John McCain says gay troops are "Intolerable Risk"

[BruceChris]

Gay troops pose an "intolerable risk" to national security, U.S. senator and Republican presidential hopeful John McCain wrote last month to a gay rights group seeking to move his position on "don't ask, don't tell."

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2007/05/03/4

This despite that fact that in many other countries that allow openly gay people in the military are facing no such problems. This tired old horse has been used to try to prevent integrated units in the military, to try to prevent the wider use of women in the military, and even to try to prevent the service of colored soldiers at a all, in the Civil War.

Say, can anyone tell me just what countries allow openly gay service members? I'm thinking Israel, Brittian, and Spain, but I'm sure that there are others.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[BrentRichards]

According to Wikipedia (so not gospel) the following countries allow openly gay persons to serve in their military:

Argentina
Australia
Austria
The Bahamas
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
United Kingdom

Service by openly gay persons is only specifically banned in the following countries:

Brazil
Cuba
Egypt
Iran
North Korea
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
Syria
United States of America
Venezuela
Yemen

[wow, that's some pretty distinguished company, huh?]

Wiki places the US and Russia in the "other policies" category. U.S. for "don't ask, don't tell." Russia allows "well adjusted" homosexuals to serve openly, but specifies that those with alleged "sexual identity problems" to be drafted during wartime only [nice, huh?]

Apparently, the countries not listed have no concrete policy one way or the other.

[tdogg]

Interesting list Brent!!

Thanks for sharing. Pretty eye opening, if not mind opening...

[Daniel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/wo...21britain.html

Originally Posted by NYTimes

May 21, 2007
Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur

By SARAH LYALL
LONDON, May 20 — The officer, a squadron leader in the Royal Air Force, felt he had no choice. So he stood up in front of his squad of 30 to 40 people.

“I said, ‘Right, I’ve got something to tell you,’ ” he said. “ ‘I believe that for us to be able to work closely together and have faith in each other, we have to be honest and open and frank. And it has to be a two-way process, and it starts with me baring my soul. You may have heard some rumors, and yes, I have a long-term partner who is a he, not a she.’ ”

Far from causing problems, he said, he found that coming out to his troops actually increased the unit’s strength and cohesion. He had felt uneasy keeping the secret “that their boss was a poof,” as he put it, from people he worked with so closely.

Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue.

The Ministry of Defense does not compile figures on how many gay men and lesbians are openly serving, and it says that the number of people who have come out publicly in the past seven years is still relatively low. But it is clearly proud of how smoothly homosexuals have been integrated and is trying to make life easier for them.

“What we’re hoping to do is to, over a period of time, reinforce the message that people who are gay, lesbian and the like are welcomed in the armed forces and we don’t discriminate against them in any way,” a Defense Ministry official said in an interview, speaking on condition of anonymity in accordance with the ministry’s practice.

Nonetheless, the issue is extremely delicate now. The military does not want to be seen bragging about the success of its policy when the issue can still cause so much anguished debate in the United States. This is particularly true in light of tensions between the allies after a British coroner ruled in March that a British soldier who died four years ago was unlawfully killed by an American pilot.

For this article, the Defense Ministry refused to give permission for any member of the forces to be interviewed, either on or off the record. Those who spoke did so before the ministry made its position clear.

“We’re not looking to have quotes taken out of context in a way to imply that we’re trying to influence the debate in the United States,” the British official said. “There are some sensitivities over the timing of this. We have had communications from our counterparts in the United States, and they have asked us questions about how we’ve handled it and how it’s gone on the ground. There does seem to be some debate going on over how long the current policy will be sustainable.”

The debate in the United States was rekindled in March when Gen. Peter Pace, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the country’s top-ranking military official, told The Chicago Tribune that he believed that homosexuality was immoral.

In January, Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, who until his retirement in 1997 held the same post in the Clinton years, when the Pentagon adopted its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, said in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times that he now believed that the military was ready to accept gay men and lesbians. A military already stretched thin, he said, “must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.”

At least 24 countries — many of them allies of the United States, and some of them members of the coalition forces fighting alongside Americans — now allow gay soldiers to serve openly in their armed forces.

It is hard to avoid comparing the British and American systems, gay soldiers in the British forces say.

One major, an openly gay liaison officer in the British Territorial Army, told of an exchange he had in the southern Iraq city of Basra with an American staff sergeant, far from home and eager to confide.

“He privately let me know he was gay,” the major said in an interview. “Not in a romantic way, but in a matter-of-fact way. He found it difficult, because he clearly had a whole part of his private life that he had to keep separate and distinct and couldn’t discuss with people. He was in his mid-30s, with no girlfriend and no wife, and he had to use all these white lies.”

Some Britons said they could not understand why the United States had not changed its policy.

“I find it strange, coming from the land of the free and freedom of speech and democracy, given the changes in the world attitude,” said the gay squadron leader, who recently returned from Afghanistan. “It’s just not the issue it used to be.”

Until its policy changed, the British military had deep misgivings about allowing homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces. But it had no choice. It was forced to by a European court, which ruled that its policy of excluding homosexuals violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

“There was a lot of apprehension among some senior personnel that there would be an increase in things like bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation, and some of them were almost predicting that the world was going to come to an end,” the Defense Ministry official said.

Similar concerns were raised when, bowing to national antidiscrimination laws, the military began allowing gay personnel who had registered for civil partnerships to live in military housing with their same-sex partners. “But all the problems the services thought were going to come to pass really haven’t materialized,” the official said.

To the extent it becomes an issue, it is usually within the context of the relentlessly rough give-and-take that characterizes military life, particularly at the lower ranks, said Nathaniel Frank, a researcher at the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who has studied the British experience.

“The military is a proving ground, and the first thing people do is find your weakness and exploit it,” Mr. Frank said in an e-mail interview. “If you’re gay, that’s your weakness, and guys will latch on to that. But frequently this is no more significant a weakness than any other based on your accent, body type, race, religion, etc.”

The British military actively recruits gay men and lesbians and punishes any instance of intolerance or bullying. The Royal Navy advertises for recruits in gay magazines and has allowed gay sailors to hold civil partnership ceremonies on board ships and, last summer, to march in full naval uniform at a gay pride rally in London. (British Army and Royal Air Force personnel could march but had to wear civilian clothes.)

Speaking at a conference sponsored by the gay advocacy group Stonewall last year, Vice Adm. Adrian Johns, the second sea lord, said that homosexuals had always served in the military but in the past had had to do it secretly.

“That’s an unhealthy way to be, to try and keep a secret life in the armed services,” said Admiral Johns, who as the Royal Navy’s principal personnel officer is responsible for about 39,000 sailors. His speech was titled “Reaping the Rewards of a Gay-Friendly Workplace.”

“Those individuals need nurturing, so that they give of their best and are, in turn, rewarded for their effort,” he said of the Royal Navy’s gay men and lesbians. “Nurture includes the freedom to be themselves. Our mission is to break down barriers of discrimination, prejudice, fear and misunderstanding.”

Once the news is out there, the gay Royal Air Force squadron leader said, the issue gets subsumed by the job at hand and by the relentless immediacy of war.

At one point, his squad was working with a British Army unit. “I wouldn’t go into a briefing room and face them and say, ‘By the way, I’m gay,’ ” he said of his British Army counterparts. “Frankly, I don’t think they were worried, because we were all focused on doing a very, very hard job.”

He recalled something his commander had said, when advising him to come out to his squad:

“The boss said, ‘I think you will be surprised that in this day and age it will be a complete anticlimax, because as far as I’m concerned, homosexuals in the military are yesterday’s news.’ ”

Caption to picture

British soldiers with revelers at the 2005 gay pride parade in Manchester, an event at which the army for the first time tried to attract recruits.

[kimmyd]

McCain will say anything to stay in the press since his presidential loss. The guy needs to get over the fact that no one cared about him then, and no one does now.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

Gay troops pose an "intolerable risk" to national security, U.S. senator and Republican presidential hopeful John McCain wrote last month to a gay rights group seeking to move his position on "don't ask, don't tell."

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2007/05/03/4

This despite that fact that in many other countries that allow openly gay people in the military are facing no such problems. This tired old horse has been used to try to prevent integrated units in the military, to try to prevent the wider use of women in the military, and even to try to prevent the service of colored soldiers at a all, in the Civil War.

Say, can anyone tell me just what countries allow openly gay service members? I'm thinking Israel, Brittian, and Spain, but I'm sure that there are others.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

If it is any consolation, he voted against the Hate Crimes Bill in 2002, 2004 and will most likely do the same in 2007.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by antonyh

If it is any consolation, he voted against the Hate Crimes Bill in 2002, 2004 and will most likely do the same in 2007.

Oh, that makes it better.

[tpdncr4christ]

did anyone ever tell these guys the real story of the battle of the Spartans at Thermapole? I'm not sure if it's true, but I was told that the 300 Spartans were actually 150 couples. The belief was that you would fight harder to protect and impress your partner... but it could be a rumor. If it's true, it sure says we aren't invaluable.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

did anyone ever tell these guys the real story of the battle of the Spartans at Thermapole? I'm not sure if it's true, but I was told that the 300 Spartans were actually 150 couples. The belief was that you would fight harder to protect and impress your partner... but it could be a rumor. If it's true, it sure says we aren't invaluable.

Not a rumor at all. They were called the Sacred Band of Thebes.

One site, The World History of Male Love (http://www.androphile.org/) has this to say.

http://www.androphile.org/preview/Cu...ece.htm#theban

The power of love that was used to such good effect to educate Greek youths also served to sharpen their motivation, and that of their lovers, in battle. The bravery of male couples, such as those that made up the Theban Sacred Band, was well known throughout ancient Greece and was an important factor in war. Pederastic couples were also known as tyrannicides, killers of tyrants, in that they often were the first to rise up against despots. Harmodius and his erastes, Aristogiton, were perhaps the best known of those couples.

Another...

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

Sacred Band of Thebes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sacred Band of Thebes was a troop of picked soldiers, numbering 150 pederastic couples, which formed the elite force of the Theban army in the 4th century BC. It was organized by the Theban commander Gorgidas in 378 BC, played a crucial role in the Battle of Leuctra, and was completely annihilated in the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.

The reasoning behind the Sacred Band was that lovers would fight more fiercely and more cohesively at each other's sides than would strangers with no ardent bonds. According to Plutarch (in his Life of Pelopidas[2]), the inspiration for the Band's formation came from Plato’s Symposium, wherein the character Phaedrus remarks:

And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other's side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger?

The Sacred Band originally was formed of picked men in couples, each lover with his beloved, selected from the ranks of the existing Theban citizen-army. The pairs consisted of the older "heniochoi", or charioteers, and the younger "paraibatai", or companions. They were housed and trained at the city’s expense. During their early engagements, in an attempt to bolster a general morale, they were dispersed by their commander Gorgidas throughout the front ranks of the Theban army.

After the Theban general Pelopidas recaptured the acropolis of Thebes in 379 BC, he assumed command of the Sacred Band in which he fought alongside his good friend, Epaminondas. It was Pelopidas who formed these couples into a distinct unit: he “never separated or scattered them, but would stand [them with himself in] the brunt of battle, using them as one body.” They became, in effect, the “crack” force of Greek soldiery, and the forty years of their known existence (378 – 338 BC) marked the pre-eminence of Thebes as a military and political power in late-classical Greece.

The Sacred Band under Pelopidas fought the Spartans at Tegyra in 375 BC, vanquishing an army that was at least three times their number. It was also responsible for the victory of Leuctra in 371 BC, called by Pausanias the most decisive battle ever fought by Greeks against Greeks. Leuctra established Theban independence from Spartan rule, and laid the groundwork for the expansion of Theban power, though possibly also for Philip II's eventual victory.

Defeat came at the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), the decisive contest in which Philip II of Macedon (with his son, Alexander the Great, as he would later be known) extinguished the authority of the Greek city-states. The traditional Greek hoplite infantry were no match for the novel long-speared Macedonian phalanx: the Theban army and its allies broke and fled, but the Sacred Band, though surrounded and overwhelmed, refused to surrender. They held their ground and fell where they stood. Plutarch records that upon encountering their corpses “heaped one upon another”, King Philip, understanding who they were, exclaimed:
"Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly."

Though Plutarch claims that all three hundred died that day, other writers claim that two hundred and fifty-four died and all the rest were wounded. That claim was substantiated upon the excavation of their communal grave at Chaeronea in the early 1800s, in which two hundred and fifty-four skeletons were found, arranged in seven rows.

The filmmaker of 300 (and the novel is is based on) may not have gotten the historical aspect right, but it has been noted that the homoerotic 'eye candy' aspect as been preserved.

That would be the real risk: showing the truth for what it was.

[revtj]

It's too bad Republicans have lost the wisdom and experience of Barry Goldwater. In fact, many people once saw McCain as heir to Goldwater, but it's not to be.

Goldwater was a conservative whose grandson's coming out helped him to re-think the gay issue. Here is an excellent argument he wrote when "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was being debated a few years before America became a cowardly plutocracy.

McCain reminds me of a desperate trick in a gay bar when the lights come up at closing, rushing around telling everybody what they want to hear to try and get laid. And I think it's pretty clear she's going home alone.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

McCain reminds me of a desperate trick in a gay bar when the lights come up at closing, rushing around telling everybody what they want to hear to try and get laid. And I think it's pretty clear she's going home alone.

Hahahahahahaha!

[tpdncr4christ]

we should find a group of 150 modern day couples who are willing to fight in the army... we would kick a** and cause this Mcain person to eat their words

[Daniel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...-gay-linguists

OLITA C. BALDOR | AP | May 23, 2007 07:18 PM EST


WASHINGTON — Lawmakers who say the military has kicked out 58 Arabic language experts because they were gay want the Pentagon to explain how it can afford to let the valuable specialists go.

Seizing on the latest discharge, involving three specialists, House members wrote the House Armed Services Committee chairman on Wednesday that the continued loss of such "capable, highly skilled Arabic linguists continues to compromise our national security during time of war."

Former Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Stephen Benjamin said his supervisor tried to keep him on the job and urged him to sign a statement saying he was not gay. Benjamin said his lawyer advised against signing because the statement could be used against him later if other evidence surfaced.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Benjamin said he was caught improperly using the military's secret level computer system to send messages to his roommate, who was serving in Iraq. In those messages, he said, he may have referred to being gay or going on a date.

"I'd always had been out since the day I started working there," Benjamin said. "We had conversations about being gay in the military and what it was like. There were no issues with unit cohesion. I never caused divisiveness or ever experienced slurs," said Benjamin, who was in the Navy for nearly four years.

He was fired under the "don't ask, don't tell" law passed in 1994. It lets gays serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts. The law prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sex life and requires discharge of those who openly acknowledge they are gay.

Rep. Marty Meehan, who has sought a repeal, organized the letter to Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., asking the committee hold a hearing about the Arabic linguists.

"At a time when our military is stretched to the limit and our cultural knowledge of the Middle East is dangerously deficient, I just can't believe that kicking out able, competent Arabic linguists is making our country any safer," Meehan said.

The letter, signed by about 40 House members, says that the military has discharged 58 Arabic linguists under the policy and that Congress should decide whether "don't ask, don't tell" "is serving the nation well."

For Benjamin, 23, the discharge ended a military career he had hoped to continue.

He said he was among about 70 people investigated at Fort Gordon in Georgia for using the computer to send personal notes. He said others who are not gay kept their jobs even though they were caught sending sexual and profane messages.

Benjamin said investigators from the Defense Department's inspector general's office pulled the message logs for one day and reviewed them for violations. Some people, he said, received administrative punishments for writing dirty jokes, profanity and explicit sexual references.

According to researchers at the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, which tracks these issues, three Arabic linguists were fired as a result of the computer reviews. Their names were not released. Benjamin agreed to discuss the incident publicly.

The center's director, Aaron Belkin, said, "There is simply no common sense reason for the military to fire Arabic linguists in the midst of a dire shortage of translators. Translating al-Qaida cables is more important the making sure that the military is free of gays."

Marine Maj. Stewart Upton, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Pentagon is enforcing the law.

The Defense Department, he said, "must ensure that the standards for enlistment and appointment of members of the armed forces reflect the policies set forth by Congress," he said.

Benjamin said the computer review was done last December, but his discharge was not finalized until the end of March. His roommate, he said, was allowed to finish out his tour in Iraq and came home in February, then was discharged in early April.

"I was always discreet, I never considered it would be an issue," said Benjamin, when asked why he joined the military knowing the policy existed. "I thought if I don't say anything, they're not going to ask me. But, it was more aggressive than I thought."

Meehan's bill to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law has 124 co-sponsors, but efforts to get Congress to take another look at the issue have not yet been successful.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he was not reviewing the policy.

I made a lot of noise on this forum about The Right to Serve Campaign, but you know what? Still don't like the whole ideas of armies, guns and killing, but these people should have the Right to Serve.

The irony here is that we're wanted when there's a war....sigh

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by revtj

McCain reminds me of a desperate trick in a gay bar when the lights come up at closing, rushing around telling everybody what they want to hear to try and get laid. And I think it's pretty clear she's going home alone.

You have a way with words.

[revtj]

I posted a similar article on the other thread...

[d_pedr]

[QUOTE=BruceChris;28374]Gay troops pose an "intolerable risk" to national security, U.S. senator and Republican presidential hopeful John McCain wrote last month to a gay rights group seeking to move his position on "don't ask, don't tell."

Let's be logical here...
What's a greater risk:
People being honest about who they are, or
People having to deny who they are to do the role they have succeeded in getting.

A high ranking gay officer, having to lie about his sexuality in order to keep his job is open to blackmail, and therefore a risk to national security.

The same officer who can say - go publish - it doesn't matter that you know I'm gay, is no longer a risk to national security, as he/she is not open to blackmail.

[BruceChris]

I find myself wondering if there is any connection between these soldiers being suspected of being gay, and the fact that they had long had reputations as being *accomplished linguists*.

BC

[BrentRichards]

I find John McCain to be an intolerable risk to my freedom. Gonna have to ban him from being commander-in-chief.

[BrentRichards]

[QUOTE=d_pedr;30369]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

Gay troops pose an "intolerable risk" to national security, U.S. senator and Republican presidential hopeful John McCain wrote last month to a gay rights group seeking to move his position on "don't ask, don't tell."

Let's be logical here...
What's a greater risk:
People being honest about who they are, or
People having to deny who they are to do the role they have succeeded in getting.

A high ranking gay officer, having to lie about his sexuality in order to keep his job is open to blackmail, and therefore a risk to national security.

The same officer who can say - go publish - it doesn't matter that you know I'm gay, is no longer a risk to national security, as he/she is not open to blackmail.

Precisely. Of course, that's asking politicians to make sense. They don't do that over there across the pond, do they, Peter? They sure don't here.

[d_pedr]

[QUOTE=BrentRichards;30390]

Originally Posted by d_pedr

Precisely. Of course, that's asking politicians to make sense. They don't do that over there across the pond, do they, Peter? They sure don't here.

There's an old joke over here:
-------------------------------------
How can you tell if a politician is lying?

Watch his lips!
-------------------------------------

Sorry was expecting too much wasn't I.