that could be worth considering); serving sailors have enough stress and boredom (yes, I know that's a paradox) as it is without having sexual temptation as well.
To point 1:
The Army changes policy all the time, and so far is still functioning. In point of fact the current policy is now over 15 years old and nothing bad has come of it. Experimenting with further changes is certainly not a horrible idea, especially since the current policy also obviously causes undesirable problems.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that gays are any more likely to be child molestors than straights. Sorry, there isn't. There is no link between the two conditions.
To point 2: It seems reasonable to me that different services might want to have different policies. However, what Navy are you familiar with? Women have been serving on Navy ships for decades now.
'Gay' has never been a problem in my experience. Several guys I served with might have been - they were not overly excited about porn, they kept to themselves or went off by themselves on liberty. Or (hey I fit that profile!) they could be have been well-mannered. Either way as long as the guy did his job not a big deal.
Which is not to say it didn't happen - simply that I was never aware of such.
If a guy was harassed by his peers for 'being gay' - it's a leadership problem, plain and simple. Marines who will do that are also going to be discipline problems in other ways.
In other words, let's assume we got to the completely unrealistic and purely hypothetical point where there are no outward signs of any problem with implementation of the policy. No soldier needs to ever be disciplined for harassing a fellow soldier, and all homosexual soldiers are content with circumstances such that no one is ever discharged because of it. The question is: is there any degradation of unit effectiveness caused by each soldier having to devote some of his attention to these concerns, and if so do the benefits outweigh the costs?
I have some thoughts in answer to my own questions, but I believe the questions themselves are more important for everyone to consider than anything I have to say - so I'll shut up for now.
I know the Army changes policy all the time. I'm just thinking that, especially when we're actively at war, this may not be the best time to consider allowing those with SSA to serve openly. In fact, there's a bit of a contradiction there: a person looking to serve, by definition, seeks to accommodate others. Is it something we should revisit later? Maybe. Integrating by race was hard enough and there are far, far better arguments for our current attitude towards race than toward our acceptance of people acting out on their same-sex attraction.
As for the Navy, there's officially not supposed to be any sex between men and women while aboard ship. Somehow, though, female sailors become pregnant (and I've heard claims that this number can dramatically increase as ships get deployed to combat zones). It's not about whether women are "as good" as men, as each group has its own strengths and weaknesses, but about effectiveness.
Let me ask this: if soldiers prefer to wear jeans and a Metallica t-shirt should we allow them to wear those instead of their uniform? Of course not, for the very simply reason that uniforms provide a number of benefits to a military that casual clothes do not.
Let me be clear: if it were determined that white people, or Anglicans, or graduates of Virginia Tech were considered harmful to the effectiveness of the military then I would support policies that exclude them from service.
Are you talking about something like a negative version of the Michael Jordan Effect, where a person's individual contributions aren't so important as their effect on the group? The 1990s Chicago Bulls were a powerhouse team and Michael Jordan was one of, and perhaps the very, best basketball players of all time. However, I'm convinced that his skills alone, while fantastic, weren't as important as how it seems that everyone else on the team played better themselves when he was on the floor with them.
Perhaps. But consider that you have a bunch of guys where you are living in very close quarters - right in each other's pockets - for months at a time. You're going to get on each other's nerves - be it their choice in music, personal habits, whatever.
What I'm saying is that soldiers devote a considerable amount of attention to getting along with people but the crap out of them. In terms of what bugs them, sexual preference might come way down on the list in favor of 'music' or 'annoying accent'.
Or at least that is my experience; some of the Marines I served with were unpleasant people to be around - but they were my brothers in arms and I'd die for them - and they for me - if it came down to it.
The evolution and spread of AIDS in the US is clearly linked to homosexual men. The Center for Disease Control keeps statistics, and anyone can see a simple correlation without judging (although it takes some effort to wade through the system at http://wonder.cdc.gov/AIDSPublic.html). The US military provides medical support for servicemen (I don’t know if this is a universal practice for all countries). The cost of HIV/AIDS treatment is high. Therefore, accepting homosexuals in the military places carries a large burden in medical costs. Keeping homosexual men in close quarters (like ship/boat deployments) is likely to allow more sexual activity linked to the spread of AIDS. It is not unreasonable that policy makers don’t want to adopt practices that encourage the spread of AIDS.
I don’t think anyone has actually thought beyond the heartfelt desire to accept people (can we get a hug here?). The USN (and the public in general) offers two kinds of restrooms -- Men's and Women's which is based solely on sex. You could make all kinds of suppositions and arguments for different facilities but I think it boils down to privacy from being observed by others who might consider you a potential sexual partner. Whatever the reason for having separate restrooms, it would seem that if there is a legal recognition and endorsement of homosexual service then there should be a third (or 4th) category of facilities for homosexuals.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.