CNN poll: 69% support letting gays serve openly in military — including 62% of Republicans

posted at 9:37 pm on February 22, 2010 by Allahpundit

There’s been a majority in favor of it since 1998 but the split at the time was 52/39. Now it’s 69/27, with Republicans and indies both above 60 percent. A fitting exclamation point to a week that saw conservatives hold the gay-friendliest CPAC evah.

Support for allowing gays in the military is much higher among Democrats than Republicans, but the policy wins support from a majority of Republicans as well. More than eight in ten Democrats say that gays should be allowed to serve; 62 of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents agree with that view.

The poll’s release follows Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut announcement Monday that he would be a sponsor of legislation next week to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which has been in place since 1993…

In 1994, a majority of Americans thought homosexual relationships were morally wrong; only 41 percent believed that homosexuality was not a moral issue. Now, for the first time since polls began asking this question in the 1970s, half the public thinks that homosexuality is not a moral issue.

The split on that last point is 48/50 between is/isn’t, but that trend will likely skew towards the latter over the next few years too. (Interesting footnote: In 1998, it was 48/45, so the “is” faction is holding steady thus far.) For all the blather about liberal realignment after The One was elected, I think gay issues is one area where it might actually happen — ironically because Obama’s economic agenda is so alarming to conservatives that it’s forced them to reprioritize fiscal responsibility as their organizing principle. Abortion will remain a fault line eternally because it’s a matter of life and death, but the libertarian impulse inside the GOP will continue to make inroads vis-a-vis gays. There’s nothing like aggressive statism to concentrate the mind on what’s most important.

Here’s Petraeus on Meet the Press this Sunday playing coy about his own opinion of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He does say he supports the moves taken by Gates and Mullen but seems to want to go slow and let the Pentagon carry out a full review. (See this NYT story for a counterargument.) Given the numbers in CNN’s poll, I’m not sure how politically viable the review will be if it concludes we should stick with the policy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 4 5 6

Why do we as a society have separate bathrooms, locker rooms, etc for the different sexes? Following in this line of thought, why should the military force EVERYONE that signs on the dotted line to share this much of their private areas with people who want to have sex with them?

I have nothing at all against gays but this is a serious question that I’ve yet to hear answered by any liberal/progressive/obamabot/whatever they’re calling themselves.

Do straight people have any recourse in the matter? Isn’t this a violation of their privacy?

Is the answer to have “gay” barracks? I shudder to imagine where that would lead (clean barracks, well decorated, etc.)

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 1:44 PM

echosyst on February 23, 2010 at 1:38 PM

The rules and regulations with regards to relationships and harassment already exists, it has existed since the service was opened up to Women (another bit of Social Engineering) and women serve in some combatant positions such as combat aviation squadrons, MPs et al. They strongly discourage it. They even have it at West Point and they will kick cadets out if they violate relationship rules.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Calls ‘em like I sees ‘em Geek. And you know very well what “fundamentalist Christian” means.

dakine on February 23, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Which I take to mean you really don’t care if you get the results you claim to want so long as you get to make yourself feel better by playing “throw nasty names at the bigot.” Super good.

And no, I don’t know what “fundamentalist Christian” means to you beyond “Christian with views I don’t happen to like.” Which is what it seems to mean to every secular person that uses the term without any real care.

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Gotta hand it to the social phenomenon that is the gay movement. Sure, sure, there’s is no such thing as a “gay agenda” and all that, but give the folks props for completely turning around public sentiment in 15 or so years. It’s really quite beautiful in an Alinsky kind of way. Change the terms, change the words, prevail upon winning stereotypes, and marginalize the detractors. Next thing you know, an entire crowd of conservatives boo you for bristling at it. Pretty amazing!

Can’t help but wonder what’s next. Seriously, the sand’s are shifting, we’re evolving. We might as well take a long hard look at other once-called aberrant behaviors. The odds are very high we’re wrong about many others.

somewhatconcerned on February 23, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Why do we as a society have separate bathrooms, locker rooms, etc for the different sexes?

Different genitalia.

why should the military force EVERYONE that signs on the dotted line to share this much of their private areas with people who want to have sex with them?

Why do you assume that a gay person wants to have sex with everyone in the military?

Is the answer to have “gay” barracks?

No. The answer is no sex in the barracks.

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 1:51 PM

This is not at all like allowing women to serve. Women have their own showers and facilities.
The rights of straight men not be put in a situation repugnant to them exists.
Military Times polls of actual people serving has the opposition to gays “serving openly” at an all time high.
And this sad attempt to make it seem gays are more accepted now than ever is very transparent when gay marriage is being continually shot down in states that are known for being the most liberal.
You can’t make people beleive something just by convincing them that others widely support it, so they should too.

LeeSeneca on February 23, 2010 at 1:55 PM

bristling at it

Why the “bristlling”? That’s what I don’t understand.

Grow Fins on February 23, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Why do we as a society have separate bathrooms, locker rooms, etc for the different sexes? Following in this line of thought, why should the military force EVERYONE that signs on the dotted line to share this much of their private areas with people who want to have sex with them?

I have nothing at all against gays but this is a serious question that I’ve yet to hear answered by any liberal/progressive/obamabot/whatever they’re calling themselves.

Do straight people have any recourse in the matter? Isn’t this a violation of their privacy?

Is the answer to have “gay” barracks? I shudder to imagine where that would lead (clean barracks, well decorated, etc.)

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 1:44 PM

First of all, get real. Battlefield conditions don’t permit a lot of privacy. Strangely enough, it’s not a priority, what with people SHOOTING AT YOU and all. If you’re so worried about someone glancing at your bum in an appreciative fashion that it interferes with your basic survival training A) are you freaking crazy or B) are you just a moron?

Second, it may shock you to note that gay people are not entirely composed of sex crazed fiends willing to sleep with everyone that moves so long as they share a similar chromosomal structure. Believe it or not, the Folsom Street Fair is no more representative of gays than any comparable hetero festival is of straights. I’d list some but I’ve only got so much time in a day.

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM

My thinking has evolved since my time long ago in warships. Since oars are out of fashion, raw testosterone is less important.
I don’t care if you eat tacos or lick hot dogs at home — show up and do the work needed.
No worries, mate.

NaCly dog on February 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Why do we as a society have separate bathrooms, locker rooms, etc for the different sexes?

Let’s just give some special attention to this, shall we? First off, men are physically stronger than women. Therefore, putting them both in an enclosed, unmonitored space where people are often in various states of undress is a demonstrably stupid idea. That’s why.

It’s not about being around people who could, potentially, be attracted to you. It’s about the potential for rape.

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 23, 2010 at 2:00 PM

The true test comes when 2 gay men have a relationship within a unit. Depending on the chain of command in that unit it could be a major problem. Even if favoritism is not going on, the perception will be that there is. I am still not clear on why people have to announce their sexuality in a military setting.

echosyst on February 23, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Do you have any idea how much straight sex is going on between soldiers now? Your argument against gay relationships is really an argument against sexual relationships of any kind between soldiers, which is impossible when young men and young women are in close proximity. For your logic to be consistent, you would have to argue for segregation of the sexes. And that is not happening, because that ship has already sailed.

And why do you automatically assume a perception of favoritism in any relationship? Relationships with anyone in the chain of command or any position of influence are strictly forbidden. This would not change.

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Most people don’t know their ass from their elbow, and at best can assess the current mood and fad.

