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shows that most active-duty troops oppose repealing the policy — and 10 percent say they’ll refuse to re-enlist if it’s withdrawn.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: 1 2 Next »
Gibbs – turd
notagool on January 10, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Who care?
ctmom on January 10, 2009 at 12:19 PM
In other words, he’s going to further prove that he doesn’t take the military seriously, and looks at it like many on the Left do, as just another place to do social experimenting.
I’ll be interested in reading the milblogs in the coming week to see their discussion on this. In the past, in places such as Blackfive where this has been discussed at length, while there were some who were not so much in favor of this, but simply not really against it (repealing DADT), the vast majority of people did express opposition to it.
So while this may endear him to the Left, it will further alienate him among the military at large in general. Great move.
Michael in MI on January 10, 2009 at 12:20 PM
As odd as It may seem Don’t ask Don’t tell has been used by those who wanted to get out of the military in a dishonest way. Don’t want to defend the USA? tell them you are gay…get it. I’ll be glad to see it go. Lets go back to the days when a known gay or lesbian was not allowed to stay in the service. Instant BCD.
If that is what Obama plans more power too him.
kanda on January 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Shouldn’t representatives from the military be consulted about this?
Does their input even matter to this group?
aquaviva on January 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM
And thus begins Obambi’s destruction of the military. Again. Carter wasn’t enough; Clinton wasn’t enough; this should really kill military morale.
MSgt, USAF (Ret)
rmgraha on January 10, 2009 at 12:24 PM
This will be rescinded in a week after Obarfa gets a bit of heat from the military for it.
The man is the sockiest of windsocks, he will always try to make himself look good and popular rather than sticking to a decision.
Bishop on January 10, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Further proof he hates the military as much as the left does.
Nose hairs in – Pects out
Kini on January 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I would love to know what the rank and file think of this. I hate to say this but the constant bombardment of all that is traditional is wearing me down. I don’t want to join but I am getting tired of fighting.
Cindy Munford on January 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Would it really be so bad? A number of generals have said they’re open to it.
I dunno. Didn’t work for Corporal Klinger.
Tzetzes on January 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Maybe this is signal of all the jobs that Obama says he will create.
Conscription. He’s going to bring back the draft.
How else do you create jobs for 600,000.
Kini on January 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM
It’s not gonna happen. Bubba promised he would allow gays to serve openly, and we got DADT instead…which, for all intents and purposes, seems to be working. It’s a shame tho that if a service member does “come out”, or is “outed” by someone else, they are relieved of duty. Some excellent, patriotic service men and women, about 2,500 a year, are told they are no longer welcome in the military…because they’re “out” now.
In any event, and as a teh ghey, I don’t see how or why the military should be used as a “social experiment”. Whether I agree or disagree with decisions about gays in the service, I would leave any decision making up to the military commanders. The military is there to serve a purpose, and anything…ANYTHING…that might interfere with that purpose should be avoided.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Cindy Munford on January 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Keep fighting the good fight, kiddo. Barry is going to have to govern from close to the center. The American people will not stand for it.
kingsjester on January 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I’s so happy government exists so morons like this can have a job. There seems to me to be two different levels of welfare recipients in this country. One for the common people and another level for left thinking librtards who couldn’t get a real job.
Tommy_G on January 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Thats why they do it repeatedly. To wear us down. Don’t worry. One way or the other the military will tell Obama the facts. He’ll bend. May have to save face like Clintoon did with Don’t ask, Don’t tell but he’ll give in to reality.
kanda on January 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Well then he better get rid of separate showers to. Since there’s apparently no problem with one person showering with someone he is openly sexually attracted to, there’s no good reason why men and women in the military should shower separately.
jimmy the notable on January 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Remember: Klinger stayed in the military to be with the woman he loved.
Tommy_G on January 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Really? I hope you’re right. I am sure I will cheer up when the press finally questions something he does. Or better yet the people. Totally against my nature to hope someone screws up. When the majority of the people think the “stimulus” plan is a good idea it’s hard to believe that anyone is going to say no to him.
Cindy Munford on January 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM
This will make Obama the First Gay President
faraway on January 10, 2009 at 12:40 PM
“…make this transition the most open and transparent…”
*gag* Yeah, right…
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM
When my son was at Navy boot camp he told me about a guy and his “life partner” that joined together and the guys butt buddy was kicked out on a medical. So the other one goes up to the petty officer and declares “I’m Gay” so he would get kicked out too.
conservnut on January 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Are they going to start issuing them pink uniforms and guns then too?
