NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally think this policy sucks. And for those who's homosexuality is revealed, these poor people are harrased to say the least. I think this is terrible and the government should crack down on the abusers. It's appaling that this goes on. What do you all think?

I personally think this policy sucks. And for those who's homosexuality is revealed, these poor people are harrased to say the least. I think this is terrible and the government should crack down on the abusers. It's appaling that this goes on. What do you all think?

Its poor discipline on the part of those soldiers who can't accept their brothers in arms for who they are.

The policy avoids alot of problems. I support it somewhat.

Queers should not be allowed in the military at all.

Queers should not be allowed in the military at all.


Alright! Now bust out your litmus paper... Oh wait... you can't tell who is a "queer" your just an asshole... Sorry for the misunderstanding

At a time in U.S. history where there is a chronic shortage of people willing to go over to Iraq and get themselves killed, I find it ironic that a large amount of willing members were prevented from doing so because they came out of the closet. This is one of the stupidest policies around. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure homosexuals are accepted for who they are in the Canadian military.

Alright! Now bust out your litmus paper... Oh wait... you can't tell who is a "queer" your just an asshole... Sorry for the misunderstanding

Well you ask when they join they might not tell but its worth it. And there are usually signs that someone is a queer. And if the military finds out anytime they should be kicked out immediatly.

Queers should not be allowed in the military at all.

Now i know someone always posts responses like this. Just give me a reason... wait you cant.

Well you ask when they join they might not tell but its worth it. And there are usually signs that someone is a queer. And if the military finds out anytime they should be kicked out immediatly.

Is there any logical reasoning behind your argument, other than pure homophobia?

Now i know someone always posts responses like this. Just give me a reason... wait you cant.

I can give you reason.

1. They prove a distraction.
2. They make other soldiers feel uncomfortable.
3. It is wrong to be queer
4. If I was a soldier I would NOT want to be in a unit with a queer and probaly many other people would not like being around a queer either.

I think it would be ok if they sent them to one unit without straight people in it.

Queers should not be allowed in the military at all.

Are you in the US military Enodscopia? Because if you aren't and are between 18 and 25 and reenlistment rates and new recruitment rates continue to drop while demand for additional military forces continues to rise, you may get the chance to be. Perhaps then you'll be more eager to allow those "queers" to serve in the military and risk death so you still don't have to.

3. It is wrong to be queer

Now there's a weird argument.

I can give you reason.

1. They prove a distraction.
2. They make other soldiers feel uncomfortable.
3. It is wrong to be queer
4. If I was a soldier I would NOT want to be in a unit with a queer and probaly many other people would not like being around a queer either.

I think it would be ok if they sent them to one unit without straight people in it.


First of all all those are pretty much based on homophobia. Thats all i can say. Some people infuriate me! Because its NOT wrong to be gay. There are probably gay people who are around you, and you dont even know they are gay. Not everyone is a flaming homosexual. And you are making some huge generalizations. homosexuality should be accepted not just tolerated, because homosexuals can be great soldiers. I dont see how being gay will make you a bad soldier other than the fact the people are harassing you. lastly, not all straight people are as judgemental as you, homosexuals in the military dont deserve their own unit. I wonder who would be on the front lines then?

Are you in the US military Enodscopia? Because if you aren't and are between 18 and 25 and reenlistment rates and new recruitment rates continue to drop while demand for additional military forces continues to rise, you may get the chance to be. Perhaps then you'll be more eager to allow those "queers" to serve in the military and risk death so you still don't have to.


Good point

Are you in the US military Enodscopia? Because if you aren't and are between 18 and 25 and reenlistment rates and new recruitment rates continue to drop while demand for additional military forces continues to rise, you may get the chance to be. Perhaps then you'll be more eager to allow those "queers" to serve in the military and risk death so you still don't have to.

I have thought of going into the military after college.

If a homo is found in the military, he should be quietly kicked out.

I can give you reason.

1. They prove a distraction.

How, exactly?


2. They make other soldiers feel uncomfortable.

Er, I imagine the average soldier is made a lot more uncomfortable by enemies firing at him rather than wondering if Bruce from Bravo company is checking out his package.


3. It is wrong to be queer

Um, whatever.


4. If I was a soldier I would NOT want to be in a unit with a queer and probaly many other people would not like being around a queer either.

Wrong. If you were a soldier you would be in whatever unit they decided you would be in. Period. This also answers my question regarding your military service.


I think it would be ok if they sent them to one unit without straight people in it.

I'll let the "queers" know. I'm sure they'll all be greatful for your egalitarianism

At a time in U.S. history where there is a chronic shortage of people willing to go over to Iraq and get themselves killed, I find it ironic that a large amount of willing members were prevented from doing so because they came out of the closet. This is one of the stupidest policies around. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure homosexuals are accepted for who they are in the Canadian military.

You're right, or mostly right anyway. Even though there are undoubtedly homophobic soldiers, the Canadian Army have anti-discrimination policies similar to the anti-discrimination policies for women in the military.

So, even though there can be homopphobic behavior, at least our queer military personnel can report it and have the offenders punished. It's a luxury americans don't have, from what I know of the "don't ask don't tell" policy.

I can give you reason.

1. They prove a distraction.
2. They make other soldiers feel uncomfortable.
3. It is wrong to be queer
4. If I was a soldier I would NOT want to be in a unit with a queer and probaly many other people would not like being around a queer either.

