Study: Gays in military would not be disruptive; Update: AOL Hot Seat Poll added
posted at 7:52 am on July 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A bipartisan panel of retired military commanders has concluded that Congress should repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow gays to serve openly in the military. One commander helped Bill Clinton implement the current policy in 1993 but says it’s flawed by an assumption of disruption when no evidence exists for it. The study, commissioned by UC Santa Barbara, found no evidence that gays serving openly would affect morale, unit cohesion or readiness:
Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military — Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit’s sexual orientation. …
Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
“Everyone was living a big lie — the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn’t want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law,” he said.
The study will no doubt come under scrutiny for its source. The Michael Palm Center sponsored this study, and it is not a disinterested party to this issue. It champions gay rights as part of its mission. That will have critics saying that the study itself is unreliable and biased from the start.
However, most studies on contentious issues get sponsored by organizations with dogs in the fight, and to dismiss it out of hand would be unreasonable without considering the retired commanders who ran it. According to this report of the study, they found the basic problem of “don’t ask, don’t tell” too large to overcome: an assumption of disruption without any evidence of it. Indeed, the success of DADT would tend to argue otherwise; gays serve without disruption and the military values their service, until the moment they reveal their orientation.
Supporters of the ban have argued that the potential for disruption has never been disproven, but one cannot prove a negative. Evidence exists in other Western forces that gays serve openly without affecting unit morale or performance; British and Israeli militaries have long allowed gays to serve openly, and they have suffered no loss in readiness. As Admiral Shanahan notes, DADT itself creates morale problems with its hypocrisy and necessary deception on the part of everyone involved.
DADT could be considered a necessary bridging step between the outright ban on gays in the military and full acceptance. Congress needs to ask whether the policy has outlived its usefulness and — importantly — whether this moment will serve best as a launching point for a more reasonable policy. The military has spent 15 years admitting, at least tacitly, that gays can serve their nation with honor and distinction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 Next »
I think once the war in Iraq and Afghanistan comes to a close they should get rid of DADT. Studies like this are pretty meaningless to me though, I’m not sure how you can get any accurate idea of how things would shake out.
I have a problem doing anything even potentially problematic during wartime if it’s not immediately necessary.
So yes, after the wars, get rid of this rather foolish regulation.
Dash on July 8, 2008 at 7:57 AM
I just don’t understand this — why not serve honorably and keep your sexual feelings to yourself? Why do Gays feel the need to have their orientation known? Why is this important? Will it make them a better soldier?
There is nothing wrong with DADT policy — it’s worked just fine since its implementation.
Richard Romano on July 8, 2008 at 8:01 AM
What would be the practical implications of a change in policy? Once the gay population was able to come out and say “I’m gay,” what next?
BigD on July 8, 2008 at 8:06 AM
How do you house gay soldiers in the barracks?
Do you put them with other gay soldiers? Do you put them with non-gays of the same gender? Do you put them with the opposite sex?
What about some old barracks that still have community showers, or field showers? Same questions apply. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think soldiers should shower with people they find attractive.
Military units have enough distractions to worry about with females in them (yes, that sounds terribly sexist, but you stick 4 females in a company of 100 or so men -most under 25- you have problems).
And, where does it stop? Do you think once the gays get their foot in the door the trannies won’t be right behind them. This is the military, not San Fransisco.
Blarg the Destroyer on July 8, 2008 at 8:07 AM
Anything that takes focus away from the mission at hand is bad, and mixing sexual relationships with combat is…not a good idea.
It’s bad enough wondering if your wife/girlfriend is faithful on long deployments. Now imagine catching your battle buddy cheating on you with your squad leader (oh, and you have eight full magazines).
Imagine seeing your lover’s head blown off during battle.
There good reasons to try and minimize sexual encounters during deployments. That goes for heterosexual encounters as well (oh, I heard the stories of a certain female MP making trips to tower guard during my time…)
watchmen on July 8, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Hilarious comments. And I thought it was 2008. My mistake.