KSgop on January 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM
What , will he now be answering critical questions that journalist are allowed to ask?
the_nile on January 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM
The Gay Ban: Just Plain Un-American.
By: Barry M. Goldwater
Rae on January 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Before Truman’s executive order in 1948 that established a position of racial integration for the military, Gallup reported a majority of white civilians and military personnel opposed integration if it required sharing showers and sleeping quarters with blacks.
Was Truman wrong to have blacks and whites share barracks or were the majority of Americans and military wrong to oppose it?
dedalus on January 10, 2009 at 12:56 PM
OK, so Obama says he’ll rescind DADT. What’s that mean? Will he issue an executive order allowing openly gay people to serve, or do we go back to the pre-DADT days of banning gays from the military?
If it’s the former, is the Obama administration prepared to build out double the barracks space to accommodate everyone? Or will those who object to bunking with an openly gay military member be drummed out of the service?
flipflop on January 10, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Hey, I’m not trying to be sarcastic here. Men and women in the military should shower together. Gays are people just like the rest of us. But if they are openly sexually attracted, as a default, to the people they are showering with, then there’s no good reason why men and women shouldn’t shower together.
Because saying they should shower separately somehow suggests that the way that a man is attracted to a woman is different than the way a man is attracted to a man. If you think men shouldn’t shower with women, for whatever reason, then you should also agree that gay men shouldn’t shower with straight men.
jimmy the notable on January 10, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Soldiers already bunk separately. Only one to a bed.
As other here have said, let the military brass decide. Or, rather, since we’re lucky to live in a country with civilian superiority over the military (unlike, say, Pakistan), let the military brass consider it and make their report. Then let Obama be encouraged to follow their recommendation, whichever way it goes.
Tzetzes on January 10, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Don’t you peop;e understand???? The Libs and Goverment officals know every thing. They know what good and bad for you so don’t question them.
Rick007 on January 10, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Sorry for the typing (broken hand)
Rick007 on January 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I wonder why this is never seen as important.
Dritanian on January 10, 2009 at 1:09 PM
10% – how many troops is that?
All right minded people should learn now
how to use an AR-15 and other weapons.
We will be the last line of defense when the shit hits the fan.
izoneguy on January 10, 2009 at 1:09 PM
The percentages are different. Men and women are usually attracted to each other. In the case of gays, the 97% of straight men in the shower wouldn’t be attracted to other males.
There seldom are provisions in civilian life for gays to use separate locker rooms. Most of us have shared locker rooms and showers with gay people in high school, college or at a fitness club. I’m sure I have, but I never noticed.
dedalus on January 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Interesting.
Dritanian on January 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM
That gives us some hope if we can maintain pressure. Perhaps we can keep things from being as bad as they could be. Then again, one method of applying the pressure is the GOP and they’re known as the stupid party for good reason :/
aikidoka on January 10, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Yeah, men and women are usually attracted to each other — because they are heterosexual. When gays are being admitted into the military with the provision that they can do so openly, and walk around telling everyone they’re gay — that’s what I’m talking about. The straight men will say — “Why does this gay guy get to shower with people he is attracted to, while I have to shower with all of these men?” But then, discrimination against straight men was never considered discrimination.
Again, I have no problem with openly gay people serving in the military. I’m basically a libertarian.
What is the purpose of separating facilities for men and women? I simply don’t understand it, unless it is there to keep people away from each other who are attracted to each other. But allowing openly gay people to serve, it eliminates this. What are they supposed to do, have the gay men shower with the women? Have the lesbians shower with the straight men? It causes a headache of bureaucracy.
Obviously, no sensible bureaucracy (what an oxymoron that is!) will ever rule on the side of the straight male. The only reasonable, fair thing to do, is to have all military members shower together, attractions be damned.
jimmy the notable on January 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM
While dedauls is probably correct that most guys are not going to be attracted to the other guys, the problem is the perception of attraction and “threat”. Without some sort of “re-education” program the men and women of the military are going to still have problems dealing with the preconcieved notions they already hold.
The problem is not, do we think that gay men and women cannot shower/bunk with people they are attracted to, the problem is do we want a guy in an already stressful situation in Iraq worrying about showering with gay guys.
myrenovations on January 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM
And no, these provisions aren’t there in normal daily life, but the military isn’t normal daily life.
jimmy the notable on January 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM
He’s going to be Obama’s press secretary? He seems better than Scott McClellan but he’s reading from a teleprompter and still manages to be bland.
terryannonline on January 10, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Ok, then this jackass can put on his BDUs and go fight his own damn wars.
rplat on January 10, 2009 at 1:30 PM
That’s the tip of the iceburg. Watching guys grab each other’s butts in the movies is funny – but when live weapons are involved, it is less so. Soldiers, of necessity, tend to be far more reality-based than the rest of the world. Pretty much every new PC fantasyland decision Obama makes is going to mean the “final straw” for more and more US soldiers.
Mark my words: re-enlistments were at record levels during the Bush administration – and they will set brand new records during the Obama administration. And the media will universally proclaim this is all caused by “fallout from Bush’s disastrous policies.”
logis on January 10, 2009 at 1:34 PM
lying sack of dung.
Viper1 on January 10, 2009 at 1:35 PM
The only solution is to allow 1 lesbian to shower with one gay man. Every other combination has at least one grouping showering with someone that they would be attracted to.
exhelodrvr on January 10, 2009 at 1:37 PM
I would imagine that many service members already know who is gay, so why is eliminating the DADT even necessary? Under the policy those who keep their private lives private are able to serve.
katiejane on January 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM
The change has to start in Congress… and the UCMJ will have to be changed as well… Then the issue of married gay military members. Does the spouse get a dependent ID? What about the transgendered… would there be a difference between pre-op and post-op?
I was neutral to borderline in favor of allowing openly Gay and Lesbian Americans to serve in the military… Until I started living in field conditions. Now I’m against it.
darkpixel on January 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Beat me to it. That is the logical conclusion. The only other solution would be to have everyone shower alone, and that would be impractical. Of course, it would also raise the possibility of a heterosexual man and woman claiming to be gay and lesbian to gain the privilege of showering together.
backwoods conservative on January 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM
How happy were most troops with integration of races? As Dedalus pointed out above.
And there have always been gays in the military. And around us elsewhere. As noted above.
My problem is that this is clearly different. A guy with the possibility of the hots for me? C’mon. More annoying than blacks and you people know it!
Let us send just a few guys to live with the women. Same uncomfort for some. And I know volunteers.
The worst part is this constant eroding of organized operations and normal behavior to kowtow to every weirdo with even the least relevant complaint.
I think The One is bisexual. Helps him cope with the thing that passes for a First Lady.
IlikedAUH2O on January 10, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Do it and morale, retention, and recruiting will be negatively affected. How long after being allowed to serve openly will the homosexual men be complaining they can’t wear make up and ear rings like he women can. How long before the drag queens will want to wear a dress the the birthday ball instead of his uniform? What about HIV positive, I don’t have the numbers but homosexual men lead in that category right? Right now an active duty person who is HIV positive is allowed to stay in the military, but they are assigned to non-deployable units. Which right now is fine, I feel for those people because I’m sure a lot of them got it through blood transfusions, straight consensual sex, or unfaithful partners while they were deployed. How far can those numbers climb before they reach a breaking point? Only the straight healthy people get to deploy into harm’s way while the gay sick one’s get to draw the same paycheck and stay out home dressing up as Snow White with her 7 freaky friends…..
Hog Wild on January 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Ask Bill Clinton how well light sneakers and troops mix.
Wade on January 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM
The nation and everything that is good must be destroyed by these moronic libs. It is one thing when these little nations crumble,, but when the US crumbles, so goes western civilization.
This is like Rome crumbling. When the US collapses, the EU will follow. Europe is nothing without the US. They are nothing. They have no army. They have no economy.
Never ever thought I would see something like this in my life.
Never.
JellyToast on January 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM
With all due respect to the troops…it doesn’t matter what they think. They follow orders, like ‘em or not.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 1:51 PM
God, this is just screaming for a complicated bureaucratic solution.
This of course means that the military has to start giving advantages to lesbians for enlisting, because they can’t afford to have gay men showering alone, or they’ll get sued for something. The gays will accuse them of trying to separate them. There’s no way as many lesbians will naturally enlist as gays, so they’ll have to really give them some great advantages.
Wow, I really never understood how the moronic “well-meaning” socialist mind worked until now.
jimmy the notable on January 10, 2009 at 1:52 PM
On the “annoying blacks” comment above, I meant annoying to whites in 1940.
