Video: Obama press secretary promises to get rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell”; Update: Troops oppose
posted at 12:15 pm on January 10, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
From Change.gov. The One himself promised this during the campaign, then stepped back a bit after the election, and now is stepping back up, no doubt due to the unpleasantness over Rick Warren. No timetable as to when — the Wash Times piece I linked suggests 2010 — but he needs to throw the left a bone and this is an easy one to throw. Skip ahead to 4:15 of the clip.
It’s not hard to guess which Friend of O will be used as media point man once the word comes down. Exit question: What’s with the weird close-up of Gibbs during the DODT answer? Just to show he means business?
Update: An Army Times poll taken last week shows that most active-duty troops oppose repealing the policy — and 10 percent say they’ll refuse to re-enlist if it’s withdrawn.
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
We had it all the time during the Clinton years. College kid gets killed, it cost my unit an entire week of don’t be a hater classes. They were more than sensitivity training. They were by design intended to not just make you “tolerant” but to convince you that you were the problem by not completely condoning the behavior.
hawkdriver on January 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM
All your points are perfect. If gays are allowed to serve openly, it will destroy morale.
hawkdriver on January 10, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I don’t think it is like race. Because you raised the point that the military isn’t a place for social experimentation I asked whether Truman was wrong in 1948 and whether the military personnel who opposed him at the time were correct.
dedalus on January 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Yeah, that wasn’t a social experiment. You are advocating a social experiment, and even said so when you talked about whether or not we could see if joe gay can control his sexual urges.
That’s called an “experiment.”
TTheoLogan on January 10, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Not to mention, you missed the bigger point. There’s a significant chunk of the population that will never, ever, accept homosexuality as acceptable, morale, etc. That’s because the belief is rooted in a belief system several thousands of years old that has withstood the rise and fall of many civilizations. The idea that sensitivity training, etc, will fix that, is ludicrous. We already know how this experiment ends.
But mark my words, obama is sure going to try. If, now, I made a racial statement in public in the military, I’d get in trouble. I can promise you that once this is all implemented, if someone makes a public statement that they believe homosexuality is sinful, immoral, etc, they’re going to get in trouble in the same way.
TTheoLogan on January 10, 2009 at 5:00 PM
So what’s the problem again?
RightOFLeft on January 10, 2009 at 5:06 PM
In which nation is their military better now than when the ban was lifted?
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM
In the 1940’s mixing the races was a social experiment to the extent that many parts of the country had laws to keep them separate. For many white men at the time the idea of serving under the command of a black man was unacceptable. Forcing them to share barracks with blacks when the hotels at home were segregated meant that the military was forced to be ahead of the rest of society.
I did say that gay people share locker rooms all the time with straight people. That isn’t an ipso facto rationale for having gays serve openly in the military.
dedalus on January 10, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Good point. I wonder if the LDS Church (a source of many enlistments) would tell their 18 year olds not to join the military (after mission).
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I have to agree with Jetboy on that line of reasoning.
Itchee Dryback on January 10, 2009 at 5:14 PM
The arguments against blacks in the military had to do with capability and perception of a lower class mingling with an upper class. The argument against gays in the military has to do with fear of inappropriate and unwanted behavior. They are different arguments.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 5:15 PM
In before the first sexual harassment case.
Enoxo on January 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM
He arguement assumes no downtime. That isn’t realistic. In the Navy, the bunks are 12″ apart. You live with 6-12 other men in what is the size of a walk in closet. And that is on a surface ship, it is worse on a sub.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 5:18 PM
That said… repealing DADT would be a mistake.
Being in the military, they try to erase the sense of individualism. There is no I, me, or you. That’s why it’s taught to talk in third person. It’s all about the unit, and the team.
Having openly gay soldiers creates a new form of individualism that will weaken the structure and training.
Enoxo on January 10, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I agree, but there were significant concerns about maintaining morale and unit cohesion following Truman’s order. For some there was deep resentment.
dedalus on January 10, 2009 at 5:22 PM
As I noted here, that’s not exactly true. Sparta, say, promoted Pederasty, which is not the same thing as consensual homosexuality among peers, and homosexuality outside of pederasty was largely stigmatized in Ancient Greece. The Pashtuns of Afghanistan also favor young kohl-eyed boys as companions.
Well-said, although I think it’s a mistake to assume that all negative reactions to homosexuality are based on religious teaching. For many people there is a visceral reaction to homosexuality and it is not necessary to hear sermons or read the Bible to react that way. So yeah, it’s ludicrous to think that sensitivity training will change that in any way, unless scientists can come up with a way to reprogram us, in which case it’s more likely that attempts would be made to reprogram homosexuals into heterosexuality :)
Buy Danish on January 10, 2009 at 5:24 PM
That is true, but for different reasons. You can’t say, as some on the Left are prone to do, that the arguements are the same. They aren’t. Whenever you have change, there is concern about morale and unit cohesion.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Does that mean we get to find out about Obama’s birth certificate?
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on January 10, 2009 at 5:44 PM
I always like when some General says they are open to something the troops will have live with, that the General will never have to experience.
Real courageous.
91Veteran on January 10, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Clinton failed to complete his tasking from Hillary to destroy the military. He was however successful in decimating the ranks, underfunding modernization and destroying morale.
In his role as Georg Soros’ prattboy 0bama will complete the destruction and leave us defencless. Why else would he put a hack in as head of the CIA, Leave a republican (Gates) as Sec Def to take the blame for loss of the GWOT. and now send this fag out to promote open homosexuality in the ranks?
This will without a doubt adversly affect the nations ability to defend itself.
Next they will move the Pentagon to the Presideo of San Francisco.
Amazed on January 10, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Even poor Barry was getting senile in his old age.
Another example of someone advocating something he would not have to put up with himself.
91Veteran on January 10, 2009 at 5:57 PM
This is exactly why most Americans will never understand what it will mean to the military to allow openly gay people to be in the military.
With your experience of living in field conditions, now imagine if you had a couple of openly gay people in your unit, and ultimately what a distraction it would be.
91Veteran on January 10, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Have you ever been in the military? If you have, how would this square with your training on following an immoral order?
91Veteran on January 10, 2009 at 6:12 PM
In cases where the military retained skilled individuals it would benefit. The case against gays (or women) in special forces or the infantry has good arguments. The case against gays serving in other areas like intel seems less clear.
dedalus on January 10, 2009 at 6:19 PM
HO LEEE CRAP
I dunno if anyone’s pointed this out (don’t have time right now to read all comments), but Michael Savage predicted THIS VERY THING… I think on Thursday.
Ugly on January 10, 2009 at 6:25 PM
I can also promise that when Sarge orders Skippy to clean the latrine, Skippy is going to falsely accuse Sarge of making anti-homosexual remarks so Skippy won’t have to clean latrines.
Think of how many good soldiers careers get ruined before word gets around that Skippy (and his buddies) are not to be held to any standard. Unit discipline should be great!
91Veteran on January 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Homosexuality, the only sin with its own parade and day at Disneyland.
Having been in the Infantry and Field Artillery, I can tell you that this is going to have a deleterious effect on our fighting forces. The morale problems this will cause will be legion.
Mojave Mark on January 10, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Race=Apples
Orientation=Oranges
hawkdriver on January 10, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Great. No more torture, so the military guy can just sneakup on the Iranian soldier and kiss him or attack him from behind. That will take him by surprise before he is beheaded. What in the world is wrong with this country? Forget it, I know, liberals. They are the ones that need to be defeated. Idiots. This is ridiculous.
suzyk on January 10, 2009 at 6:48 PM
So…..a gay individual with access to classified material.
Not a risk at all huh?
91Veteran on January 10, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Not only the infantry, but the Marines (OK, they are all infantry), calvary, strikers, artillery and tankers have good arguments against homosexuals for the same reasons the infantry does.
Well, those on sea duty have good arguments against homosexuals because of living arrangements at sea.
Those on missile duty as well.
Almost only leaves desk jockeys.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 6:58 PM
The only risk I see there is if they are trying to keep their homosexuality secret and are subject to blackmail.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 6:59 PM
The nature of the change is very different, but the arguments about morale and discipline in the 1940’s were at least as passionate and deeply felt. Maybe many of the military personnel in the 1940’s were wrong in opposing integration but the change did affect their morale when it was pushed on them by Truman.
dedalus on January 10, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Civilians in government have access to classified information in DoD, State, Congress, etc.
dedalus on January 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM
How the heck is being told you’d have to serve with openly gay soldiers an “immoral order”?
You simply base that on your own belief that homosexuality itself is “immoral”.
It’s not like being told by your commander to open fire on civilians…
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM
You’re also making assumption. In this case greater assumption imo.
The fact that there is downtime or the bunks are close together seem to be a non issue in a real world application. It would only make sense is you’re implying that the sex drive of gays is so great that it overrides judgment.
If a hetero sexual person is in close proximity to a person of the opposite sex who has shown zero interest in any personal contact, would you “make a move” on them?
I’m guessing no.
Itchee Dryback on January 10, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Adultary is considered immoral in ther military as well.
As is drinking to excess.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 7:16 PM
I think that is the argument, is it not? Otherwise, there is no issue, right?
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
…
Put that in a TV ad and see the enlistments spike up! Like the ol’saying goes: “Wish to save water? Shower with a friend!” *insert here an explicit cartoon of man and a woman showering together*
ProudPalinFan on January 10, 2009 at 7:22 PM
“Distractions” are wholly the product of the individual. If you’re talking about the mere knowledge of a person being gay, thats a personal focus problem imo.
Itchee Dryback on January 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I think being homosexual is by definition, immoral.
Note where I said “I think”
Ugly on January 10, 2009 at 7:27 PM
…and civilian laws to protect them.
91Veteran on January 10, 2009 at 7:28 PM
But wouldn’t that only exist in the minds of those who create that distinction?
The Israeli military is one of the best and I think gays are pretty much ignored in the military. I may be wrong about that, but I thought gays are pretty much in the open there. Anyone know any different?
Itchee Dryback on January 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Barry O repeals DADT and there will be hell to pay. He thinks he’ll be another Truman, hailed for integrating the armed services. When the enlistments and re-ups of skilled individuals doesn’t occur I’m sure it will be all George Bush’s fault. But it will make Barney Frank happy. Fewer troops means more money for his socialist programs.
GarandFan on January 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
So, since you think something is not immoral, others should be forced to support the same thinking?
91Veteran on January 10, 2009 at 7:32 PM
It seems obvious you have little experience with the military, unit cohesion or what little issue might be distraction enough to get someone killed.
91Veteran on January 10, 2009 at 7:36 PM
What YOU think is irrelevant. You do what you’re told to do.
I don’t know, but I’m gonna guess you served in the Army.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Even if the order is immoral? You weren’t clear earlier, have you served in the military?
91Veteran on January 10, 2009 at 7:49 PM
First of all, yeah, if your CO gives you a legal order that you find immoral, the appropriate response is “Yes, Sir.”
Secondly, I don’t see how that is possibly relevant to the issue at hand. If a soldier finds gay sex immoral, that’s quite fine. Nobody’s going to order that soldier to have gay sex.
And finally, current policy allows gays to serve in the military as long as they keep being gay a secret. How is that possibly more moral than allowing gays to serve in the military and being honest about being gay?
factoid on January 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM
The guy with the pink tie had a twinkle in his eye when he said, “Yes, we can repeal it.”
jgapinoy on January 10, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Whats the order?
Itchee Dryback on January 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM
I’m not sure…the argument seems to be undefined and general.
If that is what you believe the argument to be…what is it based on in your opinion?
Itchee Dryback on January 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM
How would a soldier, in the midst of a fire fight be distracted by the knowledge of the existence of a gay fighting alongside him/her in the same fight?
There was recently the story of how a handful of soldiers fought off and defeated a much larger force in Iraq and were awarded citations of their bravery and skills. Some were wounded and aware of the greater number of enemy forces, yet they not only focused their skills and applied their training to not only hold their ground, but advanced and conquered the enemy.
But a gay guy would throw them off? Bullshit.
Itchee Dryback on January 10, 2009 at 8:36 PM
God!
Please just listen to the man.
Seriously, get over it already. It’s unconservative, embarrassing, harmful to the country, to the party and worse it’s just plain wrong.
Rae on January 10, 2009 at 8:53 PM
After reading these many comments I really have mixed feelings about this whole scenario. Been a civilian all my life, except for a mild sting at AFROTC. The military servicemen and women, in all divisions have to feel comfortable with their work environment, with their lifestyle; what works for them or not is what keeps me and millions of others, free.
I have no idea what the conditions are of the military living in same quarters, showers, etc. I cringe at the thought of showering with another chick, or guy, esp. being married with kids! We just have in the back of our minds the famous TV show, M.A.S.H. and how they would have the best scenes chatting away while showering!
If someone here in the mil. can direct us to websites of actual pics of the showers, etc., then I can see better the situation. Of course, about the SEAL severe training that requires that much personal closeness to survive…that is tough!
Kathy Griffin has a stand-up of gays in the military, where of course she can find them anywhere, no matter where she’s at…of course, she went overseas.
ProudPalinFan on January 10, 2009 at 9:05 PM
I am happy to say this
But the TROOPS are right..
It is an impediment to the units cohesion and moral..
How do i know?
When i was in basic there were two males of that
particular persuasion..
And several times they were allegedly caught in some act in the shower..
I dont care WHAT you do In your own BEDROOM
But if i have to also WATCH and wonder about the guy in the foxhole with me …
No sorry he has gotta go..
jcila on January 10, 2009 at 9:45 PM
You know what other country doesn’t have gays in the military?
factoid on January 10, 2009 at 10:14 PM
In which nation is their military worse, especially as a direct result of ‘lifting the ban’?
Also very odd how people on this site now believe soldiers should be able to refuse orders they find immoral. Just what exactly were those idiots refusing to be sent to Iraq doing again?
Respectfully, why did you feel you suddenly had to ‘watch’ and ‘wonder’ about this guy? Were you terrified he was attracted to you? That he was going to rape you? That he was now not up to the same ability as you?
Reaps on January 10, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Should women be allowed in the military?
Itchee Dryback on January 10, 2009 at 10:56 PM
I wonder how many chaplains the services will lose because of this type of policy. That will be a wretched blow to the morale of many of the troops, including my son.
YankeeinCA on January 10, 2009 at 11:09 PM
That seems vague, care to fill in the details? Who was killed..under what circumstances?
Itchee Dryback on January 10, 2009 at 11:12 PM
So military people (85% of whom are never in combat) can be trained to commit their lives to service, to go into harm’s way in many cases, to get spat upon by libs, but can’t follow orders to get along with gays?
And what further proves how ridiculous this policy is: they almost never discharge gays during a war, which is when people need the “morale” that’s supposedly affected the most. They get discharged during times of peace, when they can afford to downsize the ranks.
ashleymatt on January 10, 2009 at 11:44 PM
I can tell you that I’d have a problem with it. Please listen carefully, because I don’t discuss this often.
In combat, every man around you sees everything you do. Everyone pees/takes a dump/masturbates while everyone in the platoon watches because of safety zones or perimeter coverage, etc. If if you’re a woman, would you like a bunch of men watching you do these things all the time? If you’re a man, would you like someone watching your wife/girlfriend/sister/mother whatever do these things?
Not to mention how much it would cost to renovate barracks. You couldn’t have community showers anymore. There still exists many sets of barracks that have community showers. Hell, there are some that I used to stay in over at Ft. Lewis across the street from the airfield that have community showers.
leetpriest on January 10, 2009 at 11:58 PM
wahh, can’t get along with gays!
This makes my point. It’s all THEIR fault. If you don’t want to shower with a guy staring at your wee, YOU are the problem.
I guess all the female military members can’t get along with straight men because they don’t want to shower with them, bunk with them, etc, either.
ashleymatt is the exact kind of thinking that’s going to lead to hundreds of hours of sensitivity training.
factoid, russia doesn’t allow gays to publicly servce in the military, and neither does china. both are nowhere near as free as america, but both have the best militaries outside of us.
This is the question I have for any congressman who wants to force this on us. When can I watch your daughter shower? I promise I’ll turn off my sexual attraction switch before I do.
TTheoLogan on January 11, 2009 at 12:03 AM
I think the comments here bely the issue. Most of these people have no idea what it’s like to serve in the military. I had one liberal friend who wants to overturn the policy that said the reason why women and men don’t take community showers is because a woman could get pregnant….
factoid, ashleymatt, etc. You guys are clueless. You have ridiculous arguments like “the military is strong enough to withstand gays.” We’re tough and strong enough to withstand pink uniforms and beanies with propellers on the top, that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be idiotic and no one wants to wear them.
TTheoLogan on January 11, 2009 at 12:11 AM
leetpriest on January 10, 2009 at 11:58 PM, you aren’t the only one who’d have a problem with it. I was in the Navy. I would not have wanted to share quarters with a person I knew was a homosexual woman. During my training, we had community showers and on the ship we had separated stalls to shower in, but there were no curtains or doors on them. My husband was in the Navy. He would not have wanted to share quarters with an openly homosexual person. During exercises, when there were more people on the boat than normal, it was not uncommon for them (mainly the enlisted) to hot-rack. That is sharing a bunk. One man rolls out and another rolls in. He would not have wanted to share his rack with a homosexual man. He just wouldn’t. Neither would any of the guys he flew with, as far as we know. They do this on submarines as a regular practice, if I’m not mistaken.
One of my brothers-in-law is in the Army Reserve, but has been called up three times in the last 4 years. He once was propositioned by one of his fellow unit members. The guy was nuts and told my brother in law that he loved him and well, he almost got his ass kicked. It wasn’t a good scene. My brother-in-law does not want to share quarters or foxholes with openly homosexual men.
One of my sisters is in the Air Force. She does not want to share quarters with homosexual women when she is on exercises or deployed. Her husband is in the Air Force and he doesn’t want to share quarters with openly homosexual men…need I go on?
The fact is, military personnel tend to be even more conservative than the general public, especially the males. They are the ones that are going to actually be impacted by this. Obama needs to listen to them.
pannw on January 11, 2009 at 12:20 AM
pannw,
Liberals believe everyone is as androgynous and unsure about their sexuality as they are. People like, me, your sister, her husband, etc, all need to be trained on accepting such things. Trust me, the sensitivity training is coming and coming fast.
TTheoLogan on January 11, 2009 at 12:25 AM
I spent 20 years in the Navy and was on five different ships. All the ships I served on were male only. I retired a few years ago. Gays are allowed to serve in the military, they are just asked to keep their sex life to theirself. Why is that a problem? Shouldn’t everyone? It is very close quarters on ships, six people will sleep in an area the size of your bathroom. Then when everyone gets up and dressed at the same time, it is extrememly crowded. Gays kept their lifestyle secret when I was in because they were afraid of have “something come up” in that kind of a situation which would make them a marked man. These were the people who got beat up on shore or ‘had an accident’ on the ship. They were often removed for their own safety. The biggest problem the Navy has with gays is the aggressive nature of the lesbians, and there are a lot of them in the Navy. Most straight navy women told me between 30 and 40 percent. On several occassions, when I taught a “Navy Rights and Responsibilities” class, I would have very young girls, come to me with tears in their eyes saying, I live in a four person room with three bull dyke lesbians and they constantly harass me and come on to me and their all SENIOR to me. If I say anything, they’ll turn it against me and I’ll be the one in trouble because they’ll all lie for each other. This is NOT an uncommon situation in the Navy. The Navy covers up its lesbian problems because of political correctness and they do get away with hell.
One captain told me one time, the Navy works on the “Reverse Yak” theory. When Yaks are threatened by a pack of lions, the females and young will get into the center of the heard and all the big horned bulls will circle them and point their horns out and the lions don’t want any part of that so they eventually go away. In the Navy, we something goes wrong and somebody is going to get in trouble, the seniors throw the young juniors out to take the heat.
Bikerken on January 11, 2009 at 12:44 AM
bikerken,
Sorry, but it sounds like those crying girls need some sensitivity training. It’s obvious they are the problem.
TTheoLogan on January 11, 2009 at 12:52 AM
We had a gay corpsman at Pendleton. This was in the early 80’s. Nobody gave a rat’s @$$. The fact is that gays have been in the military for more than the 20 years since I got out. Anyone who has spent anytime on board a naval vessel in the past 25+ years and did not know someone who was gay is blind or lying.
jdkchem on January 11, 2009 at 1:54 AM
People always pay the price for being passive to perversion.
Just ask Rome, or Sodom, or Gomorrah.
John The Baptist on January 11, 2009 at 2:02 AM
I’m sorry, are you implying that heterosexual soldiers keep their sex life to themselves? Come on, be serious.
Also consider that just because someone gay can openly serve doesn’t mean that they’re going to broadcast their sexuality. Gay soldiers in the UK can openly serve, but they don’t run around advertising it. Homosexual soldiers don’t want to broadcast their sexuality, they just don’t want to hide it. Right now, you can be discharged if the military finds your MySpace page and finds out you’re gay. That’s a witch hunt. That’s what needs to end.
Mark Jaquith on January 11, 2009 at 4:06 AM
God, quit with the shower arguments. It’s a complete canard in 99% of today’s military. Even in boot camp in Perris Island ~ in 1980 ~ we had individual showers. The one and only communal shower I EVER had to use was in a circa 1930’s transient barracks waiting for a squadron at El Toro. Once they tore that sucker down, every last place that would have a shower was either a college style dorm room or a renovated squadron head or the new gym and guess what? They were all built for one person and you could even close the CURTAIN!
I’m thinking maybe it’s a fantasy scenario dreamed up by folks who can use it to indulge naughty visions, like “Hard Core Lesbians’ Loofah!” While acting outraged at the thought, of course.
Before we start those flaming arrows about cred, mine’s 12 1/2 yrs. active duty USMC (And yes, LOTS of lesbians there for YEARS already. Somehow we all survived.) married to major dad who has 30 1/2 yrs. active duty USMC.
The kids today are too worried about a helluva a lot more that Obama might do than this STOOPID thing. And you’re right, Mark Jaquith. This rule is an out for anyone right now. If your enlistment experiment fails, well…be GAY! You get out, no harm no foul. get rid of the stupid thing and the only gays you’ll get are the ones who want to serve just like the rest of us. The drama queens with feather boas and platform heels will not be applying.
tree hugging sister on January 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM
If they are going to do it in 2010, why bring it up now?
KW64 on January 11, 2009 at 10:32 AM
I hate to break this to all the paranoids, but there are already gays and lesbians in the military, they are just forced to lie about it now.
And those of you who are obsessed with a homo not being in your foxhole, what about saying gays can’t serve in combat, just like women can’t? This is a generational issue that’s going to be changed sooner than later, and you’re going to get over it. If your the kind of unstable psycho that’s going to not re-enlist because a gay man might give you cooties, we don’t need you fighting for us.
Are fags sissies or threatening predators? You can’t have it both ways.
ashleymatt on January 11, 2009 at 11:10 AM
“Most of these people have no idea what it’s like to serve in the military.”