Dave Rywall on July 8, 2008 at 8:14 AM
And, where does it stop? Do you think once the gays get their foot in the door the trannies won’t be right behind them. This is the military, not San Fransisco.
Amen!
Having served in the Army I know that doing away with DADT will be disruptive and counterproductive. Do we want a military like the Europeans?
apoole on July 8, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Ed.
Don’t transgender people make good soldiers? You don’t want to be guilty of discriminating.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 8:21 AM
You want proof of disruption?
Go to any co-ed unit. Ask how many issues they’ve had with female soldiers getting pregnant, fraternization between soldiers of different ranks and or ‘domestic disputes’ between soldiers of similar ranks.
Then go to a male only unit and ask the same question.
There’s your proof.
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Some of you people are way too hung up on homosexuals. I really think you all envision a SF Gay rights parade with soldiers running down the street in assless chaps and painting the tanks pink.
I’m thankful to have anyone and everyone who wants to serve honorably in our military.
Dash on July 8, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Long as they shoot straight.
Unless it was some horrible propaganda campaign drummed up by evil lefties, I’m pretty sure some notable homosexuals stood up against the enemy on a certain September morning (which upon thought makes even more sense than a ’straight’ person in some ways). The only reason I found out he was gay was because everyone else made a big deal out of it, not himself. Then again, he didn’t live to point out the fact..
Respectfully apoole, could you highlight what majority-related aspects you feel is ‘wrong’ with European armies. It’s de-rigeur to bash Europeans about everything else here, but does the individual soldier of a European nation deserve to be indirectly accused of being so much ‘inferior’ to a US soldier? If this wasn’t the intention of your statement, my apologies, but either way I am genuinely interested to find out what you feel is ‘wrong’ with the military of various European nations.
In fact, I might have to go off and do a little look-in to a few myself after work..
Reaps on July 8, 2008 at 8:32 AM
It’s quite simple really. Today being gay is all about being in your face. That’s it end of story. A quote from the Only in San Francisco headline.
Gay pride is all about being in your face but better not object because then you are a bigot, hateful, racist and homophobic. Also never ever say you are heterosexual or have heterosexual pride because then you are a bigot, hateful, racist and homophobic. Simply put, accept an in your face gay lifestyle or be ostracized from society.
jmarcure on July 8, 2008 at 8:33 AM
I love the “gay rights” activists who have no idea what kind of stress deployments exact on the mind, or how dangerous it is to encourage sexual relationships under combat conditions.
Yeah, one could feel good about themselves saying, “I thought it was 2008″…without having any clue how that would affect mission readiness.
I saw first hand how having females and males in close quarters while deployed makes people act like morons. When you have a job to do, it’s not good to be trying to figure out a way to “hook up” with the MPs, cooks, locals hired as cleaning ladies, etc…
Which begs the question: Why did they always make us hide the Playboy when there was an inspection? Bastards…
watchmen on July 8, 2008 at 8:34 AM
Hogwash . . . that’s the party line for the left, and these left wing retired flag officers are no different. They’re voicing the party line and preaching to their choir.
rplat on July 8, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Back when I was in the DLI/Goodfellow training cycle, there were 11 (iirc) Arabic language students that were kicked out of the military for being gay. This was after Sept 11th. Yet a friend of mine was sent to mast 3 times for underage drinking (he had a problem with alcohol) and for various other UCMJ offenses (including taking a swing at our CMC), and he got off with a slap on the wrist.
The gays I knew while I was in served honorably, and were a heck of a lot more discreet about their personal lives than some of the catty females I worked with. I honestly think that it’s easier though for us women to serve with openly gay people than it would be for men. I’m not really in favor of doing away with DADT completely, but I’m against kicking people out solely for being gay (or daring to have a sexual relationship out of the COC). Because if we’re going to keep kicking people out for the way they have sex, then there are a lot of military members that need discipline for violating article 125, which covers anything other than plain intercourse (think Clinton and Lewinsky). And yes, I’ve seen people go to mast for being caught giving/recieving head.
