What do you guys think? I don't know whether I'm for or against open homosexuality in the military. As it stands right now I really don't care, they kill people for a living, and I don't see how their sexual orientation affects that. I think it is a valid thing to discuss though. Does sexual orientation affect ones ability to perform the duties of a soldier? As for the soldiers in this specific story, what they did was dishonorable. They new that doing pornographic videos violated the code of ethics they agreed to when they joined the U.S. Army. They knew the consequences of the actions they chose to take, and in choosing to take those actions must accept the consequences. I don't feel bad for them. Every soldier should be familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but I've met very few that are aware that they are held to a higher standard than their civilian counterparts. I also question why that is. From what I understand of basic military training it is constantly pointed out that the trainee is becoming something more than a civilian. Why is it not taught that being more than a civilian entails greater personal responsibility?
Quothe Diogenes: I do not agrre with this statement , neither theoretically , nor practically: The moral codex of a citizen should not be lower than that of a soldier. There are things tp indicate that homosexuality affects fighting capability. The futuristic cult of the nazis had many gay influences. A more classic example is that of Greece. There were many homosexual relationships in many german special corpeses way back. ( Remembre the berliner-varietes )? The male-bondage taken a step further into love. Obviously makes some impact. One school of thought openly proclaimed the ideal of the gay superman ( Ubermensch ). The same find space in prison. Especially ( in our day in american jails ) where large groups are packed together in military-sjtyle barracks. The ( real ) caribean pirates were known pederasts and sodomisers as well. I do not know the fighting capabilities of the caribean outcasts , nor that of the US prisoners. But the other two examples have documented statistics of martial excellence. And I am sure there are many others. At least one of my ancestors was a gay warhero and tribal priest. He is still remembered in certain circles with awe. Yes give us gay companies. Regiments and what have you. I bet you could get some real good support fire with the lesbian division :wink:
Soldiers are trained in hand to hand combat, weapons, and military use of vehicles. That alone entails a higher standard of combat, since they are more capable of damage then the average citizen. Those who have been trained in martial arts are held to a higher standard than those not trained. Why should martial arts not extend to gun fighting? As for whether or not homosexuality in the military improves or ruins the fighting capacity of the soldier I don't think you can really famous military units as an example in this case. Gay military units that performed poorly would not be documented, but gay military units that did would. At this point I think sexual preference is completely irrelevant to fighting capability. Therefore gays should be allowed. If there is no valid reason they shouldn't be allowed into the military then allow them in. I don't think you should be making that big of a deal out of you sexuality anyway. Within the context of your job it doesn't matter, your personal life should stay at home.
Ok ! As long as its purely about ability to inflict physical damage soldiers should be held to ahighter standard. Just like they should be held to a lower standard were other special aducations rule. Still dont buy the term "more than a civilian". Aint nothing above citizen, citizen. SPQR The same should apply to political man. Political stems from "public". Idiot stems from "private". At is about the allocation of interests. As for poor performers among the greek hoplite. They would still kick the ass off any other infantry. Untill the roman legion enters the stager. ( Another bunch of buggerers( though admittedly not compulsory so ) ). It could be that homosexuality does not improve fighting capabilities, but it is proven that it is no impediment. Alexander does not stand alone.
Under what special circumstances should a soldier be held to a lower standard. Soldiers act as international embassadors to the people of other nations, not leaders. They also represent the interests of the nation for which they serve. They are members of a trained and cohesive force, with common values and morals. Citizens are a disorganized and factious rabble, allowed to come and go as they please with allegiance to no one. Soldiers give up that freedom in order to be a part of something else. Therefore they should be willing to be held to a higher standard than those of the average citizen. As for politicians, they should be held to the highest standard of all. Soldiers protect society, politicians claim to lead society. Those without honor and integrity shouldn't be leading society, but sure enough they are. It is society, the disorganized rabble, that holds politicians accountable. The military is much more adept at enforcing it's own ethics. Washington will let anything slide under the rug as long as both parties benefit from it.
Diogenes wrote: The idea and reality of democracy belittles your statement. Look to Greece. Look to Switzerland and Iceland and even old republican Rome. Themilitary idolatry is ok but isnt this a bit Platon,;"the State" ?
The central concept of democracy is pitting factionalized small groups against each other so that there comparative interests cancel each other out in order to prevent any one group from gaining to much power. Athens is a shining jewel of democracy, but that only lasted a short time. Ancient Greece as a whole was a collection of various states. The Spartans stand out as an example of the military state, yet they were "Greek". Switzerland and Iceland both have multiparty representative governments, indicating that the citizens have diverse and varied interests. No democratic state is united in its goals and policies, so your examples do not undermine my statement that citizens are an unorganized and factional rabble. Explain, I find it difficult to understand that sentence, it seems to be a reference to Plato.
Democracy is not about compartmentalizing groups. It is about bringing them together. It is the art of negotiation and sacrifice. Not of corruption and theft. That is about destroying democracy. They lasted longer than you lot. 226 years ? Yes. Athens, And it was s slavebased society as well. The spartans are not a part of the democratic heritage. No ! Anyone facing the swiss on the field of battle one or two hundred years after the birth of the free cantoons would have shivered at the tought. Being nothing but citicens they defeated every army that faced them. Rabble ? The creation of the Thingwellir system of arbitration on Iceland begins the cultural renaisance that makes this small underpopulated island in the middle of nowhere produce a literary heritage that defines the other nordic countries. Lets look at your basic theory again: That is the basic consept of using democracy ( or any pluralist governing form ), to further ones own plans. This could be making money, or gaining power. This is axepted as nice, but it is still not shat shapes or upholds democracy.
Ideally at best. In practice it is another beast entirely. You did not specify look to Athens, you said look to Greece. The fact that Greece was composed of warring city states lends strength to my argument. They came together when under outside threat, but for the most part went their own seperate ways, dealing with each other for the benefit of individual states. I won't debate the conditions under which the Swiss were of great military might, I know nothing of them. However, based on what you are saying again these are not civil matters, these are military matters of men united by a common interest. Democracy is not so. Democracy is the meeting of groups and individuals of unique interests which compete against each other.