I think it would be ok if they sent them to one unit without straight people in it.


My, my.....



....



That sounds an awful lot similar to those arguments given against having units mixing white and black people a few decades ago, don't you think?

You're right, or mostly right anyway. Even though there are undoubtedly homophobic soldiers, the Canadian Army have anti-discrimination policies similar to the anti-discrimination policies for women in the military.

So, even though there can be homopphobic behavior, at least our queer military personnel can report it and have the offenders punished. It's a luxury americans don't have, from what I know of the "don't ask don't tell" policy.

This brings up an interesting point. Canadians allow openly homosexual individuals to serve as does the Israeli army. Does anyone know what the policy is on homosexuals in other national armed forces?

As far as I know militaries don´t allow queers in their ranks. I´m not aware of any country which does that.
I know that neither the US or France or Germany do allow that. They are reasons for that. First of all it is to prevent sexual harrasement.
One of the reasons also that women (if they are allowed in the military) have seperate segments and sleeping rooms). However: to arrange this in all units is not possible. Since they are not many woman who are interested in joining the military it seems highly unlikely that all parts of the military are going to be open for women, actually.
I think that may take a graduall process. The more women there are in the military the more units and the more positions they are going to get. The US is pretty advanced in that field, compared to european nations which have up until a short time mostly rejected women from doing any service except in the military music service and the sanitary service. It was a ruling of the European Court of Justice due to a complaint by a german woman which lead to the opening up of the military for women. The court ruled that the general exclusion of women from the military is in violation of the principal of the freedom of labour (choosing a job). I think that was in 2000 or 2001.

You're right, or mostly right anyway. Even though there are undoubtedly homophobic soldiers, the Canadian Army have anti-discrimination policies similar to the anti-discrimination policies for women in the military.

So, even though there can be homopphobic behavior, at least our queer military personnel can report it and have the offenders punished. It's a luxury americans don't have, from what I know of the "don't ask don't tell" policy.

Thanks for the information. From what I know of the don't ask, don't tell policy, those who are outed, even unwillingly, are immediately discharged. Sigh.

If a homophobe is found in the military, he should be quietly kicked out.

I agree.

I think it would be unreasonable to form special batailions for gays. They are a very tiny minority.
It is possible to do that for woman however.
However: I think one must outweigh the costs one decision would bring to the benefit. If that isn´t positive it should not be done.

As far as I know militaries don´t allow queers in their ranks. I´m not aware of any country which does that.
I know that neither the US or France or Germany do allow that. They are reasons for that. First of all it is to prevent sexual harrasement.
One of the reasons also that women (if they are allowed in the military) have seperate segments and sleeping rooms). However: to arrange this in all units is not possible. Since they are not many woman who are interested in joining the military it seems highly unlikely that all parts of the military are going to be open for women, actually.
I think that may take a graduall process. The more women there are in the military the more units and the more positions they are going to get. The US is pretty advanced in that field, compared to european nations which have up until a short time mostly rejected women from doing any service except in the military music service and the sanitary service. It was a ruling of the European Court of Justice due to a complaint by a german woman which lead to the opening up of the military for women. The court ruled that the general exclusion of women from the military is in violation of the principal of the freedom of labour (choosing a job). I think that was in 2000 or 2001.

If you'll look at the posts above, you will see that your facts are incorrect.

I can give you reason.

1. They prove a distraction.


They do? and you know this because? Is it because you get distracted every time you pass a gay couple on the street and feel the need to turn and watch them walk away?


2. They make other soldiers feel uncomfortable.

Actually, they make peope who are not comfortable with themselves uncomfortable, because it shows you your options, and you wonder if you might like it.


3. It is wrong to be queer


I won't even dignify this with an answer. Its also wrong to be an asshole.



4. If I was a soldier I would NOT want to be in a unit with a queer and probaly many other people would not like being around a queer either.


See the response to number two.


I think it would be ok if they sent them to one unit without straight people in it.

So you gonna get out that litmus paper or what?

I think it would be unreasonable to form special batailions for gays. They are a very tiny minority.


Between 8 and 10% of the population isn't really that tiny a minority. And we're not even counting bisexuals...

Between 8 and 10% of the population isn't really that tiny a minority. And we're not even counting bisexuals...

Ha! They're a tiny minority when we're talking about equal rights and "special privilledges" but when we're talking about military service, suddenly they're bigger. Nice situational ethics.

Between 8 and 10% of the population isn't really that tiny a minority. And we're not even counting bisexuals...

Great. then we can have separate black, jewish, and muslim battalions.... Itll be just swell.

Enodscopia- All those arguements were made aobut blacks in the military too, were they correct then? NO. history repeats itself.

Between 8 and 10% of the population isn't really that tiny a minority. And we're not even counting bisexuals...
Other numbers just say 3%.
Well: it is a very tiny majority and I think that even less people than the average of the male population would like to join the military. So it would be much less than 3%.
It is unreasonable to make special arrangements for a group which could make up only a maximum of 3% in the military and is not much more in the whole population compared to women who make up more than 50% of the population and could realisticly make up of 10-20% (in the US probably even more) of the armed forces.

If you'll look at the posts above, you will see that your facts are incorrect.
Which one is incorrect???? I said I was not aware of any military which allows queers in their ranks - I didn´t claim to have knowledge about everything.
OK: Canada and Israel do allow it - were can I cheque that by the way?? Any link???
The US doesn´t, Germany doesn´t, Austria doesn´t.
I don´t think Britain does. So: there are many nations with the same policy regarding homosexuals in the military: They are not allowed in the military for the reasons some others have given above.

If a homo is found in the military, he should be quietly kicked out.

why?

Has anyone heard of the Day of Silence? It's a day to recognize the silence of gays/lesbians/bi-sexuals to keep themselves safe from ridicule. This is what gays do in the military because many of them want to serve their country. Why can't they serve their country just like the rest of us? What do you care if they're gay or not? Are you really that interested?

Gays are just like everyone else - they are humans. They should be allowed in the military, since there are some people there already. You never know, so what does it matter?

If a homo is found in the military, he should be quietly kicked out.

So you want to shove the whole thing under the bed, as it were. I don't think I need to state the reasons that is silly, as several other nations have already. And face facts, kids.. 'queers' exist, have for roughly as long as humanity, and will continue to do so. The homophobes have no real choice but to get used to it. Chanced are, in the shower at high school, at least one of your football buddies was gay and checking out your package. And chances are you've checked out at least one lesbian (who probably would be as offended and worried as you seem to be - by your logic). NO ONE should have to hide something as essential to character as sexual orientation. To propose so, and to even suggest "quietly kicking them out"

Seems pretty simple. If someone wishes to defend their country (We won't even get into the Iraq thing right now), I say let them. And.. let ya in on a secret here.. keep this one quiet.. it's not actually 'them'.. it's US. We're ALL the same species, regardless of color or sexual preference.

To address statements and issues directly

1. They prove a distraction.

Only to those who can't control their homophobia. And I'd wager that when bullets are whizzing past your head, you really wouldn't care if Private Smith is gay or not. It's a thing called Survival Mechanism.

2. They make other soldiers feel uncomfortable.

See response to 1.

3. It is wrong to be queer

If it's wrong, why does it happen? It's 'wrong' for it to rain cheese slices from the sky. and therefore it dosen't happen. Homosexuality happens. ONLY way it's wrong is if you take this idea from a certain Book or two.

4. If I was a soldier I would NOT want to be in a unit with a queer and probaly many other people would not like being around a queer either.

Wow this is easy. Go to response for 1. and 2.

I think it would be ok if they sent them to one unit without straight people in it.

The ludicrous-ness of this one really needs no comment. However, an all lesbian commando squad would have some serious tactical 'assets'. (Pun actually not intended)

And just so there is no questions of why I say these things.. I am a 33 yr old, engaged, heterosexual male. Thankfully I never caught the 'fear and loathe the homos' bug. I attribute this to a functional intellectual immune system aka brain.

By the way: the thing with the distraction is a real problem. That was the experience in the Israeli army. That´s why women are today serving in special batailions.
To allow openly gay people in a batailion would create the same problem. It doesn´t work. And special batailions aren´t possible. It is a much too tiny group. I would be unreasonable to do that.

Berkylvania, BoogieDown, let me clarify something:


I was NOT saying to have gays have their separate battalions. Read my posts above on that subject. What I was saying is that gays are not a such a small minority. Again, I was not saying that to argue in favor of separate battalions.

So you want to shove the whole thing under the bed, as it were. And just so there is no questions of why I say these things.. I am a 33 yr old, engaged, heterosexual male. Thankfully I never caught the 'fear and loathe the homos' bug. I attribute this to a functional intellectual immune system aka brain.

Dude, The original quote was homophobe! It got changed along the way somewhere (Anya Bananya Im lookin at you!)
Nice post tho....

I was NOT saying to have gays have their separate battalions.

I didn't really think you said that, sorry, I was not really paying close enough attention. I really was responding to Endoscopia

Which one is incorrect???? I said I was not aware of any military which allows queers in their ranks - I didn´t claim to have knowledge about everything.
OK: Canada and Israel do allow it - were can I cheque that by the way?? Any link???
The US doesn´t, Germany doesn´t, Austria doesn´t.
I don´t think Britain does. So: there are many nations with the same policy regarding homosexuals in the military: They are not allowed in the military for the reasons some others have given above.

http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressCenter/press_rel12.htm

http://www.davidclemens.com/gaymilitary/aussienoprob.htm

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/GAO.pdf

25 countries seemed to allow it as of 1993, including Israel, Sweden, Canada and, contradictory to your claims, Germany.

By the way: the thing with the distraction is a real problem. That was the experience in the Israeli army. That´s why women are today serving in special batailions.
To allow openly gay people in a batailion would create the same problem. It doesn´t work. And special batailions aren´t possible. It is a much too tiny group. I would be unreasonable to do that.

But the question too is whether "don't ask don't tell" is good. i dont see why they should be discharged, people should get over themselves, gays aren't going ANYWHERE. The focus should be on protecting people who are abused and harrased. Period. They are just as able bodied, and should be afforded all the protection of human beings in general. Nothing is going to change if society continues with things like "dont ask dont tell" for one. Tho there are many such things barring gays from certain groups (boy scouts for one).

http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressCenter/press_rel12.htm

http://www.davidclemens.com/gaymilitary/aussienoprob.htm

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/GAO.pdf

25 countries seemed to allow it as of 1993, including Israel, Sweden, Canada and, contradictory to your claims, Germany.

Thank you, Berkylvania, for the links. Very useful.

By the way: the thing with the distraction is a real problem. That was the experience in the Israeli army. That´s why women are today serving in special batailions.
To allow openly gay people in a batailion would create the same problem. It doesn´t work. And special batailions aren´t possible. It is a much too tiny group. I would be unreasonable to do that.

The Israeli army has also allowed openly gay servicemen in their army since practically the inception of their country with no adverse effects. In fact, a 1993 report to the Senate showed that no country with an active military that allows openly homosexual citizens to serve has encountered any real problem with the policy.

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/GAO.pdf

Other numbers just say 3%.
Well: it is a very tiny majority and I think that even less people than the average of the male population would like to join the military. So it would be much less than 3%.
It is unreasonable to make special arrangements for a group which could make up only a maximum of 3% in the military and is not much more in the whole population compared to women who make up more than 50% of the population and could realisticly make up of 10-20% (in the US probably even more) of the armed forces.

Again, I was not advocating special arrangement, just pointing out that there are a lot more gays than you guys might think.

About that 3% of yours, let me explain to you the methodology of the research that gave those results: there were a handful of questions, and the determining one was whether the answerer had had heterosexual intercourse at least once in their life. If they had, they automatically were classified as NOT homosexual. That means a man who had slept with a woman once during his teenage years, but found out he was gay afterwards, and spent his whole life sleeping with men and identifying himself as gay was still not counted as homosexual by the results of the research.

Likewise, some studies approximate the number of homsosexuals around 35-40% because the wording of their questions and the means of determining their results count anyone having had desire or attraction for a member of the same gender, even though living only heterosexual relations throughout their life, as homosexual. So you can really make the reasearchs say what you like with a little tweaking.

Man, you do learn some perky little facts in college sexology and methodology classes, eh? Having studied both sexology and methodology, I can say that the most reliable studies, with objective questions and means to interpret the information received, ALWAYS come up with something around the lines of 7-12%. Among those, those I attach the most credibility narrow it down to something more like 8-10%(again, not counting bisexuals).

People should make a differentiation between military regulations and conditions on the ground.

Alot of people don't care what sexual orientation you might have. Those that do and find out their CO (for example) is gay will usually ask for a transfer. No soldier should be forced to serve under someone he/she doesn't feel is capable or does not trust. The military is all about trust and if you don't trust the guy/gal next to you then all your training can go straight to hell.

http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressCenter/press_rel12.htm

http://www.davidclemens.com/gaymilitary/aussienoprob.htm

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/GAO.pdf

25 countries seemed to allow it as of 1993, including Israel, Sweden, Canada and, contradictory to your claims, Germany.

That is not true. Germany has still the draft. Homosexuals are not taken into the military. Neither is a person accepted to join the forces if it is known that he is homosexual. People in the military where it is found out that they are homosexual are not fired but they are banned from any higher posts and they are sent to position where they have not anything to do with training of soldiers. That are the facts, contradictory to your claims.

That is not true. Germany has still the draft. Homosexuals are not taken into the military. Neither is a person accepted to join the forces if it is known that he is homosexual. People in the military where it is found out that they are homosexual are not fired but they are banned from any higher posts and they are sent to position where they have not anything to do with training of soldiers. That are the facts, contradictory to your claims.

Far from me the idea of sounding unconvinced, but he did supply links that prove his point. Until you back up your rebuttal of his affirmations with links to the German Army's site or something like that confirms your side, I'm inclined to believe him over you.

That is not true. Germany has still the draft. Homosexuals are not taken into the military. Neither is a person accepted to join the forces if it is known that he is homosexual. People in the military where it is found out that they are homosexual are not fired but they are banned from any higher posts and they are sent to position where they have not anything to do with training of soldiers. That are the facts, contradictory to your claims.

Right on the first page of the GAO report:

"For our detailed review, we have selected Canada, Germany , Israel, and Sweden because these countries allowed homosexuals to serve in the military."

You are entitled to your opinion, but not when it blatantly contradicts the facts.

I would ask for a transfer if I had a queer in my unit.

@Skalador,

I looking to find something in English, which is quite difficult to find. However I would like to refer you to look closely to the sources - which are party biased by the way anyway. But even they speak about restrictions.
I try to clarify that. By the way: On the official webside of the Bundeswehr they don´t have any information on that matter even if you search for.
But I´m looking to clearify that up. I already found some information, however I´m looking for more reliable sources and more close news

I would ask for a transfer if I had a queer in my unit.

You're a genius!!!!!!!!!!!!


Let's not put gays into separate units: let's send HOMOPHOBES in separate units!!! There certainly have enough of them to warranty it, no? And that way everybody's happy!

@Skalador,

I looking to find something in English, which is quite difficult to find. However I would like to refer you to look closely to the sources - which are party biased by the way anyway. But even they speak about restrictions.
I try to clarify that. By the way: On the official webside of the Bundeswehr they don´t have any information on that matter even if you search for.
But I´m looking to clearify that up. I already found some information, however I´m looking for more reliable sources and more close news


Excellent. If you can supply me with credible information, I'll concede the point to you.

However, if I was a general in the German military and blatantly discriminated gays like that, somehow I wouldn't put it up on my website for all the European Union to see, since they're for equal rights and all.

I guess what you're saying is possible, but that still wouldn't make it right. And while I wait for the info, I'm going for Berky.

that IS a good idea.


or how about we put all the homosexuals with the women and keep the straight men away from the women so they no longer have to fear getting raped.

that IS a good idea.


or how about we put all the homosexuals with the women and keep the straight men away from the women so they no longer have to fear getting raped.

I think you're missing my point. I was being sarcastic...

Besides, are you saying women have to fear being raped whenever they're near heterosexual male soldiers?You really have a poor view of your military personnel's profesionnalism...

Or were you talking about the male heterosexual soldiers having to fear getting raped by gays? :P

I´m still searching for a newer and better source. But I found an article in the far left-wing newspaper TAZ about one case in 2000/2001 - The currentleft-wing government was in power than and Scharping their secretary of defense:

"Scharpings German Federal Armed Forces study: Gays are ill
Secretary of Defense orders a study, which is to support the Homophobie of the German Federal Armed Forces with the "Christians in the offensive". Dubious numbers from the 50's-years
Berlin (taz) - Federal Minister of Defense Rudolf Scharping (SPD) lets itself be supported its rejecting attitude to gays in the German Federal Armed Forces of a dubious study: Institut for youth and society from Reichelsheim gathered literature, which is to show on behalf of the Ministry that homosexuals are not suitable in the German Federal Armed Forces for guidance and training functions.

As reason for Homosexualitaet "disconcertion of the own sexual identity" is seen. Gays felt not as correct men and tried to compensate this incompleteness by Sex with other men. From this the Macher of the study closes that "Homosexualitaet has nearly always a craze character". An additional voucher for this point is the Promiskuitaet of gay men. Here Institut, a subsection of the "Christians in the offensive", on a Kinsey report appoints itself from the fifties-years. But the numbers are a little meaningful, since there are no comparison values for heterosexual population.

The study argued from an understanding of same sex sexualitaet as illness and gives also Tipps for healing: Gays should work and try on their self-confident its to diminish "ambivalences and fears of contact to heterosexual men".

This aspect goes far back behind the present scientific estimate from Homosexualitaet: Already since 1991 she no more is not to be found in the international disease register of the World Health Organization (WHO). Same sex desiring is not than therapy-needily regarded any more. Volker Beck, right-wing political speaker of the Green parliamentary group in the Bundestag, sees it therefore as "a deep Beleidung", if a study for the Ministry of Defense the way of life of gays and lesbian citizens diffamiert "as illness and thus as not legitimate, inferior way of life".

Homophobe statements pull themselves by the entire report. Thus the Christian Rechercheure means that gays have above all then "the strongest urge after Sex, if they feel bad straight particularly if her a straight offense or criticism or neglect (particularly of male authority persons) experienced". The Macher of the study did not reflect the sexual customs of heterosexual men: After their methodology they would have Heterosexualitaet at the divorce numbers, to which marriage consulting discussions or simply at turnover figures of heterosexual prostitution measured.

But one did not want an exact analysis obviously in the house Rudolf Scharpings. Because so in an advisory manner, it seems a little amazing that one wants to prevent in the Ministry of Defense further that gays ascend with the federation.

But on the other hand ever more concerning, for instance the 30-jaehrige technical sergeants Werner Buzan from Winsen/Aller, with complaints resist. After five years with the federation it wanted to become career soldier with the tank reconnaissance aircraft. But its Homosexualitaet was discovered - one shifted him into the administration. The Administrative Court Lueneburg saw therein an offence against the arbitrariness prohibition of the Basic Law and gave the gay soldier right. The German Federal Armed Forces remain hard and go into the revision. But Buzan wants to go if necessary up to the Federal Constitutional Court into Karlsruhe. There a complaint of first lieutenant Winfried Stecher is already present. It had been set off after becoming known its Homosexualitaet as a teacher - with express approval of the social-democratic Secretary of Defense.

The chances of the homosexuals plaintiffs do not stand badly, particularly since the European Court of Justice for human rights of the Council of Europe decided last September in Strasbourg that it is inadmissible, to exclude men and women due to their sexual orientation from an army. Four British soldiers had successfully complained. For this year the British army must permit gays and lesbians. To Germany this judgement is not to be transferred, was called it from the Ministry of Defense. Rudolf Scharping: "Homosexualitaet justifies substantial doubts about the suitability and excludes a use in such functions, those with guidance, education and training from soldiers is connected."

actually I was also.. .lol


but yer right... I do have a poor view of their professionalism because they have given me reason to doubt it by RAPING fellow women in the military. Many women have come forward about it.

That is not true. Germany has still the draft. Homosexuals are not taken into the military. Neither is a person accepted to join the forces if it is known that he is homosexual. People in the military where it is found out that they are homosexual are not fired but they are banned from any higher posts and they are sent to position where they have not anything to do with training of soldiers. That are the facts, contradictory to your claims.

My further research indicates that the situation in Germany is complex as the official line and the every day practice differ. While on paper there appears to be equality between homosexual and heterosexual recruits, you are right that new enlistees are asked their orientation and will not be allowed in if they admit to homosexual orientation. Also, known homosexuals will be discharged if they aspire to higher military office and will not be allowed to serve in command rolls or teaching rolls. Apparently, former German Minister of Defence Rudolf Scharping justifies this by referring to the 1950s Kinsey report which treats homosexuality as a mental illness.

Other nations, though, have indeed either changed their policies or dropped their bans altogether. Australia dropped their ban in 1992, as far as I know. Beligium also doesn't discriminate against homosexual enlistees.

Snipped to save space, not because it wasn't relevant.

And these policies as well as former Minister of Defence Scharping came under direct fire when an enlisted man in the German army directly challenged his dismissal. Also, let us not forget that Sharping is no longer Minster of Defence because he was forced to tender a resignation after it was found that he was using military equipment to ferry him between troops in Macedonia and a romantic tryst with a married countess.

I´ve searched and I have found some court decisions on that. In Germany you have a Roman Law system. That means that the law is not so much based on court decision but on written law. Written law is the main source of law. However: they are no laws regarding gays in the military. They simply do not exist. There are decisions by the ministry of defense, guidelines, various court decision, well pretty chaotic actually - in that field.




"Soldier
1. The national authorities have with the examination whether an interference into the right to attention of the private life (art. 8 EMRK) necessarily and relatively in the sense of kind (8 Abs. 2 EMRK) is, an evaluation clearance, which is differently far depending upon the nature of the reduced manipulation and the goals pursued with the interferences.
2. Each state can have its own system of military discipline to organize and has also thereby a certain evaluation clearance. It is not impossible to limit the right to attention of the private life (art. 8 EMRK - European Human Rights Convention) if otherwise the serviceability of the armed forces is endangered. Prejudices of the heterosexual majority in relation to homosexual a minority are not a sufficient justification for interferences into the private life, just as little as similar negative attitudes towards persons of other race, descent or skin color.
3. Abusing must reach a minimum of weight, before it falls into the range of application of § 3 EMRK (torture prohibition). Determinations against member of the armed forces and their dismissal because of homosexuality are tormenting and degrading, but DO however with consideration of all circumstances of the individual case NOT REACH the minimum of weight, so that they in the available case DO NOT FALL under §. 3 EMRK .
4. If homosexuals are forced continuous watchfulness, discretion and secretness, that can be an interference into their right to liberty of the expression of opinion (art. 10 EMRK). This element withdraws however behind the right to attention of the private life (art. 8 EMRK).
5. Art. 13 EMRK (right to an effective complaint).
requires a domestic complaint, which makes it possible for the responsible domestic instances to examine a complaint supported by the convention both in EGMR, Urt. v. 27.09.1999 - 33985 u. 33986/96 (case Smith and Grady v. united kingdom); Slg. 1999-VI, 47; NJW 2000, 2089; OEJZ 2000, 614
EGMR (third section), Urt. v. 25.07.2000 - 33985 u. 33986/96 (case Smith and Grady./. united kingdom); NJW 2001, 809
see also EGMR (third section), to Urt. v. 27.09.1999 - 31417/96 u. 32377/96 (case merry Prean and Beckett v. united kingdom
Note: One can call the judgements of the EGMR as follows: URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/default.asp?Language=en&Advanced=1 and under "Application NUMBER" the file reference enter there.

Decisions of the member states, that the entrance to the occupation, the vocational training and the conditions of work in armed forces concern and for the guarantee of combat capability issued, are not generally excluded from the range of application of the Community law.
The exclusion of women of the service in special combat units like the Royal marine can be justified due to the kind and the conditions of the practice of the activities concerned according to the article 2 paragraph 2 of the guideline 76/207/EWG of the advice from 9 February 1976 for the implementation of the principle of equal treatment men and women regarding the entrance to the occupation, to the vocational training and to the vocational ascent as well as regarding the conditions of work.
EUGH, Urt. v. 26.10.1999 - C-273/97 (R-S Sirdar); Slg. 1999, I-7403, NJW 2000, 499; NZA 2000, 25; JZ 2000, 411 with notes Goetz, Volkmar, 413; DVBl. 2000, 37; EuGRZ 1999, 665

The guideline 76/207/EWG of the advice from 9 February 1976 for the implementation of the principle of the equal treatment of men and women regarding the entrance to the occupation, to the vocational training and to the vocational ascent as well as regarding the conditions of work opposes the application of national regulations, which generally exclude - like those of the German law - women from the service with the weapon and permit only the entrance to the medical and military music service.
EUGH (plenum), Urt. 11.01.2000 - C-285/98 (R-S Kreil); Slg. 2000, I-69, NJW 2000, 497; EuGRZ 2000, 144; NZA 2000, 137; ZBR 2000, 267; Railways 2000, 279; DVBl. 2000, 336, with note cook, Christian, 476; DOEV 2000, 421; NZWehrr 2000, 28; ZFSH/SGB 2000, 118; BayVBl. 2000, 368; CONTROVERSY 2000, 34

So far the meddling in of European Courts in national business. It is a complicated matter. As a matter of fact: National security and defense policy is NON-EU business.
European law is excluded from it. However: there are certain requirements due to the so-called freedom of labour which is enshured in the EU. Some regulations therefore may also apply to the military. That´s what the court says - in very ambigious way by the way (sorry - for the bad translation - i used a translation service - you may do your own research to clearify it up).


There are however also decisions by German courts to the issue:

"Sexual relations between male and/or female soldiers with all their emotional implications cannot be tolerated within the German Federal Armed Forces, since the co-operation of the troop would sensitively be disturbed thereby.
Regarding to law over the registered life partnership of 16.02.2001 (valid since 1.9.2002) and the changed legal situation as well as the changes in the opinion of the society it cannot be made a difference whether it concerns hetero or homosexual misbehaviour or others forms of personal secuality; to that extent the past jurisdiction of the senate doesn´t hold on any longer.
BVerwG, Urt. v. 09.10.2001 - 2 WD 10/01, BVerwGE 115, 174; NJW 2002, 1514; ZBR 2003, 170; NZWehrr 2002, 79"

So: one thing is clear: people having relationships with others soldiers are not tolerated. In reality gays are banned from leading positions and dismissed to administrative positions. Most soldiers are time soldiers as well - there contracts end after 12 years at maximum - they can not excpet to make a career or to become soldier (for lifetime -till retirement).
Homosexual people are not called in for military service (if it is clear to the Administration that a person is homosexual).
Some have filled complaints. Thus far none of them was succesfull. Most ended in a settlement out of court between the ministry of defense and the suing individual.

This issue is however not that much debatted actually. More controversially was the bill regarding civil unions.
Now the government wants to increase the rights of them.
This is legally very problemtic since Article 6 of the Basic law (constituition)grants special protection to marriage. In a past decision the Supereme Court ruled that the rights for civil unions must remain in significant difference to those for marriage.
The left-wing government is undermining the values of the country. It is time for regime-change in 2006 before they can make even more damage. They have already ruined our great alliance with the United States of America, divided Europe due to their policy of ass-crawling to the French and Arabs and are responsible for the highest debt, highest unemployment and the longest period with virtually no economic growth (last three years) in the German post-war history. We need regime-change.

You're a genius!!!!!!!!!!!!


Let's not put gays into separate units: let's send HOMOPHOBES in separate units!!! There certainly have enough of them to warranty it, no? And that way everybody's happy!

Maybe i should write to my congressmen about this! Excellent idea! Can we put them on the front lines to, first to go into combat, i feel that will solve MANY problems.

We need regime-change.

Hmm, that's funny. So do we.

I don´t care what you do.
Kerry is not much different to Bush in foreign policy.
And I don´t care so much about your domestic agenda as I´m not American. They are both ok. There is one thing I like about Bush: He says what he does and does what he says. We don´t have such politicians over here in Europe.

I don´t care what you do.
Kerry is not much different to Bush in foreign policy.
And I don´t care so much about your domestic agenda as I´m not American. They are both ok. There is one thing I like about Bush: He says what he does and does what he says. We don´t have such politicians over here in Europe.

you would disagree with that do what he says bs when you figure out how far hes going to go. maybe you should repesct the muslim lmilitant beheading people, they say they are going to behead some one if their demands arnt met, and when they do they are somehow the bad guy. but if bush says hes going to bomb iraq and does it, hes a hero? i see a problem here

There is one thing I like about Bush: He says what he does and does what he says. We don´t have such politicians over here in Europe.

Um, he does?

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

you would disagree with that do what he says bs when you figure out how far hes going to go. maybe you should repesct the muslim lmilitant beheading people, they say they are going to behead some one if their demands arnt met, and when they do they are somehow the bad guy. but if bush says hes going to bomb iraq and does it, hes a hero? i see a problem here

There is a difference in intent.

The militants capture people whose only crime is attempting to work in Iraq, they are innocent civilians. It wound be a far different matter if they were doing this to military personnel. The manner in which they do it is also sadistic and disgusting, even Sistani has condemned these kilings as barbaric.

Maybe i should write to my congressmen about this! Excellent idea! Can we put them on the front lines to, first to go into combat, i feel that will solve MANY problems.

Hahahaha


I don't see why not

@Berkylvania,

you are opening another topic. Not all statements of policitans are correct of course. And a politican has also to rely on secret service information after all.
I mean it that way: He said that the US is going for regime change in Iraq and the US did go for regime change in Iraq. In difference to his father who left the Iraqis under Saddams rule. He had good reasons for that of course. He feared the problems which would accur after the occupation of an arab country, which we see now.

I don´t care what you do.
Kerry is not much different to Bush in foreign policy.
And I don´t care so much about your domestic agenda as I´m not American. They are both ok. There is one thing I like about Bush: He says what he does and does what he says. We don´t have such politicians over here in Europe.

Since when does he do what he says? I mean a little while ago he was saying he is the war president, that through all his policies he has war in mind. Now he is claiming to be the "Peace Preasident"?!?! Hypocrite

There is a difference in intent.

The militants capture people whose only crime is attempting to work in Iraq, they are innocent civilians. It wound be a far different matter if they were doing this to military personnel. The manner in which they do it is also sadistic and disgusting, even Sistani has condemned these kilings as barbaric.


and to them stripping them and threatening them with dogs is barbaric, we have to take into accoutn what is called "cultural differences"

So you're saying you prefer a president who says: "I'm gonna be a warmonging moron" and actually does start a war over one who says "I'm not sure about what to do" or "I am not certain a war is necessary" because you can't be sure wheter they'll start a war or not?

Skalador,

I hate this decision by the European Court (of justice).
The meddle around in business which is not theirs.
After all the EU has no authority over defense. They used the argument of freedom of labour to partly expand jurisdiction over a field which is not for them to decide. However - it must be said: they normal labour law only partly applies.
The legal situation is more complicated. But it is a fact that homosexuals are rejected if they want to enter the military. People with homo sexual behaviour can be discharged or can be sent to administrative positions. Homosexuals are banned from leading positions and from training units.
So: there are a lot of regulations and ways to prevent the disruption of order and discipline due to homosexuality in the military. However: due to the stupid ruling of the ECJ it is not possible to make this the only argument for dismissal. However: it also says that a dismisal based on sexual orientation would be an unfair treatment it didn´t say that it was a violation of Article 3 of the European Human Rights convention because it is not that "severe". So if the military can claim that the person is disturbing the order it is still possible to discharge them and it is of course always possible to send them to administrative positions and not to prolong their contracts (which are up to 12 years at maximum).

By the way: this verdict is binding for all EU-countries. There is actually one regarding the British military which can be used as a precedent. But - as said - the legal situation is difficult. It is not right to sack a person on the basis of sexual orientation only (that also is the case for the military) however other restrictions of the common labour law do not apply. And the court has also ruled that complains for dismissal have to go before national courts after all which act according to national law

So you're saying you prefer a president who says: "I'm gonna be a warmonging moron" and actually does start a war over one who says "I'm not sure about what to do" or "I am not certain a war is necessary" because you can't be sure wheter they'll start a war or not?
As far as I know Kerry voted for the war.
I´m not American as I´ve said. You are in a different situation. You are the only remaining super power.
We - Germany - can afford to stay out of that.
Whether it was smart by others to join the coalition is a different question. The US can do the military part alone. The others were more an obstacle than assistance - except the British probably.

As far as I know Kerry voted for the war.
I´m not American as I´ve said. You are in a different situation. You are the only remaining super power.
We - Germany - can afford to stay out of that.
Whether it was smart by others to join the coalition was a different question. The US can do the military part alone. The others were more an obstacle than assistance - except the British probably.

I'm not american, I'm Canadian. And I never voiced any support for Kerry, the democrats did nothing to protest and try to stop that unjust war.

And I know I'd prefer a Prime Minister who didn't always do as he said he would, over one who does what he said he would even when it's plain stupid, wrong, and against the will of the population of his country.

Only idiots never change their minds. George Dubya is an Idiot. Mark the capital "I".

Germany doesn´t...
I don´t think Britain does.

Um, Britain allows homosexuals in, as does Germany and the Scandinavian nations. I'm pretty sure that France does as well. Not sure about Austria.

and to them stripping them and threatening them with dogs is barbaric, we have to take into accoutn what is called "cultural differences"

Those actions at Anu Ghraib were admonished by every official in the American administration and the guilty were punished (or still are as the case may be). I fail to see how these countries have stopped terrorists within their own borders. As for cultural differences, cultural relativism is junk logic. Morality isn't relative to individual cultures. Either something is right or something is wrong for all cultures regardless of where they come from.

They brutally killed several hostages and then posted their pictures for all to see. They desecrated the dead and refused to stop even when Sistani said this wasn't helping in achieving peace.

Please, back on topic if at all possible, though i do like the discussion.

As for cultural differences, cultural relativism is junk logic. Morality isn't relative to individual cultures. Either something is right or something is wrong for all cultures regardless of where they come from.


This is both totally wrong and oversimplistic. Somehow I don't think african cannibalist tribes see what they do as morally wrong, while we certainly regard it as so.

Likewise, the concept of "pre-emptive war" is pretty morally wrong a whole damn lot of Canadians and Europeans, while it seems a majority of Americans have no qualms about it.

As for cultural differences, cultural relativism is junk logic. Morality isn't relative to individual cultures. Either something is right or something is wrong for all cultures regardless of where they come from.

same is true for homosexuality. it was right for the greeks but seen as wrong now. you seem to have very little understanding of sociology and human psychology.

Um, Britain allows homosexuals in, as does Germany and the Scandinavian nations. I'm pretty sure that France does as well. Not sure about Austria.
I refered to a decision of the European court of justice which states that homosexuality itself is not a reason to be rejected by the military in itself. That ruling is binding for all EU members - so it ought to be.
However: it is still possible to discharge people if they are a treat to discipline or the order of the military. And the can be sent in administrative positions. They are no equal rights thing or whatsoever. If you are gay the german military doesn´t call you in for service as a matter of fact.
And you are banned from any leading positions as well as from training soldiers as well. That is the real situation.

I can give you reason.

1. They prove a distraction.
2. They make other soldiers feel uncomfortable.
3. It is wrong to be queer
4. If I was a soldier I would NOT want to be in a unit with a queer and probaly many other people would not like being around a queer either.

I think it would be ok if they sent them to one unit without straight people in it.

1. How the hell would you know? When in time of combat the only distractions are the bombs and bullets flying at you. I do know this, I have been there.
2. Again how the hell would you know? Again the last thing anyone is thinking at time of combat is who is gay and who isn't. You are thinking about living to see another day and getting to go home to your family, that is about it.
3. According to?? what the bible? When those who spew biblical quotes live completely 100% by the bible then I will care what they think about someone else *going against it*. Which means none of you, since no one can claim to live 100% by the words of any holy book.
4. As a war vet and soldier I am glad you aren't a soldier. YOu would bring down the morale of any unit with your negative spew. Been there done that, I do know from personal experience, I serve with a *fagaphobic* and all that idiot does is spew. She is lazy and non productive, and she pisses people off whenever she opens her mouth. Spewing bitterness and hatred is what really detracts and distracts from the mission being accomplished.

Unlike you I do know, I have been in combat and knowingly served with *queers*. They did their jobs just like everyone else. The only problems Iever had regarding gays was the negative spew of the people who were too busy spewing to do their jobs. Do your damn job and shut the hell up because that is all that truly matters.

Do your damn job and shut the hell up because that is all that truly matters.

thank you... thank you.

people need to get over themselves, and their freakin homophobia. Just do your job and be a descent human being about it.