Anna on July 8, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Whanna bet? How would you feel if you knew that the guy following up the rear had everyone’s behind?
Think of being in the showers knowing the person who just walked in could be interested in more than just taking one….
It’s not a comfortable situation.
CynicalOptimist on July 8, 2008 at 8:41 AM
I just don’t understand this — why not serve honorably and keep your sexual feelings to yourself? Why do Gays feel the need to have their orientation known? Why is this important?
Well, how would you like it if you had to serve in Iraq or Afghanastan and not be able to talk about your signifigant other without fear of being discharged? Gay members of the military are putting their life on the line just like everyone else. They should have the same rights as everyone else.
The fact that it’s perfectly OK for a man to talk about his wife back home, but not OK for a man to talk about his boyfriend back home is wrong.
Tom_Shipley on July 8, 2008 at 8:41 AM
What if the enemy soldiers were really, really cute? Like Brad Pitt cute? Then what?
Bill Brasky on July 8, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Don’t twist the argument. I have not read any comment saying that gays should not be allowed to serve in the military. The issue is the Don’t ask – don’t tell policy.
BigD on July 8, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Remember heterosexual males, EVERY gay person wants to have SEX with YOU.
Because unlike women, ALL gay men find YOU attractive.
Off to work, but hopefully inbetween the cheap jokes, snide comments (guilty) and other ‘interesting’ comments there’ll be a bit more Morrisean dialog going on
Cheers
Reaps on July 8, 2008 at 8:45 AM
I knew it!
Bill Brasky on July 8, 2008 at 8:47 AM
I have to agree. Sexual orientation should NOT be an issue whether you are gay or straight. They arent there to hook-up.
becki51758 on July 8, 2008 at 8:48 AM
I do not want to sit through even more BS Equal Opportunity classes. We already have a list of things that you are not supposed to say or ways to act to women (hundreds of young men in the desert with one or two young women…), now we’ll have to put up with “don’t insult the gay guys”.
Forgive my blunt honesty, but we call each other “fags” and “homos” as insults when someone isn’t manning up. This is the Army and we are here to kill the enemy. If you are gay, keep it to yourself, because I can think of of very few guys that would want anything to do with you in field conditions.
The military (I’m active duty Army) is nothing but a big group of men in large bays, shared room, community showers, and the openly gay soldiers would be outcasts and pariahs. I’d leave the military at first chance than be subjected to rooming with openly gay soldiers. It’ll cause way more problems than it’ll fix. Trust me, you want to turn the US military into a low morale and weak orginzation, like many foreign militaries, let openly gay people in.
Call me a bigot, homophobic, whatever – labels and insults mean jack and shit after what I’ve seen. I’m saying what 90% or more of military men agree with. Those openly gay soldiers in other countries armies are also mocked – I’ve met more than my share of Brit troops in theater who laugh at the ridiculous notion of a PC military, and they are just as tired of left wing idealism being pushed down the traditionally masculine bastion known as the military.
spec_ops_mateo on July 8, 2008 at 8:48 AM
It would be very “disruptive” to put a man in a barracks with 75 women. Sexual attraction, or the suspicion thereof, is at best distracting & at worst demoralizing.
jgapinoy on July 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM
It would mean a serious look at revamping some language…
The DI could never say, “Your Ass is mine”
“sneak up from behind”
“Leave no soldiers behind”
“pick up the soap”
“how did you guys make out?”
“show me your choke hold”
Other then making a few changes in the language, why not? It gets lonely out in the desert…
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 8:52 AM
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
I’d rather leave the military to decide what’s best for the military WITHOUT political pressure.
As per citing British or Israeli policy to decide for the USA, f*ck that.
maverick muse on July 8, 2008 at 8:54 AM
If it wouldn’t be disruptive to have gays showering with other men then I guess it wouldn’t be disruptive to let the straight men shower with the lady soldiers.
Buddahpundit on July 8, 2008 at 8:56 AM
I say lump them together… put men and women together in all areas… see if that leads to a problem.
Kaptain Amerika on July 8, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Very well put.
As a “teh ghey” myself, I have thought DADT an acceptable policy. The military is there for a reason, and it shouldn’t be subjected to social experiments. Basically, I didn’t want to see outside forces telling the military what to do.
But after reading this article, it seems a good number of the top brass would like to see gays openly serve. And if THEY feel that way….
JetBoy on July 8, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Me too! I’m far too sexy for my own good. It’s my cross to bear.
Dash on July 8, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Read Blarg the Destroyers comments and I believe one or two others gave an “amen” to that.
Just for two simple(ton) examples..
Dash on July 8, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Do you people realize that gays are actively serving in the military at this moment? There seems to be some confusion that DADT equates to a ban on homosexuals in the military. I got news for you. I know many homosexuals who have, and are actively serving.
Coming from a gay conservative, it puts me in quite a strange position. Some of your thoughts are so draconian, like “what if the enemy is cute” and “what about in the shower”. You know, not all of us homosexuals act like animals, despite what you may have seen on TV. Conservatives *are* the true party of open ideas and acceptance, but sometimes, it’s really difficult to defend some of the statements that come from our side with regard to homosexuals (not saying they aren’t always valid, but come on. How many of you can truly say you KNOW someone who is gay? I’m guessing not many)
NoStoppingUs on July 8, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Question, tho: What do the people who believe gays should be able to openly serve in the military, think about gay marriage here in the US?
JetBoy on July 8, 2008 at 9:10 AM
That’d do wonders in pissing off the jihadists, though. “Gay Pride Day Baghdad 2008! Brought to you by Hormel: Quality Pork Products For Over 116 Years.”
amerpundit on July 8, 2008 at 9:10 AM
What total nonsense. Gay includes cross dressing and gender identity disorder according to the freak show activities that are inclusive with gay pride. What a great way to take the best military in the world and screw it up.
If someone is a homosexual and serves this country with honor within the laws of the military they deserve our thanks and respect. If a homosexual needs to come out with gay behavior in the military, they should get tossed out.
Hening on July 8, 2008 at 9:10 AM
I KNOW someone who is gay.
Bill Brasky on July 8, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Gay military slogan:
We’ll never leave our Marines behind.
Syd B. on July 8, 2008 at 9:12 AM
I KNOW someone who is gay, and they would laugh at my “but what if the enemy soldiers are cute?” comment. So there.
Bill Brasky on July 8, 2008 at 9:13 AM
There we go…grouping all gays into one nice little package. In that regard, all straight guys are FLDS, all overweight slobs, etc.
Gays come in as many differing types of people as straight’s do.
JetBoy on July 8, 2008 at 9:14 AM
I fear people will blow you off. But you made an enormous impression with that comment.
Since this re-visit of DADT is happening in an election cycle, rest assured the whole damn thing is politically motivated to embarrass some candidate and/or pander to some voting constituency, and has absolutely nothing to do with military preparedness.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 9:15 AM
I think the military should be ALL GAY. No more leaving it all up to the heteros. It’s their turn now.
Bill Brasky on July 8, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Yes, Richard, you do not understand. It is very difficult to keep your sexuality to yourself even if you try. There are many events where your spouse is expected to attend. If you are an officer, your spouse is expected to participate or run the family assistance programs, especially while a unit is deployed. A spouse is often expected at special events such as promotions or re-enlistment ceremonies. While you are young, there is no stigma to being single. However, if you stay in the military, it remains more difficult to remain single. Eventually, people will think you are gay if you do not have a spouse.
Thank you for your service, but if that is how you feel, than hit the road. People said the exact same thing you just wrote when the military integrated black people and then again when women were given more access. The racists and bigots left the military, and the military improved. Remember, Mateo, that everyone in the military is replacable, from the top general on down. If you do not want to be in a military that includes gay people (although you already are), then seek a new career.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Not only should there be no sodomists in the military, those found therein should be imprisoned and discharged dishonorably.
30% of unmarried women in military are pregnant at any given time, so we should review their role with prejudice as well.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 9:18 AM
But it’s broke in terms of the amount of troops we can send to fight any more wars. Short of a draft, retaining gays is one option.
Then we’ll get our gay soldiers to rape the sh*t out of them. What better way to demoralize them. But if our gay soldiers fall in love with them, they can get married in Mass. or Cali. Some of our enemies will become friends and instant citizens to boot. It’s a win-win situation.
You are truly delusional.
barry norris on July 8, 2008 at 9:20 AM
I know a lady who is gay, and was serving last I checked. She’s not out to jump the other soldiers’ buns, folks.
Sekhmet on July 8, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Having on numerous times spent 14 – 30 days in the bush, I would not want to hootch with the gay guy. Beyond the creepiness of hootching with a gay, I wouldn’t want the constant snark I’d get for drawing the short straw. Life in the suck was tough enough, you don’t need the extra bull shnit. I don’t care if he wants me or not, it’s just creepy and one more F-ing hassle I’d have to deal with.
Marines who slacked, were fat, were goofy looking, were effeminant in any way were shunned, relentlessly teased, bullied etc. Having an openly gay marine in your squad would make you the ridicule of the entire company..Battalion. It may be different for the REMF’s, but in a line unit you’d be toast if you were even suspected of being queer.
Maybe times have changed in the civillian world, with Ryan Seacrest being the norm, but things tend to be a bit less “progressive” when you are in a unit that exists solely for the purpose of killing other humans.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM
It had to happen sometime…ugh.
Here comes that 500 comment thread!
JetBoy on July 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Wow, a pro-gay group who’s sole goal is to removing the don’t ask don’t tell policy came out with a study to support it’s position. I am so surprised. :-)
JeffinSac on July 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Okay, now that is a standard right out of the gay playbook. Also one of JetBoy’s favorite lines.
I know gay people, have had them as neighbors, co-workers, and just people I know from being out and about. And I look at them as individuals, not as a group. You say “Do you know any gay people?” as if they are all the same.
BigD on July 8, 2008 at 9:23 AM
I served in the military, and my being gay was complete non-issue. No one cared as long as I did my job to the best of my ability. Any questions about my boyfriend or other aspects of my personal life were answered with “none of your business”, just like theie personal lives were none of my business.
Vic on July 8, 2008 at 9:23 AM
That’s not exactly how lesbians do the nasty.
barry norris on July 8, 2008 at 9:25 AM
“…just like their personal lives were none of my business.”
I can spell. Honestly.
Vic on July 8, 2008 at 9:26 AM
What an idiot! You clearly know nothing about the military. You would prefer to keep the drug users and fat ones over a well-qualified gay soldier? How about those who steal, fight or are constantly getting into trouble? Do you know how many Article 15 proceedings a company commander hears on a monthly basis? There are plenty of marginal soldiers that deserve to be booted and you want to get rid of a gay one?
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Me thinks many believe being gay is constantly thinking about sex, sex, and more sex. Nothing else.
Of course, nothing else could be further from the truth. Gays think about it as much as straights.
JetBoy on July 8, 2008 at 9:28 AM
And if the gay one was the top dog in your unit, Alden? What then? What if you knew he would kick your ass if you gave him shit? Not all gay people are effeminate, Alden.
Don’t you realize that you already bunk with gay men? You already shower with them. They are all around you. Open your eyes.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Hey Vic, I’m guessing Navy or Air Force as they tend to be more liberal, what was your MOS? I’m guessing not a grunt unit.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 9:29 AM
yes, they are, which is why most gay men have absolutely no attraction to them, despite what their egos might tell them. I know lots of gay men, and NONE of them think straight guys are attractive. Especially once they open their mouthes.
I have to chuckle at all the people that expect someone else to keep a signifigant portion of their life “secret”.
Since when is “in your face” the moral equivalent of talking about your lover? Or putting up a picture? How dare you presume that you have the right to expect that sort of silence from someone else. How pathetic.
The ONLY real sexuality thats IN anyone’s face is straight sex — turned on the tv lately? Wheres all your moral outrage over that, huh?
your_worst_enemy on July 8, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Easy for the brass to say. They have private showers and private rooms.
If straight men and women aren’t permitted to serve together at close quarters, then it would seem discriminatory against heterosexuals. They would actually be making a judgement that it is more permissible for gays to serve at close quarters with the type of people they are sexually attracted to.
It goes without saying that if men and women were showering together and sharing the same living quarters, there would be sex. Why should anyone believe that gays would resist their urges? All evidence suggests that gays are less apt to suppress themselves.
Buddahpundit on July 8, 2008 at 9:31 AM
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people finding homosexuality odd or abnormal or that it makes them uncomfortable/grosses them out. Knowing your bunkmate thinks of dudes in a sexual way would be unnerving for most people, and that’s just biological.
Most men have a reactrion of sheer disgust when they see other men kiss each other. Nature built us to go for the opposite sex and to find the same sex stuff repulsive. Somehow, few people want to admit that the behavior itself is antithetical to our very basic nature. It doesn’t make you a bigot or hate-filled or a “homophobe” to want to steer clear of such behavior (which would, naturally, include those who practice it). Mother nature kicks in and forces us to look away in disgust. I’m sorry if that bothers gays, but it’s a fact of nature that cannot be denied.
TheBlueSite on July 8, 2008 at 9:31 AM
What is it you are so afraid of exactly? As long as you dont drink out of the same cup you cant catch gay. That’s been proven scientifically. Worst case scenario is you have an urge to buy nicer shoes.
Dash on July 8, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Well I think everyone who is banging the drums to end the DADT policy should walk their butts down to the recruiters office and join up or re-up! I am not going to be left with fixing your social experiments! This isn’t Europe. In Europe and the middle east it isnt uncommon to see hetero males walking around holding hands. Anyone seen that here? We aren’t ready for that, and quite frankly I don’t care if we ever are. Most American males still do not find the “gay” lifestyle acceptable, including myself. So quit trying to throw your beliefs on me. We have problems enough with mixed male/female units without adding this to the equation. Im concerned about one thing, readiness to fight wars, not your social crap. This is not the time or place for this. I agree with a post above, let’s revisit it when our current engagement has ended and or quieted down, oh… and when I retire.
gator70 on July 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM
I was in the Navy as a Hospital Corpsman – 8404 (Fleet Marine Force) to be precise.
Vic on July 8, 2008 at 9:33 AM
so look away. Thats YOUR problem. Not ours.
your_worst_enemy on July 8, 2008 at 9:33 AM
This is what I mean…nature demands that were semi-okay with seeing a man and woman kiss, but if two men kiss nature tells us to run away and steer clear.
You obviously wouldn’t have a lot of moral outrage over the natural way of things. You would, however, have a lot of outrage when two people go at it in a manner that nature says “no, no, no…that’s not how you do it.”
TheBlueSite on July 8, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Actually, it’s not my problem, it’s nature’s problem.
TheBlueSite on July 8, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Are you actually attempting to speak for me? Im gay, you dolt.
your_worst_enemy on July 8, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Comparing men attracted to other men’s men’s crotches to being African American is offensive in the extreme.
You also demonstrate that perverts do not want equality, but super rights that force others to endure their tedium.
Your desire to weaken the military during wartime makes you an enemy of this country.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Top Dog?, you’ve been watching too many Tom Cruise movies. I’m guessing you never served in a grunt unit, you can’t imagine the crap a dude would get he he came out as openly gay.
None of us, gay or not, were afraid of getting our “ass kicked” those pussies were weeded out long before they got to the fleet. It’s about the constant, never ending torment you’d be subjected to in an allready seething pressure cooker.
Having a queer in your hootch would be creepy yes, but in a larger way it would just be one more Fing enormous headache because of all the BS that would come with it. I don’t expect you to “get it”, I’m just telling you how it is.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 9:37 AM
you people would freak if you actually KNEW how many people you come across every day that are gay. Do you not even understand that the whole reason behind outing one’s self is to make that crystal clear to you.
I so love these theads.
your_worst_enemy on July 8, 2008 at 9:38 AM
I would love to see the evidence of that…
Remember too, the ol’ saying “There are no atheists in a foxhole”.
Same could be applied to gays and straights. In a combat situation, a unit becomes one cohesive group…no one worrying about who’s gay.
JetBoy on July 8, 2008 at 9:38 AM
In certain pockets of corporate America, the in-house GBLT networks are already trying to get familial words such as husband, wife and spouse eliminated from workplace dialogue and communications. You see, it’s not always about equality of treatment and benefits; it’s about elimination of the family structure. In response to JetBoy, this is why opponents of gay marriage are opposed to it.
BigD on July 8, 2008 at 9:38 AM
News flash, Budda, men and women already shower together in the military on some occasions. In garrison things are different, but when deployed the conditions can get quite crude. On one mission into Iraq (first Gulf War), we set up a logistics base in the middle of the desert. After a couple of days we used a tent to make a shower (great luxury in the middle of a desert). The showers had small stalls. At first we established shower times for males and females. Since people were coming and going at all hours of the day and night, we had to get rid of the male/female times. Thus men and women ended up showering together. The stalls only covered so much.
As for your “evidence” of gay promiscuity, put up or shut up. Where is the link? What study? You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Nice try, Akzed. I am a veteran. Are you, Akzed?
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Might as well change Hot Air to Gay Air, since gay issues is such a priority or Ed and AP.
WoosterOh on July 8, 2008 at 9:41 AM
And EYE would disagree with that.
Frankly, and honestly, I could care less what pronouns or nouns you want to use.
Contrary to popular conservative belief, not ALL gays belong to some uber evil gay club intended to destroy all of American society.
your_worst_enemy on July 8, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Dear worst:
Do you know what happens to heterosexuals when they say “you people” about you people?
BigD on July 8, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Better to leave things as they are.
The military has enough problems without an open social experiment in political corectness complicating the mission with sexual distractions.
profitsbeard on July 8, 2008 at 9:44 AM
yeah, ok, Ill eat that — my apologies. Point made.
your_worst_enemy on July 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM
You know who didn’t mind a little gay sex between battle buddies? The Spartans.
I wonder how they fared in battle…
madne0 on July 8, 2008 at 9:46 AM
No, Alden, I was not a grunt. I was a logistics officer who saw more action than many of my infantry buddies. The tired old REMF insult no longer carries water.
I am also telling you how it is, Alden. There are gay soldiers, seamen, and marines all around you. Many of them are big men that would scare the crap out of you. Don’t expect all gay men to prance around in a thong singing Madonna, Alden.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Your assumption is that the guy you are hootching with would even give you a second thought.
Guess what, men and women actually work together in civilian life…yep saw it myself. Even saw a woman boss once. Why I even saw a gay man working with a straight man. Darnedest thing I had ever seen, wondering how long that straight man could hold out…you know how those gay men can look you right in the eyes and hypnotize you, next thing you know, well you just don’t want to know. Them gays are animals, alway thinkin about how they are goin to get you…just one suggestion, don’t ever look one of them gays in the eyes…
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 9:46 AM
your_worst_enemy
I didn’t mean YOU. It was a general ‘you’, as in people in general.
TheBlueSite on July 8, 2008 at 9:46 AM
I heard some politicians saying that most soldiers are conservative (coming from the heartland) and so they would be the least pro-gay of the American public. Forcing this social experiment on them will be a great distraction.
Today is a warmer climate towards gays than 10 years ago, and maybe in 10 more years it will be even warmer so that DADT can be repealed, but now is not the right time to do so.
AlexB on July 8, 2008 at 9:48 AM
hahahahahahhahahaha, youre too funny :)
your_worst_enemy on July 8, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Yes, but the recent study that showed bullets shot by gay soldiers will not kill our vampire enemies strongly argues that we should keep “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
On that ever popular shower issue, I have a good story. When I was an undergrad, a ROTC boy brought his dislike of being in a shower with gays. I pointed out that we showered at the gym, so he should start showering at home and not at the gym. I didn’t notice him stop showering in the gym, and I have my doubts that my presence scarred this delicate flower of a ROTC boy for life.
thuja on July 8, 2008 at 9:48 AM
What, you mean a gay man can look like other men? Sneaking little bas*ards.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM
where is right2life when we need him …
your_worst_enemy on July 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM
madne0 on July 8, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Certain individuals on this thread keep making the mistake of comparing our cultures with other cultures. We aren’t Europe, let alone Ancient Greece.
gator70 on July 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Sigh. Guys, stop letting them side-track you with red herrings.
The issue is not what you think about someone’s sexuality, it’s why you should try and minimize sexual encounters (gay and straight) while deployed. I’m sure our military friends know “Stay Alert, Stay Alive!”…and trying to get a little side action in the field or in a war zone isn’t conducive to a safely getting out of dangerous situations.
…I also think that some of the infantry guys around here have done a good job explaining that that culture doesn’t really mix with modern-day liberalism.
watchmen on July 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Take a couple of paragraphs from different sources on Pvt. Kyle Lawson:
JetBoy on July 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM
DADT needs to go. Our military is professional enough to handle gays serving.
Yakko77 on July 8, 2008 at 9:51 AM
it’s why you should try and minimize sexual encounters
and what does that have to do with gays in the military? tell me again…
your_worst_enemy on July 8, 2008 at 9:52 AM
Actually, it’s right2bright you mean. Then there is right4life, who is not here today either.
Actually, I think right2bright treads dangerously close to getting booted from the board sometimes. He/she has kind of replaced IndyConservative, who did indeed get booted.
BigD on July 8, 2008 at 9:52 AM
So is it your opinion that straight men and women should never be segregated at any time during their military service?
Buddahpundit on July 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM
You see, I thought it said “Stay Aflirt, Stay Alive”…
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 9:46 AM
In 4 deployments I have yet to see any Logistics folks patrolling with me. Sorry but the REMF culture is alive and well! You sound like a cliche. Every REMF I’ve met has to justify their existence, funny…grunts done’t seem to have to do that.
gator70 on July 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM
nope I mean right2life :) he/she likes to go own about the whole gay sharia thing.
your_worst_enemy on July 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Again,… it isn’t about being big and scary, I’m big and scary too. It’s about the extera layer of never ending bull shit that would come with it.
I’m sure there were gays around me and I probably hootched with a few, but I never knew it, which was cool, because I didn’t have to deal with the BS and neither did they.
Thanks for serving in combat, and uh…there’s a world of difference between “logistics” and “grunts” :-) just kidding…sorta.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 9:54 AM
The study is meaningless because there is no way to guage what the impact would be on military readiness would be with such a fundamental shift in policy. Do homosexuals get put in their own barracks and shower facilities? Do heterosexuals have a right to object sharing a berthing compartment on a ship with individuals who have made an “alternate lifestyle choice.” Are gay “couples” entitled to military housing? Bottom line there are a myriad of real issues that need to be addressed before even thinking about changing DADT and I’m sick and tired of all the gay activists calling such statements “homophobic” when the issues I addressed are the tip of a very large iceberg!
The quote above was interesting because I don’t see where the loss of integrity occurs. I am in the military and serve with individuals who have decided to pursue a homosexual lifestyle. That’s fine so long as they don’t bring it “into the office” and disrupt good order and discipline. And before the screams of homophobia are heard again, I’d add the same goes for those who are adulterers or any other devient lifestyle choice that makes the military legitimize immoral behavior.
highhopes on July 8, 2008 at 9:55 AM
thats an opinion, thats not a fact, or you wouldnt have quoted it.
your_worst_enemy on July 8, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 Next »