JiangxiDad on February 23, 2010 at 10:51 AM

I agree with this assessment, and I have heard many a moronic argument for gay rights and I’ve even played the devil’s advocates with the morons. But our awesome stupidity is not the issue, the issue is a good argument against the normalization of gay people. We have a secular government, and so religious arguments against homosexuality are irrelevant. I have never seen a shred of a evidence based rational, secular argument against the normalization of gay people in our society. I’m even going to admit here that concerns about gay sexual harassment in close quarters in the military is a reasonable point, though one can disagrre with it. Since you are smart, JiangxiDad, why don’t you provide a good secular argument against the normalization of gay people?

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Since you are smart, JiangxiDad, why don’t you provide a good secular argument against the normalization of gay people?

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 2:03 PM

It isn’t normal. I think the fact that it needs to be normalized pretty much proves that point.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 2:09 PM

It isn’t normal. I think the fact that it needs to be normalized pretty much proves that point.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Why isn’t it normal? And wanting it normalized deals with society, not nature.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Second, it may shock you to note that gay people are not entirely composed of sex crazed fiends willing to sleep with everyone that moves so long as they share a similar chromosomal structure. Believe it or not, the Folsom Street Fair is no more representative of gays than any comparable hetero festival is of straights. I’d list some but I’ve only got so much time in a day.

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Except for Catholic priest right Geek?

Strangely enough, it’s not a priority, what with people SHOOTING AT YOU and all. If you’re so worried about someone glancing at your bum in an appreciative fashion that it interferes with your basic survival training A) are you freaking crazy or B) are you just a moron?

Psst…Many hours spent in the service are while you’re NOT being shot at. This is taking into account all of the military personnel including those in the rear (no pun intended) with the gear and those in any of the MANY deployment areas where there is no shooting going on. This is in no way taking away from the heroes on the front lines who deserve our thanks.

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Is the answer to have “gay” barracks? I shudder to imagine where that would lead (clean barracks, well decorated, etc.)

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 1:44 PM

LOL! I busted a gut on that last line, the key to any punchline is the catching the audience with unexpected. Well done.

Your points IMHO are all very valid, being a veteran I recognized these as well. The potential is rife for sexual harassment suits of those that are forced to co-mingle, not to mention discrimination suits by those not allowed to. Either way a double standard would have to exist, thers is just no way around it.

That said, we have gaping holes (pardon the pun) that are left unfilled at a time of considerable shortage of boots on the ground, particularly in combat MOS’s. Plus it seems to me there are some constitutional issues involved, but not as much as the Lib’s portray. Typewriters and Hummvees do not have any rights, and most civilians would be shocked to find that soldiers according to UCMJ are “equipment”. I buddy of man broke his leg skiing the weekend before a scheduled major overseas exercise and was charged with n”damaging gov’t property, and found guilty.

In the military what is taken for granted as rights in the world, are priviledeges in uniform. You are allowed to be hetero-sexual, you do not have a right to be.

This is why Gates and others have intimated that this is going to take time to assess and implement, lots of it. The time has come that we address these issues forthrightly, after the tempo of engagement resumes more normal levels. But not now as there are other priorities and no matter which way the wind blows litigation will blossom by civilian or military means and we can’t afford to tie up personel in depositions and giving testimony under the current force strains.

Archimedes on February 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Except for Catholic priest right Geek?

That’s badly out of line. Shame on you. It’s also stupid; that’s not a representative sample and even and idiot ought to be able to grasp that fact.

Psst…Many hours spent in the service are while you’re NOT being shot at. This is taking into account all of the military personnel including those in the rear (no pun intended) with the gear and those in any of the MANY deployment areas where there is no shooting going on. This is in no way taking away from the heroes on the front lines who deserve our thanks.

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Right. So our guys in no real danger might get in trouble for harassment, at which point it will be dealt with. Unless you’d like to argue that gays will attempt to rape people at every opportunity because they’re all like … Catholic priests, I guess?

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM

UnrepentantGeek…You do make a good argument for allowing gays to serve in the military in Detroit though…

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM

TheUnrepentantGeek I just like to throw the “Catholic Priest” thing out there when debating these types of things. It makes liberal’s heads spin……

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Why isn’t it normal? And wanting it normalized deals with society, not nature.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM

What definition would you like? It’s not natural. Not Standard. Not the average. Not common or regular. Not normal.
Again, if it were it would not need normalization otherwise.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM

bristling at it

Why the “bristlling”? That’s what I don’t understand.

Can’t speak for Mr. Sorba himself, but hey – if he wants to participate in the discussion he’s got to change his tactics. Being gay means to be in an increasingly criticism-proof crowd.

Oh wait, you don’t think that aspect of being gay is “decent” behavior? That’s too graphic? Not ready for prime time? Sorry, not today. When you embrace one part, you gotta welcome the whole thing. Including gays in the military.

somewhatconcerned on February 23, 2010 at 2:24 PM

There are four Service Chiefs who are charged with training and equipping the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines…Once trained combat units are turned over to combatant commanders around the world…These are the folks who need to make this decision. All the chatter on these blogs, on television, and in Washington doesn’t amount to a pile of rubber dog$hit…One final thought, if it does not add to the mission which is winning America’s battles, it is deadweight…The troops have got enough going on as it is…

Nozzle on February 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM

What definition would you like? It’s not natural. Not Standard. Not the average. Not common or regular. Not normal.
Again, if it were it would not need normalization otherwise.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Obviously, Rocks is not going to provide a good, secular argument in favor of treating gay people less well than other people. (Hint, retard[*]: red heads, left handed people, twins have been treated poorly in the past.) But surely our wise JiangxiDad will come up with a good argument that we can debate!

[*]Word used deliberately, but it’s really another argument than this one.

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Squid Shark on February 23, 2010 at 9:18 AM

I’m sorry Squid Shark, but the Navy doesnt know much warfighting much less morale and discipline…Haven’t since Zumwalt. Have a nice day!

Nozzle on February 23, 2010 at 2:37 PM

TheUnrepentantGeek I just like to throw the “Catholic Priest” thing out there when debating these types of things. It makes liberal’s heads spin……

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Or, ya know, Catholics. And it’s not like we know any Conservative Catholics, right?

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 23, 2010 at 2:40 PM

What definition would you like? It’s not natural. Not Standard. Not the average. Not common or regular. Not normal.
Again, if it were it would not need normalization otherwise.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM

A lot of religions are not normal, but the Constitution put them first in the Bill of Rights because “all men are created equal”, not just the regular or common ones.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 2:40 PM

AnninCA on February 23, 2010 at 11:49 AM

You know Ann, sometimes I actually think you mean well when you post here, but you are waaaaayyyyy off the mark here. Have you ever talked to active duty or retired military specifically about this? I do every day. They are content with DADT and do not want it repealed. I have heard many who are adamant they will not re-enlist if it is repealed. It’s NOT about what we as civilians feel, but the people who are putting their lives on the line so we can enjoy the freedoms we currently have.

margategop517 on February 23, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Obviously, Rocks is not going to provide a good, secular argument in favor of treating gay people less well than other people. (Hint, retard[*]: red heads, left handed people, twins have been treated poorly in the past.)

The Shifting Sands. It’s not normalization any more but treating less well. Somehow I don’t think Gays are shooting for being treated a little better. There’s a difference between your examples and this argument though. All those things are natural.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM

I saw what the Navy did in the 1990s, Clinton years…They force fed women and ethnic minorities into the Aviation pipeline. It was well known that if you were female or black, you would get your wings unless you proved a threat to yourself and everyone else…I’m sorry, that bar is too damn low for flying jets and helicopters in a Naval environment. Many of these folks were later sent home from ships because they were a danger to themselves and everyone else…Forget about completing the warfighting mission, these people could barely take-off and land. So much for jamming an entitlement class down the throats of the military. Furthermore, there were crashes, deaths, and lawsuits in addition to the loss of combat effectiveness…Take your entitelment classes and shove them up Obama’s ass…He’s not qualified to make a decision regarding morale and discipline of the armed forces…

Nozzle on February 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM

What definition would you like? It’s not natural. Not Standard. Not the average. Not common or regular. Not normal.
Again, if it were it would not need normalization otherwise.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Actually it is natural. Homosexuality has been observed in various animals including high order primates, including lesb!anism.

Moreover, if you look at human history, the prohibitions against it was a minority opinion and shrugging at it was the norm. The cultural support of it was also a minority opinion, hence the only example of nations, cultures or civilizations that allowed gay marriage were a few American Indian tribes.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 2:53 PM

TheUnrepentantGeek I just like to throw the “Catholic Priest” thing out there when debating these types of things. It makes liberal’s heads spin……

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Or, ya know, Catholics. And it’s not like we know any Conservative Catholics, right?

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 23, 2010 at 2:40 PM

I really think gays and liberals have a bigger problem with equating gay men with the priest scandal than do Catholics. It flies in the face of their “gay men are all wonderful parents” line.

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM

the only example of nations, cultures or civilizations that allowed gay marriage were a few American Indian tribes.

So it’s already an American tradition.

aengus on February 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Obviously, Rocks is not going to provide a good, secular argument in favor of treating gay people less well than other people. (Hint, retard[*]: red heads, left handed people, twins have been treated poorly in the past.) But surely our wise JiangxiDad will come up with a good argument that we can debate!

[*]Word used deliberately, but it’s really another argument than this one.

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Actually, I’d much prefer an argument that explains why any identity politics have a place within the conservative movement, per the sentiment that suggests there is no mutual exclusion of gay policy and conservative values. If the whole point of your argument is new social acceptance predicated on past victim status, what has that got to do with any pillar of conservative ideology? Since when has rights ascendancy been a function of conservatism?

Treating someone poorly based on their appearance or identity is vile, but giving them special rights or flagellating ourselves over their past victim status is the road to liberal demagoguery.

somewhatconcerned on February 23, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I really think gays and liberals have a bigger problem with equating gay men with the priest scandal than do Catholics. It flies in the face of their “gay men are all wonderful parents” line.

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM

In America you get to attempt to be a parent no matter how unfit you are. It is an issue far beyond gay rights.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 2:59 PM

A lot of religions are not normal, but the Constitution put them first in the Bill of Rights because “all men are created equal”, not just the regular or common ones.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Shift…shift…shift…..
Why is this being done?
If it a question of an individual’s right that is one thing. But realize rights are a whole different matter when it comes to the military.
If it’s solely a question of an effort to use the government as a hammer to force the normalization of something then clearly the answer is don’t do it. It’s not the governments job to make the abnormal normal and it isn’t really even possible.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM

So it’s already an American tradition.

aengus on February 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM

But only American Indians can participate in that tradition.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM

The Shifting Sands. It’s not normalization any more but treating less well. Somehow I don’t think Gays are shooting for being treated a little better. There’s a difference between your examples and this argument though. All those things are natural.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM

By normalization. I meant stop treating gays less well than anyone else. I see no sand shifting.
But if we are going to argue what’s natural you may wish to read up on homosexuality in nature. Homosexuality is everywhere there is sexual behavior. (A botanist once told some plants are homosexual, but I’m not sure how that works and plants don’t have behavior anyway.)

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Actually it is natural. Homosexuality has been observed in various animals including high order primates, including lesb!anism.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Situational examples shouldn’t be used to determine what’s natural. People will drink urine if they are thirsty enough but it doesn’t make it natural. I don’t know what the human history has to do with nature.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:10 PM

If it a question of an individual’s right that is one thing. But realize rights are a whole different matter when it comes to the military.
Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Agree that the military can and should limit rights. SCOTUS has ruled on this with regard to the military and religious freedom. The military should have more leeway than municipal governments.

As far as normal, Americans are supposed to value individuality and freedom. Rights shouldn’t be tied to belonging to the herd.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 3:12 PM

I really think gays and liberals have a bigger problem with equating gay men with the priest scandal than do Catholics. It flies in the face of their “gay men are all wonderful parents” line.

Wine_N_Dine on February 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM

If gays aren’t better parents than heterosexuals, I would argue that it would show something wrong with gays. Gay parents are typically those gay people who really desire children and want to do their best for them. Too many heterosexual parents are teenage girls too stupid to remain virgin before high school graduation or to use birth control.

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 3:12 PM

why should the military force EVERYONE that signs on the dotted line to share this much of their private areas with people who want to have sex with them?

Why do you assume that a gay person wants to have sex with everyone in the military?

That is about it. Couple it with the fact that the feeling is rarely mutual even if they did.

So, at worst, the straight man must suffer *oh no* some dude sneaking a peek at his sausage.

Squid Shark on February 23, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Homosexuality is everywhere there is sexual behavior.

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM

So is rape. Is rape natural then? I’ve read up on it.
They have been pounding this in science for years looking for anything. Not there. Homosexuality isn’t natural and it isn’t genetic.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Homosexuality isn’t natural and it isn’t genetic.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Love, a basis for marriage, might not be genetic either–at least scientists haven’t isolated the gene. There are many behaviors and rights that we value which aren’t wired into our genetic code. In fact our humanity is, in many ways, based on ability to get beyond our genes.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Treating someone poorly based on their appearance or identity is vile, but giving them special rights or flagellating ourselves over their past victim status is the road to liberal demagoguery.

somewhatconcerned on February 23, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I strongly oppose special rights for gays. I oppose hate-crime laws. And I’m always making the point that once gay marriage/civil union is the law that gay groups should disband. However, I don’t think the specter of special rights should stop us from legally treating their relationships the same as other people.

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Have you ever talked to active duty or retired military specifically about this? I do every day. They are content with DADT and do not want it repealed.
margategop517 on February 23, 2010 at 2:42 PM

An unscientific poll of two active duty nephews, an active duty son-in-law, an active duty ex, and myself (a vet) indicates 40 percent support for repeal and 60 support for don’t care. I realize this does not qualify me to speak for the military as a monolithic whole, any more than your work qualifies you. The argument should be made on merits, not feelings.

Any policy which is inherently dishonest is bad policy. DADT is inherently dishonest. It requires commanders to pretend they do not know what they know, and gay service members to pretend they are not what they are.

A small percentage of service members are gay. Repealing DADT does not grant special rights to an identity group. It repeals a legal fiction and recognizes reality.

There is no reason military discipline should be adversely affected. The sexual behavior of heterosexuals in the military is subject to constraints, and there is no reason the same constraints would not apply to gay sexual activity. Fair is fair.

Much of the most emotional opposition to this action comes from people whose religion forbids homosexuality, or who feel a particular revulsion about gay sex. It is perfectly valid to feel homosexuality is unnatural and to believe it is sinful. But it is not all right for the United States government to make decisions on this basis.

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 3:27 PM

I agree with this assessment, and I have heard many a moronic argument for gay rights and I’ve even played the devil’s advocates with the morons. But our awesome stupidity is not the issue, the issue is a good argument against the normalization of gay people. We have a secular government, and so religious arguments against homosexuality are irrelevant. I have never seen a shred of a evidence based rational, secular argument against the normalization of gay people in our society. I’m even going to admit here that concerns about gay sexual harassment in close quarters in the military is a reasonable point, though one can disagrre with it. Since you are smart, JiangxiDad, why don’t you provide a good secular argument against the normalization of gay people?

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 2:03 PM
____________

Because other than “Ewww, that’s gross” there ISN’T a good secular argument against not hating on gay people.

The source for all of the anti-gay movement has been some obscure passages in the many-times-over translated versions of the Bible.

The religious justification is the only argument, however you cannot rail on religious people disagreeing on gayness as a movement of the Right, since a large slice of it’s base comes from Catholic latinos and Baptist blacks.

The ultimate problem is that one people is trying to control another people’s lifestyle. And to me, even though my religious beliefs lead me to frown on homosexuality, my Americanism lets me tolerate it.

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM

So is rape. Is rape natural then? I’ve read up on it.
They have been pounding this in science for years looking for anything. Not there. Homosexuality isn’t natural and it isn’t genetic.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM
_______________

Dolphins and Humans are the only animals on the planet to have sex for pleasure.

What humans consider rape, many species consider breeding.

Dolphins have been observed gang-raping females in the wild though, so maybe it’s just Humans and Dolphins that rape, and everything else just breeds.

In conclusion, this is all just dumb.

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:10 PM

These are not situational examples. These are long-term observed and classified behaviors which can best be described as cultural norms.

Do not use Nature to argue Morality. There is no moral order in nature.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 3:35 PM

What’s a good, secular, objective argument against genocide?

Chris_Balsz on February 23, 2010 at 3:37 PM

What’s a good, secular, objective argument against genocide?

Chris_Balsz on February 23, 2010 at 3:37 PM

I don’t know but large portions of the OT condones genocide.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 3:39 PM

And we observe it in the natural kingdom too.

Chris_Balsz on February 23, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Love, a basis for marriage, might not be genetic either–at least scientists haven’t isolated the gene. There are many behaviors and rights that we value which aren’t wired into our genetic code. In fact our humanity is, in many ways, based on ability to get beyond our genes.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Yep, and none of that makes homosexuality normal.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:48 PM

And we observe it in the natural kingdom too.

Chris_Balsz on February 23, 2010 at 3:44 PM
______________

We have this incredible brain that allows us all sorts of thinking and communication abilities that animals are not capable of.

This trait seperates us from other animals and causes any argument that relies on the “animal kingdom” to justify human behavior to fall flat.

That’s just one man’s opinion of course.

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 3:49 PM

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Rape isn’t about pleasure.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:49 PM

These are not situational examples. These are long-term observed and classified behaviors which can best be described as cultural norms.

Do not use Nature to argue Morality. There is no moral order in nature.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 3:35 PM

BS. Animals and insects have cultures now? And who is using nature to argue morality?

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Yep, and none of that makes homosexuality normal.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:48 PM

For people aroused by the same gender the source is something biological. Whether it is accepted and condoned is a different matter.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 3:53 PM

I don’t know but large portions of the OT condones genocide.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Except when the Bible is advocating genocide. In the Torah, we are commanded:

“It shall be that when Hashem, your God, gives you rest from all your enemies all around, in the Land that Hashem, your God, gives you as an inheritance to possess it, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heaven. Do not forget it!” (Devarim 25:19)

Devarim is called Deuteronomy by the Christians. And yes “Blot out” clearly meant genocide in context. (HaShem means “the name”. It is how Jews avoid saying the name of God.)

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:53 PM

It is not BS.

Culture isn’t holidays and religion. It is also learned behavior, learned habits and the transmission of knowledge down generational lines. Lots of animals have shown Culture.

The Orca being a good example. Pods have different dialects of vocalizations and actually teach their young. They also develop around specific dietary habits such as pods that exclusively hunt seal or Salmon or sharks and there is no genetic explanation for the dietary habits.

Ditto for certain Primate species.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Yep, and none of that makes homosexuality normal.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:48 PM
_______________

So what’s your point? Do you see homosexuality as a crime? A personal choice? An impulse that people fail to control?

Do you make it illegal? Tolerate it as you do the millions of other personal choices others make that you don’t agree with? Or do you send them to counseling to work on their impulse control?

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Rape isn’t about pleasure.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 3:49 PM
_______________

Then educate me, what is it about?

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Then educate me, what is it about?

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 4:06 PM

With our species, it is about power and ego.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM

With our species, it is about power and ego.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM
_____________

Also known as sources of pleasure.

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 4:08 PM

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

I don’t want the government and/or the military used to foster it’s normalization. I’m for tolerance. Tolerance and Acceptance are 2 different things entirely and I am tired of the conflating of them.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Then educate me, what is it about?

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Power and dominance.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 4:04 PM

You are confusing behavior and culture.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:13 PM

That’s just one man’s opinion of course.

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 3:49 PM

I tend to agree, I just like tripping up people who want a NEGATIVE philosophical argument. “If you can’t disprove it using narrow arguments, it must be held proved!”

Chris_Balsz on February 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM

For people aroused by the same gender the source is something biological. Whether it is accepted and condoned is a different matter.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Really? There’s no science that suggests that. Unless you are including environmental as biological.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Since you are smart, JiangxiDad, why don’t you provide a good secular argument against the normalization of gay people?

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 2:03 PM

First of all, tks for the compliment (unless u were being snarky). Imo, there isn’t a good secular argument against it. And remember, you’re asking my personal opinion here. There are no facts on either side, so opinion is all there is on this issue. As I’ve said before, I think same-sex attraction is a developmental disorder. Therefore it isn’t “normal” or “equal.” It’s abnormal, and for many fairly obvious reasons, not the absolute best model to use to form families–which I believe to be the necessary building block for a proper civilization. All that being said, it seems to be a fairly common disorder, and not really amenable to treatment (although avoiding it in the first place through more effective parenting could go a long way).

So where does that leave us? I think a decent classically liberal civilization ought to tolerate these differences among us–religious, cultural, sexual, etc. I think people with disorders ought to be free to live happy and as near-normal lives as possible, with “reasonable” accommodation for their differences. But I think there should be no attempt to normalize or equate any disorder, or to force society to make accommodations beyond which they are willing to make, or which threaten to re-define normal. Within those boundaries, I don’t see why same-sex couples can’t have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. I also don’t see why the military ought to be forced to change its policies to satisfy the pol. needs of the Dem. party, or why there should be a “gay” curriculum in school. And I also don’t see why self-styled “gay” people demand that others accept them as normal, when same-sex attractions are abnormal, imo.

Please don’t respond by parsing my words for what I mean by “normal” and stuff. I just mean it in the usual way. I think “gay” people should be left alone to live their lives as best as they can like everyone else (with legal rights and dignity) without requiring the rest of us to get any more involved in the debate that rages over the cause. I think people are tired of it. Hope this offends nobody.

JiangxiDad on February 23, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Really? There’s no science that suggests that. Unless you are including environmental as biological.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM

There is science on the physiology and neurology of arousal. Gay people will respond to subliminal images differently than straight people. Scientists have used electrodes and thermal imaging to measure results. Obviously, advertisers have a continued interest in funding studies that help them understand how people become aroused.

Straight men are involuntarily aroused all the time, and can feel the stress from it when out with their wife and seeing young attractive women.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 4:28 PM

You are confusing behavior and culture.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:13 PM

No, it is culture. Genetics doesn’t explain bottle-nosed dolphins wrapping sea sponge around their nose to prevent abrasions when searching for buried food.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 4:30 PM

The Navy really picked the wrong time to trot out this warfare designator:

Information Dominance

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=51448

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Thuja-

One thing I forgot to say. I think it would be both ridiculous and disgusting to treat a “gay” person less well than someone else. I don’t believe anyone consciously chooses their sexuality, so there is in my mind none of the questions of “fault”, or “lack of self-control” or those other kinds of arguments that some people make. When I think of this issue, I purposely try to imagine we’re speaking of my own child, so that I don’t say something harmful or hurtful.

JiangxiDad on February 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

No, it is culture. Genetics doesn’t explain bottle-nosed dolphins wrapping sea sponge around their nose to prevent abrasions when searching for buried food.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 4:30 PM

No they do it because it’s hurts without it. That’s behavior. If it suddenly stopped hurting when they searched then they wouldn’t keep putting sponge on their nose. Now if they did it because they thought they looked cool or because the Great Dolphin God told them to it would be culture.

People wipe their butts after crapping because it feels good, behavior. People chose Charmin to do it, culture.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:48 PM

There is science on the physiology and neurology of arousal. Gay people will respond to subliminal images differently than straight people. Scientists have used electrodes and thermal imaging to measure results. Obviously, advertisers have a continued interest in funding studies that help them understand how people become aroused.

Straight men are involuntarily aroused all the time, and can feel the stress from it when out with their wife and seeing young attractive women.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Gay people will respond to subliminal images differently than straight people. As prepubescent children? Does the brain activity determine the behavior? Or has the behavior effected the brain development?

A professional baseball pitche’rs bone in their pitching arm is noticeably larger. Is that biological?

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Thuja:

Final thing :) Since I believe it to be a developmental disorder, it has IMO, NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD. So I see no reason for people to be disconsolate that God doesn’t love them or turned against them, or that they can’t participate in a religious life. Nothing could be more hateful and harmful than that.

JiangxiDad on February 23, 2010 at 5:09 PM

If the military is effective as is, leave the sexual social engineering to the civilian world.

No one is forced to serve in the military.

No one is forced to obey the military’s rules.

It’s an all-volunteer organization.

You don’t like the rules, stay home.

You are supposed to be willing to subsume your own ego and individualistic will in order serve in the common defense of the nation, not play legalistic social games which will only undermine its miltary with needless sexual conflicts, lawsuits, new regs, new complains, ad nauseam.

If it is effectively stopping our enemies, as is, leave it alone.

profitsbeard on February 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Very well said.

You’ve also identified why the Left — RINOs and Libertarians included — is so keen on grabbing this issue and pushing it forward: it’s not about a strong, competent military, it’s about social “change” and weakening our military readiness.

If DADT is rescinded, what’ll occur in a short period of time is a more homosexual-populated military and a less competent fighting force. Unless the fight involved is against those problematic Christians…

Lourdes on February 23, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:48 PM

No, they do it because one dolphin had a eureka moment and other dolphins saw him doing it.

We wipe our butts because we are intelligent, we use toilet paper because it is cultural, we could use three sea shells just as easily.

Orca Pod teaching a unique method of hunting seal They put the seal back on the ice. This is a cultural thing. This is akin to teaching your kid how to read animal tracks.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

There’s also documented scientific, physiological evidence that has proven that brains of homosexual adult males, upon autopsy, are noticably different than those of hetereosexual adult males.

Since the results are from autopsy results, it’s not known (yet) whether the abnormalities found in adult practitioners of homosexuality is due to behavioral effects (brains become abnormal over the years due to behavioral effects and physical influences on their physiology), or, but it’s strongly indicated from what I’ve read, that the EFFECTS of the BEHAVIORS upon adult males who have years of involvement in homosexual behaviors have, indeed, altered their brains and not in a good way.

Lourdes on February 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

A professional baseball pitche’rs bone in their pitching arm is noticeably larger. Is that biological?

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:55 PM

What motivated the pitcher to play baseball?
In what sense is baseball natural?
Do animals play baseball? If so do the apply the DH rule?
Did the founders mention baseball it in the Constitution?
Isn’t it normal to abstain from baseball since the majority do?

It’s a free country. If people are turned on baseball, great for them. If people prefer the same sex, I think they are missing out on something, but live and let live.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 5:24 PM

We wipe our butts because we are intelligent, we use toilet paper because it is cultural, we could use three sea shells just as easily.

Holger on February 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Wha? Go ahead, use three sea shells, I won’t stop you but just consider which emergency room you’ll run to after a few days of doing so.

We as a society can’t change stupid people but we don’t have to lower our expectations and standards to become more stupid just because some people are stupid.

Homosexuals are already serving in the military but they swear the same oaths that everyone else does. I’m not clear on just why homosexuals NEED some “open” specialness to do…do what? What is it they’re going to implement that is referred to as “openly” in the military?

Consider the specific of that. I doubt anyone Left of Most is going to ever approach defining or explaining that because the homosexual issue has become politically expedient to the Left in both parties.

It does not mean, however, that the overall population thinks this is a good or even reasonable thing (“gays to serve ‘openly’ in the military”).

The military is not a social experiment. The military exists for purposes of military readiness and competitiveness to a point of excellence. I don’t see how homosexual behaviors (“openly serve[ing]“) is going to improve either or both.

And a CNN poll is hardly an indication of reality.

Lourdes on February 23, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Jelly, whatever problem you have is no small thing. Bigot. Coward. Ignorant fundamentalist Christian. Guessing you’re all those things and more. Get out into the real world. Educate yourself beyond the very narrow and small world you appear to live in. Check out entropent’s post above as a starting point on this issue. Your type is an embarrassment to the conservative movement.

dakine on February 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM

You’ll make a good sensitivity trainer in the military.
I don’t have to check out somebody’s nice words written on some website. All I, or anybody for that matter, has to do is stand out on the curb as the local gay pride parade passes by and everyone will see what the gay lifestyle is really like. We’ll see exactly what they are promoting.
Just ask yourself as you take a look at images of the Folsom Street festival (google it) if you’d love your 19 year old son or daughter going off to train, sleep and shower with those find upstanding individuals.
We have to remember, we’re not just talking about men and women in the military, but young men and young women as young as 18 years old, first time away from home!

It is not the nice sounding words of the gays that we need to pay attention to. It is not our supposed bigotry or ignorance that causes real men and women to fear for our nation should our military now fall to the homosexual activists! No, it is not ignorance, it is wisdom! We’re judging the homosexuals by the very lifestyles they literally parade in front if us! Their actions speak loud enough for me!

JellyToast on February 23, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Ed, AP, whats with all the gay crap lately?!?

There’s real news out there needing attention.

MechEng5by5 on February 23, 2010 at 5:47 PM

I so very much applaud your service, but something just doesn’t pass the “smell test” when you say you were in the military and you’re whining about the fact that a gay room mate could make your life a living hell. Shoot! I guess I’m just not-a-getting it. I had a roommate in college who stole, who locked me out b-cuz she was “entertaining” company for a profit. Bottom line: you deal with it and adapt. Your whiney-assed rant doesn’t ring real true to me.. Sorry my friend if I’m wrong.

Chewy the Lab on February 23, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Blacks are a protected class of people in the military due to Political Correctness (all they have to do to screw over someone they do not like is accuse them of saying one word). Islamic extremists are a protected class of people in the military due to Political Correctness (Nidal Hasan, no need to say more). Gays will become a protected class in the military due to Political Correctness the second that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is repealed (Just think the one word that works for blacks and think f@ggot). Protected classes of people have a history of using their protected status to harm other peoples careers and enhance their own.

As an example of proof, beyond my very own experience with a black protected class person: Nidal Hasan the Islamic Extremist turned terrorist that killed 13 people, who had a history of being overtly Islamic Extremist was a protected class of person who harmed any soldiers career that brought up his extremism, and at the same time the fact that he was protected class allowed him to under perform and out promote others.

astonerii on February 23, 2010 at 5:49 PM

So where does that leave us? I think a decent classically liberal civilization ought to tolerate these differences among us–religious, cultural, sexual, etc. I think people with disorders ought to be free to live happy and as near-normal lives as possible, with “reasonable” accommodation for their differences. But I think there should be no attempt to normalize or equate any disorder, or to force society to make accommodations beyond which they are willing to make, or which threaten to re-define normal. Within those boundaries, I don’t see why same-sex couples can’t have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. I also don’t see why the military ought to be forced to change its policies to satisfy the pol. needs of the Dem. party, or why there should be a “gay” curriculum in school. And I also don’t see why self-styled “gay” people demand that others accept them as normal, when same-sex attractions are abnormal, imo.

Please don’t respond by parsing my words for what I mean by “normal” and stuff. I just mean it in the usual way. I think “gay” people should be left alone to live their lives as best as they can like everyone else (with legal rights and dignity) without requiring the rest of us to get any more involved in the debate that rages over the cause. I think people are tired of it. Hope this offends nobody.

JiangxiDad on February 23, 2010 at 4:28 PM

I have similar sentiments when advocates for the “disability community” claim that it is just as good to be blind as to see. It’s really absurd to claim that it’s not preferable to be able to see (unless you happen to be in front of a naked Barney Frank). It is clearly true from the evolutionary standpoint that an heterosexual individual is more fit than a homosexual individual is. I admit it and all gays should admit it. But good Darwinian arguments have been made based on observations in nature that for some species some homosexuals in a population increases the overall fitness of a population. If the homosexual penguins increase the overall fitness of a penguin species,can we call homosexuality a disorder among penguins?

More Important Point: We do our best to order society to help the blind, and have from beginning of time. The Torah and the Code of Hammurabi tell us to treat the blind decently. Treating the blind decently means that we don’t constantly remind the blind of their inferiority of their condition. So even if we were to hold homosexuality as a disorder, isn’t it immoral to want to constantly remind gay people of the inferiority of being gay? Shouldn’t we for the purpose of polite society just pretend everything is ok? Clearly, this isn’t an argument for gays in the military, but it is an argument for gay marriage.

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 5:56 PM

For people aroused by the same gender the source is something biological. Whether it is accepted and condoned is a different matter.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Really? There’s no science that suggests that. Unless you are including environmental as biological.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM

If it is biological, then they would be biological rejects, and would require a decision by normal people as to whether they be accepted or not. However, if it is choice, then all consequences are on their heads.

OldEnglish on February 23, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Clearly, this isn’t an argument for gays in the military, but it is an argument for gay marriage.

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 5:56 PM

No, it is not an argument that passes any test for Gay Marriage. Marriage is an institution built by the religions of the world. When government saw that they could take advantage of the institution, they usurped authority over it by making it a civil legal issue. The government has taken near total control of the institution of marriage. For thousands of years, religions fought repeatedly for their survival, and marriage was a cornerstone to their strength that allowed them to persevere though all the wars and government interventions. Marriage as a term is owned by the religions, and they earned the right to decide what the term means, and the term means one man and one woman.

What the gays should do is create their own little term, start performing ceremonies that bind the two together, and prove that their @ss pounding agreement, or muff diving agreement, or what ever term they decide to use is a benefit to society. Over time, the government will see whether or not the binding of two gays is beneficial to society and offer to give similar, if not even the exact same considerations for civil legal status that is given to Marriage, which is, and always should be, considered to be between one man and one woman.

astonerii on February 23, 2010 at 6:09 PM

No, it is not an argument that passes any test for Gay Marriage. Marriage is an institution built by the religions of the world.
astonerii on February 23, 2010 at 6:09 PM

My faith, Reform Judaism, was the first major denomination in Judism/Chrisitainity to advocate for gay marriage. (The Quakers beat us to the punch, but they are a tiny group.) Even very politically conservative Reform Jews tend to be supportive of gay marriage. (And there are more politically conservative Reform Jews than you’d think given our Rabbis infantile leftist preferences.)

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 6:22 PM

So even if we were to hold homosexuality as a disorder, isn’t it immoral to want to constantly remind gay people of the inferiority of being gay? Shouldn’t we for the purpose of polite society just pretend everything is ok? Clearly, this isn’t an argument for gays in the military, but it is an argument for gay marriage.

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 5:56 PM

I think its a good argument for an analogue of “marriage” (i.e. civil unions.) Also, I think it would be best for all concerned if both sides piped down, those that scream you’ll burn in hell, and those that put the word gay followed by a hyphen in front of everything. After that, yes, we should all get along.

JiangxiDad on February 23, 2010 at 6:24 PM

From Hotair itself => New link under Headlines -

The Gay Infiltration of the Conservative Movement
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-gay-infiltration-of-the-conservative-movement/
“David Keene, a lobbyist, is the chairman of the ACU and personally approved GOProud’s involvement in CPAC.”

So it’s Keene’s fault… bye David….

IntheNet on February 23, 2010 at 6:37 PM

No, they do it because one dolphin had a eureka moment and other dolphins saw him doing it.

So all learned activity is cultural not behavioral? That will be news to Pavlov’s dogs.

We wipe our butts because we are intelligent, we use toilet paper because it is cultural, we could use three sea shells just as easily.

We wipe our butts because it feels lousy when they are dirty. Most animals do but they lick instead. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

Orca Pod teaching a unique method of hunting seal They put the seal back on the ice. This is a cultural thing. This is akin to teaching your kid how to read animal tracks.Holger on February 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

As the video makes clear they have no idea whether the seal escaped back to the ice or not. Don’t misrepresent your evidence. Even if true survival training is behavioral. Wanting to survive is a biological imperative.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 6:38 PM

What motivated the pitcher to play baseball? Fame
In what sense is baseball natural? It’s not.
Do animals play baseball? No
If so do the apply the DH rule? No
Did the founders mention baseball it in the Constitution? No
Isn’t it normal to abstain from baseball since the majority do? Yes

It’s a free country. If people are turned on baseball, great for them. If people prefer the same sex, I think they are missing out on something, but live and let live. True.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Relation to whether homosexuality is biological? No clue.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 6:43 PM

This does not reflect the feeling of those actually serving in the military. I don’t even know anyone who likes don’t ask, don’t tell. The preference of hard core military is no gays or lesbians.

Politically correct answers are given versus the truth.

eaglesdontflock on February 23, 2010 at 7:34 PM

My faith, Reform Judaism, was the first major denomination in Judism/Chrisitainity to advocate for gay marriage. (The Quakers beat us to the punch, but they are a tiny group.) Even very politically conservative Reform Jews tend to be supportive of gay marriage. (And there are more politically conservative Reform Jews than you’d think given our Rabbis infantile leftist preferences.)

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 6:22 PM

So, what is your group waiting for? Make a new name up, and start doing the ceremonies. There is not one thing stopping you from doing it. You can even have the church make the decisions of what happens on a break up, since at this point in time it is not controlled by the government. This is how your religion upheld marriage for many centuries, without the help of the federal government? Your church can also provide lawyers and counseling on how to get all the legal documents set up in order for a bonding of man to man or woman to woman can function similarly to a marriage. Things like hospital visitations, splitting of assets accumulated while together and so forth. Nothing stopping you, except one thing, and that is the arrogance that the gays and you have about how smart you are that you can just make changes to a many thousand year old institution and not cause any problems short term or long term. They have to have the terms Marry, Married, Marriage because they can not be expected to earn the respect of the society they live in, they expect to be able to force feed their depraved sexuality down the throats of everyone else in society. Everyone else suffers so they can take the shortcut to a benefit that society gave to marriage after many centuries of giving benefit to the society.

astonerii on February 23, 2010 at 7:57 PM

So, what is your group waiting for? Make a new name up, and start doing the ceremonies. There is not one thing stopping you from doing it. You can even have the church make the decisions of what happens on a break up, since at this point in time it is not controlled by the government. This is how your religion upheld marriage for many centuries, without the help of the federal government? Your church can also provide lawyers and counseling on how to get all the legal documents set up in order for a bonding of man to man or woman to woman can function similarly to a marriage. Things like hospital visitations, splitting of assets accumulated while together and so forth. Nothing stopping you, except one thing, and that is the arrogance that the gays and you have about how smart you are that you can just make changes to a many thousand year old institution and not cause any problems short term or long term. They have to have the terms Marry, Married, Marriage because they can not be expected to earn the respect of the society they live in, they expect to be able to force feed their depraved sexuality down the throats of everyone else in society. Everyone else suffers so they can take the shortcut to a benefit that society gave to marriage after many centuries of giving benefit to the society.

astonerii on February 23, 2010 at 7:57 PM

Dude, I’m not sure how you didn’t read that my religion is Judaism. Jews don’t have churches.

thuja on February 24, 2010 at 12:19 AM

Dude, I’m not sure how you didn’t read that my religion is Judaism. Jews don’t have churches.

Earlier

My faith, Reform Judaism, was the first major denomination in Judism/Chrisitainity to advocate for gay marriage.

So, let me get this straight, your faith group, Reform Judaism, which is the first Judaism/Christianity group, after the pathetically paltry group of good for nothing Quakers who do not count, to support gay marriages, does not even have churches, synagogues or what ever (meeting places?) and therefore do not perform any rights of marriage? I do not mean to be ignorant, but you say do not have churches. Or are you just a super touchy kind of person that is offended when someone mistakes the term of church and synagogue.

I am not an English major, I also was not a major in religions studies, I just kind of am an American that went to a small tiny meaningless church called the United Methodist in a tiny town no one would have ever driven through called Hazelton, in a lightly populated worthless little state most high school graduates do not even know is a state called Iowa, so you will have to forgive me, that I am ignorant of the ways of Judaism.

Also, I would like to tell you that I am honored that you actually find my rants to be worthy of response, unlike how I imagine you feel towards the Quakers who do not count of which I am sure none are in these forums, because they must be even more ignorant than I am. Wow, that was a run on sentence and a half, maybe more, my math kind of sucks and I have trouble organizing quality piffy responses that are coherent to those who read me, which is obvious, because my term church was not simply read as place of worship and place of performing ceremonies.

I found a wiki on Reform Judaism:

Because the progressive movement believes in the continuous integration of Jewish tradition and non-Jewish insights, the specific beliefs and practices of Progressive Judaism have changed over time.[1] The commitment to personal and congregational autonomy also means that standards of belief and practice can vary widely from region to region, from congregation to congregation, and even from individual to individual.

Seems to me that each individual synagogue or group even down to just one single individual of your religion can pretty much do anything it wants with respect to observing and making of the rules of worship. I have a religion like that myself, I read the bible, usually King’s James Bible, and I do not attend church services, I call myself non denominational christian because I do not think that I should be claiming to part of something I am not, say like United Methodist, or Catholic just so that I can try and convince people in a dishonest way that I have backing of a larger group than I do for my less than correct way of practicing my religion. It is good to know that the person I am talking to about his religion has absolutely no basis in fact to support the notion that an entire religious structure supports his gay marriage claim, because basically any single individual can make that claim, and it is true, because there are no standards for being part of your group and apparently no leadership to decide who speaks for it. So, I have no doubt that your religion was among the first to embrace gay marriage, because your religion has not one single principle besides the point that there is only one god, is that even required, because you know there is a god of the environment in the new age of things, and your church sure loves to embrace new things, so maybe even one god is negotiable? You do not practice any real religious decorum at all, or just the ones you decide meet your desires. Overall, you are a bunch of atheists who crave to have the foundation that religion gives a person, but have no will to actually do anything to have earned that foundation. I guess when I said you just did not want to do the work to make gay bonding into a societal benefit I was not off by even a minute bit.

astonerii on February 24, 2010 at 1:21 AM

SOME POINTS TO CONSIDER:
From an Old Salt

February 8, 2010

Admiral Mike Mullen, USN
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-9999

Dear Admiral Mullen:

This letter is in response to your shocking statement last week
that you advocate homosexuals openly serving in the military services. I
seriously question the wisdom of your position. As I have previously
written by my Senator, Harry Reid, and my Congresswoman, Dina Titus, the
position appears to be more a matter of Democratic party voter pandering
than the solution to a valid military issue. Perhaps it was your
willingness to support the Democratic agenda that earned you your present
position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I am a retired Navy Captain. I enlisted in the Navy in 1948,
and served as a Yeoman, Personnelman, Journalist, and Communications
Technician, and, as a Petty Officer First Class, received a commission in
1955 through the Integration Program. In my more than 31 years of active
duty, I commanded two ships, served as Executive Officer on two ships,
commanded Coastal Squadron ONE (Swift Boats) in Vietnam, and was Chief
Staff Officer on an Amphibious Squadron. I developed the first Human
Affairs Council in a Pacific Fleet ship in 1972, and supervised human
affairs activities on seven PHIBRON ships. I am a graduate of the School of
Naval Justice, the Management Course at the Navy Postgraduate School, and
the Senior Officer course at the Naval War College. After retirement I
received a Juris Doctorate from the Hastings College of Law. Like you, I
encountered homosexuals throughout my Navy career and in civilian life.
Unlike you, I do not find they are more deserving than non-homosexuals or
that they constitute a viable or necessary body of troops for the defense of
our country.

My experience is Naval. I can’t speak for the Army, Air Force,
or Marine Corps. Those services are generally based ashore with nearby
civilian communities. In such communities, homosexuals may be able to
find sexual gratification without interfering with military duties. But the
best analogy to a ship at sea is a prison. There is no other outlet for
sexual drives and I know of no prison in the United States that assigns
males and females, or who intentionally assign known homosexuals, to the
same cell.

That is one of the differences between your position and mine.
During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy
lot. They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom
ladder. Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard. The
crew had a way of policing themselves to eliminate homosexual advances.
Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that military personnel are
more liberal today, but I would look very closely at prevalent attitudes
before I closed the book on the issue.

It has been my experience that if sexual favors are available
aboard ship, some enterprising sailor, petty officer, or officer will find
a way to take advantage of the offer. There is usually a senior/junior
relationship in such exchanges and the senior partner will reward the
junior with preferential treatment, such as duty assignments, watches,
leave, liberty, and advancement. Such preferential treatment can’t be hidden
from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline
and morale. If a Chief Petty Officer, for example, is having sexual
relations with a non-rated sailor, it will have an adverse impact on those
petty officers between the two in the chain of command. Because of your
current assertions, I must assume that you were either lucky and didn’t have
the problem during your shipboard assignments, or that you chose to ignore
them!

That sexual misconduct in the Navy exists to this day is
obvious. I recall that a lesbian ring was discovered on the USS NORTON
SOUND back in the late 60′s or early 70′s. At about the same time my wife,
now a retired Navy Commander, was Executive Officer at the WAVES Barracks,
Great Lakes Naval Training Center. She was aware of many cases of
homosexuality involving the WAVES assigned to the Barracks. I also recall
that one of the cruisers returning from the First Gulf War reported 40% of
the female crewmembers were pregnant after a six-month deployment. Just
recently I read that the Commanding Officer and Command Master Chief were
relieved from an Atlantic Fleet destroyer because of fraternization between
several Chief Petty Officers and female members of the crew. Just the other
day I heard news reports that a birth control pill previously reserved for
use by women in combat had to be made available to all females in the
military, clearly implying that intercourse was occurring in combat units
and such conduct was known to unit commanders. Is there some reason you
believe that homosexual activity would not also occur or is not occurring?

As you should be aware, the Uniform Code of Military Justice
does not address homosexuality, per se. Article 125 provides that sodomy
is a felony, to be punished as a court martial may direct. But the Article
does not discriminate against homosexuals. Oral or anal sex between
persons of the same sex (homosexuals), opposite sex (heterosexuals) or with
animals (bestiality) are all considered felonies. However, when the “Don’t
Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was established, it only applied to homosexual
activities.
In all my years of service, I never encountered a Commanding
Officer who “asked” a subordinate if he was a homosexual. I never knew of
a sailor who was subjected to legal sanctions for homosexual conduct without
corroborating evidence. A “confession” was not enough. Credible
corroborating evidence had to exist and usually took the form of testimony
of a participating party.
So the “policy” of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes no sense at
all, except to create a means of ignoring the law. But the policy can
only as effective as the individual’s discretion. As long as the homosexual

was discreet, nothing would happen to him. He could be sanctioned only if he
wanted to go public. However, by the same token, if a heterosexual
indiscreetly advised his Commanding Officer that he had committed sodomy,
he would be subject to the same sanctions.

In regard to heterosexual behavior, the UCMJ also proscribes
common law marriage under the heading of Unlawful Cohabitation (with or
without evidence of sexual intercourse). It sanctions adultery and
prostitution (for both the prostitute and the patron). In the case of an
officer, merely “consorting with a notorious prostitute” constitutes an
offense, again even without evidence of sexual intercourse. The problem
is that common law marriage is legal in 11 states and the District of
Columbia.
I don’t believe that adultery is a criminal offense in any state today.
And in my home state of Nevada, even prostitution is legal. I don’t recall
you asking Congress to legalize heterosexual sodomy, adultery, prostitution,

or common law marriage. There are many punitive articles in the UCMJ that
have no relationship to the satisfactory performance of military duties, yet

you single out homosexuals for preferred treatment. Again, I must ask
“why?”.

The argument I hear most often expounded by the homophiles is
that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy deprives the military of
outstanding young men and women who want nothing more than to defend their
country and that they have the ability to operate a radar, or a gas turbine,
or a gun as well as a heterosexual. That can’t be true. It isn’t the
“policy”, it is Article 125 of the UCMJ that criminalizes homosexual
behavior since it would be virtually impossible to practice homosexuality
without committing sodomy.
But, even if it were true, are homosexuals really worth the administrative
problems they would create by their mere existence?

The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED holders for
enlistment. Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment. Visible
tattoos and piercings are not permitted. Are these aberrations more
damning than sodomy? Personnel may be denied reenlistment if they fail to
meet obesity standards. The young men and women denied naval service
because of these exclusionary conditions may also want to defend their
country and might also be able to satisfactorily operate a radar, or a gas
turbine, or a gun. But you are only advocating the acceptance of
homosexuals! Why is that, Admiral?
Is it your contention that cohabitors, adulterers, prostitutes,
young men and women with tattoos, those with only GEDs, or the obese
cannot serve as well as homosexuals? If so, what is your empirical evidence
to support such an argument. If we can sanction heterosexual behavior,
appearance, and alternative educations, why can’t we sanction homosexual
sodomists?
If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which laws
are next on the line to ignore? Carnal Knowledge? I would think a
service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could
perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual. At least
we don’t have children in combat, or in the military at large, for them to
accost. Their pedophilia would not impact on the performance of military
duties.

If you are successful in your endeavors to have Congress modify
the UCMJ, have you given any thought to the long-term repercussions? When
I joined the Navy, absence from duty because of venereal disease,
self-inflicted wounds, even severe sun burn, was considered “Sick
Misconduct”. We were not paid for the periods we were absent from duty
and our enlistments were extended on a day-for-day basis. Since AIDS/HIV is
more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual
community, have you considered the consequences of a homosexual serviceman
contracting AIDS or HIV? Will the homosexual with AIDS/HIV receive
treatment from military sources? Will it be considered a
service-connected disability justifying a medical discharge and retirement
benefits? Will it result in Veterans Administration disability benefits?
And have you considered the likelihood that some of the homosexuals will
request sex change procedures? I know for a fact that a significant
percentage of my Law School class was undergoing sex change therapy or
surgery. It made using heads confusing for both genders. Sex change is an
issue being considered in civilian prisons today and I’m not convinced that
taxpayers, or military budgets, should be burdened with that expense. But,
if you really want homosexuals, you should accept their baggage, as well and

their bodies.

Do you also advocate same-sex marriage or “partnerships”? Will
the homosexual’s partner be entitled to dependents’ benefits, including
health care, BAQ, military base access, and commissary and exchange
privileges? Will they be entitled to military housing? Would they be
entitled to sex change procedures at government expense?

Would a homosexual openly serving on active duty in a same-sex
marriage be prosecuted for adultery if he or she has a sexual relationship
outside the marriage? Would a homosexual be prosecuted for prostitution?
Perhaps, in such cases, even you would reinstate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell” policy.
I raise the last point because while serving as Executive
Officer on USS CATAMOUNT (LSD-17) in 1967, one of the Radarmen was
arrested by local police. While inventorying his personal effects a
photograph of> the sailor performing fellatio on another male was
discovered. The police turned the photo over to the Shore Patrol, who
forwarded it to me. During an investigation it was determined that five of
the ship’s Radarmen were involved in a male prostitution ring. They declared
that while in Radarman Class “A” School at Treasure Island, their
instructors convinced them that they could augment their military pay by
providing homosexual services to gays in San Francisco. They took advantage
of the opportunity presented and continued such activity in San Diego.
CATAMOUNT sailed absent several Radarmen and the Class “A” School lost
several instructors. Are these otherwise competent Radarmen the type of
sailors you want on your ships?
I hope not!
Your advocacy of gay rights reminds me of a joke popular in the
Australian Navy in the 1970′s. An officer with nearly 20 years service

> transferred from the Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy. When asked

why, he stated that when he joined the Royal Navy, homosexuality was a
crime and that homosexuals received severe punishment and discharge. After
a few> years he noticed that senior officers were closing their eyes to the>
problem. Eventually, it was made permissible. He decided to transfer
before it became compulsory. I think you are leading us down that road to
compulsion, Admiral!

I fully realize that I should not judge you or your procurement
source. I have not walked the mile in your shoes. But, by the same
token, you have not walked a mile in mine. I hope that you recognize that we
are irreconcilably opposed on this issue, but I think I have given it more
thought than you. In retrospect, I now realize that of all the officers I
served with on active duty, Naval Academy graduates were the most tolerant
of homosexuals. It may only be coincidence, but was there something in
the curriculum that created such tolerance? I am aware that there have been
numerous scandals regarding drug use, academic cheating, and heterosexual
misconduct, but had never before given much thought to their acceptance of
homosexual behavior, despite my awareness that there was a tendency toward
an anal fixation.

I do hope that you conduct a thorough, in-depth evaluation of
this issue, and hope you reach a realistic final determination. Assuming
that your personal bias and the power of your office will result in your
victory, I will watch retention statistics with a critical eye. Our
sailors won’t have the option of transferring to the Australian Navy.
In keeping with the requirements of Navy Regulations, I submit
this with all the respect your rank and position deserve.

With due respect;

Lawrence R. Jefferis
Captain, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117
(702) 341-7617
jefferis@embarqmail.com

cc: The Hon. Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 21201-1400

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on February 24, 2010 at 2:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6