Although they did go for The One and the talk about that was annoying to me….
And for your info, I support the Red Tail Tuskeegee Airmen and their work for restoring a P-51. Send some money and you get cool stuff like a signed booklet and cool hat.
Not that I have ever been a warrior.
IlikedAUH2O on January 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Is “showering” really the most important part of this issue? Just sayin’…
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM
No, obviously not. But it is the common “example” given whenever the subject gays in the military is brought up. If you can solve the “shower” problem, then that’s about as far as most people give a crap.
Hell, there are sociopaths in the military who have literally murdered Iraqis. I’m not saying they occur in the same numbers as gays, but the fact that a homosexual wants to enlist, for me, is enough to ensure I don’t have a problem with him.
This is all just semantics. I’m just having a discussion.
jimmy the notable on January 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM
I know I’ll get some heat from this board, but I back Obama on this one. Gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. It’s frankly sad to me that this sort of discrimination is still prevalent in today’s society.
But I also support gay marriage(provided it’s approved by voters and not forced on us by activist judges), so I guess I lean toward the blue side on these issues.
Doughboy on January 10, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Only if they stay in the military.
a capella on January 10, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Are they going to start making women sign up for Selective Service too? No? Apparently only some areas deserve “equality” and not others.
KSgop on January 10, 2009 at 2:13 PM
I am Ok with gay civil unions, also.
We need:
Separate shower times.
No needle sharing. No bleeding together.
And wait for the ACLU if there is any separation or differing treatment.
And some units get awful lonely. Very lonely. That should be interesting.
IlikedAUH2O on January 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Here is a discussion of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell over at the milblog Blackfive from last January.
Michael in MI on January 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Even IF that “10%” number is close to being accurate, if someone wants to not re-enlist based on gays serving, I say “Thanks for your service…don’t let the door hit ya…”
Again, this is an issue for the military to decide on, not the POTUS, not Congress, not by popular vote either.
There’s an old saying: “There are no atheists in foxholes”…well, there are no gays or straights there either. These guys willingly give their lives to protect each other. I would highly doubt that any of them would make “gay” or “straight” a prerequisite for that.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Short answer- no.
cs89 on January 10, 2009 at 2:19 PM
“Spartans were all gay” false comment in 5….4….3…2….1
MNDavenotPC on January 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM
(Answering “input” question, in case I was unclear).
cs89 on January 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM
whew…I was about to argue with ya. :-)
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Even IF that “10%” number is close to being accurate, if someone wants to not re-enlist based on gays serving, I say “Thanks for your service…don’t let the door hit ya…”
Well, one could say the same thing for homosexuals. I doubt they make up anything close to 10 percent of the population and if they don’t want to enlist, because they have to abide by “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, well then, “don’t let the door hit ya…” on the way out of the recruitment office.
True, but the homosexual activists do not see it that way. If the military decided to adopt “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as its policy, there is no way the homosexual activists would let it go and take on your attitude about it. As it is now, the activists demonize the military when they have no control over it. Banning ROTC on campuses and protesting them and such. When, in fact, all this time, the military has nothing to do with DADT, because it was Congress and President Clinton which enacted the policy. But have the homosexual activist demonized Clinton and Congress? No. They went after the military. That doesn’t make me sympathetic to their cause in the least, whether I agree with it or not.
Michael in MI on January 10, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Because of nudity? Should we not have male gynecologists or require paramedics and ER doctors only attend to people of the same gender, unless they are gay then reverse it?
dedalus on January 10, 2009 at 2:31 PM
war is no place for sex…
Kaptain Amerika on January 10, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I think this is more an issue (fear) of behavor than identity.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Tell that to the men and women at Anaconda
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 2:36 PM
You really need to stop associating gays with the gay activist groups. It’s like saying all Democrats voted for Obama. Or all Republicans are Evangelicals.
As for ROTC being banned on some campus’s, that’s not gays doing that, it’s the lefty liberal elitists. Remember, not all gays are libs either.
You need to start seeing gays as individuals.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Well, if they institute co-ed showers, we would see the recruitment rate skyrocket. Maybe the GOP should advocate for that?
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM
My bet is that the liberals would just find some other excuse to ban ROTC.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2009 at 2:42 PM
You’re missing the point. The universities are banning ROTC because of the DADT issue. When that is a ridiculous policy, because homosexual activists should be punishing the government, not the military.
And when I put “homosexual activists”, I’m talking about activists for homosexual issues (it’s just easier to type homosexual activists, because it’s shorter, but obviously makes it open to be interpreted incorrectly, sorry).
Michael in MI on January 10, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Interesting comment left at the Blackfive thread I posted earlier, by a NAVY SEAL:
Maybe Special Forces could adjust to this policy change, I mean Jimbo was there for like 20 years, but having openly gay dudes will not fly in BUD/S or the Teams. Hazing is bad enough as it is, f@g hazing would be… ugly. I once had to hug up on a dude in soaking wet greens pissing all over ourselves to try to keep warm enough to continue training. If I knew that guy was qu33r, that experience would have been even worse than it already was. In SERE school we basically slept on the ground in a freakin’ dogpile to stay warm. I’d hate to feel wood on my back when I’m spooning for warmth. Sorry, jus’ keepin’ it real yo
Michael in MI on January 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM
While that might be true in places like San Fran, I think DADT is being used as an excuse. Obviously, most big universities are run by liberals. They don’t like ROTC because of the military. And they see the military as “occupiers” and “baby killers”…those are, at least as I see it, the “Real” reasons behind banning ROTC.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 3:04 PM
As a 15-year Air Force NCO, my GAYDAR pings almost every single day. There are homosexuals in our military, and the repealment of the policy will not mean much at all. What does it mean if it is repealed? Does it mean recruiters can ask if someone is gay? Will they deny recruitment to homosexuals?
Will they say “gay is ok?”
The Air Force already plans to increase the AF numbers by 4000 in 2009. What are they going to do, start recruiting at Judy Garland conventions?
Bottom line, I have less than five years to go before I’m retired from service. If gays are allowed to serve openly, I could care less. Do I think it diminishes the environment? Who can say? I will say there will probably be a lot of sexual harrassment suits raised in boot camp as a result of “gang shower” time.
“he was meat gazing on me. I’m offended.”
I don’t know if the Department of Defense is prepared for this scandal: “Drill Sergeant apprehends entire platoon after walking in on gay orgy.”
Gives new meaning to “Drill Pad”.
Okay, I’ve resorted to jokes. It’s time to end this post. What can I say? Gheys are funny.
Black Adam on January 10, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Heh, another good comment at Blackfive:
Michael in MI on January 10, 2009 at 3:08 PM
You’re probably right. One of the comments over at Blackfive said that the 2 benefits of repealing the policy would mean the activists for homosexual policies in the Ivy League would now no longer be able to keep up their *stated* reason for denying ROTC on campus and it would make the Phelps’ family’s heads explode. heh
Michael in MI on January 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Now THAT I would like to see! ;-)
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 3:14 PM
dedalus
You were OK earlier and now you are getting absurd.
To wit:
Because of nudity? Should we not have male gynecologists or require paramedics and ER doctors only attend to people of the same gender, unless they are gay then reverse it?
If you can’t tell the difference between an exam (where nurses or a second professional are now increasingly the rule) and running around in survival mode and LIVING with another person under physically intimate and fraternal circumstances that most people never experience, all I can say is you must have very interesting medical exams and people in your neck of the woods.
IlikedAUH2O on January 10, 2009 at 3:15 PM
I lasted until about 1:00. What a bunch of crap!
“That’s a great question. Now, here’s our campaign talking points.”
PattyJ on January 10, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Why not have a pink brigade where gays can openly serve in a 100% gay unit?
I’m not kidding, it could work. Homosexuality is a behavior (I say it’s a vice IF practiced).
This could lead to very cohesive combat units.
To the military people here, could that work?
Sapwolf on January 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM
I agree there is a difference. A gynecology exam is quite intrusive, but is desexualized because the two individuals have non-sexual priorities.
Seeing someone naked doesn’t, by itself, occasion sexual opportunity. A man might frequently see a female colleague in a bikini (and find her attractive) but if he knows his sexual attraction is not welcomed then he’ll eventually ignore it.
dedalus on January 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Hmmmm…. seen the Elephant?
Been to the field?
Ever had to sleep in a foxhole with someone you did not trust?
I have… ANYTHING that degrades trust and unit cohesion, especialy somthing introduced from the outside, can get people killed.
Sex has no place on the battlefield. Study after study shows that as Stress increases, so does the sex drive. I’ve been on ships deployed with all male crews, and with mixed crews, and as soon as Sex became an issue, it created a lot of issues which did not help with unit cohesion.
Allowing Gays to serve openly will bring that same problem into frontline combatant units.
And I find your attitude amusing… Civilians have freedom of choice, and civil rights, and can demand equal treatment… but the military just has to shut up and take orders?
Just like in the Carter administration, the military will vote with their feet, and at a time of war, thats NOT a good thing…
Romeo13 on January 10, 2009 at 3:35 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 January 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Agreed.
Apparently you missed my entire point here…that the military, and only the military, should decide on this issue.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM
His prediction that DADT would “undermine our readiness” did not come true and thus immediately undermines Goldwater’s argument.
Secondly, suggestions that Caesar himself engaged in homosexual relationships were vehemently denied by Caesar himself, so that is hardly a recommendation. Moreover, Caesar used slaves in his military. Should we emulate that tactic? How about torture? The use of elephants? It’s a silly argument.
As for other oft-cited historical examples of gays in the military, such as Sparta, the publicly acknowledged homosexuality that did exist was either platonic, or elitist pederasty, hardly examples that argue to get rid of DODT.
In the 4th century BC, The Ancient Greeks did have a military division which was exclusively homosexual, so I suppose one could argue for that, although I doubt it would get much public approval.
Generally, its seems absurd to use ancient examples which predate Christianity and Western Civilization as we know it as guidance for how we should conduct ourselves today on social issues.
Buy Danish on January 10, 2009 at 3:46 PM
I’m for letting the military write its own rules on this.
Count to 10 on January 10, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Vivez! Mes amis je suis enchante
You have one life let it be gay!
Shouldn’t one do as one’s told to?
No! Let the moment enfold you!
Grab up your one golden chance
Life is such romance!
Give this world a sweeping glance,
Let it set your soul a-dancing night and day
PercyB on January 10, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Dedalus is the typical know nothing person that has no understanding of the military and just wants to create a big social experiment out of it.
Let me give you a real life scenario that happened to me less than one week ago(I’m in the military).
We had to do a urinalysis the other day(pee test, for people like dedalus who don’t understand the military), and I had a guy watch me groin the entire time I peed. MILITARY LIFE IS NOT LIKE CIVILIAN LIFE, PERIOD.
What ever pejorative libs like dedalus want to throw my way, I’m not ever going to feel comfortable with some homosexual, who cannot turn off sexual attraction no more than I could with women, checking me out.
Sexual attraction is not a switch you can turn on and off. Get over it.
FWIW, I’m one of the 10%. Have fun taking my place, dedalus. If you want to make the military a social experiment, go defend your own self.
TTheoLogan on January 10, 2009 at 4:04 PM
By the way, for those who stay in, better get ready for “sensitivity training,” retribution for public statements under “zero tolerance policy”, etc.
I said it before and I’ll say it again. The american people gave the military a big middle finger on November 4.
TTheoLogan on January 10, 2009 at 4:10 PM
The horror…
They make movies about that Patton fellow, and stories like this go untold…
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM
You are jumping to a conclusion. I haven’t made a case that gays should serve openly in the military, rather I’m skeptical that individuals are incapable of controlling sexual behavior in showers or living quarters.
Truman made the military a social experiment significantly ahead of societal norms of 1948. Was he wrong to do that? Were the military personnel who opposed him right or wrong?
dedalus on January 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM
We are so screwed.
Freaking thanks America.
hawkdriver on January 10, 2009 at 4:31 PM
I’m not jumping to any conclusion. You’re pushing the tired old argument that homosexuality is just like race, or by legal terms, an immutable characteristic.
You are making my point for me, that you have no understanding of the military. They’re there to fight and win wars, not to be lab rats to test whether or not joe gay guy from san fran can control his sexual urges.
Many people oppose homosexuality because of biblical reasons, because they are christians. This has been the same reason they’ve opposed it for over 2,000 years(before that, the jews opposed it because of the torah, etc). Many societies have accepted and promoted homosexuality throughout history(japanese, greeks, romans, spartants, to name a few). Judeo-Christianity has always opposed it and will always oppose it. You’re belying a pretty extensive ignorance of history to try to act like this is anything new.
TTheoLogan on January 10, 2009 at 4:32 PM
By the way, I’m sure I could control my “sexual urges.” How many women in the military who don’t know me will now let me shower with them, watch them dress and undress, and watch them take a urinalysis?
How close-minded they are!
TTheoLogan on January 10, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »