• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" To repeal or not to repeal...

fsc said:
From wikipedia: Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (Britain, France, Russia) permit gay people to serve openly, and two (United States, China) do not. All members of EU except Greece permit gay people to serve openly.

my $0.02 :)
Click to expand...
I have Polish friends, they have informed me its illegal to be gay in Poland (the EU HAS to fix this!)
So its virtually impossible for them to serve openly in the Polish military...
 
shadowninty said:
I have Polish friends, they have informed me its illegal to be gay in Poland (the EU HAS to fix this!)
So its virtually impossible for them to serve openly in the Polish military...
Click to expand...

umm... I'm not calling your Polish friends liars but even a quick Google search seems to show that homosexuality has been explicitly LEGAL in Poland since 1932 when the age of consent for hetero and homo sexual relations was set at 15. Prior to that there were no laws either way regarding homosexuality.

I'm not saying it's EASY to be gay in Poland. I don't have any direct knowledge. It's not easy to be gay in many parts of the US (small towns, the South, etc.) but that's not the same as it being illegal. Much like I'm sure it wouldn't always be easy to be gay in the military even if it is legal.

At any rate I'm sure that some of the stats I quoted from Wikipedia might be off. (Wikipedia is not known for its 100% accuracy) But, the larger point is that MOST of our allies in the Western world have no problems with gays in the military so why should we.
 
fsc said:
umm... I'm not calling your Polish friends liars but even a quick Google search seems to show that homosexuality has been explicitly LEGAL in Poland since 1932 when the age of consent for hetero and homo sexual relations was set at 15. Prior to that there were no laws either way regarding homosexuality.

I'm not saying it's EASY to be gay in Poland. I don't have any direct knowledge. It's not easy to be gay in many parts of the US (small towns, the South, etc.) but that's not the same as it being illegal. Much like I'm sure it wouldn't always be easy to be gay in the military even if it is legal.

At any rate I'm sure that some of the stats I quoted from Wikipedia might be off. (Wikipedia is not known for its 100% accuracy) But, the larger point is that MOST of our allies in the Western world have no problems with gays in the military so why should we.
Click to expand...
Ah probably got words mixed up or sth...
They probably meant it was impossible to be open about it there
e.g. see this :eek: :(

Poland to ban schools from discussing homosexuality | World news | The Guardian

Sad...
 
fsc said:
I'm a bit hesitant to jump into a heated debate about something like this on an Android Forum especially as a new member but here goes.

This conversation seems a bit myopic considering this is an international forum. Just look at the rest of the world. Other countries we are fighting alongside in Iraq and Afghanistan allow gay service memebers. Our troops don't seem to have trouble fighting with them and those battalions don't seem to have trouble having them. I think this alot more instructive to look at when making assumptions about what will happen when our laws change.

From wikipedia: Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (Britain, France, Russia) permit gay people to serve openly, and two (United States, China) do not. All members of EU except Greece permit gay people to serve openly.

my $0.02 :)
Click to expand...

All that I am aware of have one service member to a room housing.
 
fsc said:
On subs and ships? On the battlefield? I'd like to see some sources that back that statement up.
Click to expand...
No and no; and no, in answer to your questions.

In the British army there is a move to house all single personel in their own en suite rooms, but some housing has yet to be converted; but this is only on base, not 'in the field' or on the front lines. In those situations the British army personel are bunked/berthed as required to meet the needs of the environment and combat, troops have to employ tolerance and acceptance in these conditions with regard to both gender and sexuality, the British solider has proven he is capable of this; I can't speak for other nations militaries, but pretty much all the Kiwis, Aussies, Czechs, Swedes, Finish, Dutch, Germans and Polish people that I've met and conversed with have similar attitudes of acceptance, so I would imagine the same is true within their military.
 
mpw said:
Take controlling a motor vehicle or voting; SOME children would be capable of both at 12years old, but the age limit (in certain places) is 16years old.
Click to expand...

NO child should ever be allowed to vote at the tender age of 12. The are clueless about the world and unable to grasp what the president does.

Bob Maxey
 
Bob Maxey said:
NO child should ever be allowed to vote at the tender age of 12. The are clueless about the world and unable to grasp what the president does...
Click to expand...
Really? you don't think there are ANY 12year olds that are capable of making an informed choice?

I disagree, but the point I was making was that practical considerations need to be taken into account when making systems, like voting and driving licences work.

If being clueless is what prevents a 12year old voting, should we prevent clueless adults from voting too? Should any citizen be required to pass a test of some sort before they get to vote? and should they be allowed to sit this test at any age, and if pass get to vote even as a minor?
 
Bob Maxey said:
NO child should ever be allowed to vote at the tender age of 12. The are clueless about the world and unable to grasp what the president does.

Bob Maxey
Click to expand...
True, and the same could be said of most 18 year olds. Sometimes I wonder whether if Robert Heinlein didn't have it right when he wrote Starship Troopers. In that novel All citizens above a certain age had the same rights except one, the right to vote. The only ones who could vote where those who had completed military service.
 