That brings up the very interesting point that the people who are the most affected by this, gays and lesbians currently serving, are not ALLOWED to participate in the discussion touting their background and service, for fear that they will be found out and kicked out.
ashleymatt on January 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM
This is always such a mess. Active SSgt USMC here – comments in context…
Homosexuality is a lifestyle that is at increased risk for HIV and AIDS. In the military we are tested annually for AIDS because we have this tendency to get shot or blown up while we’re busting our asses to protect America.
The military’s regulations also demand adherence to traditional and conservative norms – appearance and behavior are two big areas that regulations require us to discard trends. We don’t just cater to lifestyles and cultural trends…it isn’t in our best interests and it hurts morale and mission effectiveness. The case for communal living has already been made so I won’t make it again, but the impact of integrating a small but selective segment of society would be huge.
If they tell me that it is in the best interests of the nation that we integrate homosexuals and they can make a case for it then I’m all ears. If they just tell us that the interests of the nation are secondary compared to the ideal of equal treatment for all supposed ‘classes’ of people then I’m done. What’s next? Child molesters? Rapists? When immorality becomes a protected class I’m moving to Montana.
blankminde on January 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM
I stopped reading your post when you said that you had individual showers in Parris Island…
3rd Bn, “M” Co – Parris Island. Graduated 2001. Our showers were a 10×10 tiled box with heads pointed to the center. We lined up nude after PT and walked around the wall – showering as we walked until we came out the other end of the box. Every base gym I’ve ever used also had open showers. We also stack 3 guys to a room in the barracks pretty commonly, and 2 or more rooms will share one head. If your argument is based entirely on the non-existence of communal bathing in today’s military then I think you’re just wrong.
I personally could care less about bathing around gays, or women for that matter, but this isn’t about me…
blankminde on January 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Women still aren’t permitted to serve in combat arms MOSs in the Marine Corps. War isn’t exactly 2 dimensional so women do occasionally wind up in situations where they come under fire, and women in the Marine Corps have the necessary training to at least be a basic rifleman. Gender equality is a damn lie and allowing political correctness to hobble our military is foolish. That’s what this conversation is all about though isn’t it?
blankminde on January 11, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Ashleymatt, you aren’t even making sense.
I think we can take a lot from what is being said here. People such as ashleymatt are saying things like, “the military is strong enough to handle gays..”
The implication, of course, is that we are weak, or have a PROBLEM if we do not want to handle or deal with homosexuality. This, of course, must be addressed by sensitivity training. Just watch… it’s coming.
It’s completely reasonable that women do not want to have forced intimacy, shower, or be undressed around straight men they do not want to be in such a situation with. In the same way, it’s completely reasonable for men to feel uncomfortable and not be forced to be in forced intimacy with homosexual men. The argument that “sexuality can be controlled” is as idiotic as telling a woman she has to shower with a man, but not to worry, because he turned his sexual attraction switch off.
TTheoLogan on January 11, 2009 at 2:26 PM
ashleymatt, you also seem completely clueless about the DOTD policy. Gays can serve, they can even go to gay parades if they want to and gay bars. What they are prohibited from doing is forcing their sexuality on others IN THE MILITARY and discussing it IN THE MILITARY.
The military also kicks out people for adultery, being overweight, and having about a zillion other issues. The idea that the military is as fair as civilian life is ridiculous.
But you are making my point about “most affected.” You want to please 1% or so of the military to the exclusion of the other 99%. You also seem to repeatedly be ignoring the sensitivity training and zero tolerance implications that I have REPEATEDLY brought up here. The sensitivity training that will occur will be a massive failure because of the inability of those such as yourselves to understand that you’re basically telling people to change their religion, because a large portion of people opposed to homosexuality do so for religious reasons. Of course, china and russia are intolerant toward homosexuals in the military from a utilitarian purpose.
TTheoLogan on January 11, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Additional thought: joining the military isn’t a right. The military excludes fat people, crazy people, drug users, and felons (some flexibility on this lately). I won’t debate the existence of capable homosexual military personnel, but if the military wants to discriminate against people that it thinks would hurt operational effectiveness it reserves that right. This seems like common sense to me.
As far as blacks or women being used as comparisons earlier in this thread, I don’t see the similarity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders v3 listed homosexuality as abnormal sexual behavior and as a dysfunction up until about 1994 when DSM4 was released. The definition has been revised so that it is only dysfunction if you’re unsure or conflicted about your sexuality. Does this mean that the nature of homosexuality has changed or that there has been increasing pressure to normalize aberrant behavior?
My point remains, the military should not be tasked to integrate special classes of people if there is evidence that it could lead to a loss of operational readiness or mission capability. Of course they’re going to do it anyway, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t still make the case against it.
blankminde on January 11, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Actually, it was removed from the DSM as a de facto mental illness in 1973. (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/210).
That bit of trivia aside, we don’t really know what would happen if DADT were repealed.
Some will err on the side of civil rights.
Some will err on the side of national defense.
I remember a late-night discussion about this topic back when Clinton was first elected and I was in the Tennessee Army National Guard. Most everyone in the room hated the DADT policy (which replaced an explicit “no gays” policy), but as the conversation wore on, everyone knew that there were gays in the Army, and this group of east Tennessee “good ole boys” could draw a distinction between those who they could work with and those who they detested.
My hunch is that very little would change. Low-key homosexuals who keep their sexuality to themselves and do good work will be tolerated…as they are today. Obnoxious gays will be on the receiving end of what’s known as a “blanket party,” which I seriously doubt is ANYONE’s idea of a good time.
Abelard on January 11, 2009 at 11:45 PM
That seems like common sense to me as well, as a general principle. The argument being made is that having homosexuals within the ranks does not harm operational effectiveness.
Exactly. It’s rather a self-regulating thing. A homosexual isn’t going to ostracize himself or herself by flaunting their sexuality. They know it will make some people uncomfortable. They’re not looking to rock the boat — they just don’t want to have to be paranoid that one slip in a private letter or one MySpace profile revelation is going to destroy their military carerer.
Mark Jaquith on January 12, 2009 at 9:25 AM
@Mark Jaquith, I agree, gays are ALREADY in the military, and probably even a higher percentage than the general population realizes. Don’t ask Don’t tell acknowledges that there are good soldiers serving now and at the time of that stupid law and that they have NO effect on unit morale. All we are doing is costing the military a lot of valuable recruits that just want to prove themselves to the world and show they have what it takes to be in the military.
All these people who rail on about it destroying operational effectiveness ignore the fact that the situation already exist and that gays have to go to elaborate lengths, lengths that could effect the unit, to safe guard their careers and home life. The Service Members Alliance has story after story of gays and lesbians outed by vindictive people out to settle a grudge or gain a promotion. That’s why I didn’t join I didn’t want my whole career held as hostage to anyone that found out about me.
@TTheoLogan you apparently have no idea how DADT is actually used do you?
Oh and for those who say gays shouldn’t have joined in the first place, we are talking about 18 year olds who don’t always even know that they are gay. Trust me you can delude yourself for a fair amount of time until you wreck your life and those around you trying to be something you can’t be. That’s why it’s important to gays that you can come out as gay and not loose your job or get kicked out of the military. Would you want your daughter to marry a gay guy and after a few kids decide that this really wasn’t working and leave her? Or would you prefer that he not push so hard to try to be “normal” and refrain from doing something that will hurt himself and others?
Zekecorlain on January 12, 2009 at 10:53 AM
I love the term “homophobic.” I always picture Butters from South Park stomping around in his flamboyant little Dr. Chaos outfit, imagining that all of the simple-minded villagers are fleeing from him in a blind panic. When, in reality, the most he can ever manage to do is be an occasional irritant.
logis on January 12, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2