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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
That the liberals red herring. Race/color and sexual orientation are two different matters.
When I walk into a room, no one knows what I do in my bedroom unless I tell them. It’s the same for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals. Most respectable heterosexuals don’t go around discussing their sexual acts, and if they’re kinky they don’t go around saying stuff out in public like, ‘I have a fetish for shoes and I like to lick them.’
When I walk into a room, everyone knows that I’m a white. That’s impossible for me to hide real well.
Sultry Beauty on July 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Maybe. It seems to work in the Navy from all anecdotes.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM
It wasn’t against the regs. He was not in my COC, and we were same paygrade, different rates. And yeah, we were stateside. Not everybody is lucky enough to step foot on a ship (I wanted dirsup, no luck). Besides, a lot of training was wasted on me when they moved me to a different job.
The barracks I remembered was stateside, with males and females on the same floor. These were also linguists, and I know we’re a different animal from the rest of the military. At the same time, you’d be surprised (or maybe not) at how many gays are in that community. Whatever REMF means, I don’t know, but I take pride in my service even if it wasn’t a traditional military path. I have only my own experience to help form my opinions.
Anna on July 8, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Nope. Just know everything about the culture before you reference it, and don’t get your panties in a bunch if someone knows more about it than you.
Sorry. If you tell only a half-truth to support your argument, I’ll be sure and keep my mouth shut about the other half of the truth. Will that suit you?
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Then why’d they move you?
And of course you should. It sets you apart from the rest of us and shows your honor in serving this country.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Because the color of skin presents no threat to other men. The sexual desire that could lead to god knows what is a threat.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Yeah, that’s how I feel too. About this whole subject, though, as I just noted above, I will never be able to claim I was regular Navy. CTs are a different breed, so my experiences are not the norm.
Anna on July 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I already knew that when I referenced it. It just had and still doesn’t have any bearing on the conversation I was having.
I wasn’t replying to a statement about pedophiles. The statement was purely about homosexuals.
It’s not a half truth. The full truth is that Greeks were OK with homosexuality.
The other things that they were OK with are irrelevant to the conversation. You may as well have mentioned that they were OK with gods who became animals and had sex with beautiful women to create demigods.
Sure, it’s true, but it’s also not relevant.
Is that concept completely lost on you?
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 2:15 PM
It was policy to split up all couples,
so that life would be more difficultbecause they could. We were lucky, as a mixed-service married couple we knew were put on opposite shifts, and they had young children.Anna on July 8, 2008 at 2:15 PM
The Military is very strong against favoritism concerning anyone in the same area, working together etc.
If you are “found out” they move usually the one with less experience out to a different job, or unit all together. It i so others do not have issues with the couple during any time, for the simple fact of favoritism usually. Other times it is due to petty things, but I won’t get into those.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM
That would be tough. I rarely have to work opposite shifts as my husband, and it’s hell when we do.
I will say though, being split up at work can be helpful. At one point my husband literally worked right across from me and could kick me under the desk if he wanted.
We rarely had anything to talk about.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM
It made my life hell.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM
It stands for “Rear Echelon Mother Fu#@ers.” Combat arms guys use that as an insult for everyone else.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I understand. They eventually sent him to San Diego and kept me in MD. Your explaination was more helpful than mine, for some reason the word favoritism was eluding me.
Anna on July 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM
They are sometimes segregated and the military can continue to work through the issues. Men and women are segregated at times in civilian life, in most jobs though they are able to function together without their sexual orientation hindering performance.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Well, this REMF was responsible for sending out timely intel to the guys out in the field/at sea. They can thank me later, when they’re up to it. Thanks, though. I’ve tried to rid my life of acronyms since reentering the civilian world.
Anna on July 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Heck, my marriage while in the Army was so bad I wish I could have gotten stationed somewhere else.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
When we’re discussing their attitudes towards sexuality, it’s intellectually dishonest to hold their attitude towards homosexuality as some sort of justification for modern military policy if you refuse to acknowledge that their attitude towards sexuality, as a whole, was permissive to such an extent that there were practically no taboos. In our society, taboos exist, and they affect our policies.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Homosexuality is wrong.
Thus, whether gays serve in the military or not is irrelevant. It’s the orientation itself that is the problem.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20
HYTEAndy on July 8, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Well, you certainly solved this one. Perhaps you can now move on to curing cancer and bringing down the price of gas.
/sarc
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM
*sigh*
And I bet you wanted Huckabee, too.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM
I don’t think anyone fears homosexuals, we just don’t need the extra bullshit that would bring to the community. Our business comes with some unique and serious consequences. If one member of the team is a shitbird or ostricized it puts the entire unit at risk.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM
You’re missing it one more time.
I wasn’t using it as justification for anything.
I didn’t even say it was right, moral or anything like that.
I only used it as proof that straight men aren’t hard-wired to find homosexuality repulsive.
Many do find it repulsive. I’m not disagreeing with that or even saying that they should feel differently.
Yes, the Greeks had a very different culture which explains why they weren’t repulsed by it, but that doesn’t disprove my point, which was simply that men aren’t hard-wired to find it repulsive.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM
In the 1940’s skin color was a threat to the social order–baseball wasn’t even integrated. Truman forcing all white soldiers to serve equally with black soldiers was an affront to the culture and standards of men who were raised in communities where blacks couldn’t go the same schools, use the same bathrooms or even stay in the same hotels. While they could ignore someone’s private sexual behavior, they couldn’t ignore skin color.
Looking back from today the soldiers who objected seem wrong and the culture they clung to seems obviously unfair, but skin color was probably more disruptive than sexual orientation. In 1948 the military was more integrated than civilian institutions–they became a social laboratory. Today civilian institutions have integrated gay individuals without it being much of an issue.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM
The military is not a job.
job = 9 to 5 monday-friday
military = 24 hours a day 365 days a year
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Hi Mad-Con! It seems we’re having the same discussion with the same person.
This reminds me of a documentary I was watching over the weekend about racial integration in the AL and NL in the MLB. There was this discussion about the Yankees aging players in the 60s and the lack of management’s willingness to hire people of color and how it was affecting the baseball teams ability to compete well. The concept was that, in the long run, discounting people’s ability based on their skin-color ultimately had ill-effects and forced people to re-think their views in order to make a buck.
There was one person (can’t remember who it was) that was being interviewed and he said that it was like the AL (since they accepted blacks into the league right off) were like the Democrats and the NL (since they were the last to include blacks into the league) were like the Republicans. It’s at that point I had to turn off the television show. I’m not about to listen to revisionist history. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Most blacks were registered Republicans when they were first given the vote. Democrats only included blacks into their party when they saw that without them they couldn’t win elections, or could use them and immigrants to push their union agendas and it’s been that way ever since that time.
The correct analogy is the complete opposite to what this man stated, the AL is like the Republican party and the NL was like the Democratic party. The AL didn’t hire blacks because they were black. The AL hired specific men who happened to be black because they had drive and talent.
I fail to see what good purpose openly discussing your sexuality within your work environment serves. Does it enhance the drive and talents of those people whose job it is to shoot at people while being shot at? It doesn’t help either the heterosexual or the homosexual to openly discuss his sexuality. It doesn’t add anything to the quality of the soldier. It doesn’t do anything but distract from an already difficult job.
Dedalus take your history lesson somewhere else. I’m not interested in yesterday, I’m interested in today.
Sultry Beauty on July 8, 2008 at 2:39 PM
So your point is that because one culture was accepting of it, the rest of the cultures that view it as either a deviation, a sin, a genetic deformity, a crime, or all of the above don’t say anything about the nature of man?
And that is because skin color doesn’t present any threatening situations. Someone’s skin being black has no bearing on another man’s life. Someone being sexually attracted to a man does, particularly if that man has to bunk, shower, or what-have-you with that someone.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Hey babe. Haven’t seen you around here for a while. Good to have you back. :)
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 2:44 PM
We’re Marines in a MEU, we’re self contained, we have our own S-2 to get the 30,000 foot understanding and Force and BN recon to take the pulse.
Never the less we all would have loved to hang with some of the cute office pogies to give them the proper hug and a kiss they deserve for their efforts in helping us reach out and touch the baddies.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I don’t care if they are gay.
I just don’t want to hear about it.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM
No. I stated my point very clearly, yet somehow you still twist it. You have an amazing talent.
My point is that because an entire culture of people had the ability to not be repulsed by it, then mankind has that ability as well.
It’s like watching the Olympics. You may wonder, can mankind really run that fast or jump that high? Then you see a man or a woman defy even your imagination and beat world records. That’s when you learn, well yes, mankind can do that. We, as a whole, do possess that ability.
Obviously not everyone does, and not everyone even wants to. Some of us are content to never try to jump a pole with a pole. But we know that it’s humanly possible, and that’s the my whole point.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM
You are correct. Sexual pref has nothing to do with the workplace.
All I care for is someone who likes (or at least try’s) their workplace and gets the job done. What they do outside on their own time is not my problem.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Sultry,
Fact check! NL was the first to integrate.
exhelodrvr on July 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM
/snort
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM
: ) I liked my desk job, but the Marines in my office wanted to be in the field. It’s all good, even my hubby mocked me when he deployed.
Anna on July 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Dude! Take it up with the documentary! That was what they said not my interpretation of it. Sheesh!
Sultry Beauty on July 8, 2008 at 2:51 PM
What is humanly possible should not be what policy is based on. Do we expect every soldier or marine to run as fast as the fastest olympic runner? Do we expect them all to be as good a shot as the best marksman in the world? Of course not. We establish standards based on the majority, and base policy off of it. What you are advocating is the basing of policy on isolated examples versus overwhelming evidence and examples to the contrary. You said so yourself. That is an exercise in insanity.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM
LOL what grunt, Army/Marine, wants to be behind a desk? No one I know..
My Sig Other is chomping at the bit to go up to the cabin and build the walls. Old Marines die hard!
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Not implying any fear of homosexuals, just referring to, as you said, concerns about the organizational consequences
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM
It’s like you’re not reading a damn thing I write.
When did I say a policy should be based on that?
I know for a fact that I expressly stated that I wasn’t justifying anything by pointing out what was humanly possible and expressly stated that my only goal in pointing to the Greeks was to show that is is humanly possible, no more no less.
But still, you twist, as though your life depends on it.
Is that the case, Madison? Is someone pointing a gun at your head and telling you to twist my words as much as possible or else you’re dead?
I’ve got a phone nearby. I can call 911 and get you help.
No, I’m not, which I’ve said so many times that I’ve lost count.
Which words are causing you problems? I believe I’m speaking English, but I’ve been trying to re-learn Spanish. I may have slipped a word or two in there by mistake. Just point them out, and I’ll translate.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM
ROMEO 13: Heh you’re a shellback too? How’d you like Neptune’s olive?
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 3:02 PM
SB, most people do not talk about nor want to hear about anyone’s sexuality. The particulars of the act are best left to onesself.
Do you realize how many times a day a person identifies himself/herself as straight? “My wife this…” “My boyfriend that…” If a gay person in the military today slips up once in his/her language, he could be kicked out. He must say something like “my friend” or “my roommate.” If he accidentally says “my boyfriend” in front of the wrong person, he could be kicked out of the military.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 3:02 PM
I see your point, though a lot of jobs aren’t 9-5 M-F. Some involve long hours, travel and bunking near the opposite sex.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Can you be anything other than condescending and insulting to those who address exactly what you say? Maybe you should scale back your bathtub full of hyperbole before you continue.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 3:02 PM
That’s because it’s normal to be straight. I know, people are going to extract and nail that first sentence, but it’s been said many times that gays represent anywhere from 5-15% of the population, which means it’s not the norm. Therefore, talking about the fact of normal companionship as being somehow “in your face” is as ludicrous an argument as can be made.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Would it help?
I’ll take suggestions. I’m sick of you twisting my words and making me out to be an idiot. You’ve been doing it for months. I’ve tried not talking to you, but obviously that didn’t work.
In my mind, I’m planning saying one thing and one thing only, but somehow you always being up something else and pretend that’s also a part of my argument. So clearly I have no idea how to make myself any clearer to you.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM
BTW~ Based on Wikipedia the entrants into MLB for blacks was as follows:
1. Jackie Robinson, Brooklyn Dodgers, NL April 15, 1947
2. Larry Doby, Cleveland Indians, AL July 5, 1947
3. Hank Thompson, St. Louis Browns, AL July 17, 1947
4. & 5. Monte Irvin & Hank Thompson, New York Giants, NL July 8, 1949
6. Sam Jethroe Boston Braves, NL April 18, 1950
7. Minnie Miñoso Chicago White Sox, AL May 1, 1951
8. Bob Trice Philadelphia Athletics, AL Sept. 13, 1953
9. Ernie Banks Chicago Cubs, NL Sept. 17, 1953
So all though the Dodgers were the first, the AL picked up 2 with 3 months of them and the NL didn’t add another until 2 years later. And the documentary stated that it was because of the talent pool in the Negroe League, not feeling they had having much of a choice in order to keep up and the fact that the Negro League was getting a lot of fans as well.
Sultry Beauty on July 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM
If you think history shouldn’t serves as a guide and a lesson, most, especially most military officers, would disagree with you.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Crying about the fact that I address your words doesn’t make you sound like an idiot. It makes you sound like Obama. I’d be more worried about that.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM
..while fanatical savages hunt you down in hopes of disembowelling you.
It’s not like losing the “Sullivan account” or not making your number for the month here if the team fails.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 3:09 PM
You seem to be forgetting that gay men are notoriously promiscuous.
Figure that into Unit Cohesion.
Go ahead, google what I bolded.
I think that is more important than your social engineering, don’t you?
pseudonominus on July 8, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Oh, and after complaining about me insulting you, you turn around and insult me.
That’s not like a liberal at all.
And if you were paying attention, which you’re clearly not, it’s because you haven’t been addressing my words that I’m lashing out at you.
You misinterpret what I’ve said, then throw it back in my face as though I’ve made that argument and then continue to repeat the lie even after I’ve explained myself a thousand times.
Sounds like what Obama did with McCain’s 100 years comment if you ask me.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Sure they are different, but the concerns about unit cohesion and troop morale are similar. Was Truman wrong to issue his executive order given those concerns?
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 3:13 PM
You’re exactly correct, the Military is the only true Darwinian culture there is… it litteraly fights to survive…
Now, just where are the Spartans today? Where are all these great Greek warriors that we should now emulate?
The military is ALL about what works, isn’t it interesting that this change is NOT being driven from in the military, but from OUTSIDE?
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM
According to your reasoning then, it is normal for an American to be white since blacks only make up 13% of the population. Is it offensive to you to hear rap or R&B music? From your perspective, shouldn’t black people keep that offensive music away from your sensitive ears?
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM
I’m sorry. You didn’t make the argument that because one culture accepted homosexuality in the military thousands of years ago, that men therefore are not predisposed to discomfort about having to bunk and shower with homosexuals. It would also be entirely unreasonable to assume that, by making that argument, which you didn’t make, that it somehow justifies allowing open homosexuality in the military of our country today.
And Obama didn’t say people cling to guns and religion.
Again, quit crying, or type more carefully.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM
BooHoo. They’re soldiers for goodness sakes. Does verbage and the ability to use certain terminology really mean that much to them? So he says, ‘my roommate.’ What matter does it make?
If he was working at the local Wal-Mart, do you think he’d be walking up to every Tom, Dick, and Harry saying, ‘my boyfriend this’ or ‘my boyfriend that’? Even with EEOC and harrashment laws, most gays wouldn’t. Why? Because people may not be allowed to say derogatory things to you but they don’t HAVE to socialize with you either. Anyone who has a problem with their homosexuality will only address them adroitly and walk away from them and never say another word at the end of the work day. A very lonely place to be when you gather you spend much of your time at work.
I still fail to see your point.
Sultry Beauty on July 8, 2008 at 3:17 PM
White Women make up more of the American population then white men.
What the hell is the point? You are losing me.
This is about sexual pref not the color of your skins. I don’t care what your skin color is! You could be blue with purple spots… who cares!
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 3:17 PM
I honestly cannot think of that many jobs that would force you to have to room with someone of the opposite sex the way people are proposing the military should room heterosexual people with homosexuals.
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 3:18 PM
try working in the oil industry, mucking away at a drill site. When you are done with your 12-18 hour shidt… you don’t care what that person is sleeping in the same room. As long as the bed is warm and the covers are soft.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Actually, I loathe rap, but that’s beside the point. I’m talking about the nature of human males, not the makeup of a country. It is not normal for a man to be homosexual, it is normal for them to be heterosexual. If you’re going to argue that, that’s your prerogative. Normally, a man is heterosexual. Have you got evidence to show that normally, a man is homosexual?
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM
shift… not shidt.
Excuse the typos please. Lack of sleep is a deadly thing.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Doesn’t being shot at make the sex lives of the others in the unit seem less relevant? Seems like under those circumstances competence is even more important than with the “Sullivan Account”.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Truman did NOT sign that order out of a sense of right and wrong, he did it to fill the ranks. That generation had fought WWII, and was done with war. It had no intention of making military service a carreer, especialy with the GI bill available. Enlistments were at a really low point… and in fact they had to bring back Reservists (who did not want to come back) when we went to Korea. I know this for a FACT as my Father was one of those recalled to go to Korea.
Did it have a good outcome eventualy? Sure… but it was not done for purely social reasons.
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Yes, I did.
pseudonominus said: It is hard-wired in. No amount of Marxist dogma or Progressive wishful thinking can change this.
I said (in direct response): If that were true, then our history books which talk about the openly gay soldiers in Greek times must be complete bullsh!t.
No, it wouldn’t. As you pointed out, just because mankind can do something, it doesn’t mean Americans can or should do that same thing or that we should set policy based on that.
Do you always speak in non sequitor? Or do you really just have that difficult a time reading what I write?
Would CAPS help? I’m open to suggestions on how to get through to you, assuming such a thing is possible.
You’re the only one crying, asking me to drop the insults right before you launched into one of your own.
And really, I can only do so much for someone who can’t read my plain English writing. If you let me know which words have confused you, I’ve already offered to help. Beyond that, you can move on to messing up another point being made by someone else, since it really seems to get you going.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Cool, you hootch with the fag and we’ll all make your life hell too. BTW, you get to walk point again tonight.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Why was it so difficult for you to give a yes or no answer that question? Do you feel that it’s okay to segregate heterosexuals from the gender that they are sexually attracted to at any time during their military service?
Buddahpundit on July 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Then you are being obtuse. How many times has a coworker asked you a question unrelated to work? Perhaps, “what did you do this weekend?” If you ever once answered “my husband and I…,” then you announced your sexuality. That probably was not your intent, but it still happened anyway.
Now put yourself in a gay soldier’s shoes (or boots). “So, Sergeant Schmo, what did you do this weekend?” Now, if without thinking, he accidentally responds, “my boyfriend and I…,” then he may be kicked out of the military. He could have served 10 years, but that slip of the tongue could cost him his career. Does that not seem overly harsh to you? Does it seem fair?
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Make sure you burn the shitters before filing a full patrol order, too. Yeah, I know you won’t have time for chow, sorry.
…get it?
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Apparently not, because it seems that the majority of those who have “scene the elephant” in this thread think it IS an issue.
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM
When he can look at very hot young women and not become aroused, but is stimulated by men. For most guys it is inconceivable to feel that way and repulsive to think about a guy that way.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM
So now we’re talking about asking? That certainly didn’t seem to be the case originally. However, even given that limitation and the kinds of things you’ve listed as acceptable topics, it’s almost impossible for one to engage in conversation without revealing information about their romantic status. “Are you doing anything this weekend?” or “Have you seen ‘Wall-E’?” are the kinds of questions that seem to me rather normal in the work environment, and generally lead to one volunteering information about whom one spends free time with. Do you find those questions inherently offensive? Would responses like “Jane and I were thinking about going down to the coast,” or “Yeah, we took the kids to see it,” make you uncomfortable? Both responses would seem to reveal a great deal about the inherent nature of one’s relationships.
I think the difference is that where straight relationships are concerned, you don’t particularly want to know but also don’t care if you find out. Where homosexual ones are concerned you also don’t want to know, but do care if you find out. So, despite what seems to be an attempt on your part to make it seem otherwise, you do hold homosexuals to a different standard.
Blacklake on July 8, 2008 at 3:28 PM
In other words, you just confirmed my entire synopsis of what you said, which is the same synopsis I’ve been making this entire time.
So where did I twist your words? Oh yeah, somewhere along the same line where I’ve “been doing it for months” where I somehow have a gun to my head.
Since you seem to be as thick as you make me out to be, my claim that you didn’t say what I stated, and that Obama didn’t say what I stated, was sarcasm. Kay? Maybe you should go back to ignoring me.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM
I call BS on that. The military wastes a ton of money, and the politics of funding and assignments between the branches gets pretty rough. Many weapons systems that we don’t need are funded like crazy, while other important ones get underfunded and canceled. “Tradition” is strong in the military, even when it serves no purpose or gets in the way of efficiency.
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM
OK, yes. Essential, no.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM
In other words, normally, it is inconceivable for a guy to feel that way and repulsive to think about a guy that way.
You’re skirting the fact by using synonyms. It is normal to be straight. It is not normal to not be straight.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM
When you tried to give me an agenda simply because I stated a fact.
You make that difficult.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 3:33 PM
All you have to do is not respond. It’s in your hands. Watch, I’ll demonstrate from here on out.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Madison, words have power, and I would imagine that you are intentionally using the word “normal” to insult. What you mean by “normal” is “majority.” Yes, the majority of men are straight. So what?
The majority of people are right-handed. Does that make them normal? Are left-handed people abnornal?
The majority of Americans are white. Does that make whites normal? Are blacks, latinos and Asians abnormal?
etc. etc.
Please be more precise with your words and not intentionally insulting.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Dedalus, this weapon is unsat, everyone else can knock off and grab a cold frostie, Dedalus you get to reclean this and I’ll come by at 1900 to reinspect it.
….Every day all day this continues.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Reminds me of a scene from Jarhead.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Normally people are right-handed. Naturally some people are left-handed.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Why do you feel that it’s ok to segregate heterosexuals at times during their military service from people that they are sexually attracted to?
Buddahpundit on July 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Does that make it right, Alden? I assume that your integrity is important to you. How often are you willing to lie to give shit to the gay guy? You know his weapon is sat, but you intentionally lie. You know his shit is squared away, but you intentionally lie. This says more about you than about the gay guy.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Yes, but generally when people are being misrepresented, we like to answer back.
But hey, it sounds like you’ll make it easy on me then.
Awesome.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM
First off… WTF is “Normal”. How about using traditional as the word.
Second off… it it anyones fault in here that they are attracted to the opposite sex rather then their own? I am not sure about you, but most “gay” people aren’t “Breeders” so you better like the fact that the Hetrosexuals are around to help that little consensus out.
Third, being condesending to those who really do not wish to find out about sexual orientation of another, is not exactly the Tradition of the World.
Just because you may be “Gay” “Homosexual” or otherwise, doesn’t mean I want that shoved down my throat. It is like a person who has a different pref on anything then what you do…. and you keep throwing it in their face like they “Should” accept it when in all reality they really do not have too.
Political Correctness is getting OLD. And with that said … and the fact I am going BACk in the Army. NO I sure do NOT want to find out about you and what you do at night! If you don’t like the fact that I am talking about my boyfriend or girlfriend then guess what, you as a Hetrosexual or Homosexual have the CHOICE to stay away from me!
Do you catch my drift?
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM
You would imagine wrong. The fact that you are taking offense at basic logic shows that you have emotional investment in this argument rather than rational. Can you cut out the former in favor of the latter, or is it pointless debating the point with you?
The majority of people are right-handed, so yes, it is normal to be right-handed. That is why most computer mice are designed to be used with the right hand, and left-handed ones are special orders. Are you going to be offended at the mouse manufacturers?
And you keep making the same fallacious comparison to Americans being this or that. By nature, you have a sexual orientation. By nature, you have a dominant hand. Nature has nothing to do with being an American, so stop making that argument, because it is not at all apposite.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Rancid job, but someone’s gotta do it, usually who ever is on Gunney’s shit list. Shitbirds, wise asses, troublemakers, ass holes and belly achers.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Yes. Normally people are straight. Naturally some people are not straight. It’s only the first part that DCGamer seems to be getting offended over.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Alden, what about the marine who truly deserves the abuse? What about the marine who barely passes his PT test? What about the marine who is a little heavy? What about the marine who always manages to weasel his way out of duty? You cannot tell me that being openly gay would be the worst thing for a marine, especially if he is a good marine in every other way.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Uh, who controls weapon system acquisition? Congress?
As to tradition, the day the Military no longer has tradition, is the day you do not have a military, but a mob. Any serious student of history, espicialy military history, knows and understands this.
Dress uniforms? Salutes? Taps? why bother… except to remind those same soldiers that they ARE Soldiers, and thus set apart. That they are tied to a tradition of sacrifice, and honor, that goes back to our forefathers. That they are the inheritors of a proud tradition of victory… that they must carry forward the honor of a Military that has NEVER MILITARILY LOST A WAR!
I’m sorry, “The moral is to the physical as three to one” said Napoleon… and cerimonials have to do with moral, not efficiency…
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Wait: Is Ed Morrissey pushing for the full, open acceptance of sodomites in the military?
What a putz.
Or, am I misconstruing what he is saying?
sanantonian on July 8, 2008 at 3:45 PM
If a man drags the unit down, the unit either fixes the man, or excludes him, lest the unit be in danger. That’s the way it works.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Big, what do you see as a waste of military weapons?
I am asking as I am curious. Your opinion only. Not asking as being condesending.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Not too keen on critical thinking and application are you? Madison is running circles around you because he cuts you off at the knees before you are able to lay a faulty ground work. You seem to through thing sout there “innocently enough” but many progressives do the same thing and make a suggestion a fact when nothing could be further from the truth.
RedLizard64 on July 8, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Lots of women-folk working out on the rigs these days? Is wildcat drilling the new Brokeback Mountain?
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Wait: Is Ed Morrissey pushing for the full, open acceptance of sodomites in the military?
What a putz.
Or, am I misconstruing what he is saying?
sanantonian on July 8, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Wait: Is anantonian pushing for the full, open acceptance of bigotry on this website?
What a putz.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Big S,
“Many weapons systems that we don’t need are funded like crazy”
The vast majority of poor decisions on which systems are funded are made by Congress. Congress also has control over which bases are closed and which aren’t.
exhelodrvr on July 8, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Sultry,
You missed Willie Mays – Giants, 1951.
exhelodrvr on July 8, 2008 at 3:52 PM
I’ve said this entire thread that it isn’t right, I’m just being real, it will be ugly at the line company level. No one is going to be compassionate and sensitive and send out a card with duckies and bunnies if your feelings get hurt.
A combat unit is not a pretty place to be if you try to be Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Out yourself at your own risk is all I’m saying.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »