DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on March 28, 2007, 07:25:25 PM
-
By CHARLES HACK
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
Jersey City resident Corey Andrew, like thousands of other job seekers, recently posted his profile on a popular career-based web site, hoping to nab some work as a copywriter. But the response he received was anything but typical.
The posting on CareerBuilder.com brought several potential suitors, including an Army recruiter who replied in late February.
However, Andrew had no interest in joining the Army for a number of reasons, including the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian citizens from putting on the uniform. Andrew identifies himself as gay.
His lack of interest didn't stop him from asking the recruiter whether he was able to serve in the Army as a gay man. The question sparked a bizarre three-day exchange, escalating into a bigoted tirade from the recruiter and an official military investigation.
Using a military email address, U.S. Army recruiter Sgt. Marcia Ramode fired off an email in capital letters that " IF YOU ARE GAY WE DON'T TAKE YOU. YOU ARE CONSIDERED UNQUALIFIED."
After more prodding from Andrew on the Army's recruitment policy, the messages escalated into a bigoted tirade. For example, Ramode told Andrew that "being gay is disgusting and immoral."
In a separate email, Ramode wrote, "You must be a total idiot and so stupid to presume that you do not know what gender you are." Ramode added that Andrew should be more grateful to the military for defending his freedoms, but that as a gay man "he should leave the United States."
The insults were not only flying one way, as Andrew criticized her vocabulary and poor spelling and, after finding out she was a Native American, wrote:
"So take that to your next rain dance."
Ramode didn't limit her email attacks to insults about Andrew's sexual preferences.
Andrew, who is black, criticized Ramode's word choices and poor spelling. In response, the apparently enraged sergeant said in graphic language that Andrew should "GO BACK TO AFRICA AND DO YOUR GAY VOODOO LIMBO TANGO AND WANGO DANCE AND JUMP AROUND AND PRANCE AND RUN ALL OVER THE PLACE HALF NAKED THERE."
The U.S. Army Recruiting Command's Staff Judge Advocate has referred the email exchange to Ramode's commander for "review, investigation and appropriate action," Sgt. Douglas Smith, a public affairs officer based Fort Knox, Texas, said in a statement.
Under the Department of Defense's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, recruiters do not ask applicants any questions about their sexual orientation.
"If an applicant makes a statement that he or she is homosexual, the recruiter must inform the applicant in a professional manner that they are not eligible for enlistment," the statement said.
Andrew, who is also a singer-songwriter and has worked for New York's advertising giant Young & Rubicam, said he thinks the Army contacted him because the Iraq war has made it harder to recruit.
Steve Ralls, a director of communications for the Service Members Legal Defense Network, which helps victims of discrimination under the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, says Ramode should be fired.
"The recruiter's remarks were outrageous and offensive in almost every way," Ralls said. "Anti-gay harassment throughout the military is well documented but this is particularly egregious because the recruiter's language is so homophobic and racist."
Ralls is relieved the Army appears to be taking the email exchange seriously.
"The command expects its recruiters to conduct themselves in a professional manner in all dealings with potential applicants and members of the public," said Smith of the Army. "We are ambassadors for America's Army."
Ramode did not return phone calls seeking comment.
http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-3/1174888852111830.xml&coll=3&thispage=1
-
IF YOU ARE GAY WE DON'T TAKE YOU. YOU ARE CONSIDERED UNQUALIFIED."
thats the statement that sink the recruiter
the word unqualified means lacking the ability to do a task or position.
it`s simply the wrong statement to use in this situation
especially since a good deal of gays kicked out of the military are in specialized fields ,proving these people are extremely capable.
I recall one was a admiral.
-
The word "unqualified" in the military context does not refer to one's abilities. It refers to meeting all of the qualifications for a particular circumstance. Homosexuals are, by law, unqualified for military service. A person who is not a native-born American is unqualified to be President of the United States, even if they might well be otherwise very capable.
That statement was not a problem. Though putting it in CAPS could be considered "shouting" it could also be nothing more than emphasis. That statement alone could easily be a neutral statement of policy.
