Gay soldier profiled in 60 minutes discharged

[Alonzo]

This openly gay medic was discharged. Not only was he openly gay, he even introduced army buddy's to his boyfriend. But when he reported a comment directed at him for it, he was asked and confirmed to his commanding officer that he was gay. The commanding officer said he had to report it so it was reported to higher ups who opened an investigation. He fully cooperated and even sent them a video showing him on a trip with his boyfriend which included "passionate kissing". When the investigation ended they determined that there was "no evidence of homosexuality". But recently, due to the interview, he was discharged.

WASHINGTON — Six months after Army Sgt. Darren Manzella, a Chautauqua County native, went on “60 Minutes” to say that he’s gay, the Army discharged him under its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Manzella was let go for “homosexual admission” effective June 10, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network announced Friday.

And the former Army medic said it never should have happened.

“My sexual orientation certainly didn’t make a difference when I treated injuries and saved lives in the streets of Baghdad,” said Manzella, who was sent to Iraq after disclosing his sexuality to a supervisor. “It shouldn’t be a factor in allowing me to continue to serve.”

Lt. Col. George Wright, an Army spokesman, confirmed that Manzella was discharged because of his sexuality. He said Manzella left the 1st Cavalry Division on or about April 28 and was on leave until his official discharge June 10.

Manzella, 30, grew up in Portland, Chautauqua County, where his parents, Nancy and Michael Manzella, operate a grape farm.

He enlisted in the Army in 2002 and first told a supervisor that he was gay in August 2006 while serving at Fort Hood, Texas. Three weeks later, his battalion commander said he had been investigated but the investigation had been dropped without finding any “proof of homosexuality.”

A month later, in late 2006, Manzella was redeployed to Iraq. In total, he spent more that two of his six years in the military in Iraq and Kuwait, winning the Combat Medal Badge and other awards.

Last year, he became one of the first members of the military to come out while on duty overseas, speaking to CBS’ “60 Minutes” while concluding an assignment in Kuwait.

He told The Buffalo News earlier this year that he decided to reveal his sexuality in hopes of ending the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bars active-duty service members from disclosing that they are gay or from engaging in homosexual conduct.

“It’s an outdated policy, and I think that it unjustly keeps talented soldiers and personnel in the military from a lifestyle that really in no way would affect their work or their work performance,” he said.

But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a Michigan- based group that says it promotes sound military personnel policies, disagreed.

“The underlying premise is homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” she said.

Manzella said Friday that he received an official notice of his discharge in March, accompanied by a transcript of his “60 Minutes” interview and a story from the Associated Press.

His military lawyer told him there would be only one way to fight the discharge: by renouncing everything he said about his sexuality, which he was not willing to do.

Given his service record, he received an honorary discharge, meaning he will be eligible for veterans benefits.

Manzella is now living in Washington and working in a development job at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which fights the policy that has resulted in the dismissal of at least 12,000 gay service members since 1994.

“I try not to take it personally,” Manzella said. “I look at it as a policy that made this happen.”

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/380537.html

Bizarre really, they know he's gay but tell him "Just stop saying you're gay and say you were wrong about your gayness before, and you can stay". Shows what many of the commanding officers really think of the policy.

Here's the 60 minutes piece:

Part 1:
LfJDBljXYvw

part 2:

Tn1kpwGiZsg

[ScareCrow]

While I disagree with the don't ask don't tell policy I don't really sympathize with this case. He knew the rules ahead of time and he agreed to abide by those rules, regardless of how ridiculous they were. A man is only as good as his word, and he gave his word to abide by the military policies regardless of whether or not he agreed with them. He got what he deserved, a discharge and he's lucky it was honorable in my opinion.

[Thirdparty]

As a vet, agreed. You have to abide by the rules, like it or not.

TP

While I disagree with the don't ask don't tell policy I don't really sympathize with this case. He knew the rules ahead of time and he agreed to abide by those rules, regardless of how ridiculous they were. A man is only as good as his word, and he gave his word to abide by the military policies regardless of whether or not he agreed with them. He got what he deserved, a discharge and he's lucky it was honorable in my opinion.

[Pookie]

I'm a veteran, retired. I think these guys need to keep their sexuality to themselves. No one is going on about it except them.
For a time, because I was a commander and because I was tall, one of my soldiers reported me as a lesbian because her performance was unsatisfactory and she rode the sick call list regularly. I had to go in front of a courts-martial and drag my husband in there and I had to prove I was not a lesbian. That wasn't right, and it wasn't fair.
The bitch ended up sent to Fort Riley and thrown out of the Army for "inability to conform to military standards."
HAH!! Gaahh! Shut up and serve! Geez, what's so hard about that?
Purrs,
Pookie

[Alonzo]

I'm a veteran, retired. I think these guys need to keep their sexuality to themselves. No one is going on about it except them.

I wish those soldiers on TV would stop whining about missing their wives and kids. They need to shut up and kill the terrorists.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I too am a veteran, and I think this was simply a case of the military trying to cut its after-service funding responsibility, most likely in GI Bill money and vet services.


(edit to add)
Sorry, just noticed he received an honorable discharge, which means he is entitled to all of his vet benefits.

[Mr. Orr]

I'm a veteran, retired. I think these guys need to keep their sexuality to themselves. No one is going on about it except them.
For a time, because I was a commander and because I was tall, one of my soldiers reported me as a lesbian because her performance was unsatisfactory and she rode the sick call list regularly. I had to go in front of a courts-martial and drag my husband in there and I had to prove I was not a lesbian. That wasn't right, and it wasn't fair.
The bitch ended up sent to Fort Riley and thrown out of the Army for "inability to conform to military standards."
HAH!! Gaahh! Shut up and serve! Geez, what's so hard about that?
Purrs,
Pookie

He wasn't going on about it, he was just being himself until someone threatened to "out" him to his chain of command, rather than risk that he outed himself. Come to find out, if you can do your job in the military people aren't too keen about tossing you out dispite your sexual preferences. The real loser in the whole thing is, are, the guys who felt they could count on him to do a good job, including his chain of command.

[Leslie]

Quote:
I'm a veteran, retired. I think these guys need to keep their sexuality to themselves. No one is going on about it except them.


I wish those soldiers on TV would stop whining about missing their wives and kids. They need to shut up and kill the terrorists.


I know y'all got a rule here at DF about not comin' along 'n sayin' yup to a comment so I'll quote this statement and say I agree totally, in fact, make that 110%.

And I'm a military veteran.

[Mr. Orr]

I can't tell who's being sarcastic and who's not.

[bobbylien]

I can't imagine that he wasn't expecting this to happen.

[GhostintheMachine]

The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy should be repealed.

[Easy90]

The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy should be repealed.

Why? You thinking about signing up?

[GhostintheMachine]

Why? You thinking about signing up?

You are making the assumption that I am gay because I support gay rights, which is a false assumption. But I understand that you do not wish to maturely address the issue, but rather attempt to insult me with immature comments about your perception of my sexual orientation. I'm not going to stoop to your level though, sorry.

Here's a good article on why it should be abandoned:

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/in_print/abandoning_dont_ask_dont_tell_will_decrease_anti_g ay_violence

[IndieVisible]

Good to see our military is responsible and using good judgment!

[IndieVisible]

You are making the assumption that I am gay because I support gay rights, which is a false assumption. But I understand that you do not wish to maturely address the issue, but rather attempt to insult me with immature comments about your perception of my sexual orientation. I'm not going to stoop to your level though, sorry.

Here's a good article on why it should be abandoned:

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/in_print/abandoning_dont_ask_dont_tell_will_decrease_anti_g ay_violence

Your not gay? Fooled me too.

[IndieVisible]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotlEpmAFVQ

[ScareCrow]

Good to see our military is responsible and using good judgment!

Indie, you claim to be a liberal and yet are so far right you make Limbaugh look liberal from what I've seen so far. You are so afraid of homosexuals it really makes me wonder if you were a victim of some sort of sexual abuse as a child. Did you daddy not love you enough or did he love you too much :embarrased: Stop using Jesus as an excuse to be a narrow minded bigoted asshole!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Indie CLAIMS he is pro-individual rights, but he has no clue what they are......and often speaks in favor of limiting or removing them.

[IndieVisible]

IndieVisible speaks his mind, deal with it.

I am very open minded and unbiased!

More so then some of my accusers here who have to resort to insults because they have never seen the likes of some one like me who could give a rats azz about the status quo and speaks the truth no matter how unpopular it may be in some circles!

:fight:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Indie said:
IndieVisible speaks his mind, deal with it.

I have no problem with people speaking their mind, if their mind is informed and not simply biggotted.

Indie said:
I am very open minded and unbiased!

Should we have known that by the elitism you express of yourself over gays, or anyone else that doesn't agree with you, or from some other example you have provided other than hollow words seemingly lacking a logical tie to your "expressed" views?

Was George Jefferson as unbiased as you?

Indie said:
More so then some of my accusers here who have to resort to insults because they have never seen the likes of some one like me who could give a rats azz about the status quo and speaks the truth no matter how unpopular it may be in some circles!

What you consider insults are usually queries to your "stated claims" and "positions", since you never post links, logically tie your words to your statements, or provide much but opinion....

[Easy90]

You are making the assumption that I am gay because I support gay rights, which is a false assumption. But I understand that you do not wish to maturely address the issue, but rather attempt to insult me with immature comments about your perception of my sexual orientation. I'm not going to stoop to your level though, sorry.

Here's a good article on why it should be abandoned:

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/in_print/abandoning_dont_ask_dont_tell_will_decrease_anti_g ay_violence

Don't get your frilly little panties all up in a wad. You do realize DADT was Bill Clinton's baby, don't you? Are you old enough to have voted for Clinton?

All I asked, is...."are you thinking about signing up?" I take it the answer is "no." LOL!

[GhostintheMachine]

Don't get your frilly little panties all up in a wad. You do realize DADT was Bill Clinton's baby, don't you? Are you old enough to have voted for Clinton?

All I asked, is...."are you thinking about signing up?" I take it the answer is "no." LOL!

Nice try, we all know the context that you were trying to imply that I was gay: you said, "WHY, are you thinking about signing up." That insinuates that I must be gay. But you are right, I don't really want to spend any more time focused on your immaturity.

And yes, I realize DADT was Clinton's, no I wasn't old enough to vote for him, and I disagree with his policy.

[Easy90]

Nice try, we all know the context that you were trying to imply that I was gay: you said, "WHY, are you thinking about signing up." That insinuates that I must be gay. But you are right, I don't really want to spend any more time focused on your immaturity.

And yes, I realize DADT was Clinton's, no I wasn't old enough to vote for him, and I disagree with his policy.

Nice try? What is it you think I am "trying" to do?

I realize apparently, your just a kid. So I won't bother getting into a name calling contest as is apparently your "style." But I do have a question: If you are so enamored with homosexuality, but not, as you claim (and I couldn't care less one way or another) a homosexual yourself...why would be seem to be so "offended" by the assumption that you are gay? I mean...virtually all the postings you seem to make is related to that topic, or so it seems.

As for your belief that gays should be allowed to be openly gay and in the military...I don't agree. But then, I have been in the military, and I know a little about that culture. I just assumed (wrongly, according to you) that you were gay, and held that belief because you would like to join up...since you think that kind of behavior would be appropriate in the service. Since you are neither gay, nor (apparently) are interested in service in the military...I am interested in why you think as you do.

[Leslie]

Nice try? What is it you think I am "trying" to do?

I realize apparently, your just a kid. So I won't bother getting into a name calling contest as is apparently your "style." But I do have a question: If you are so enamored with homosexuality, but not, as you claim (and I couldn't care less one way or another) a homosexual yourself...why would be seem to be so "offended" by the assumption that you are gay? I mean...virtually all the postings you seem to make is related to that topic, or so it seems.

As for your belief that gays should be allowed to be openly gay and in the military...I don't agree. But then, I have been in the military, and I know a little about that culture. I just assumed (wrongly, according to you) that you were gay, and held that belief because you would like to join up...since you think that kind of behavior would be appropriate in the service. Since you are neither gay, nor (apparently) are interested in service in the military...I am interested in why you think as you do.

Pray tell, old wise one, you gonna tell us the fine soldiers of our military are ignorant bigots? Please don't bother, YOU are not the entire military so don't embarass yourself here in front of everyone.

And your implication that anyone is gay is entirely lost in the arena of educated or informed people, being gay is better than being stupid.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I don't know Easy...

I was in the military and I see no problem with gays being able to serve.....do you think if they aren't allowed they aren't there or something?

I served in the early 90's and there were some I suspected might be gay, but it didn't bother me any, and I am not gay.

Should it have bothered me?

[GhostintheMachine]

Nice try? What is it you think I am "trying" to do?

Trying to stir the pot...I'm sorry I responded to your taunting.

I realize apparently, your just a kid. So I won't bother getting into a name calling contest as is apparently your "style." But I do have a question: If you are so enamored with homosexuality, but not, as you claim (and I couldn't care less one way or another) a homosexual yourself...why would be seem to be so "offended" by the assumption that you are gay? I mean...virtually all the postings you seem to make is related to that topic, or so it seems.

I am 21, legally I have been an adult for three years. Therefore I suggest you call me an adult.(I think a major problem in this society is that if we wish for people at 18 to act like adults, since legally they are, we should treat them like adults and that includes calling them one).

I am very passionate about my argument for gay rights. There are some serious issues of discrimination against gays in this country and I feel very passionate about helping to fix the problem. I also have a good friend who is gay, and I cannot stand to see him discriminated against. So there is my explanation as to why I am so "enamored with homosexuality" as you so with to put. I am offended that when I bring up that DADT you immediately imply that I must be gay, and there was a negative connotation in your statement whether you chose to admit it or not. But that's okay, I'm not going to discuss it any longer, i'd rather have a discussion about the real issue, which is DADT.

As for your belief that gays should be allowed to be openly gay and in the military...I don't agree. But then, I have been in the military, and I know a little about that culture. I just assumed (wrongly, according to you) that you were gay, and held that belief because you would like to join up...since you think that kind of behavior would be appropriate in the service. Since you are neither gay, nor (apparently) are interested in service in the military...I am interested in why you think as you do.

Since conservatives seem to feel practicality is the bottom line to each issue, here is a practical reason why DADT should be repealed:

"In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office released estimates on the cost of the policy. Cautioning that the amount may be too low, the GAO reported $95.4 million in recruiting costs and $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003.[8]

In February 2006, a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission including Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary during the Reagan administration, former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Clinton administration, and professors from West Point U.S. Military Academy concluded that figure should be closer to $363 million, including $14.3 million for "separation travel" once a service member is discharged, $17.8 million for training officers, $252.4 million for training enlistees and $79.3 million in recruiting costs.[8] The commission report stated that the GAO didn't take into account the value the military lost from the departures."-wikipedia

Here are some major figures in the military also calling to get rid of it:

"Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.)[10] and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen[citation needed] spoke against the policy publicly in early January 2007: "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," General Shalikashvili wrote. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."[11]

In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy. They cited evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces, and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.[11]

On 4 May 2008, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, when speaking to graduating cadets at West Point, expressed the view "that Congress, and not the military, is responsible for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law banning openly lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans from military service." Admiral Mullen’s answer came in response to a cadet’s question asking what would happen if the next administration were supportive of legislation allowing gays to serve openly. During his senate confirmation hearing in 2007, Admiral Mullen told lawmakers that, “I really think it is for the American people to come forward, really through this body, to both debate that policy and make changes, if that's appropriate.” He went on to say that, “I'd love to have Congress make its own decisions” with respect to considering repeal.[12]"

Yes, the culture in the military is homophobic. Which brings me to another point, which is remaining in the closet has numerous negative psychological impacts. Not to mention, when soldiers aren't able to openly disclose their orientation, it increases the possibility for hate violence.

"The Pentagon's principal justification for the policy continues to be that the presence of openly gay and lesbian personnel would interfere with the military's ability to accomplish its mission. In essence, the Pentagon's rationale is that heterosexual personnel have such antipathy for gay people that they would be unable and unwilling to serve with them. Moreover, the Department of Defense believes that it is powerless to prevent this hostility from interfering with the military mission.

Thus, the presumed focus of the problem is not really homosexual personnel. Rather, it is heterosexual servicemembers and military leadership.

Scientific research and policy studies indicate that the Pentagon is wrong. Heterosexuals' hostility toward homosexuality need not interfere with the military mission, provided that strong leadership is exercised and clear rules are enforced concerning nondiscrimination.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/military.html

[Leslie]

Great post, Ghost. :thumbsup:

In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy. They cited evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces, and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.

Does that say evidence?

Yep, e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e spells evidence.

And cited by 28 retired generals and admirals!

[Easy90]

I don't know Easy...

I was in the military and I see no problem with gays being able to serve.....do you think if they aren't allowed they aren't there or something?

I served in the early 90's and there were some I suspected might be gay, but it didn't bother me any, and I am not gay.

Should it have bothered me?

Don't know what your values are...Don't really care how you feel about gays. Should what you think bother me?

[Easy90]

Sorry Ghost...Gen. John Shalikashvili isn't a 'real' general.. He's a Clinton general.

[GhostintheMachine]

Sorry Ghost...Gen. John Shalikashvili isn't a 'real' general.. He's a Clinton general.

Ok? Guess the 28 other generals don't count too...

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy said:
Don't know what your values are...Don't really care how you feel about gays. Should what you think bother me?

Obviously, since you seemed to be connecting military service and feelings of gays....

[Easy90]

Ok? Guess the 28 other generals don't count too...

Not really...the remaining 380 don't agree with them.

[Easy90]

Obviously, since you seemed to be connecting military service and feelings of gays....

I think the general drift of the topic was regarding gays in the military Os. My opinion is...openly gay people aren't fit to serve in the military.

The current law specifies that the exhibition of, or admission to...homosexual behavior disqualifies a person to wear the uniform. I agree with that. Of course, I am a "bigot, racist, stupid, intolerant, and on, and on..." because I believe that...but only among people I wouldn't generally care to associate with in the first place...so that's a win-win situation.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy said:
I think the general drift of the topic was regarding gays in the military Os. My opinion is...openly gay people aren't fit to serve in the military.

Your opinion is a statement about "gays" fitness to serve.....

On what factual basis is this opinion drawn from? Any?

Easy said:
The current law specifies that the exhibition of, or admission to...homosexual behavior disqualifies a person to wear the uniform. I agree with that. Of course, I am a "bigot, racist, stupid, intolerant, and on, and on..." because I believe that...but only among people I wouldn't generally care to associate with in the first place...so that's a win-win situation.

So, you see it as being ok that the law, and apparently you yourself, only have to recognize equality of those you approve of, and not those you don't approve of based on some personal subjective moral standard?

If that is the case, why should they respect, recognize or tolerate your way of life if they don't agree with it? What if they said because you believe in a particular god, you aren't fit to serve?

The underlying requirement for liberty is tolerance for those not like you, to live as they see fit.

On what LOGICAL basis should gays not be allowed to serve?

[Easy90]

Your opinion is a statement about "gays" fitness to serve.....

On what factual basis is this opinion drawn from? Any?

Hmmm.. You saying my opinion isn't a fact? Anyhoo...IMHO, the military bases much of it's structure on the trust that leaders are of good moral character, and not sick bastards who poke one another in the anus for sexual gratification.... Of course, I mean...literally, not figuratively. LOL!

So, you see it as being ok that the law, and apparently you yourself, only have to recognize equality of those you approve of, and not those you don't approve of based on some personal subjective moral standard?

I believe in equality. The law should apply to all equally. In this case, it does. But when you have a set of standards...obviously some who don't meet them, will say they were not treated equally. As long as they are all equally dismissed for not meeting the standards, they are being treated "equally."

If that is the case, why should they respect, recognize or tolerate your way of life if they don't agree with it? What if they said because you believe in a particular god, you aren't fit to serve?

You're injecting a false analogy to make your point. Under the current law, you're fit to serve if you "believe" in homosexuality (as you do)...just not if you bugger someone, and then talk about it....or get caught doing it.

The underlying requirement for liberty is tolerance for those not like you, to live as they see fit. On what LOGICAL basis should gays not be allowed to serve?

"Liberty" isn't a hallmark of service in the military. Good moral character, and an INTOLERANCE for those who don't have it (at least for the present anyway) still is.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy said:
Hmmm.. You saying my opinion isn't a fact?

NO.. I am saying it seems as though your opinion is tainted more by subjective values than actual facts. I have no issue with subjective values, we all have them. I have a problem when people think their subjective values belong in law, restricting the rights of others.

This is a restriction of rights of gays to serve their nation in the most recognized, most highly paid form of service.

Easy said:
Anyhoo...IMHO, the military bases much of it's structure on the trust that leaders are of good moral character, and not sick bastards who poke one another in the anus for sexual gratification....

Sad.... again, subjective morals are used to demonize anyone not sharing your own values....

Easy said:
Of course, I mean...literally, not figuratively. LOL!

And of course, you seem to put sexual preference above actions, respect, integrity when assesing a persons "moral" character.

Why should I consider that a valid criticism at all?

You patently seem to accept one code of moral character and deny all other codes as "inferior", which goes directly against the concept of freedom of religion and our right to practice and view religion/morality as WE find value in them individually.

Let me guess, your book is better than mine?!?

LOL


Easy said:
I believe in equality. The law should apply to all equally.

Needless to say, I pointed out above, and will continue to point out below why your statements of equality don't logically equate to your statements of gay inferiority.

Easy said:
In this case, it does. But when you have a set of standards...obviously some who don't meet them, will say they were not treated equally.

And on what basis should these standards be? Subjective, or Objective?

You have failed to show why the standard you subscribe to has any objective value.... which leaves it squarely in the realm of individual subjectivity.

Easy said:
As long as they are all equally dismissed for not meeting the standards, they are being treated "equally."

Equally unjust, by the very nation they enlisted to serve as any "non-gay" American has a right to, voluntarily, if they meet OBJECTIVE FITNESS AND MENTAL CAPACITY STANDARDS. Where does your "moral fitness" tie into objective standards at all?

Easy said:
You're injecting a false analogy to make your point. Under the current law, you're fit to serve if you "believe" in homosexuality (as you do)...just not if you bugger someone, and then talk about it....or get caught doing it.

Exactly. You are allowed to serve being gay as long as you voluntarily agree to live a lie when in professional surroundings....while non-gays are held to no such standard. Where is the equality you were championing above?

EAsy said:
"Liberty" isn't a hallmark of service in the military. Good moral character, and an INTOLERANCE for those who don't have it (at least for the present anyway) still is.

ROFLMAO.... yea sure....

proof of this?

How long has the military taken in "high moral character" hardened criminals?

ROFLMAO.....

You can be funny sometimes easy.... ;)

[Easy90]

Quote:
Easy said: Anyhoo...IMHO, the military bases much of it's structure on the trust that leaders are of good moral character, and not sick bastards who poke one another in the anus for sexual gratification....

Sad.... again, subjective morals are used to demonize anyone not sharing your own values....

Demonize? Where do you get that? And what morals exist that are not "subjective?"
What you are saying is either: "It's not fair to introduce morality in the topic..." OR....homosexual behavior is not "immoral." If you want to argue that it's not immoral to bugger another man...then state your case. But you seem to be saying (at the end of your post) that the military actively recruits "hardened criminals," (a point I do not agree with...) therefore...to be consistent, the military should allow sexual deviants to enter the ranks too.

Equally unjust, by the very nation they enlisted to serve as any "non-gay" American has a right to, voluntarily, if they meet OBJECTIVE FITNESS AND MENTAL CAPACITY STANDARDS. Where does your "moral fitness" tie into objective standards at all?

MY "moral fitness" standards? Gee...I didn't know I was the exclusive determiner of this program... You seem to rely on personal attack to advance your argument that morality isn't important in the military.

I have personally known several officers who were drummed out of the service for having committed (heterosexual) adultery. They were otherwise very capable and competent soldiers. Should they have been subjected to "arbitrary moral standards?" I have (in my entire service spanning three decades) never met any service member, officer or enlisted, who was a "hardened criminal" before being inducted into the service. So, my gay-friendly friend...your entire argument seems to be reliant on attacking me, and is a bit too subjective, and full of holes.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy said:
Demonize? Where do you get that?

Using your quote:
Quote:
Easy said: Anyhoo...IMHO, the military bases much of it's structure on the trust that leaders are of good moral character, and not sick bastards who poke one another in the anus for sexual gratification....

Easy said:
And what morals exist that are not "subjective?"

None that I know of.....there are some regarded as universal.

Easy said:
What you are saying is either: "It's not fair to introduce morality in the topic..."

I don't think morality has a place in objectively oreinted law....
Certainly not regarding why some individuals would have different rights than others, especially if that bias is based on sexual orientation.

Easy said:
OR....homosexual behavior is not "immoral."

Homosexual behavior is immoral to some people, not to others.... because its subjectively dependent on the values of the individual.

Easy said:
If you want to argue that it's not immoral to bugger another man...then state your case.

I am saying your values are YOUR values, and other people have their own. Is this not obvious? I see you arguing about moral differences quite a bit, so shouldn't it be obvious to you that there ARE moral differences? Value differences?

How can you have freedom of religion and one common moral value set?

Easy said:
But you seem to be saying (at the end of your post) that the military actively recruits "hardened criminals," (a point I do not agree with...) therefore...to be consistent, the military should allow sexual deviants to enter the ranks too.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/474713E06FF047F4862574840014EB4E?OpenDocument

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/01/ING42LCIGK1.DTL

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/07/sb-six-questions-eli-flyer

My point was that in the past, and especially now, the military accepts prisoners or people given the choice between prison and military service.

I don't see how one can equate homosexuality as a bar to service, much less when they are allowing criminals to enlist, often to avoid burdening the ALREADY overburdened jails as well as trying to boost sagging enlistment numbers.

Easy said:
I have personally known several officers who were drummed out of the service for having committed (heterosexual) adultery. They were otherwise very capable and competent soldiers. Should they have been subjected to "arbitrary moral standards?"

What is arbitrary about breaking a legal contract, a sworn oath? Adultery is willful violation of oath (both marriage and military) as well as illegal in most states.

How does something such as that compare to a person being homosexual?
What oath or contract is a homosexual breaking by being themselves?

EAsy said:
I have (in my entire service spanning three decades) never met any service member, officer or enlisted, who was a "hardened criminal" before being inducted into the service.

You are one person that served among how many, over how many years?

I met people while I was in too, but didn't get a background check on everyone I knew.... did you?

Easy said:
So, my gay-friendly friend...your entire argument seems to be reliant on attacking me, and is a bit too subjective, and full of holes.

I think you should start over and re-read our discussion.

[Easy90]

Using your quote:

I don't think morality has a place in objectively oreinted law....
Certainly not regarding why some individuals would have different rights than others, especially if that bias is based on sexual orientation.

So...you don't think law has any basis in morality. I see.

Homosexual behavior is immoral to some people, not to others.... because its subjectively dependent on the values of the individual.

I agree. But then, theft or murder as a moral concept also depend on the values of the individual. You're really on thin ice here.

I am saying your values are YOUR values, and other people have their own. Is this not obvious? I see you arguing about moral differences quite a bit, so shouldn't it be obvious to you that there ARE moral differences? Value differences?

Sure! But just because some people don't think buggery is wrong..doesn't mean the whole of society...or the military should agree or concede.

How can you have freedom of religion and one common moral value set?
So...homosexuality is a religion?

My point was that in the past, and especially now, the military accepts prisoners or people given the choice between prison and military service.

Really? Cause...I retired in the 90s...and my military didn't... But are you talking about accepting 'hard core criminals?' ...because I don't think that's a fact. When I signed up in 1970...I wouldn't have gotten a slot if I had bad credit...much less...a criminal record.

I don't see how one can equate homosexuality as a bar to service, much less when they are allowing criminals to enlist, often to avoid burdening the ALREADY overburdened jails as well as trying to boost sagging enlistment numbers.

Last figures I saw...all the services were exceeding enlistment quotas. The military academies are turning away applicants...could you substantiate your claims?

What is arbitrary about breaking a legal contract, a sworn oath? Adultery is willful violation of oath (both marriage and military) as well as illegal in most states.

But...but...if the military is recruiting "hardened criminals" as you claim...how could they be decruiting people who just have a little sex out of marriage?

How does something such as that compare to a person being homosexual?
What oath or contract is a homosexual breaking by being themselves?

If you don't regard buggery as immoral, or abhorrent behavior, then nothing. Problem is...most 'normal' people do...and they don't believe in subjecting themselves to any authority that condones such perversion. That it's no problem for you is not relevant. Since the military depends on people being assured that their leadership shares and champions high moral values...it would be contrary to good order and discipline to toss away that principle and depend on the continued existence of an honorable, and professional military.

I met people while I was in too, but didn't get a background check on everyone I knew.... did you?
I'm not sure where you're going with that question. I was subject to a "background check." I didn't conduct them. I was too busy...Your experiences in the military are evidently far different than mine...

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy said:
So...you don't think law has any basis in morality. I see.

Correct.

Easy said:
I agree. But then, theft or murder as a moral concept also depend on the values of the individual. You're really on thin ice here.

Howso? Theft and murder are both direct violations of individual rights? Where does the moral concept issue come in at all?

Easy said:
Sure! But just because some people don't think buggery is wrong..doesn't mean the whole of society...or the military should agree or concede.

You overlook the fact they have no ground to take a position at all....let alone concede.
It completely fails the individual rights argument, and is obviously "targeting" based on sexual preference. It is the US military, not some private army. If it were a private army, they would have a right to set some arbitrary standards as you champion, as morally degrading as many would find it.

Easy said:
So...homosexuality is a religion?

No, but it is as personal an issue as religion, and religion affects DIRECTLY in many cases the way people view it on a moral level. Do you not see the conflict?

Easy said:
Really? Cause...I retired in the 90s...and my military didn't...

Lol... ok sure.

Easy said:
But are you talking about accepting 'hard core criminals?' ...because I don't think that's a fact. When I signed up in 1970...I wouldn't have gotten a slot if I had bad credit...much less...a criminal record.

I posted some links, and there are several more links out there on the topic.

Easy said:
Last figures I saw...all the services were exceeding enlistment quotas. The military academies are turning away applicants...could you substantiate your claims?

Why, I did in the last post and you seemingly completely ignored them....

Easy said:
But...but...if the military is recruiting "hardened criminals" as you claim...how could they be decruiting people who just have a little sex out of marriage?

I am guessing moral bigotry in the upper levels, and possibly middle and lower levels also?

Easy said:
If you don't regard buggery as immoral, or abhorrent behavior, then nothing.

On what basis WOULD one regard it as such, if not completely subjective?!?

I am no fan of it, I don't perform it or accept it being performed on me, but what the hell does that have to do with it?!? It is NOT ME IN QUESTION, its the life others have chosen for themselves. On what basis could one possibly prevent it without FORCE? On what basis if FORCE justified?

Easy said:
Problem is...most 'normal' people do...and they don't believe in subjecting themselves to any authority that condones such perversion.

So now because I view all peoples, hetero or gay, as equal regarding legal rights, I am not "normal"?

Man... some people are frickin twisted hypocrites....

Easy said:
That it's no problem for you is not relevant. Since the military depends on people being assured that their leadership shares and champions high moral values...it would be contrary to good order and discipline to toss away that principle and depend on the continued existence of an honorable, and professional military.

What does that have to do with the issue at all?

You are making a false connection between moral values and role of the military.

Easy said:
I'm not sure where you're going with that question. I was subject to a "background check." I didn't conduct them. I was too busy...Your experiences in the military are evidently far different than mine...

How would you know the sexual preference of your fellow soldiers without asking?
You said it didn't seem like "your military"......when you served.....

[Easy90]

Quote:
Easy said:
"So...you don't think law has any basis in morality. I see."

Os: "Correct."

Well then...we are from different planets, and do not communicate in a common language. It's pointless to continue. In my world, law is simply a code of morality agreed upon by society. I can't imagine what your world uses for a basis of law.

OS: "So now because I view all peoples, hetero or gay, as equal regarding legal rights, I am not "normal"?

Man... some people are frickin twisted hypocrites..."

Me: "No...it's because you consider two guys having anal intercourse to be normal that you're not "normal."

And why do you think calling me a "frickin twisted hypocrite" isn't just a personal attack? Please send your comments to FP... Aren't you some kind of "mod" or something? Shame on you!"

[Easy90]

Quote:
Easy said:
"So...you don't think law has any basis in morality. I see."

Os: "Correct."

Well then...we are from different planets, and do not communicate in a common language. It's pointless to continue. In my world, law is simply a code of morality agreed upon by society. I can't imagine what your world uses for a basis of law.

[Rage]

WASHINGTON — Six months after Army Sgt. Darren Manzella, a Chautauqua County native, went on “60 Minutes” to say that he’s gay

LOL! This r humorous thread. If he wanted to be taken seriously, couldn't he have gone to like, I don't know, fox?

[GhostintheMachine]

Well then...we are from different planets, and do not communicate in a common language. It's pointless to continue. In my world, law is simply a code of morality agreed upon by society. I can't imagine what your world uses for a basis of law.[/QUOTE]

Society does not agree that homosexuality is immoral.

The APA a respected psychology association agrees that it is not harmful, what is your basis for arguing that homosexuality is?

[Easy90]

"Society does not agree that homosexuality is immoral." Ghost

Yeah...pretty much it does.... I think if you put into print what homosexuals do...most in society would say..."that's immoral."

Now, in defense of your position, or attitude, I think society in general says that they really don't CARE if consenting adults choose to do those things in private. Believe it or don't...I agree with that too. But if you ask me my opinion of those that do it...it hasn't changed...and neither has most of society. Regardless...the military isn't a social science project...and a lot of things in the military are different than in the majority of society today. It's pretty much got to be that way, or the military wouldn't be able to function.

Oh...and the APA is a joke. Nobody really believes the bunch that comprises the majority of that group are anything but a gaggle of screwed up liberal head cases anyway.

[AnnEsthesia]

Great. How about we tell all the soldiers that if they are gay, they can have an honorable discharge and come home. Wonder how many of them will suddenly be gay?

[IndieVisible]

Great. How about we tell all the soldiers that if they are gay, they can have an honorable discharge and come home. Wonder how many of them will suddenly be gay?

No real man would pretend to be gay just to get out of service.

[AnnEsthesia]

No real man would pretend to be gay just to get out of service.

Right. Because gays are really women dressed in disguise. :ecstatic:

[IndieVisible]

Just for the record, I have no problem with gays in the military. I also have no problem with Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[Alonzo]

No real man would pretend to be gay just to get out of service.

I'd do it. In fact I think a lot of soldiers would go to great lengths to prove their gayness.

[AnnEsthesia]

I'd do it. In fact I think a lot of soldiers would go to great lengths to prove their gayness.

Betcha the ones who are on their third (or is it fourth or fifth now?) rotation away from home would do it. Lives are crumbling and families are disintegrating.

[IndieVisible]

I'd do it. In fact I think a lot of soldiers would go to great lengths to prove their gayness.

I hope you are joking. I think you watched Mash too much. Most service men are very proud of what they are doing. Sure they would like to come home, but not under those conditions.

[Easy90]

duplicate post

[Easy90]

Great. How about we tell all the soldiers that if they are gay, they can have an honorable discharge and come home. Wonder how many of them will suddenly be gay?

You're confused. They all volunteered to be soldiers. Just because you don't like what they do doesn't mean they don't think what they are doing is important, and necessary. They can all get out now if they say they're gay...Why do you think a lot of gay people want to be soldiers in the first place?

[AnnEsthesia]

You're confused. They all volunteered to be soldiers. Just because you don't like what they do doesn't mean they don't think what they are doing is important, and necessary.

No, I am not confused. National guardsman were not expecting to be sent abroad for years on end.

[Alonzo]

I hope you are joking. I think you watched Mash too much. Most service men are very proud of what they are doing. Sure they would like to come home, but not under those conditions.

I'd give you a blowjob if it got me out of Iraq.

[AnnEsthesia]

You're confused. They all volunteered to be soldiers. Just because you don't like what they do doesn't mean they don't think what they are doing is important, and necessary. They can all get out now if they say they're gay...Why do you think a lot of gay people want to be soldiers in the first place?

Link me to those statistics.

[AnnEsthesia]

I'd give you a blowjob if it got me out of Iraq.

Great. Now I am going to have nightmares.

[Alonzo]

Great. Now I am going to have nightmares.

:lmao:

[Easy90]

Betcha the ones who are on their third (or is it fourth or fifth now?) rotation away from home would do it. Lives are crumbling and families are disintegrating.

You've obviously been reading the "Liberal Times." Obviously you have no concept of how the soldiers feel... Many have volunteered for second and third tours over there. Don't believe everything you read in the San Francisco Chronicle.

[Easy90]

Link me to those statistics.

Link me to the statistics that say the majority of American fighting people believe they are not involved in an important and necessary conflict. Don't bother with links to The Daily Kos.

[AnnEsthesia]

You've obviously been reading the "Liberal Times." Obviously you have no concept of how the soldiers feel... Many have volunteered for second and third tours over there. Don't believe everything you read in the San Francisco Chronicle.

And don't believe all of them want to be there still. Don't believe that they think losing their families and their lives back home is worth it.

[AnnEsthesia]

Link me to the statistics that say the majority of American fighting people believe they are not involved in an important and necessary conflict. Don't bother with links to The Daily Kos.

I never said that. But you did say that a lot of gays wish to be in the military. So link me to those statistics.

[IndieVisible]

I'd give you a blowjob if it got me out of Iraq.

That would be a good gay test. Any straight man willing to go that far to get out, I say let them out then.