Isthmus said:
True, and the same could be said of most 18 year olds. Sometimes I wonder whether if Robert Heinlein didn't have it right when he wrote Starship Troopers. In that novel All citizens above a certain age had the same rights except one, the right to vote. The only ones who could vote where those who had completed military service.
Click to expand...

Military service was the most common and easiest route, but it wasn't the ONLY route.

I don't recall what the other routes were, or whether or not specific OTHER routes were mention. I do remember that it was "supposedly" the easiest route.

Starship troopers, Good book. Lousy Movie. I feel awkward when I discuss it with other people, because they've seen the movie.

I found armor compelling, but it wasn't really political.

I really liked "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

Do you know that he actually invented the phrase:

TANSTAAFL?

There aint no such thing as a free lunch.

Overall, I find Heinlein's writing to be thought provoking, especially his view on government.

"There's no greater tyranny than to force a man to pay for something he doesn't want, simply because you think it will be good for him."
 
byteware said:
Military service was the most common and easiest route, but it wasn't the ONLY route.

I don't recall what the other routes were, or whether or not specific OTHER routes were mention. I do remember that it was "supposedly" the easiest route.

Starship troopers, Good book. Lousy Movie. I feel awkward when I discuss it with other people, because they've seen the movie.

I found armor compelling, but it wasn't really political.

I really liked "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

Do you know that he actually invented the phrase:

TANSTAAFL?

There aint no such thing as a free lunch.

Overall, I find Heinlein's writing to be thought provoking, especially his view on government.

"There's no greater tyranny than to force a man to pay for something he doesn't want, simply because you think it will be good for him."
Click to expand...
It sounds like you and I have some of the same tastes in literature. I agree with you 100% about the quality of the book relative to the movie. The book is fantastic and has more to do with overcoming adversity and development of a military leader, than it does with aliens. The movie on the other hand... :mad:
 
Isthmus said:
It sounds like you and I have some of the same tastes in literature. I agree with you 100% about the quality of the book relative to the movie. The book is fantastic and has more to do with overcoming adversity and development of a military leader, than it does with aliens. The movie on the other hand... :mad:
Click to expand...

Bah. I read Armor first, which gave me a good view of what that world was like. When I read Starship Troopers (which I liked the movie, but I LIKE B-rated action movies) I was actually very surprised about the plot.
 
mpw said:
Really? you don't think there are ANY 12year olds that are capable of making an informed choice?

I disagree, but the point I was making was that practical considerations need to be taken into account when making systems, like voting and driving licences work.

If being clueless is what prevents a 12year old voting, should we prevent clueless adults from voting too? Should any citizen be required to pass a test of some sort before they get to vote? and should they be allowed to sit this test at any age, and if pass get to vote even as a minor?
Click to expand...

No, they are guaranteed the right to vote. Children do not have enough knowledge to make informed decisions. Voting is a vital and important duty and it must never be treated lightly.

Bob Maxey
 
Isthmus said:
True, and the same could be said of most 18 year olds. Sometimes I wonder whether if Robert Heinlein didn't have it right when he wrote Starship Troopers. In that novel All citizens above a certain age had the same rights except one, the right to vote. The only ones who could vote where those who had completed military service.
Click to expand...

OK, defend the position. More people don't serve than do serve. Are you saying they should not have a vote?

Bob Maxey
 
I believe that you should have a vested interest in US in order to vote ie property owners. It's unconstitutional but since when did that stop us?
 
Bob Maxey said:
No, they are guaranteed the right to vote. Children do not have enough knowledge to make informed decisions. Voting is a vital and important duty and it must never be treated lightly...
Click to expand...
You do realise you've kinda contradicted yourself a little in the context of the question I asked right?

Saying children do not have the knowledge is a generalisation, and I fully understand why you make such a generalisation and why it's an acceptable generalisation for any system of law; but my point was that some 12year olds are more capable of making a rational and informed decision than some 16year olds (or 18years or whatever age you have to be to vote in whatever jurisdiction).

I agree that the right to vote, and the exercising of one's vote is an important duty, but I question whether it's right that a person earns that right purely through age, or whether it should be earned by merit. Personally I think that age alone shouldn't dictate what rights a person has, but I do understand that for the purpose of a workable system of law, that in many cases a line must be drawn; although I'm also aware of cases where this line can be varied in specific circumstances, where due consideration has been given, and I'm also supportive of such prudence.
 
mpw said:
You do realise you've kinda contradicted yourself a little in the context of the question I asked right?

Saying children do not have the knowledge is a generalisation, and I fully understand why you make such a generalisation and why it's an acceptable generalisation for any system of law; but my point was that some 12year olds are more capable of making a rational and informed decision than some 16year olds (or 18years or whatever age you have to be to vote in whatever jurisdiction).

