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
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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next »
Gay activists want to turn the military into gay friendly “YMCA, village people style” kind of places. Period. I can tell you that this would kill recruiting, and once you let open gays in, you would then have them and their lawyers IMMEDIATELY suing for special treatment and affirmative action.
I was in the Navy and I can tell you that a berthing room about the size of your living room containing 50 men is not the place where you want homosexuals mincing around. The military is about killing the enemy and destroying his stuff, not about providing equal opportunities for single moms who would otherwise be on welfare (thanks Clinton) and gays wanting to turn warships into gay cruise ships.
Spartacus on July 8, 2008 at 9:58 AM
The US military is not a social justice petri dish. Lets keep it that way.
Theworldisnotenough on July 8, 2008 at 9:58 AM
But they are worried about their boyfriends/girlfriends getting killed. Ever read about how Israeli co-ed combat units fared under fire?
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 9:59 AM
The logistics folks are not out patrolling with you, true. However, they are driving poorly armored trucks to resupply your ass. A convoy of fuel trucks is a much jucier target than a company of armored tanks.
I do not want to minimize your job. You definitely have a tough one. Lest I forget, thank you for your service. However, don’t dump on the logistics guys. Without them you couldn’t do your job.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Again…it’s not about if the gay guy “wants me” you dope…it about the friggin never ending harrassment of him and by hootch default, me.
I never saw an “openly” gay marine in ANY of the line companies I served in. I know the hassle he would have got, it would not have been pretty, nor would it have been overt where any officer could police it. It aint right, it’s just reality.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 10:00 AM
I have never even been reprimanded in the almost three years of posting. Shocking to you, isn’t it? That someone so outspoken, can still be posting…the travesty.
But I guess defending gays would be an offense that could get me booted by some of you.
What he meant was right4life is adamantly, against gays, he hates them with a passion. Feels they are morally corrupt, contemptible, and sometimes kind of cute.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Yes…but I never advocated that a “Couple” serve together in the same unit. Most fo the gay servicemen and women have their boyfriend or girlfriend waiting at home.
JetBoy on July 8, 2008 at 10:02 AM
You could read my previous posts…but I could reiterate for you.
Have you ever been deployed? Ever wonder if your wife or girlfriend was cheating on you? Now imagine an infantry battalion where openly gay guys are deployed and they have to deal with all the woes that go with a normal relationship…in Iraq.
That would be real great to catch your battle buddy getting it on with your squad leader, wouldn’t it? That would be great to see a sniper take your lover’s head off, wouldn’t it? Nothing like love triangles when you have to go on patrol, live with, sleep with, and eat with the same guys…
I can only speak from an Infantrymen’s perspective…and in my opinion that’s a bad idea.
watchmen on July 8, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Ahhh there it is. Ok at least I can understand that a little more. Dont sweat that, you’re in the military to protect people and liberty. That’s your job.
Dash on July 8, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Well, no…they dont’. But then, anyway, this gay doesn’t subscribe to these activists groups. And most don’t They are simply the loud, vocal minority.
JetBoy on July 8, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Having a boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband at home never stopped most of the soldiers I know from messing around in theatre.
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Well, hello. Can I ask who is “some of you?”
And actually, I made no editorial judgment of any of your comments or opinions. However, since you presumed, I will say that you seem to feel the need to be over-confrontational.
BigD on July 8, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I’m a little torn on this issue.
And let’s be very clear here. The issue isn’t about gays serving in the military; it’s about them serving openly gay. Gay men and women have served in the military and likely have already done so with honor and distinction.
I think you’re asking the wrong question. It isn’t necessarily that they just want their orientation known; it’s more that they’d rather not hide it.
They can’t slip up and say “my boyfriend” (or girlfriend for the women) and might even feel pressured to pretend to be interested in women.
Greek mythology was filled with stories like that.
Of course those were just stories, and we’re a fortunate country in that we’re mostly secure over here. But what if we are attacked? Won’t those soldiers have to learn to fight even knowing their loved ones have just been killed (even possibly seeing it first hand)?
Do you think that’s because they just were more discrete in general or because not being discrete would get them kicked out?
To be fair here, we’re talking about soldiers, not just random men. I’m sure most women find a well built and toned man in uniform attractive. I do.
Maybe gays just don’t care for that chiseled look. I wouldn’t know.
If that’s true, whether or not it’s PC or should be true, then it would be a problem for our military.
The issue at stake isn’t really how gays would or do act in the military. The issue is how would the knowledge that the man (or woman) serving next to you is gay affect soldiers in our military.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Therein lies the problem, Alden. As long as a marine cannot serve openly, he must LIE. Yet don’t the marines demand and expect integrity? Can you not see the cognitive dissonance this must cause? “The marines tell me that I must live with integrity. That means that I should not lie. However, they are also telling me that I must lie about my sexuality. I cannot tell anyone about the person that I love. YET, all my straight buddies around me are always telling me about their wives, girlfriends, and random hookups they had last weekend.”
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:08 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?
…Nice try, Akzed. I am a veteran. Are you, Akzed?
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 9:26 AM
I want all social deviants out of the military: theives, buggers, rapists, you name it. And no, I was never in the service. I never played in the NFL either but I know a thing or two about football.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Only liars must lie.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 10:12 AM
And that’s a good point (thanks for calling me a dope, that makes us friends, right?), there is no need for them to be “open”, you served with them, you just didn’t know it. They are just like you and me, the exception are the ones who are the “drama queens”, but they tend not to show up at boot camp.
My best friend, served two tours in Vietnam, got his medals a real hero. Godfather to my kids, was gay. Was Gay during the war, and gay afterwards. And more then a few men owe their lives to him, and I am sure the same back.
Remained close to many of the men he served with, they never had much of a problem, and that was in the 60′s. It is not whether you are gay, it is what kind of soldier are you? Shouldn’t that be the criteria…that is the criteria you used with the gay men you served with.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Gay people can love their country, and if they’re willing to stand in front of a bullet for the rest of us, more power to them. Anyone who denigrates their uniform at a gay-rights parade can be kicked out the same way the AF booted that sargeant who appeared in Playboy, and for the same reason.
I was in the Navy, and God knows we got all manner of crap from every other service for all being gay any damned how. My last boat, though, we had a pretty openly gay corpsman (he took his boyfriend to the Navy ball one year). He was a good corpsman.
The whole ‘gay’ thing is a dodge; I think people use that as an excuse to boot someone who is disruptive or useless in other ways, or to bail out of serving if it looks to be a hassle. I know a couple guys in my division started mumbling they’d be more than happy to be ‘gay for a day’ if it would get them out of our eighth month at sea.
TABoLK on July 8, 2008 at 10:13 AM
End of discussion. UC Santa Barbara? Are they kidding? How is that going to engender any sense of credibility?
As for the issue itself, I never served in the military and I have no opinion on this issue. I don’t actually see what human sexuality has to do with military service in the first place. But nearly everything I hear from vets tells me this is not a small point.
Jaibones on July 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM
That was the “generic” you. Brought on by your comment that you are surprised that I have not been banned. Funny how you can throw a dig, and when someone defends you get offended?
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Ever heard of battlefield transfusions? Romantic rivalry? SDT’s?
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 10:19 AM
STD’s, that is. Sexuallty transmitted diseases.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Alden, let me ask you a question. What if one of your Marine buddies came out to you. He told you only because he trusts you and considers you a friend, not because he was trying to hit on you. What would you do? Would you now end your friendship and disassociate yourself with him?
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Uh…hello! The gay guys I know live for the chiseled look, as if.
Meow.
Jaibones on July 8, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Alden, let me ask you a question. What if one of your Marine buddies came to you and told you that he was stealing from the PX? He told you only because he trusts you and considers you a friend, not because he was trying to involve you in his crimes. What would you do? Would you now end your friendship and disassociate yourself with him?
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Yeah, I’m not gay and I wasn’t in the service, so I am infinitely ignorant of the realities. That said, aren’t straight guys in the service sort of notorious for STDs from military base whores?
Jaibones on July 8, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Last Question, and JetBoy, if you’re out there:
How many gay guys would the military see if this issue were off the table? I’m thinking no more than now; do I have that wrong? Doesn’t seem like an obvious place for most gays…
Jaibones on July 8, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Have you ever heard the saying, “It’s better to let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?”
Battlefield transfusions? Unless the policy has changed, HIV positive servicemen are not allowed to deploy. As for other STDs, what difference is there between a straight soldier and a gay one? The lower enlisted guys are young and full of testosterone (the males ones anyway….well, on second thought, many of the females….never mind). Sex happens.
Romantic rivalry? Fraternization is against the rules. Admitedly this applies to superior/subordinate relationships, but one doesn’t often see romantic relationships within the same unit. Sex maybe, but not usually relationships.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I was a company commander in Europe in the early ’70′s. One Monday morning I went to work, and my 1SG asked: “Do you want to know what SP4 X did last Friday?”
Apparently X went to the EM club, got a little drunk, and came back and offered his backside to three other men in his squad bay. The three took up the offer, so under the rules against homosexuality at the time, I should have taken action against four soldiers and had them discharged.
I took the easy way out and only canned X. The other three were talked to by the 1SG.
Homosexuality is not compatible with military service.
Special Forces Grunt on July 8, 2008 at 10:28 AM
This is an emotional argument you’re making here. The point is that you serve, not that everyone needs to know your personal life. I care only that the serviceman is honorable, brave, and willing.
So now single man are singled out as Gay? You can’t be single and serve? This is so ridiculous and silly. Again, it’s all feelings based, and not what is best for the military.
Richard Romano on July 8, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Yes, and pains are taken to warn them away from the dangers yet they persist. Sodomists, who are more promiscuous than even your typical hetero soldier, will take such warnings even less seriously. Face it: everyone knows how AIDS is contracted, yet routinely studies show that sodomists eschew condoms (which offer only partial protection).
However, the main issue is that there is no danger of a normal soldier giving AIDS or anal herpes to another normal soldier, while a sodomist could infect other soldiers so inclined.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Special Forces Grunt on July 8, 2008 at 10:28 AM
What if one of your female soldiers did the same thing to her male squad mates? Is that not also against UCMJ? So why is it a gay thing?
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Human sexuality has nothing to do with higher education, but we all know what goes on in college dorms. This is more than human sexuality, its human nature. Take 50 boys and 50 girls aged 18 to 25 (yes I am calling them boys and girls intentionally) and have them interact with eachother in close quarters over a long period of time and eventually they will start having sex. No regulation in the world will stop them. Its HUMAN NATURE.
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 10:31 AM
You cherry picked my statement, Richard. I said that while young being single is not an issue. As time goes on, however, people naturally expect you to marry. If you remain single, then people start to wonder.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Awesome.
As much as straight men?
You must not be a fan of Laura Ingraham.
True. However, they were a completely different culture. If our culture were as accepting of homosexuality as theirs, then this would not be an issue at all.
If that’s how life was for him in the military, then it would seem to support the idea that our soldiers are not ready for gays who are open about their sexual preferences.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Against the rules? So it never happens, eh? There are rules against buggery in the military yet people have been packing this thread with instances of its occurance. Make it legal and it would soon be mandatory in some units. Grow the hell up.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM
My partner was a member of the Special Forces. He was killed in battle in Afghanistan almost 3 years ago. When he died, the Army not only notified his parents, but they were kind enough to call me and express their sympathy.
They knew he was gay — his fellow soldiers knew he was gay. I saw some of them at a memorial service for him last year — a number of them are now home. I can’t tell you how many of these guys made a point to tell me that John was one of the bravest, kick-ass soldiers they had ever seen. They loved him like a brother and still (at the time) two years after his death got choked up just talking about him.
It seems to me that John’s being gay didn’t matter to his fellow soldiers when it really counted. Maybe he was an exception, but it would seem to me that a gay man entering the military would NOT be doing so in the hopes of getting some of that kind of action. John was in the military because he loved America and hated terrorists who would otherwise try and kill us.
D2Boston on July 8, 2008 at 10:35 AM
I call bullsh*t on you, Akzed. First of all, you should use the term gay or homosexual. I would venture a guess that 99% of the military are “sodomists.” Sodomy includes giving or receiving oral sex. What guy hasn’t had a blow job?
Second, what is your proof that gay people are more promiscuous? Please cite your evidence. Please also cite your evidence for lack of condom use. The fact is, these are just opinions from your bigoted mind. Yes, I use bigot intentionally. You are not simply debating and offering a contrary opinion. You are intentionally trying to insult with your vocabulary. Thus you are a bigot.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:36 AM
What if one of your female soldiers did the same thing to her male squad mates? Is that not also against UCMJ? So why is it a gay thing?
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM
As far as I know, we still do not have women in combat arms units. And cohabitation is not (or wasn’t when I retired in ’81) covered by the UCMJ.
Special Forces Grunt on July 8, 2008 at 10:38 AM
I didn’t cherry pick, you did — following your logic here, a single person is a knee-jerk homosexual? You’re making my point for me — WHY DO YOU NEED TO KNOW? I don’t.
Richard Romano on July 8, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Why is it so difficult for people to understand that the military is about following orders? It isn’t well follow the orders that make you feel good.
Here’s what’s going to happen. The militant gay community (people like Rosie think that everyone is a ‘little gay’) is going to successfully argue that it is a ‘civil rights’ issue. Then they can openly be gay. The next thing you know, you are going to have a bunch of court marshals of very good military men for ‘sexual harassment’ of gay military people.
Our military will be more concerned with policing its own than fighting the wars. Israel offers homosexual service because EVERY Israeli serves. As for the UK, well I don’t think they could beat anyone in a fight these days so I wouldn’t hold them up as a standard.
Homosexuality is a myth. It is based on what people do, it is NOT a class of people. People make choices all the time. If someone chooses to be gay (of course lots of gays become ‘cured’ eventually and turn straight), then they choose not to serve in the military. THAT’S AN ORDER.
Of course I understand the difficulty of comprehending ORDERS if you expect the whole world to change to suit you.
There are maybe 3 million gay people in America. Why do we need to change society to suit them? Freedom doesn’t mean that everyone gets what they want.
ThackerAgency on July 8, 2008 at 10:40 AM
I’m sorry for your loss and thank you for your sacrifice.
If he wasn’t an exception, then this issue would be a little easier. Your anecdote does prove though that it can work.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Wrong — sodomy is anal sex.
Richard Romano on July 8, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Yes, women still cannot serve in combat arms units (although they can be truck drivers in the brigade and end up right in the thick of things anyway). My point, though, is that the action your soldier took was wrong, and you were correct in punishing that action. That soldier might not even have been gay. He might have been a (mostly) straight guy who chose the very wrong time to do a little experimenting. You did, after all, let the other three go with a little talking-to by the first sergeant.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Oral sex is found in the Bible’s Song of Solomon, though it is usually euphemistically translated. Also, sodomy is known as such by both the legal and Christian communities, so again, grow the hell up.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM
That’s the generally connotation of the word, but it’s denotation does include oral sex.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source – Share This
sod·om·y Audio Help /ˈsɒdəmi/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[sod-uh-mee] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Sodomy laws in this country are/were typically understood to include any sex which did not lead to procreation. Thus sodomy includes oral sex.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Yeah, I was going to call Akzed on that, too. My ex-wife and I committed sodomy (as defined in the UCMJ) every damned chance we got. Only damned part of that miserable relationship that worked was between the sheets. And in the back seat of the car. Or the hood. Or the kitchen table. Or the front porch. Or….. hell, you get the point.
TABoLK on July 8, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I’m sure. What is it, half? Three-quarters?
misterpeasea on July 8, 2008 at 10:48 AM
When did the bible replace the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Fine, but the Old Testament term signifies anal sex only, and that is why some people (not me) use the term to classify homosexuals.
Richard Romano on July 8, 2008 at 10:48 AM
UCMJ Article 125: It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.
TABoLK on July 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM
That’s pretty darn persuasive. Thanks for sharing that story…and so sorry for John’s loss.
RushBaby on July 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM
You said sodomy includes oral sex between normal people. If the Bible doesn’t prohibit it, I’m all for it (between married people).
Whatever the UCMJ prohibits, people must avoid. Of course, sodomists break the UCMJ all the time, which shows what they really think about law and order.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM
So you intentionally use a pejorative word to describe gay people? How very loving and Christlike of you.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:53 AM
That would still only apply to men. The Bible addresses women as well, so your distinction is unnecessary, as women obviously don’t sodomize each other in the way you mean.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 10:54 AM
People who have not or will never serve in the military should stay the frack out this matter and keep your opinions tp yourselves.
Allowing openly gay men in the military WILL NOT WORK.
You “open minded”, “tolerant” (liberal) civillians who want gays to openly serve, take your social engineering to some other venue, one that does not effect the security of the United States. Your weakness is not condusive to our national survival in the real world.
pseudonominus on July 8, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Sorry for you loss…
That is the point, if are a goof-ball, you will be teased and humiliated. They will find something about you to pick on. If you have a receding hairline, or a acne problem, they will unmercifully pick on you. Others will think it is because of the “hairline” but it is because they are a goof-ball.
If you are a “straight up man” (no pun intended) then they will respect you.
That’s how people are.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Has this ever been applied to married servicemen? I would be amazed if it did. I would bet that it’s on a DADT basis. If someone went around the base telling everyone what great head his wife gives however, it would become a problem to be dealt with under the UCMJ.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 10:56 AM
This is actually a political fight I have always wished would go away because it literally makes my head hurt. I am going to lay it out as I see it and you can all make up your own minds.
When I served in the Army in the ’90s, they had a tendancy to bunk us 2-4 in a small barracks room (basic was worse with 45-60 in a bay). Even now on Bragg, the new barracks are going to put 2 to a room with 2 rooms sharing a bathroom. When I was in, they put guys together in their rooms and girls together in theirs. My question is this. Who do you bunk the gay soldiers with? Do you bunk gays soldiers with gay soldiers and deal with the possible domestic crap? If you bunk them with straight folk you run the same risk you do with bunking guys with girls. I guess you could do away with segregated housing all togther and bunk folks alphabetically but it all causes problems (I doubt the ladies would appreciate it). The only thing I can think of is to give everyone their own room and none of us want to pay to double base housing. I understand there is alot of emotion on this issue but I have yet to see a good solution for this.
Dawnsblood on July 8, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Heh, first he’d be a stupe if he thought I’d keep it a secret, all Marines know there are NO secrets. To preface that statement with, “I’m only telling you because I trust you” would be gaurenteeing the entire BN knows about it by taps.
But to play along with your hypo, I’d tell him, Dude, you’re fucked up and I wouldn’t trust him, especially around my cooler, my wallet or my pogey bait.
Same answer for DC.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 10:57 AM
P
That bus already left the station, pseudo. There are gays serving throughout the military. In many cases, their fellow soldiers and even their leadership already knows. Don’t tell me that it cannot work.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Hah, cool, problem solved..you just volunteered to hootch with the fag for the entire float! Good luck.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Just ask the Catholic church how letting gays “serve” worked out for them.
The pedophile problem in the American Catholic church was the direct result of letting gay men be priests. Read “Good bye, Good men” and learn all about the Lavender Mafia. Have an air sickness bag ready.
The Catholic church does not allow gay men to be priests any more. None. No exceptions. And guess what? No more scandals. If you let gay men openly serve, imagine the scene when the young recruits get off the bus and the gay servicemen come over to inspect the fresh meat. That’s what happened in seminaries, that’s what will happen in the military. Under no circumstances should gays openly serve.
bonnie_ on July 8, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Worst argument ever.
People who have not/do not have __________ need to stay out of the discussion about ____________.
Where? To repeat myself, the Bible addresses lesbianism as well, and it doesn’t specifically refer to women using aids during intercourse.
There’s nothing two women can do to each other that my husband can’t do to me. Unless I’m just not being imaginative enough.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I was in the military. I’ve worked with gay service people, hell, I’ve been propositioned by gay service people.
And I say one gay service member is worth a billion straight hippies.
TABoLK on July 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Then they are accomplices and should be disciplined. You are advocating anarchy in the name of your prefered perversion. Hiring sodomists as priests really worked out for the Roman Catholic church, didn’t it? So what we really need in the Army is buggerer non-coms.
STD’s, romantic rivalries, battlefield transfusions…
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM
That’s not saying much.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I said OPENLY gay men serving in the military.
BIG difference.
pseudonominus on July 8, 2008 at 11:06 AM
That is a big difference, I suppose. But that is the topic of this debate, isn’t it?
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 11:09 AM
You’re missing the point. Gay men and women should be treated as any other men or women, respectively. If there are disciplinary problems, they should be dealt with in the same manner as any other disciplinary problems. This issue is not about who bunks with whom, or how shower time should be apportioned, but whether or not disclosing some perfectly legal aspect of your personal life back home, that has nothing to do with your service, can jeopardize your military career.
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I use that term affectionately :-)
I’m sure there are great gay servicemen. The thread is about whether or not it would be “disruptive” to have them serve, not if they are good servicemen.
I just can’t imagine them srving openly in a line unit without creating a HUGE hassle (disruption) for EVERYONE, especially themselves and the unlucky bastage who has to hootch with him.
These “rights” and “political correctness” stances always sound good in civilian board rooms and Human Resources whire board sessions, but they don’t pan out so well in the Fleet or the bush.
This is just my narrow experience as a Marine grunt, if there are any other combat grunts out there with a different view, let them fly, (and I mean first hand not significant others or REMF’s). I bet they won’t be far off my take.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM
You just don’t get it. The military is for real.
But you civillians don’t know this. To you all issues are just abstracions, right? Do a tour in a line unit and suddenly things become more real. No words I can use will convince you of this though, I know.
You just don’t get it, and probably never will.
pseudonominus on July 8, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Keep DADT.
JetBoy and others, I don’t care how bad your feelings may get hurt about this, but most straight men, regardless of how secure they are in their sexuality, are nervous showering and bunking with men who may want them sexually. Until you have male and female soldiers doing that, there is no reason to demand that gay and straight male soldiers should be doing it. A soldier who is uncomfortable around his brother is a soldier who doesn’t work with his brother to the best of his capacity. End of story. We’re busy fighting forces out there that would throw you off a cliff for being gay. Priorities.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
You mean it’s not for fake?
I’ve been living a lie for so long. How will I ever cope with this new revelation?
You said that they should be treated as other men and women. Well, that’s how men and women are treated. They’re generally segregated, aren’t they?
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM
It used to be perfectly illlegal back home, and when it was, many fewer lives were destroyed by it and its attendent disease, suidice rate, pedophilia, and so on.
No one has a right to serve in the military. It is a privilege. Some people are too tall for the navy. Some are too fat for the infantry. But sodomists want their rights, dontcha know, so they can molest boys in the Boy Scouts and priesthood. Surely they have no such motives in wanting to bugger the Army, Navy, Air Force and MArines.
Akzed on July 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
A couple of points…
There are two distinct militarys out there, and I’ve been a part of both.
Theres the Canoe club Navy, or Air Force, or Base side unit who is undeployable.
And then theres the deployable combat in the suck units.
Now, its basic human nature that two things happen when under extreme stress. First off you tend to become who you really are. Societal training and the chameleon like lies we tell to get along in society get stripped away pretty rapidly… and we tend to revert to archtypes.
Second is that the sex drive increases…
Put those two things together in a baseside unit with Gays in it? Not a real problem.
In a unit in the boonys? It creates problems.
High levels of stress do really strange things to people. I personaly know of two indidviduals whose lives were destroyed by a gay on straight rape situation. I knew the rapist was gay, but never thought he was a threat to anyone… but under stress he went whacko…
Its interesting that there is a clear divide in the people debating this thread… those who have been in the real suck… those who have served without being in the real suck… and then those who “know” someone who was in the suck…
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Well so far the poll bears you out. 53% are saying out with the gays.
I have my thoughts, but the military command should have the ultimate decision. No matter what the politicians, and pundits say.
They have had sufficient time to analyze this problem, I would totally rely on their experience and intellect to make the right choice. After all, I am placing my life, liberty and freedom, in their hands.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I think that’s the bottom line. Gays are already present in the military, and serving admirably. I don’t see the point of refusing them the freedom to disclose their inclinations on the matter if they so choose (though my suspicion is that most will choose not, as it has nothing to do with the job).
Obviously, this has nothing to do with acting on impulses. Rules against fraternization, no matter what mix of genders are involved, are there for a reason and should still be enforced.
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 11:20 AM
But what is the cost/benefit of causing a disciplinary problem where there originally was none?
In a perfect world, there would be no women whatsoever in the military, period. However, by accepting the cost of preganacies, fraternization, intra-unit domestic disputes, etc. we have the benefit of opening up half the population on the United States to military service.
By allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, we are now accepting the cost of having fraternization, intra-unit domestic disputes, etc. in male-only combat units. Units that previously didn’t have to deal with such issues. And for what benefit? How many people would the military gain by getting rid of DADT? What miniscule percentage of the population will now be open to serve in the military?
The costs outweighs the benefits. Political correctness loses to the necessity of having combat units not having to deal with these issues.
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Those are the only two options, REMF or patrolling? I don’t think so. Otherwise, my husband would be home, not in Iraq having rockets fired at him.
Off topic, yeh. Off pissing, so I mention it.
MamaAJ on July 8, 2008 at 11:21 AM
:
pseudonominus on July 8, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Madison, you talk about JetBoy’s feelings, but don’t you realize that issue is exactly about feelings….the feelings of straight men to be exact.
Gay people already serve in the military. That means, a priory, that straight men already shower with gay men but they just do not know it. If gay people serve openly, they will still shower with straight men. What changes? The straight man knows the other guy is gay.
The gay man didn’t molest the straight one before he knew and he will not molest him now. So that does not change. What changes are the straight man’s feelings. Thus this issue is completely about the inability of straight men to deal with their feelings.
It is much like the burka issue. In the Middle East women are covered because men might look at them lustfully. In the current U.S. military, gay men must lie about their orientation so that straight men do not feel uncomfortable. In both cases it is about how the straight man feels.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 11:24 AM
We’re busy fighting forces out there that would throw you off a cliff for being
gayAmerican.MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
FTFY, because I don’t think the jihadists ask their sexuality first.
SouthernDem on July 8, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Maybe the best sociological “study” we have. Your post may hold a key to a door that many would not have opened. I am slowly changing my position (no puns please).
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Not really. Gay people currently in the armed forces are already housed with straight people of the same gender. They simply aren’t allowed to admit that they’re gay. The only thing that anyone’s actually talking about changing is the requirement to have to actively hide that fact. There’s no reason to expect there’d be some new influx of homosexuals into the ranks. They’re already there.
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Can they fire a weapon? Can they do their duty? Can they keep it in their pants?
If so, let ‘em serve. Any American that wants to defend our country should have the honor.
SouthernDem on July 8, 2008 at 11:26 AM
And your point is?
That’s exactly what it’s about. If straight men serving our country can’t cope with knowing the man or woman next to them is gay, then it will cause problems for our military, problems that might not be worth the benefit of allowing gays to serve openly.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Dear right2:
I did not say I am surprised you have not been banned. That is an outright lie.
BigD on July 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Therein lies the divide.
We appreciate the Airforce and the Navy for giving us a ride to the fight. And we appreciate them bringing us chow, coffee and bullets so we can continue to kill. We appreciate Doc (especially Vic) for patching us up when we fuck up and get hit.
On the other hand, don’t bog us down with impossible ROE’s, restrictive AO’s, and stupid civilian pc rules which only make my misserable, dirty, unpleasant, dangerous, job of killing people more twisted than it already is.
It aint a boardroom in the bush, different rules apply, if you don’t get it, it’s because you never been there.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM
…wasn’t there a big hue and cry about how the military wasn’t a social experiment and racial integration just would not fly? Seems to me that all worked out.
If a gay person wants to suit up and go fight for his or her country…more power to `em.
Sarjex on July 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM
I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m saying that men and women are segregated. Obviously the gays currently serving aren’t, since their sexuality is unknown.
But if it is known, wouldn’t it be consistent with our current policies towards male and female segregation to segregate gays in some fashion?
I mean why do we separate men and women? Likely for the same reasons we would chose to separate gays, unless I’m completely mistaken.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Another question: Now that multiple states have legalized gay marriage or civil unions, why shouldn’t the partners of gay members of the military receive the same benefits as the spouses of straight ones? I’m looking for legal arguments, not “because I don’t think it’s right.”
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 11:31 AM
To me the privacy issue is a deal-breaker for gays serving, at least openly. It’s easy to keep those sexually attracted apart from each other when they’re heteros. Men here, women there. You don’t have men and women showering together, sleeping together, and so on. With the homos it’s impossible. There is no group that’s not sexually attracted to each other. You have 1 gay guy and 1 lesbian together, and that’s a full house. Also if you think fraternization is a problem now, imagine gay men whose average number of lifetime sex partners number into the hundreds, in close quarters with each other. Or don’t.
Paul-Cincy on July 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Since we still have “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the legal argument would be that gays in the military shouldn’t be married. Otherwise, that’s kinda telling, isn’t it?
Without the policy, there would be no legal issue against it.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM
That might all make sense if the enormous supposition that there currently aren’t gays in the military were true. But it’s not true…
Granting that they’re already there, the only new issues that would be created by a retraction of DADT would be potential tensions between anti-homosexual servicemembers and their admittedly gay peers. However, even forecasting this development presumes that people are sufficiently dense that they don’t realize that their peers are gay, even with DADT in place. I would think this a dubious proposition at best.
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
The simple answer is that military benefits are a federal issue, and gay marriage is thus far a states issue. The federal government does not yet recognize SSM. I think that it will become a very real issue in the not-too-distant future, though. Akzed and the other religious extremists aside, more and more people are welcoming SSM.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
The policy is justified because it is the policy. I see.
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Yep, gays are no different then normal people except for who they chose to love.
peacenprosperity on July 8, 2008 at 11:36 AM
And straight men are the vast majority, of both the population and the military. The needs of the many, particularly the many that protect gays from being put to death for their sexual preference, outweigh the needs of the few.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next »