The problem is that the NCO used insulting language in addition to the neutral stuff. The "disgusting and immoral" language was obvioulsy unecessary. It is not a recruiter's job to lecture people on moral decisions. That alone was unprofessional and would be grounds for consideration for removal from recruiter duty (an important career step for NCOs).
But when she chose to attack his race as well, she sealed her fate. Obviously she is compromised as a recruiter, but more importantly, she is compromised as an NCO. Any attempt on her part to evaluate or discipline an African-American soldier would be subject to challenge on grounds of racism. Soldiers of any color could be reluctant to serve under her.
Since support for equal opportunity is part of one's NCO Evaluation, she clearly deserves to have that noted as a deficiency. Further, her conduct was unprofessional and unbecoming of an NCO. It is possible that she might face actual charges. At the very least, she will be relieved as a recruiter and receive a letter of reprimand that will go in her military record. Coupled with a sure-to-come substandard evaluation that will spell the end of her effective career. If her rank is listed correctly as SGT (which, in civilian publications it often is not) she is unlikely to finish her military career. SGT (E-5) is too low a rank to continue past 15 years without a qualitative review. Sometimes a person can remain E-5 past that point for reasons beyond their control (like downsizing after the cold war or career path shifts). But in her case a board would not be at all likely to retain her.
This NCO should have exercised self-control. Her problems are of her own making and the fact that the other party was just as idiotic does not in any way excuse her. NCOs are expected to have professionalism, maturity and common sense. She displayed none of these traits.
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualification
true but it kinda vaguely made definition
qualification usually means ability
if another phrase was used
ex. at the moment the military cannot recruit gays.
and I am not in any position to change this.
maybe this incident would end up differently.
unqualified just gives a in accurate impression.
I don`t ever recall anyone using unqualified for the context of non-natives not able to become president.
-
I don`t ever recall anyone using unqualified for the context of non-natives not able to become president.
One of the qualifications for holding the office of President is being born in the US. If you do not meet this qualification, you are unqualified for the office.
One of the qualifications for being a member of the armed forces is being non-gay. If you do not meet this qualification, you are unqualified for joining the armed forces.
-
The U.S. Army Recruiting Command's Staff Judge Advocate has referred the email exchange to Ramode's commander for "review, investigation and appropriate action," Sgt. Douglas Smith, a public affairs officer based Fort Knox, Texas, said in a statement.
As someone who used to live there, I'm pretty damn sure that Fort Knox is in Kentucky. I've never heard of a Fort Knox, Texas, though someone may correct me if there is one and if the recruiter's commander would likely be based there.
-
As someone who used to live there, I'm pretty damn sure that Fort Knox is in Kentucky. I've never heard of a Fort Knox, Texas, though someone may correct me if there is one and if the recruiter's commander would likely be based there.
Well, for a number of years the MSM insisted that Charlotte was in VA instead of NC. Now that we've gotten bigger, they've gotten more accurate.
(They obviously confused Charlotte with Charlottesville.)
-
Its o'kay for gays to serve in the military as long as they stay in the closet. Its not about qualifications or abilities. Its about submission to the rule of military law. The more important issue is, is the military rule of law just or unjust?
-
Its o'kay for gays to serve in the military as long as they stay in the closet.
Actually, it's not. It's just against policy for their superiors to ask them about their orientation.
-
Actually, it's not. It's just against policy for their superiors to ask them about their orientation.
I'm frequently fascinated by that PC nomenclature, "orientation". Are we asking them if they prefer standing straight up towards Orion, or if they lean more to the south, than they do to the west? ;D
-
I'm frequently fascinated by that PC nomenclature, "orientation".
It's a perfectly legitimate use of the word. One of the definitions for orientation is "a tendency of thought; a general inclination."
-
Actually, Kimba, the word "Qualified" has a very specific meaning when used in a military context. Homosexuality is STILL illegal in the military (sorry, Larry, Ami is right). It is not legal to ask (as it used to be) whether a person is gay, but if the gay person tells, or if it is found out in some other fashion, homosexuals will be discharged.
"Qualification" in military terms means not just meeting ability standards, but also meeting the appropriate requirements. You cannot be an infantry soldier if you are a woman. (That is to say, you are not allowed to be.) You cannot hold a security clearance if you have bad debt problems. You cannot be promoted to Sergeant if you have not been to leadership training. You may not join the service if you are under 18 (17 with parental permission) or over 35 (with some exceptions). All of these things are considered "qualifications" and have nothing to do (necessarily) with ability. A 45 year old who wanted to join up would be told "I'm sorry, you are unqualified to enlist."
Of course, Larry's question is the more important, but within the context of this thread, the issue is whether what the SGT did was wrong. The qualification statement probably isn't. The rest definitely is.
-
Its o'kay for gays to serve in the military as long as they stay in the closet.
Actually, it's not. It's just against policy for their superiors to ask them about their orientation.
Ami, gay people are not a product of orientation. Gay people are (non-conformist) who do not hadhere to the bigoted orientation of bias religious and political leadership. The archetypes of a society are reflected in the behavior of the society. There was a time both church and state thought slavery was o'kay, and the people of the nation were divided between slaves and slave owners. There was a time when women could not vote, men thought that women were to stupid to understand politics, that's what the church and state told the people. There was a time when homosexuals could be put to death, because the church said they were posses by demons and the people of the nation believed the church leaders. One thing we have learned. Church and state are not always correct in their judgments and both church and state are still mired in bigotry. George (The Burning) Bush, is a anti-gay zealot, conservative, republican, Christian. Fascism is a philosophy of sanctioning, only those who are deserving and persecuting all of those who do not conform. That is why both the U.S. Domestic and Foreign policies have failed and the conflicts of interest continue. This will not be resolved until the mindset of the leadership evolves beyond the bias of the current thinking.
-
Ami, gay people are not a product of orientation. Gay people are (non-conformist) who do not hadhere to the bigoted orientation of bias religious and political leadership.
So, in a non-religious, non-political world, we would all be gay?
I find that hard to believe.
Even animals (who do not have religion or politics) only have a small percentage of homosexuals in the general population.
And as I pointed out earlier, orientation is the proper word to use.
-
So, in a non-religious, non-political world, we would all be gay?
No, there would just be no institutional anti-gay indoctrination. It would be up to the individual to make their own choice about who they have sex with. People already make those choices and they don't care what church or state think about it.
-
I think it`s neither.
Theirs a tv show called torchwood
the cast is neither gay or straight.
their bi
the only preference is the person has to be good looking.
oddly the actor(who is gay) playing capt.jack hartness auditioned for will and grace and was turned down for being too straight.
-
Will and Grace is a double edge sward. Exploitation of stereotypes is the foundation of the show.
-
I notice no openly gay masculine men in the show
despite that the military has proven there are a great deal many of them.
-
I believe those who control the national media are still anti-gay and what they produce is design to portray gay people in a negative way, in general.
-
maybe not anti-gay but definately subject to preconcieved notions.
like the idea of a masculine gay man is just not thinkable.
despite the cowboy,biker,sailor theme that is quite popular in gay culture.
-
I think you are right about the preconceived notions. That was true for early TV also, male roll models in the early days were laughable, father knows best type. but that format points to the problem of todays tv programming and what is still wrong with it.
-
People already make those choices and they don't care what church or state think about it.
Exactly. They have an orientation.
-
Exactly. They have an orientation.
I don't believe it is an orientation. I believe it is just part of the natural state of human sexuality. Perhaps if they did not try to fix the so called problem of homosexuality we would not have some of the problems we have today, like over population, pollution, starvation. maybe church and state should have let nature chart the course.
-
I don't believe it is an orientation.
Orientation: A tendency of thought; a general inclination; a predisposition in favor of something (from Houghton Mifflin's American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
This does not describe either a hetero-, bi-, or homosexual person's feelings towards certain genders?
-
So, in a non-religious, non-political world, we would all be gay?
No, there would just be no institutional anti-gay indoctrination. It would be up to the individual to make their own choice about who they have sex with. People already make those choices and they don't care what church or state think about it.