I agree that the right to vote, and the exercising of one's vote is an important duty, but I question whether it's right that a person earns that right purely through age, or whether it should be earned by merit. Personally I think that age alone shouldn't dictate what rights a person has, but I do understand that for the purpose of a workable system of law, that in many cases a line must be drawn; although I'm also aware of cases where this line can be varied in specific circumstances, where due consideration has been given, and I'm also supportive of such prudence.
Click to expand...

Well, start by changing Amendment 26. And most certainly, the line cannot be varied or changed depending on the circumstances.

And then tell me how you judge a child's ability to make rational decisions. Do we then determine if the child is smart enough to vote? Is there a test?

How long should this take?

Bob Maxey
 
byteware said:
Do you know that he actually invented the phrase:

TANSTAAFL?

There aint no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Well apparently no. I recall reading that saying in connection with some old political discussion, so I Googled it. Apparently, the phrase predates Heinlein.

Bob Maxey
 
Bob Maxey said:
Well, start by changing Amendment 26. And most certainly, the line cannot be varied or changed depending on the circumstances...
Click to expand...
You might want to check this out; turns out there're places on the planet other than the US! who knew?! :rolleyes:

And despite what you may imagine, there are circumstances where legal age limits can be varied by the court, albeit they might be beyond your nations border.

Bob Maxey said:
...And then tell me how you judge a child's ability to make rational decisions. Do we then determine if the child is smart enough to vote? Is there a test?...
Click to expand...
You ask them a set of questions to establish the extent of their knowledge and understanding, just as you test anybody of any age if you want to assess their understanding of a given subject; you'll be aware of things like driving tests, SATs; in England all school children take GCSEs, I assume there's an equivalent in the US High School system. All of these are tests of a candidates knowledge and understanding; so it's hardly beyond imagination that a test could be developed to assess an understanding of the voting political system that would show a 10or12or15year old had at least the same level of understanding as the average 16or18year old, who would be given the vote based on age alone.
 
mpw said:
You might want to check this out; turns out there're places on the planet other than the US! who knew?! :rolleyes:

And despite what you may imagine, there are circumstances where legal age limits can be varied by the court, albeit they might be beyond your nations border.


You ask them a set of questions to establish the extent of their knowledge and understanding, just as you test anybody of any age if you want to assess their understanding of a given subject; you'll be aware of things like driving tests, SATs; in England all school children take GCSEs, I assume there's an equivalent in the US High School system. All of these are tests of a candidates knowledge and understanding; so it's hardly beyond imagination that a test could be developed to assess an understanding of the voting political system that would show a 10or12or15year old had at least the same level of understanding as the average 16or18year old, who would be given the vote based on age alone.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the map link, but, again, you are missing my point. We are not talking about other countries or what happens beyond our borders. We are talking about the USA. In the USA we have a couple of pretty important documents that define what can and cannot be done. We can not easily change them.

I am referring to the 26th Amendment.

Second, the line I was talking about had to do with some person's idea (yours perhaps) that thought we could arbitrarily change the voting age depending on how smart we think the kid is. We can't do this; again, it is difficult to do as it should be.

You must be joking if you think giving the voter to a 12 year old is a great idea. And... it is more than just a test to see how smart they are. Leading the most powerful country on planet earth requires wisdom that youth lack.

Bob Maxey
 
Bob Maxey said:
...We are not talking about other countries or what happens beyond our borders. We are talking about the USA...
Click to expand...
I was talking about the principles in general, and not limiting myself to the US, others in this thread have also been discussing the core issues with international reference; you may be limiting your thinking to the US, but not assume others aren't taking a broader view. And they're your borders, not our borders; it's not me that is missing the point.

Bob Maxey said:
...I am referring to the 26th Amendment...
Click to expand...
I am well aware to what you were referring, my point was that that is only relevant to one of hundreds of countries being discussed.

Bob Maxey said:
...Second, the line I was talking about had to do with some person's idea (yours perhaps) that thought we could arbitrarily change the voting age depending on how smart we think the kid is. We can't do this; again, it is difficult to do as it should be...
Click to expand...
I never said any such thing, and I don't recall it being mentioned as such in this thread; so I don't know what you may have been referencing other than the post of mine which you quoted.

Bob Maxey said:
...You must be joking if you think giving the voter to a 12 year old is a great idea...
Click to expand...
I'm not joking at all; I'm also not suggesting that the vote be given, I've suggested it should be earned, and what is a better idea, that a 12year old proves he's capable of reasoned decision making and earns a right to vote, or that a 16year old prejudiced racist sexiest bigot be given the right to vote because he managed not to die before his 16th birthday?

Bob Maxey said:
...Leading the most powerful country on planet earth requires wisdom that youth lack.
Click to expand...
Again, you're choosing to limit your thinking it seems :rolleyes:
 
Bob Maxey said:
OK, defend the position. More people don't serve than do serve. Are you saying they should not have a vote?

Bob Maxey
Click to expand...
I wasn't taking a position, Just wondering out loud. If you'd like to know Mr Heinlein's thoughts on the matter, read the book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom