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 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »
A practical opinion from somebody currently serving:
I just spent two weeks often in ridiculously close quarters with 40 other guys; the first night, we were all shoved, naked in enough shower space for a bout 4 people. No joke. It was, ironically, the gayest few minutes of my life.
The point? The point is that such things are the norm in the military; okay, not to that extreme, but you’re always going to be functioning, at times, in unnaturally close proximity with other men. In peacetime, and especially in war time. It is inevitable.
Do I personally care if gays serve? Nope. As long as they do their jobs and watch my ass – figuratively rather than literally – I have no problem with it at all.
And I don’t much care about the political or social or cultural argument. It just doesn’t much matter to me.
But from a PRACTICAL, pragmatic, real-world perspective … there would be real, serious problems with gays openly serving. Ultimately, it might cost lives; I guarantee it would damage unit cohesion and combat effectiveness.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” seems to work pretty well. All it asks is for a little discretion. And if homosexuals accept that requirement – to ensure the good of the unit and accomplishment of the mission – than it works for me.
Banning them would waste enormous resources and prove problematic.
The policy should stay as it is.
Professor Blather on July 8, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Ahh no sweetie. Let me explain.
Look up Alpine, Prudhoe Bay.. etc. They all (and yes this happens in the lower 48 too, like Montana and Wyoming) have “Camps” in which there are rooms, with bunks and a pretty good kitchen.
So what if I am female? I have no problem putting in the hours next to some roughnecks. I do the office desk to the research on the drills to the plugging and feed backs. I am not the type who cares about getting dirty, though getting a shower is a very nice thing.
What I am saying is don’t assume. Most oil jobs are 12 on 12 off, 2 to 4 weeks on and 2 to 3 weeks off.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 3:54 PM
The military is (or, used to be) driven by the needs of the mission, not by what is “fair.”
sanantonian on July 8, 2008 at 3:55 PM
OUTSTANDING post.
Professor Blather on July 8, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Glad to see you around!
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM
You don’t have to tell me, MC. Been there, done that. Thankfully, I was an officer so I did not have to play the same reindeer games that the enlisted guys did.
As an officer, I saw problems in my units far more vexing than a gay soldier, yet you and others here make it seem like a gay soldier would absolutely destroy a unit. Do you know how many gay “soldiers of the month/quarter/year” that I saw?
My first battalion commander was a straight man. He was an incredible dick, but he was an alright cdr. A lesbian replaced him. She was incredible. In fact, she went on to earn two stars, but the guy retired as an LTC. Anyway, pretty much everyone knew she was a lesbian. Didn’t matter. She was an incredible cdr.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM
You still haven’t explained to us the great benifits gained by your precious social engineering experiment.
Or, do you think the military should allow openly gay males to serve…because that would be the “fair” thing to do?
What color is the sky in your world? Do you know why the military exists?
pseudonominus on July 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM
What Madison, and apparently you, don’t seem to realize is that I’m not laying groundwork for anything.
I saw a comment that wasn’t based on truth and addressed it.
Just because you agree with the person who made a false statement, it doesn’t mean you should accept the false statement.
I’m not suggesting anything.
I’m just not basing arguments on things that are false.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Once again I just don’t think now is the proper time for this. The military shouldnt be a social experiment. Isn’t that what colleges are for now? Instead of churning out engineers and doctors, they now churn out causes and google software people than can make cool apps but can’t build a bridge! Isn’t a good education system more important than whether little johnny can serve in the military or not? As a country we are always looking in the wrong direction these days. Caused by who? Duh! Politicians that don’t want you to focus on the things that are really messed up like education, and umm.. what’s that other hot topic? Oh! Energy policies! This topic always comes up at election time to draw you away from the real issues. Aborition is another one that comes to mind.
gator70 on July 8, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Is it bigotry to segregate the genders in the military?
Buddahpundit on July 8, 2008 at 3:58 PM
The sexual dynamic between straight men and straight women is different than between straight men and homosexual men. Most obviously, the straight man will never be interested in the homosexual man. Most homosexual men realize this, and the ones who don’t won’t last long in the military. How often have you had to fend off an unwanted advance from another member of your gender? Is this really such a common problem? Doesn’t the military already have rules in place to punish unwanted sexual attention?
RightOFLeft on July 8, 2008 at 3:58 PM
The examples you give are all relevant and exist, they’re shitbirds. They take the lion’s share of abuse, EVERY DAY. They get the worst jobs, crappiest hours for duty, never get the cool TAD’s, last to chow, last out of the armory, worst patrols to get attached to, etc…..and uh, yes, a homosexual would have it way worse than a shitbird because even the shitbirds would rag on the gays and no one would stop them.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I guess two reasons:
1.) Men and women are physically different. In some cases its OK to segregate, and even discriminate, based on gender.
2.) A limited segregation of the genders is currently practiced in civilian institutions.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Same goes for sexual orientation.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Are you talking Combat Arms?
As a woman, I will tell you that picking up a 90 lb ruck is a PITA! My ex husband, and a super great Fister, still has my respect. I would not be able to do what he does when it comes to a road march.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 4:02 PM
In other words, you’ve got plenty of threats to deal with, so adding one more is just a drop in the bucket?
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 4:03 PM
LOL! I’ve been there, man. After two hours of PT and you have 15 minutes to put 30 bodies through 6 showers or you miss breakfast…you do what you have to do.
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 8, 2008 at 4:04 PM
No, you are obtuse because you completely ignored my ‘real world’ analogy of working at Wal-Mart. The gay man still has to deal with those same issues. Right? Or are you telling me that an openly gay man working at Wal-Mart doesn’t expect to be ostrosized by heterosexuals not comfortable with his openness about his sexuality?
The difference about working the 9-5 job with an openly gay person is I can choose to not have personal conversations with that person or socialize with them other than doing my required job. At the end of the day, I don’t have to have anything to do with them. Soldiers are not afforded that luxury.
Sultry Beauty on July 8, 2008 at 4:06 PM
There you have it. Tells you everything you need to know about why he thinks this is a good idea.
pseudonominus on July 8, 2008 at 4:06 PM
From a pragmatic, real-world perspective, gays have been serving in the IDF for years without any serious problems. This has been tried, and it works.
RightOFLeft on July 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM
They are of the same gender. Not sure of the physical difference.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Don’t patronize me, pseudo. I already gave my reasons many times. Read the posts before writing.
To sum up: Gays already serve in the military. Seamen, marines, airmen and soldiers already shower with, eat with, bunk with, and go to war with gay people. Gays are no more or less likey to cause trouble than anyone else. UCMJ will take care of those who act inappropriately, and Alden and his methods take care of the rest.
Instead of forcing these people to lie about their orientation, we should allow them to serve openly. I have a feeling that most would probably still choose to remain discreet (for the reasons Alden has laid out above).
With the exception of the religious extremists, Americans are increasingly accepting of homosexuality. It is just not a big deal for most people. After ending DADT, the military would very quickly adapt and move on. It always does.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 4:09 PM
The physical similarity is arousal. Just as women don’t bunk with men because they don’t want to have to deal with unwanted sexual advances in their quarters, men don’t want to deal with them either.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 4:09 PM
…and that is because they keep their sexual orientation quiet. When it comes out, it will, more often than not, cause problems. DADT works for precisely that reason.
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 4:11 PM
I was referring to anatomical differences between the genders. If your point is that men are, in aggregate, stronger than women I’d agree. Someday a woman will probably make the cut on the PGA Tour or win the Indy 500, but I doubt you’ll ever see a woman in the NFL (kickers don’t count).
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 4:11 PM
I don’t know if it is bigotry or not, but I am pushing for a military that permits male-to-male bonding of the non-sexual type in very demanding circumstances.
There is an old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Or, as the Bible says: 28Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. (Proverbs, Chapter 22).
Past generations of patriots laid down a landmark: open homosexuals may not serve in the military.
Calls to remove this landmark are but a petulant bit of (destructive) self-indulgence.
People who push for permitting the integration of open homosexuals into our military are in total denial of the law of unintended consequences.
sanantonian on July 8, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Oh, let me guess, pseudo. You are one of the shithouse-lawyer enlisted guys who thinks he knows everything and can run the unit better. Every unit has one. They are a definite pain in the ass. I would take a squared-away gay soldier to a shithouse lawyer any time.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM
As I am the Tom Boy type and try to help out no matter the weight, I do believe in standards.
As for other items… sports, certain items such as comabt arms… I will say you never know. Not that I want to be G.I. Jane (I have enough headaches), but some one is always going to try to push the envelope.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM
The differences appear to be more than physical. Men dominate in chess as well. That’s why there’s currently different ranks for women.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I didn’t, but Wikipedia did. I don’t have those states in my head. I do the best with the information I got. But thanks for letting me know.
Sultry Beauty on July 8, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Really? Didn’t know that.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Why is it ok to segregate based on gender? Men are physically different from other men and women are physically different from other women, and some women have more physical capabilities than some men, so why is the physical difference important to you?
Buddahpundit on July 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Most wouldn’t have a reason to. My husband’s just big into the game and even picked his college because of their chess team.
I was very disappointed when I learned that. It’s a game that requires no physical strength, so you’d think men and women would compete on equal levels (and sometimes they do) and yet there are still differences.
There was even a controversy one time over a transsexual (I don’t remember if that person had a sex change or not, but I thinking he did) competing with the women. I can’t remember what they eventually decided though.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 4:27 PM
The physical difference isn’t terribly important to me. I thought it was OK for the military to use its judgment given the level of separation between the sexes that is agreed upon in civilian institutions such as businesses, public spaces, and families.
Personally, I think if a woman can do a military job better than the men she is competing against it would seem inefficient to not let her do the job.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 4:35 PM
And I would take the advice of a Senior Enlisted over a snot nose butter bar espicially when I have more time sitting on the $hitter in a hot zone then they have in the military…
Kinda works both ways doesn’t it.
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Touche.
DCGamer on July 8, 2008 at 4:40 PM
From my experience, I’d say homosexuals could serve as desk jockeys in non-combat units because they have a life style that emulates the civilian world, basically 9-5 work day, private mainside quarters, few if any deployments, etc. Marines give women the priviledge to serve this way.
Line companies are segragated for a purpose, both LeJeune and Pendleton tuck the line companies away from the office pogies quarters, I’m guessing to keep them safe from our cooties, or to keep us from harrassing them. Line companies aren’t set up to handle civilian-like problems like working with someone you’re tagging.
I don’t care if the guy who types up my leave papers is a homosexual but it would creep me out to hootch with a gay. I don’t know if that makes me prejudiced against them or not but it is what it is, and I’m certain that 99.9% of all the trigger pullers I served with feel the same way.
Point being, would it be “disruptive” yeah, in a line company it would be REALLY disruptive.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 4:44 PM
I’m interested to know how they were able to determine the impact of gays serving (as openly gay and known) since we have never had gays openly serving? This sounds really odd to me and it is clearly not based on evidence of any sort.
progressoverpeace on July 8, 2008 at 4:54 PM
I agree with you on that. It seems like a good solution – if you want to serve openly gay, here’s your desk. If you want to go to the field, shut your trap. It doesn’t have to be fair, it’s the military.
Anna on July 8, 2008 at 4:58 PM
They could be basing it on other countries which have openly gay people in their military.
That wouldn’t be as accurate considering that America isn’t the same as those countries, but that wouldn’t necessarily stop them.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Oh to be that bar of soap.
leftnomore on July 8, 2008 at 5:04 PM
snorting!
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Yep. That’s about all they could have looked at. But, as you alluded to, other countries don’t really have working militaries, as we cover the defense for most of the free world.
This all sounds very fishy to me.
progressoverpeace on July 8, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Well, I wasn’t really going that far, but I certainly agree that we pick up a lot of slack around the world.
Esthier on July 8, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Oh yes, really? Why not? Because it was a good point? You see, that really is the point.
It’s the old saying, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. DADT has been working okay so far. No need to muck it up.
Sultry Beauty on July 8, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Oh, please, don’t tell me no evidence exists for the problem this would cause. We may as well just open up the latrines to all members of the military regardless of sex. Coed showers and coed public bathrooms.
Yeah, lets just throw away our brains because some members in a study say it’ll all be just fine.
JellyToast on July 8, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 5:44 PM
pseudonominus on July 8, 2008 at 5:57 PM
The first thing that springs to mind is the Crusader (self-propelled Howitzer), which was eventually canceled by Rumsfeld. It was supposed to begin service right about now, but was far more expensive than competing equipment produced by our allies (6X more expensive), and was a questionable upgrade over those or our current, retrofitted Paladins. Various individuals in the military lobbied hard for it, but ask yourself if having the new artillery right now would have been the best place to spend defense money over the past few years.
Another one is the A-10 Thunderbolt “tank killer” airplane, which the DOD keeps trying to cancel and replace with sexier equipment, even though it is extremely effective and relatively cheap to make.
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Being that you are Navy, that is funny.
In my little world (10 yrs ago) as a little truck driver (or what I like to call Chauffer! for the CO) it is different when everyone around is Artillary, SF, Grunts, etc. I was one of the few women who were around. Crude jokes don’t bother me anymore… I admit my mouth is and can be worse then a Sailor on Shore Leave. But God help me if little Mr Butter Bar doesn’t get to his meeting when he was the one who was late.
Sorry Prof Blather… but I think you would also understand. Ugh I hated LT’s, prissy little things!
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Big, gotcha.
Looking into UAS’s right now, I wonder why their are so many different type when 3 make up the whole. Other then which Branch is doing what.
Global Hawk (Air Force) is an enigma due to the fact that we have Satellites that do the same damn thing. Predator and Raptors are very simular, but you can only research so much.
I like the helicopter idea (forgot the name), but for some reason it isn’t working as well as they had hoped. I am thinking the propellars are not as big as they should be due to hearing and such.
Maybe I am just seeing it from another point, as i am not combat arms. But I am surprised they don’t make UAV pilots male only.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 6:12 PM
You surely understand that military brass lobbies hard for new equipment, sometimes when it is not necessary. The Air Force’s fighter jet fetish is particularly infamous.
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Comanche?
Big S on July 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM
No it is a UAV version Helicopter. Fire Scout is one.
Dash was interesting but the Navy took it out. For obvious reasons.
Wish I could find the other one.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 6:24 PM
I also know that there has always been a disconnect between War fighters, and the Defense Department.
Take the Old 80s Navy Hydrofoil program… they worked great, small crews, fast, great for shallow water ops, but the Big ship brass in the Navy didn’t like them. So even though we built 8 of the 40 or so we were supposed to, they Mothballed the whole bunch…
End result? The PERFECT platform for the Persian Gulf is non operational, so we’re using deep water cruisers for interdiction work…. stupid.
And don’t even get me started on the M-16…. or the 9mm…
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 7:06 PM
I think HA is sticking again. Nothing is refreshing.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 7:12 PM
I tell ya what.
I have no problem with Gays in the Military. Nor do I have a problem with Women in the military.
If a certain MOS has certain requirements, then the soldier has to meet said requirements or find a different MOS.
If you can’t lift a sustained weight of X and that ability is needed for jobs like Special Forces, Infantry, etc… then you don’t get the job.
If someone harasses someone else sexually then they violate the UCMJ, and get sanctioned, discharged or punished. It doesn’t matter to me if it’s Male-female, Male-male, Female-female, or Female-male.
If you’re a non-com you talk to someone above the problem that you feel comfortable with that can take care of the problem. If you’re an Officer, you show some initiative and deal with the problem.
If a specific individual’s sexuality is not a problem, then it’s not a problem. If it is a problem, then you Improvise, Overcome and Adapt. You fix the Problem.
Jones Zemkophill on July 8, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Y’all forget that we’ve already had the experiment of allowing gays to “serve” — in the Catholic church. Go read “Good bye, good men” and find out about the Lavender Mafia. Learn about how seminarians would come up to the bus to giggle over the fresh recruits — the fresh meat. The Catholic church no longer allows gays into the priesthood. No more scandals. Imagine that.
Now just imagine gay commanders coming up to a bus full of fresh faced beautiful eighteen year olds and lining them up to examine them. You want your son in a military like that? I don’t. And if you think it won’t happen, read “Good bye, good men.” Bring an air sickness bag.
bonnie_ on July 8, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Exactly, kicking out people when there is a serious manpower shortage seems a little degrading to the mission. I have served with several people who I am quite certain are gay, great sailors all of them, I would be happy to serve with them any time.
Squid Shark on July 8, 2008 at 8:38 PM
The priesthood is still having problems with the sick pedophiles and gays, despite the ban, I dont know what planet you live on? As for the gay commander “sizing up” the recruits, this is just the usual projection people go through, projecting their own rather perverted fears about gays in the military onto a fictional situation derived from an unrelated situation. First the priesthood is not the military for the obvious reasons, also it is not all male like the priesthood.
Squid Shark on July 8, 2008 at 8:44 PM
It’s a failed policy that creates undue tension and disctractions in military units. It’s a fact. Anyone who’s served 10 minutes in the military can tell you that much.
Hog Wild on July 8, 2008 at 8:51 PM
I’ve served 22 years not just 10 whole minutes. I think it’s a very bad idea. Also, it is not a policy it is the law! Don’t like it then talk to your damn congressman.
Who populates the military…it’s not social liberals. This is a volunteer force and many of us will vote with our feet if this happens. Recruiting will also suffer (except for the spike in homosexuals rushing to join) because social conservatives will enlist in lower numbers. There is absolutely no proof that allowing gays to serve openly will improve the national defense. Don’t try to fix something that is not broken. Those who speak the loudest are folks who have never served and have no clue. I’ve been a REMF, a staff toad and been on the pointy end…BAD IDEA!
jwp1964 on July 8, 2008 at 9:11 PM
God Bless ALL who serve…….. just don’t look at my butt.
Seven Percent Solution on July 8, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Life for a homosexual in a line company would be sheer hell.
I challange anyone who has served openly gay in a grunt unit or anyone who had an openly gay man in their infantry company to say it was anything other than a nightmare.
There are quite a few operators on this blog, they know what I mean, and frankly that’s all that matters. REMF’s may get their panties in a twist about it, but trigger pullers laugh ‘cuz they know what would be in store for the poor soul who showed everyone the picture of his boy freind or hollered accross the squad bay about the dude he went home with from the Leather Neck.
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 9:30 PM
The Navy’s reputation precedes you. ;-)
Alden Pyle on July 8, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Squidshark, link to any article that deals with a pedophile priest problem that is less than a decade old. You can’t. The Church cleaned out their house by kicking all gay men out of the priesthood. All of them! The lawsuits and the apologies are about abuses that happened decades, sometimes longer, ago.
I’m also not projecting about gay men lining up fresh recruits to ogle, because it happened in the Church and it will happen in the military. Gays cannot serve openly. They will destroy the military like they almost destroyed the American Catholic church.
bonnie_ on July 8, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Happened at my hometown church just last year. Priest ran to Ireland, works in a Dell factory. He was molesting kids who were seeking counseling for being molested by the chior director.
Squid Shark on July 8, 2008 at 10:21 PM
There is where your argument falls apart, you do not qualify this statement at all.
Squid Shark on July 8, 2008 at 10:22 PM
You don’t have to be straight to be in the military, you just have to be able to shoot straight.
- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on July 8, 2008 at 10:27 PM
No, I was just being PC. Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle against the word of God. Liberals want to legitimize it as an “alternative lifestyle” when, in fact, the only choice is to turn away from sin and remain celebate if one really is more attracted to the same sex. It is no different than telling the drunk to turn away from booze or the porn addict to turn away from behaviors that keep him/her from walking with Christ.
My opinion doesn’t matter, all that needs to be said is written in the Bible.
highhopes on July 8, 2008 at 10:54 PM
When did Goldwater say that?
Buddahpundit on July 8, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Does anyone know what happened to SaintOlaf?
Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Maybe. Key differences between the military and the RCC scandal are:
1.) Military personnel don’t have to accept celibacy as a condition of enlisting.
2.) Military personnel less frequently have the care of children as a primary responsibility.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 11:04 PM
My 23 years in the Navy (just ending) echo your points.
DADT was Clinton’s way of getting around his campaign promise to immediately allow homosexuals serve in the military- there was one idiot Supply Corps officer who went into his CO the day after Clinton was inaugurated to declare he was gay and nobody could touch him now that Clinton was in office. DADT was announced and the idiot went home.
What is less discussed is how DADT came about. Clinton, who already had a credibility gap with the military because he is a draft dodging coward, was told that he was going to be presented with the resignations of the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff if he went ahead of creating the pink military. That was enough of a deterrent.
In 2008, I don’t know if ADM Mullen has the same ability but I do know that many currently serving will retire or leave in disgust as a social agenda is forced on the military in the name of tolerance. The military doesn’t condone fraternization, adultery, or inappropriate heterosexual relationships and there is a vocal crowd who would weaken the military over another type of inappropriate relationship. They have no interest in anything but their agenda and to challenge it makes you an intolerant homophobe. I would suggest that those of us who serve see things far differently than these partisans.
highhopes on July 8, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Buddahpundit, don’t know when but he said a lot of things, and had relatives who were gay.
Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Professor Blather on July 8, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Great comment. The part about the deriere was hilarious.
Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Good point that the most vocal advocates of this are the peaceniks (for the young and uneducated that means peace protester types who do so out of a love of communism and a desire to see the US fail) and the feminists (who hate manly men in all their forms). Neither group are worth a damn for the national defense. And yes, conservatives fill the ranks of the military. Young, mostly white patriotic Straight Christian men. SO when the usual suspects who are out to get white patriotic Straight Christian in every other aspect of US life start up with the gays in the military crap, what kind of idiot would believe that the arguments that they make even matter? The pro-gay military people are the socialist 5th column. PERIOD.
Spartacus on July 8, 2008 at 11:10 PM
There are many laws in the Bible that aren’t followed by people in the country or enforced by the U.S. government.
dedalus on July 8, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Squidshark, link please or I call you a liar. Certainly your hometown newspaper must have covered this. Make my day.
bonnie_ on July 8, 2008 at 11:33 PM
But again this is all pretend on your part. You just don’t want them to be open because openness defeats the fantasy that no one in the military is gay. In other words, how is privacy an issue if pretty much every soldier in the military has to assume at least one guy/girl in his or her platoon is gay? That assumption means that there’s already no true privacy in the sense that you are talking about.
Benaiah on July 8, 2008 at 11:56 PM
This might have been covered already (came to the party late & didn’t read 5 pages of comments), but does anyone remember when DADT was presented as if it would notlead to openly gay soldiers? Look where we are today- people pushing for openly gay soldiers on the basis of one biased study.
Hmm.
cs89 on July 9, 2008 at 12:08 AM
I’m here.
I’ve been caught up lately,moving my family and I from Los Angeles to the east coast…
SaintOlaf on July 9, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Should gays be allowed in the military?
Absolutely not.
This is just another example of the government attempting to promote homosexual sin at the expense of the 99.5% of the population who do not get special rights because of their “sexuality”.
Evidently the will of the people no longer matters in the USA…this country has been taken over in a coup by activist judges.
SaintOlaf on July 9, 2008 at 1:01 AM
If you’re not paying attention, you might not have noticed that the militant homosexuals are advancing their agenda very rapidly lately..
You might not realize it, but it is a very big deal.
The next thing you know gay marriage will be legalized and anyone caught making “disparaging” remarks about homosexuality will have their free speech taken from them and they will be severely punished. Look at canada and norway for proof.
Yes, you will have your free speech taken from you..it will be called a “hate crime”…
Specifically…anyone preaching that “homosexuality is a sin” will be fined,imprisoned and forbidden from preaching the Word of God from their pulpit!
Homosexual marriage/special rights for homosexuals is THE WAY that they will eventually OUTLAW CHRISTIANITY in the United States…make no mistake about that!
Wake up and fight to stop it now, while you still can, or it will be too late.
SaintOlaf on July 9, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Forgive me if someone has already commented on this but WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING, ED???
Does Basra ring a bell? The Brits allowed it to turn into the Middle East version of Los Angeles and it took the Americans and the Iraqis to take it back.
How about the British Navy and its ability to protect its own fleet from Iran? Not only did they get captured but the Brits used the Carter playbook to deal with it.
And don’t get me started on the Israeli military. The only reason they allow queers is because the population of Israel is MINISCULE. And we have no idea how much the “socially acceptable” military was affected during its glorious display in the 2006 war.
The military does not need anything but the best. Somebody who is busy trying to prove that his body doesn’t function right cannot be the best.
Do not help the queer agenda – it has already done incredible damage to America by emasculating our society.
platypus on July 9, 2008 at 2:30 AM
You didn’t offer a choice to allow them to serve openly for a period, after which the experiment would be re-evaluated.
What I wouldn’t want is for the military to become another arena for gay rights politics to be practiced. When women were allowed to serve in combat jobs, it was worried that more pregnancies would result, and they have. But the military seems to have dealt with it. With openly gay troops, the two major problems would be lack of unit cohesion with openly gay members being turned on or excluded. Another would be plain old violence against gays.
These arguments were once pressed against racial integration in the services, but the military made it work.
If after a proper length of time to test this kind of integration, it turns out that gays are being ostracized, injured through lack of unit cohesion, or otherwise not working out, go back to don’t talk about it. Mainly, I would not want the military to become a setting for gays to push their way in and then use it for a political battle ground.
I have no doubt that homosexuals can serve honorably and bravely. What I would hate to see is for those whose major concern is same-sex marriage and otherwise validating homosexual attraction and behavior as being as “normal” as heterosexual, making a huge fuss and using the courts to force changes which would weaken the ability of the Armed Services to perform their mission.
By accepting gays with the understanding that their own behavior would largely determine whether the practice could continue, that crimes against gays would be dealt with as severely as those against heterosexuals but no more severely, and that the mission of the military comes ahead of social engineering, I think it could work, but if not, it should be possible to backtrack.
flataffect on July 9, 2008 at 2:48 AM
Now just how likely is it that it would succeed? The military should never change EXCEPT for improving its ability to fight wars.
Just how does legitimizing deviant sex practices assist the military in its mission?
I hear lots of crickets.
platypus on July 9, 2008 at 3:11 AM
platypus
Not every allowance is an endorsement.
Dr. Manhattan on July 9, 2008 at 4:32 AM
Always funny to read the comments suggesting that our military would be ‘destroyed’ by allowing gays to serve.
Gays have already served for ages in the US military. San Francisco has a large gay community because of the navy history there (yes.. its true).
If our current crop of military people are such losers that having a few gays serving among them would undermine the entire service then we need to start from scratch… perhaps even limit enlisting to tougher types who aren’t afraid.
Get over yourselves. The gays that I know who have served are top notch guys and gals and our fighting forces are better for having them on board. We simply can’t afford to turn away or provide a hostile environment to anyone talented who wants to serve.
lexhamfox on July 9, 2008 at 4:56 AM
The most shocking part of this story is the poll results. How this country has changed. It would be interesting to see the results displayed by age also.
I was born in ‘43. “Homophobia” was the norm in the ’50s and ’60s. A check in dictionaries published in the ’40s and earlier finds homosexuality defined as a perversion. Homosexuality has not changed.
I think our nation would be better served with gays outlawed from the military.
roydee43 on July 9, 2008 at 5:43 AM
This might be long.
Lower enlisted guys live in the barracks. Some of those men are gay, sure, but they keep that to themselves.
The barracks are home for them. I lived in the barracks for three years. You have no choice in who your various roomates will be. Let me say that again – you live with people who are not family, and have no say.
See, the married guys live in housing or off post. That means all us single guys get to share our lives almost completely with one to many (living in bays, like 30+) dudes.
Ok, following?
So, being single, young, lower enlisted men, we bring women back to our home. Girlfriends, some of them are other military, most are not, can be spotted here and there. They are not supposed to live there, but they spend the night quite often. Most of this was accepted because young men in good shape are at the peak of thier sex lives. It is going to happen. You’d see unit morale plunge if Joe’s couldn’t bring back some ladies to spend time with.
My last roomate in the barracks was a 26 year old guy who liked to watch movies with his girlfriend in bed, not 10 feet from me. I’m sure they wanted more privacy, and I’d do my best to give them that when I could as long as it didn’t iterfere with my sleep. Hell, I had my (then) girlfriend stay some nights with me.
Ok, my point – you let openly gay men serve and live in the same barracks, they no longer have to keep thier sexual lives hidden. I can tolerate my squadleader or one of my soldiers bringing back a girl to his bunk to get some R&R – but a gay fella bringing back another man (military or not) to snuggle on the bed? Or to have some sex hoping your buddy don’t wake up?
Trust me, men and women have sex in the barracks all the time, it is what happens when you have young people all living close).
It isn’t that we all think the gay soldiers are suddenly going to try and rape us. But gay men are more sexually active and have more partners, and they’ll be bringing that stuff around instead of keeping it off to the side to keep unit cohesion.
I’m not going to be forced to live with someone that has a lifestyle that is an affront to my religious and moral values.
spec_ops_mateo on July 9, 2008 at 6:21 AM
**cough, cough** not exactly the best example you could use as a shining bastion of all-American values.
Alden Pyle on July 9, 2008 at 7:46 AM
Shoulda put this with my last comment, apologies.
Servicemen aren’t “afraid” of homosexuals, we’re disgusted by them, sorta like shit and vomit…something most of us do in private, we all know it happens but you don’t want to live with it around you.
.
Uh…no.
OKaaaay..and you know they are top notch because…they are your freinds? You giv performance evaluations to them AND every straight servicemember so you have a comparison model? How do you know our fighting forces are better for having them on board?…show me some proof. I say we are the best DESPITE having them aboard, sorta like a world class athlete playing through an injury.
Says who? Why not?
Alden Pyle on July 9, 2008 at 8:03 AM
You didn’t offer a choice to allow them to serve openly for a period, after which the experiment would be re-evaluated.flataffect on July 9, 2008 at 2:48 AM
Conduct your sexual fringe social experiments somewhere else.
The military isn’t the proper forum to toss in a hornets nest just to see what would happen…we kinda have some fairly important shit we gotta take of right now and don’t really have the time or patience to deal with the hippies and freaks.
Alden Pyle on July 9, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Try quote, instead of strike.
Conduct your sexual fringe social experiments somewhere else.
The military isn’t the proper forum to toss in a hornets nest just to see what would happen…we kinda have some fairly important shit we gotta take of right now and don’t really have the time or patience to deal with the hippies and freaks
Alden Pyle on July 9, 2008 at 8:15 AM
If you are a Christian or Jew, otherwise….
Squid Shark on July 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Plenty of other servicemembers have checked in as not being “disgusted” by gays.
You are actually in a minority so far, by my count.
Squid Shark on July 9, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Your point being what exactly?
On the subject at hand it is very simple. The military doesn’t care what religion you are, what race you are, or even whether you are straight or gay. Everybody is treated the same. The problem to good order and discipline comes about when the “all the same” rules are bent to fulfill liberals penchant for using the military as a lab for social engineering. In this case, attempting to break the all the same rules by making it okay to legitimize a deviant lifestyle choice and still be treated like everybody else and force others to accept homosexuality as an appropriate type of sexual relationship.
That simply won’t fly any more than the yahoo atheist soldier who is suing for hate crimes since he claims that the DOD is a Christian organization. It doesn’t work that way. If an idividual wants to be special and promote a gay lifestyle or get offended when exposed to Christians (or any other religion) then the military is not for them. They should go to San Francisco, or up in the mountains to some commune, or wherever. But, let’s not weaken the military by this nonsense from people who have no business serving in the first place.
highhopes on July 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM
What? I don’t know where that came from.
All I was saying is that I wouldn’t go as far as progressoverpeace was saying in that other countries don’t have working militaries.
So far as I can see, there are plenty of other countries with working militaries.
Am I missing something?
Sure, I believe ours is better (or at least I hope it is), but I’ve been given no reason to believe that all other militaries don’t work.
And I haven’t said DADT should be abolished. But apparently everyone thinks I have said that just because I made a point about what men are physically capable of doing.
If that’s true, then DADT should be abolished, but several people here disagree with you, including many who are currently enlisted.
Plus you seem to contradict yourself with what you wrote immediately above that.
If Alden is right, then the military wouldn’t quickly adapt. It would be very harsh to homosexuals and ruin morale, thus proving homosexuality is a big deal, at least to those in the military.
Esthier on July 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Those in favor are not in line companies who have to squeeze into a shelter half with a homosexual. It’s easy to say sure let the gays “work” here because I go home to a nice air conditioned private/semi private room. If you work in an office setting, rarely if ever go to the bush, etc. then you only deal with it as they brush against you reaching for the white out.
I’ve been splattered by the blood and brains of one of my gunners, it’s a different work environment than the typical desk jockey can even fathom let alone make decisions which I have to operate under.
Again I ask for one grunt in favor of this to show his hand. Betting you won’t see it. I’m OK being in the minority opinion, Marines are always outnumbered, but we’re usually right an we usually win.
Alden Pyle on July 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »