Report: Troops Who Support DADT Can Find Another Job
As reported at FoxNews, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen took those who might still support DADT to task:
Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday.
This seems consistent with prior leadership statements that those who support the current law could “vote with their feet.” However, to be fair, it seems the Admiral was excessively paraphrased. It seems the relevant quote is actually:
“Should repeal occur, some soldiers and Marines may want separate shower facilities. Some may ask for different berthing. Some may even quit the service,” Mullen said. “We’ll deal with that.”
Mullen added that “there is no gray area” in the debate when it comes to standards of conduct in the military.
“We treat each other with respect or we find another place to work. Period,” he said.
Despite that statement, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates attempted to alleviate concerns of a mass exodus from the military by noting of such troops:
You have the reality that they can’t just up and leave.
In short, troops who disagree with DADT repeal can get out. But there won’t be a negative impact to force strength because they can’t get out.
This appears to be consistent with the DADT report’s position that troops should not be relieved of their service obligations for moral opposition to DADT repeal.
With regard to the potential for a troop loss, there was an interesting quote in support of repeal:
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., added that the policy itself had resulted in loss of soldiers — because thousands had been tossed out for admitting they are gay and because would-be gay service members have been deterred by the policy from signing up for duty.
Senator John McCain had said more than a quarter of a million troops had indicated they might leave the military earlier than planned should DADT be repealed, and many more would be less likely to recommend to others that they join the military. By contrast, most reports indicate approximately 13,000 military members have been discharged for homosexuality.
Finally, a common canard was repeated about the issue of homosexuality and the military:
Mullen said that U.S. military members are already working on the battlefield with NATO forces from countries where being gay is not a disqualification from service.
“I don’t recall a single instance where the fact that one of them might be openly gay ever led to poor performance on the field,” he said. “Gay or straight, their troops patrolled with ours and bled with ours.”
No mainstream person or organization has suggested a homosexual has less skill in piloting an airplane, driving a tank, or shooting a gun. The question is not one of skill. The question is the impropriety of the military openly allowing conduct inconsistent with the moral character necessary for military service.
Reductions in military effectiveness, morale, and readiness have been forecast not because of homosexual skill levels, but because of the impact of both the institutionalized acceptance of homosexual conduct and the military’s admitted inability to address legitimate logistical concerns such a change in policy would create.
Dr. Richard Land recently called for the Senate to block repeal, noting that he believed repeal is “not in the nation’s best interest.” This position relates to other criticisms of the DADT report; notably, while it cites risks, nowhere does the report say what benefit there is to the military allowing homosexuals to serve openly:
“Sadly, today’s report…may be of little value to Congress, because they failed to address the central question – whether overturning the current law would enhance our nation’s ability to fight and win wars,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “By beginning with the premise that the law would be overturned, and exploring only how to implement such a change, the conclusion that such a change would be feasible was foreordained.”
Multiple groups have now pointed out that “negative” responses far outweighed “positive” ones on every question in the survey, yet the results of the survey are said to support a “positive” change.
Reportedly, the Service Chiefs, who will testify in Congress Friday, are expected to disagree with the decision to lift the ban.
Are you discharged from the military if you are found to have a propensity towards having sex while you are unmarried?
If one or both parties is married to someone else:
If not,
Discharge is authorized for repeat offenses.
Not what I asked. I will try again:
Are you discharged from the military if you are found to have a propensity towards having sex while you are unmarried?
Don,
Don’t you get tired of using the same argument over and over?
Your argument is only a good analogy if the military required members of opposite gender to sleep and shower together. Generally speaking all people understand the division between men and women and keep them separate for intimate (and i don’t mean romantic) situations. Try a new argument since yours is stale.
The claim was made that the institutionalized
acceptance of immoral conduct was a bad thing. So, by that logic, the institutionalized acceptance of unmarried sex would also be bad, since any morality that I have encountered that dissaproves of
one also dissaproves of the other. So, which is it? Should unmarried people who have sex be discharged from the military, pe should the talk of morality be dropped as irrelevant? One or the other, you can’t have it both ways.
Provide a citation supporting your implication there is an “institutionalized acceptance of unmarried sex.”
Don,
If you continue the logical extension of the argument you are claiming that we are making, then anyone who has ever made any immoral choice is disqualified for service. Since everyone (save One who is not physically on earth right now) has made an immoral decision, all would be disqualified. Therefore, to allow anyone in the military, people must differentiate between varying offenses.
I think that homosexuality (the action) is immoral, and immoral at a different level than promiscuity (which is also immoral). But that opinion is not the reason that I am opposed to the DADT repeal.
Here’s the reason:
The military often requires individuals to live and work in close quarters, but has maintained a level of separation between females and males. That separation is mission-dependent, but is appropriate (think the difference in acceptable contact between the office vs the combat skills course). Under the current draft of the DADT revision, that same separation is not afforded to open homosexuals and heterosexuals. Therein lies the main difference between the your analogy of promiscuity vs homosexuals.
The numbers from the DADT report belie the tension with repealing DADT, especially in combat troops who have different interpersonal relationships than you have with your co-workers around the watercooler (I’m assuming that you probably work in an office, but since you don’t talk about what you do, I don’t really know).
The last reason I am fearful of the DADT repeal is the potential for homosexuals to be included in the MEO system. Fortunately the DADT report strongly recommends against including homosexuality as a protected status, but it is a possibility.
Who made the claim the issue was ‘institutionalized acceptance of immoral conduct’? If that is your interpretation of views posted on this site, I’d love to hear your logic.
From the article above:
JD:The citation is simple. An unmarried soldier who has sex with an unmarried person has not broken any rules and is not discharged.
Dealer: On what grounds do you claim that homosexual activity is immoral on a different level to promiscuity?
Donalbain: Your “example” does not support your position, because it does not prove insitutional acceptance. Try again.
I believe Dealer’s original point was that you seem to using a heterosexual analogy to support a homosexual position. As he said, the analogy fails because even the societal standards on the two fail to equate.
OK.. so, lets get this straight..
Person has gay sex and is not discharged <— institutionalized acceptance of immoral conduct
Person has straight unmarried sex and is not discarged <— Not institutionalized acceptance of immoral conduct
If they allow gays, it is institutional acceptance, if they allow promiscious people, it is not institutionalised acceptance? Thats a truly fascinating display of incoherence.
And as for societies view.. a majority thinks that gay relationships are morally acceptable.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx
You are truly missing the point.
As a citation, the DADT repeal support plan proposes explicit rules that prohibit billeting/berthing policies based on “orientation” (while permitting them for gender). See page 54. The effect is an institutional acceptance of non-heterosexual “orientations.” There is no equivalent example for heterosexuals. For example, can you find a single military rule prohibiting discrimination based on “unmarried sex?” According to the DoD’s report, there will be one for homosexual sex. Therefore, one is “accepted” by the DoD as an institution; the other is not.
As for society’s view, you are completely off base. When society accepts single open shower facility at the local gym — for all genders, “orientations,” and ages — then perhaps there will be a perceived moral equivalence. For now, even society thinks there’s something “wrong” with having a man shower next to a woman.
So, a straight person having sex and not being discharged is NOT nstitutionalized acceptance of immoral conduct, but a gay person having sex and not being discharged IS nstitutionalized acceptance of immoral conduct?
Don,
Did you skim over the first part of my post?
Here’s the concept again:
If you continue the logical extension of your argument, then anyone who has ever made any immoral choice is disqualified for service or on the other extreme, all actions are acceptable. Since neither extreme is good for the service, the government must draw the line somewhere. As the law currently stands, heterosexual sex is allowed, although with many restrictions all which relate directly to military order and discipline. Homosexual sex is also allowed, with all of the same restrictions as heterosexual sex, and another restriction. That restriction is based on order and discipline as well. You can challenge that last statement, but consider the reaction from the combat troops before you say that the military is no different from whatever profession you are a part of.
Are people discharged from the military for having sex while unmarried?
don,
I’ll admit that i didn’t see the line in the article about ‘institutionalized acceptance.’ You did ask a good question about how I ranked homosexuality as more immoral than promiscuity. You are asking for the definition of morality. Your link above is more appropriately in the discussion covering ethics, which is the standard of behavior. Morality comes from an individual’s point of view, i.e. I view homosexuality as immoral, while I’m assuming that you don’t.
For me to answer your question, I would have to know what you consider to be an authority that is higher than your own wisdom. Would you share your view of authority?
I see you are not going to answer any of the questions that I ask, so I will draw a line under this particular conversation.
Don,
JD tried answering it with the regulations on when unmarried sex does lead to dismissal. What do you want, one of us to admit that the military does not treat unmarried heterosexual sex as the same as homosexual sex? Yeah, it doesn’t treat them the same. That was the underlying assumption for all the subsequent discussion; i.e. why the military treats them different.
Pingback: God and Country » House Committee to Debate Troops Religious Expression