[Dweplyododo]

California-based research center. Says it all.

[gennickhif]

Originally posted by Will
What exactly is the evidence? Other than the fact that every military on the face of this planet that has gays openly serving in the military having no problems?

[gimffnfabaykal]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Feeeeelings, wo-o-o feeeeeelings, Some day, you're going to be married to a man, Ben. This unhealthy obsession and repression you've got going is just depressing.

[googlopharm]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Islamic countries ban gays altogether, and they don't seem to have any problems.

We should follow their model. There's no problems in Iran? Really, Ben?

The problem is there are some monumental retards asking for "evidence" that gays in the military won't ruin cohesion and effectiveness. Such "evidence" has been provided at a 100% success rate for every single country that has gays in the military serving openly. But they still ask for evidence.

Give up the ghost, people.

[Brareevor]

There's no problems in Iran? Really, Ben? Morale seems higher there then here. Maybe we should ban gays altogether, and then our military would be happier.

The problem is there are some monumental retards asking for "evidence" that gays in the military won't ruin cohesion and effectiveness. Such "evidence" has been provided at a 100% success rate for every single country that has gays in the military serving openly. But they still ask for evidence. I fail to see how such a 'study' would be empirical in any sense of the word. Surprised to see such a stickler for science peddling this fluff.

[SDorothy28]

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.



This is Ben-level logic.

[MiniBoy]

Yes. The military is the one discriminating, they need to provide the "empirical evidence" that this would hurt combat effectiveness because every other military in the world that does this says it's no problem. I hope whomever funded this study can get their money back. Pointing at Israel and the UK, anyone can do that.

How about doing some real work and coming up with an argument that the US military policy is detrimental to it's performance rather then just pointing elsewhere and saying the grass is greener?

The onus is on the bigots here. Ahh, the cry of accurate and impartial science.

[Hodstcopter]

And Canada? And Australia? And New Zealand? And South Africa? And Argentina? All superpowers renowned over the world for their impressive military. I'm sure when the **** hits the fan everyone will call on the Canadians to save them.

Because the argument is that gays are detrimental to the cohesiveness and effectiveness of the military. All we know points to this being FALSE, demonstrably so in all 25 countries that permit gays to openly serve. What's the last war that any of these militaries have conducted successfully? I can't see much of an argument that any of these militaries are a significant force in the world today. You are asking the US to model themselves after nations that have dismantled for the most part their military, I would suggest they make poor models for the US.

You don't even need to make an argument that the US military is hurt every time they turn away qualified, talented individuals because of who they love. It should be obvious. Wow, care bear countdown anybody. That brought tears to my eyes.

There are openly gay men serving your country right now in Afghanistan, Ben. Are you proud of that? Or would you ask that they immediately be recalled from serving their country? I find it puzzling that you are proud of the mission in Afghanistan, but do not question why they refuse to serve in Iraq.

I'm proud of the Americans who have fought and died for my country with no recompense. I hope one day our nation and fighting force can strive to emulate their sacrifice.

[Savviioor]

USA

It's basically an "axis of evil"... You would piss on the boots of those who actually stand up and protect this nation?

Wow, that really takes balls. I'm sure you'd go out and put that on your car in Toronto, that America is part of the axis of evil.

[blackjackblax]

Wittlich was in the service. If I'm not mistaken, he retired from the military. I don't think anyone could ever convince me that he didn't serve his time admireably.
Sorry, Wittlich, if you feel I hoist you up as illustration too many times, but when the shoe fits...and in many of my conversations here, you do.

[crazuMovies]

Wasn't Connorkimbro sailing for the waters off Japan?

[ASSESTYTEAH]

What's the last war that any of these militaries have conducted successfully?

For ****'s sake, Ben, ISRAEL is on the list.

[RooxiaNof]

When can we expect you to sign up, Asher?

[occalmnab]

Wittlich, I'm going to put on the other shoe now.

[UtidaBrar]

I never served in the military so I have no firsthand experience. There are only 2 points that makes me think it might not be wise

(NOTICE WORDS "MIGHT NOT" and notice my admission of no firsthand knowledge - sorry I have to do that but sometimes people won't actually read what you say)

Back to the 2 points:

A: While I want America to be a socially moderate/liberal place to live, I don't want the military to become a social experiment. It's not their job as I see it.

The military's job is to entrust large groups of people to constantly smaller groups of people with the ultimate goal of killing people, blowing up things and protecting land from armed people who don't want you to have it.

so considering I have no firsthand knowledge and I am not interested in the military becoming the social beacon of emerging attitudes, I would

B) Rely on the people who know most about it or at least are ultimately held accountable for it. They aren't the politicians, they aren't the social activists, they aren't the anti-gay group. They are the Generals, Admirals and Colonels.

Now as far as I have heard, the majority of this group are against allowing openly homosexuals to serve in the military. I didn't say all but I did say the majority. And remember there is no Consitutional right to be accepted or to serve in the military. In fact quite the contrary.

Personally, I think in general one of the biggest mistakes society can make is to somehow force cutting edge civilian values on the military and it's leaders.

As for what Canada, France, N Korea or anyone else does... who gives a crap. America shouldn't try and tell them how to run their military and I am not too interested in what their opinion is on how to run America's. And let's remember that it has not been shown here that they even express an opinion on OUR military's stance on homosexuals. All we've seen is where an unreliable poster has chosen a few countries that support his case and told us what their policies were on THEIR armed forces. This is meaningless.

A stronger argument can be made by those gays that have served. And while I truly respect your service on a personal level I can't necessarily support changing the rules because of your service.

As a poor analogy, If my teen broke my curfew, took my car without my knowledge and then showed up at the scene of an accident and saved someone's life, I would respect his actions at the accident but I wouldn't necessarily change his curfew or driving privaledges if I still felt it was the wrong thing to do. But it would certainly make me look at it closer. Now the analogy is poor because that is a family matter and it is a civilian issue instead of a military one. But I thought it represented some of the points where you can be proud of someone service and still not necessarily support breaking the rules to accomodate others to engage in the same.

I will say, if it were up to me personally, I could care or less. But I am not the guy in charge and therefore I would defer my opinion to the person(s) in charge on this issue.

[markbila]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
As a poor analogy, If my gay teen broke my curfew, took my car without my knowledge and then showed up at the scene of an accident and saved someone's life, I would respect his actions at the accident but I wouldn't necessarily change his curfew or driving privaledges if I still felt it was the wrong thing to do. But it would certainly make me look at it closer. Now the analogy is poor because that is a family matter and it is a civilian issue instead of a military one. But I thought it represented some of the points where you can be proud of someone service and still not necessarily support breaking the rules to accomodate others to engage in the same. Does my little change affect anything?

ACK!

[CathBraunn]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Does my little change affect anything?

ACK! No. Like I said it was already a poor analogy. You just made it worse.

[replrobin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I think Canada should be modelling themselves after the Americans if they want a successful military rather then vice-versa. I don't see what Canada has to offer that would in any way shape or form improve the US military. Banning gays doesn't make the US military "successful". They are "successful" in your eyes because they have an obscenely large budget. Even that doesn't translate to success -- look at Iraq.

No, I'm not proud of the Canadian serviceman in Afghanistan regardless of whether he is gay or straight. I am ashamed that they need to hitch a ride from the Americans. I am ashamed that they cannot succeed in Afghanistan without the help of the Americans. I am ashamed at how inclusivity and political correctness, has replaced service and dedication. What the ****, Ben?

I'm asking you about the individual, NOT the infrastructure. You absolutely disrespect every man and woman in Canadian uniform who is willing to give up his or her life for their country. I'm asking you if you're proud of the PERSON. Of THEIR COMMITMENT to their country.

If you call me a bigot, call me a bigot against Canadians. I am proud of any man whether he is gay and straight who serves in the military provided he is American. But you're not proud of anyone who serves in the Canadian military, because you disagree with the funding of it from politicians?

I'd just like to give a colossal **** you on behalf of the people serving and giving their lives right now.

[valiumcheepval]

I have no problem fighting besides gays. I do however expect the basic standards of sex seperation to apply, which at the very least would be easy enough to implement Air Force wide immediately.

The army and marines wouldn't be too difficutlt.

The Navy would be the hardest, but not impossible. You would just have to do what we did with women, modify the ships that have the space now, and then design the new ones with accomidations and phase out the older ships on the normal procurement plan.

I looked at and interviewed with both the RCAF and CSIS -- both are ways to "serve my country" -- but the pay grades are insulting and I'm not a charity. People who join for money make lousey officers, if money is your goal you made the right decision. Not everyone is cut out for it, and that is not a bad thing

[ValintinoV]

I'll start by saying that gays should be able to serve openly. And I think the results of the research probably reflect reality.

I do, however, have a problem with proving effectiveness based on other countries culture. (god, I had to think that I sound like I'm agreeing with wiggy.) However people like Ben and Wiggy may make up a larger proportion of our population than in the other countries that were looked at. They are the problem, not the Gays. But with enought of people like them in the military, it could impact effectiveness.

Now, I'm not saying that it does make a difference, I'm just saying that looking at other cultures doesn't necessarily mean it's the same as ours.