Gays have been called everything, had their prediliction analyzed and disected in a hundred directions, with each conclusion closely related to judgemental bias, all to paint them as sinners or psychopaths.
God made them, so if they are sinners . . .
As far as labelling them mentally deranged, my own theory is that it is the accusers who are working through their shit on the issue, not the gays.
-
As far as labelling them mentally deranged, my own theory is that it is the accusers who are working through their shit on the issue, not the gays.
I feel the same way about most of the current administration's accusers.
-
I believe those who control the national media are still anti-gay and what they produce is design to portray gay people in a negative way, in general.
And portraying the homosexual lifesyle in a negative fashion is BAD?
-
Exactly. They have an orientation.
I don't believe it is an orientation. I believe it is just part of the natural state of human sexuality. Perhaps if they did not try to fix the so called problem of homosexuality we would not have some of the problems we have today, like over population, pollution, starvation. maybe church and state should have let nature chart the course.
People make choices, sometimes for good or ill. Being flawed at birth, many are not positive or productive ones.
You said: "I believe it is just part of the natural state of human sexuality." This is utter CRUD. Homosexuality is a choice. People choose this lifestyle. And, "charting the course" should mean that the people do not let the homesexual lifestyle "folks" determine the language to be used in this debate such as the word "gay", in order to place a more positive spin on this lifestyle. People who CHOOSE this lifestyle should be given all the help they can in order to be delivered from the effects of this erroneous choice.
Yellow Crane: "God made them, so if they are sinners . . ." Yes, He did, but they CHOSE a different way than He intended, as we all do too often.
And I disagree. the MSM is putting a more positive spin on this choice for quite some time and the MSM and society as a whole have mostly bought into this "it is just a lifestyle choice, not a good or BAD thing!". I cannot relate to you the number of times lately I have seen a homosexual placed into a movie, many times with no real reason, other than, IMHO, to placate the homosexual community.
Someone who has CHOSEN the homosexual lifestyle should be LOVED as anyone else, but not told their lifestyle is acceptable and "it's okay, it's just differnet" and so on.
-
100% agree Professor. I love my brother, who is gay. That doesn't translate into my supporting or even respecting his lifestyle choice. I tolerate it
-
100% agree Professor. I love my brother, who is gay. That doesn't translate into my supporting or even respecting his lifestyle choice. I tolerate it
How about your brother and CHOICE?
Did he just act out and choose to suck cock, or did he one day look at a dick and swoon to the lymbic, just as you or I do when we see the apricot in the bush?
Is your brother a well-adjusted homosexual, and if he is, notice how his life is singing along while you writhe before the pulpit.
I want to be there when you and your brother are judged. I will speak to God's translation. I do this by virtue of the fact that I know God makes homosexuals, because no one chooses to munch on the organs of others unless there is a buzz in the blood, and homosexuals have a buzz in the blood, while nonhomosexuals do not have it for the same sex.
But if your argument is really that, even though the strong sexual feelings are present, one SHOULD CHOOSE to not follow their sexual instinct at all, then that is another thing entirely, isn't it?
In that case, we would be doing it for our sakes, not theirs
-
100% agree Professor. I love my brother, who is gay. That doesn't translate into my supporting or even respecting his lifestyle choice. I tolerate it
How about your brother and CHOICE?
What about it?
Did he just act out and choose to suck cock, or did he one day look at a dick and swoon to the lymbic, just as you or I do when we see the apricot in the bush?
Apparently, though minus the graphic innuendo
Is your brother a well-adjusted homosexual.
Define "well-adjusted". I get the impression from Crane, and like minds, that they're trying to piant a scenario where Homosexuals would be completely stupid to chose such a lifestyle, and since they can't all be stupid, it just can't be choice then. It has to be something else. Correct? Wrong. Very sane and smart people can chose to do immoral acts. It happens ALL THE TIME. Some get a high out of it, some do it as a rebellious thing, some do it as a challenge, a vast many of them do it because that's what turns them on sexually. It's pretty much impossible to figure out why people do what are arguably immoral behaviors. Look at congress, we have 99% of them acting completely unethical, when not immoral or illegal. Yet they chose to act those ways as well.
I want to be there when you and your brother are judged. I will speak to God's translation.
Sorry, you're not invited
if your argument is really that, even though the strong sexual feelings are present, one SHOULD CHOOSE to not follow their sexual instinct at all, then that is another thing entirely, isn't it?
Their choice. We all have choices, which is what ultimately decides our eternal direction, and only God knows what direction that'll be. His judgement and his alone. Not mine, not yours, not Dobson's, not Jackson's. And unfortunately Crane will not be attending sirs or his brothers' judgement moment either. Sorry to disappoint
-
100% agree Professor. I love my brother, who is gay. That doesn't translate into my supporting or even respecting his lifestyle choice. I tolerate it
How about your brother and CHOICE?
Did he just act out and choose to suck cock, or did he one day look at a dick and swoon to the lymbic, just as you or I do when we see the apricot in the bush?
Is your brother a well-adjusted homosexual, and if he is, notice how his life is singing along while you writhe before the pulpit.
I want to be there when you and your brother are judged. I will speak to God's translation. I do this by virtue of the fact that I know God makes homosexuals, because no one chooses to munch on the organs of others unless there is a buzz in the blood, and homosexuals have a buzz in the blood, while nonhomosexuals do not have it for the same sex.
But if your argument is really that, even though the strong sexual feelings are present, one SHOULD CHOOSE to not follow their sexual instinct at all, then that is another thing entirely, isn't it?
In that case, we would be doing it for our sakes, not theirs
People who are helpless to controll their sexual urges are unqualified for Military service.
-
100% agree Professor. I love my brother, who is gay. That doesn't translate into my supporting or even respecting his lifestyle choice. I tolerate it
How about your brother and CHOICE?
Did he just act out and choose to suck cock, or did he one day look at a dick and swoon to the lymbic, just as you or I do when we see the apricot in the bush?
Is your brother a well-adjusted homosexual, and if he is, notice how his life is singing along while you writhe before the pulpit.
I want to be there when you and your brother are judged. I will speak to God's translation. I do this by virtue of the fact that I know God makes homosexuals, because no one chooses to munch on the organs of others unless there is a buzz in the blood, and homosexuals have a buzz in the blood, while nonhomosexuals do not have it for the same sex.
But if your argument is really that, even though the strong sexual feelings are present, one SHOULD CHOOSE to not follow their sexual instinct at all, then that is another thing entirely, isn't it?
People who are helpless to controll their sexual urges are unqualified for Military service.
Luckily, most of us live outside the military.
Controlling your sexual urges in the military hardly equates to telling homosexuals there is to be no sexual expression, ever.
If you told that to soldiers, you would need legislation for funds to handle the mass exodus.
The religious right wants homosexuals punished above and beyond the boundaries of the law,
Does the fascist element in America find the homosexual to be their Jew or Gypsy?
It is clear that the religious right wants homosexuals punished. When you want that and can't employ the law to help you, it becomes systemitized persecution. And that is what you have now from the religious right--systemitized persecution.
-
The religious right wants homosexuals punished above and beyond the boundaries of the law,....It is clear that the religious right wants homosexuals punished
As an apparent member of the "religious right", are you're out of your freakin skull? You think having their feelings hurt because we (I) don't support their lifestyle choice, is some form of systematic punishment??
You in support of repealing the 1st amendment, while you're at it?? ??? Oh wait, let's impliment the "Fairness Doctrine". Yea, that's it. That'll teach those RW fascists about freedom of speech and what's allowed to be said, and more importantly, by whom.
::)
-
As a point to note in support of Crane's general position, I note that the superseding law of the land, within whose embrace all of our life together unfolds, puts a premium on tolerance as a necessary if informal offshoot of the core, protectable interests that our civil society demands. Put in a more pedestrian way, the cat will get progressively more out of the bag (unless choked, which is prohibited) as its unimpeded procession in that direction jives too fundamentally with our core pieties, properly understood and expanded.
-
As a counterpoint to Crane's hypothesis, I think he is just taking potshots at the religious right, conservatives and the fascists he likes to think of them as.
Fact is the law of the land is the law of the land, and that law was passed and maintained by mainstream america, represented by the collective wisdom of the elected representatives. Most movement in this area is being promulgated from the courts. He has no room to point fingers at others when he fails to point fingers at himself and his ilk, who have at many times over the decades had an iron grip on legilsatures in the various and several states. If democrats, if the religious left, if the liberals thought the current laws so abhorrent , why did they abdicate to the courts? Why not right the wrong themselves? Hmmm?
-
As a point to note in support of Crane's general position, I note that the superseding law of the land, within whose embrace all of our life together unfolds, puts a premium on tolerance as a necessary if informal offshoot of the core, protectable interests that our civil society demands. Put in a more pedestrian way, the cat will get progressively more out of the bag (unless choked, which is prohibited) as its unimpeded procession in that direction jives too fundamentally with our core pieties, properly understood and expanded.
It doesn't depend on how much it causes practical problems?
-
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996533
-
I think there are alot of this going on
not joking here
I can`t tell how many times I faked liking a person just to not get bugged.
not saying I`m asexual,but I`m definately in that direction to understand it.
it will never be admitted socially we attack people who are not a couple.
now I`ll wait for the attacks begin here
-
I think there are alot of this going on
not joking here
I can`t tell how many times I faked liking a person just to not get bugged.
not saying I`m asexual,but I`m definately in that direction to understand it.
it will never be admitted socially we attack people who are not a couple.
now I`ll wait for the attacks begin here
Ok, I'll bite. I'll start the attacks, as you call it.
Sex drive varies widely in individuals, regardless whether you are attracted to males or females. It is therefore not impossible, I suppose, to locate someone who has very little sex drive. Could make a lot of things in life easier, I suppose. Then again, there would be certain joys not available to you.
As far as not being a couple, I cannot see why that might be an issue. Some are married, some are single, whatever...
-
huh
not a attack
usually I get bugged about this
actually over70% when I say I`m not attracted to someone the response is I must be gay.
it`s really is next to impossible to say I`m not attracted to a someone .
the most common response is It`s ok to admit your gay.
At least people don`t get violent,but it really not easy.
To me it seems being asexual is even more harder to accept.
even though I`m not asexual ,my drive is lower than average.
I even thought I had no soul once.
strangely females have a harder time accepting male asexuals than the other way around,I learned
my ex was not exactly kind.
-
I don't see what there is to "attack" Kimba :-\
-
I think the concept of a man actually thinking of not being with anyone is considered not impossible.
I got no problem being with a women,but the part that gets me being called gay is I would prefer to like her,but I don`t.
I went out with someone who virtually every single person who met her doesn`t like her
but when I dumped her.
people kept saying,I`m gonna die alone.
I observed several guys who go out on blind dates.
guys aint allowed much veto power in the matter.
bars are worst
I get insulted every single time I turndown drunk lady
even when they don`t find her attractive.
-
There's alot of morons & idiots out there Kimba. Especially in bars. Try not to let them drag you down. There's nothing wrong with you. You chose who you want to be with, & when you want to be with. Simple as that
-
I think the concept of a man actually thinking of not being with anyone is considered not impossible.
I got no problem being with a women,but the part that gets me being called gay is I would prefer to like her,but I don`t.
I went out with someone who virtually every single person who met her doesn`t like her
but when I dumped her.
people kept saying,I`m gonna die alone.
I observed several guys who go out on blind dates.
guys aint allowed much veto power in the matter.
bars are worst
I get insulted every single time I turndown drunk lady
even when they don`t find her attractive.
I don't see where you are causing them any probem.
Should their self esteem depend on your attraction to them?
Attractive people might be proud of their attractiveness , your immunity to this charm might dent this pride.
But that is not really you causeing a problem , that problem was already there, latent ,in them.
-
I`m not immune to their charms at all
this is what makes me not asexual
its just when I get to know them.
thats when it kinda falls apart