Marine Corps chief: I don’t want my men losing any limbs if we repeal DADT

posted at 9:34 pm on December 14, 2010 by Allahpundit

In fairness, fully 60 percent of Marines deployed in combat zones think performance would be negatively affected by letting gays serve openly. Amos’s point, I take it, is that under those circumstances any added distraction — doesn’t matter what it is — is capable of getting someone killed. I understand his concern, but he seems to have no theory of how the distraction might work in practice; beyond that, it’s hard to fathom how the most famously tough-minded troops in the world, the tip of the American spear, would be so thrown by serving alongside an occasional gay solider that it might lead to one of them getting his legs blown off. Marines cope daily with the “distraction” of seeing their best friends shot to pieces, and yet … this is going to bother them to the point of absent-minded recklessness?

“Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines lives,” he said on Tuesday, explaining how he came to his decision. “That’s the currency of this fight.

“I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center, in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.”…

When pressed to explain exactly what a breakdown of “unit cohesion” could look like and why it would endanger Marines in combat, or the larger war effort, Amos said he was unsure but that the significant concern of breakdown was good enough for him.

“I can’t explain what the expectations are. I can’t explain what they think might happen,” Amos said…

But with so many Marines engaged in Afghanistan, he thought about what could happen to small units like those in Sangin, where fighting is the heaviest by many accounts. When a firefight breaks out, he said, lives depend on “intuitive behavior” free from distraction.

“Intuitive behavior” is an issue in combat situations, but U.S. allies manage to do fine with gay troops and, again, Amos seems to have no theory of how troops’ intuition might be affected. Is he suggesting that gay soldiers wouldn’t rush to the aid of a wounded straight comrade, or vice versa? If the objection is that a RINO civvie like me can’t possibly understand, well, plenty of milbloggers have been on record for awhile now in favor of repealing DADT. I assume not a single one of them would take that position if they thought it would seriously risk American lives. And in fact, according to the Pentagon survey, 84 percent of Marines (overall, not just combat troops) who’ve worked with someone gay said it hadn’t affected unit morale.

Just as I’m writing this, ABC is out with a new poll finding that 77 percent of the public supports letting gay troops serve openly. I haven’t gotten here into the question of gays’ right to serve versus the military’s interest in unit readiness (Gates’s big worry is that that question will end up being decided by courts instead of Congress), but here’s an interesting data point from the American Prospect from the last time the military was grappling with questions about integration. It’s an imperfect analogy, obviously, but the Pentagon did survey troops — including “combat crews” — in 1945 about how they’d feel training in racially mixed units. Turns out that was quite a distraction at the time, too.


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

First, a disclaimer… I have not served in the military, but have had the privilege of knowing some who have.

One of my friends, years ago, talked of his military unit and the comradeship among them. The first time his wife met his friends, she finally understood… they were closer than brothers. The trust among them was implicit and unbreakable. Jeff was working on attaining Ranger status when we talked of his unit.

I suspect that the concern of the 60% of those who serve in combat situations are worried about the disruption of trust among the combat units. If a person is so insecure to brand themselves publicly with their preferred sexual lust and make it their personal identity, how can that person be trusted to mentally hold up in deadly combat situations? A strong concern is that their deviant lifestyle is a mental weakness that may endanger the unit. Politically correct people will shout this down and flame me in hatred, but it is a truth. The (traitor) PFC who stole secrets for Wikileaks admit that he did it for publicity, a seeking of attention, BECAUSE of his homosexual deviancy.

Our nation’s military is the best in the world because they hold themselves to a higher standard. To allow mental deviancies preferred treatment because of political pressure is pure insanity. But then, very little liberals advocate today is sane.

Let the flaming hatred begin…

dominigan on December 15, 2010 at 1:48 PM

@dominigan I’m assuming your jewish now since your living according to the old testament? I said christian, somehow genocide doesn’t seem like turning the other cheek, christians are COMMANDED to be pacifist. Since we have an all volunteer army now no one was conscripted therefore they did it of their own free will. Hard to say that somehow god forced them to join the military and kill people.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM

No. I am Christian. Christians are not commanded to be pacifist. Individuals are to turn the other cheek, but that is for the individual. People serving in the military are carrying out the JUSTICE inherent in Government’s authority.

Besides, defense was advocated by Jesus himself. Otherwise he would not have told his disciples, in Luke 22, to purchase a sword for personal defense.

dominigan on December 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Well said. BTW hawk, glad to see you finally admit that your position on this whole issue really boils down to your religious views. I think you’re FOS, but at least you’re being honest.

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Wow, now he is ridiculing Hawkdriver’s religious beliefs? For everyone here who hasn’t served in the military, “dakine” posting here is exactly like Andrew Sullivan’s articles where he claims to be a conservative. Every sign is there that he is a complete fraud, from attacking other veterans to his background being “I was a..umm… Captain and was in … you know.. .Special Ops… with tons of time in combat but I can’t…ummm… talk about it because it was super top secret….and by the way everyone in the military is a religious bigot on par with the segregationists of the 50′s”.

Every Veteran here is very specific about what they did in the military (which in my case is unimpressive compared to others here) and “dakine” dances away from any direct answers. He is a fraud and that becomes more clear with every post he makes.

Kaisersoze on December 15, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Are you saying that only by playing pretend and engaging in witch hunts that you can do your job?

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM

The problem with that argument is that its not a job or a hobby, its military service. If it was a job you could quit any time you wanted and would have a different set of legal protections. You would have a legal right to keep your limbs attached to your body, sleep where you want and get a hot meal and a shower more than once a month. In the military you don’t. If you are in the small minority of Americans that is gay, you join the military with an understanding that you are giving up a huge number of freedoms. Being “out, loud and proud” while living for months in some craphole part of the world without safety or creature comfort is not a luxury afforded to you and if openness is that important to you, you shouldn’t have volunteered for the Army.

I was in the Army before DADT and knew plenty of soldiers – good and bad – who were gay. They were focused on their job and didn’t put their need to be accepted as openly gay above the needs of the unit they served in. That is the crux of the issue, it may not cause a lot of problems to have some of them being out, but it will. And one problem is too many in the middle of a shooting war. And that is from someone who isn’t opposed to changing the policy, but totally opposed to doing it rashly and arbitrarily.

Kaisersoze on December 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Dakine

While I never reached O6 (I left the army as an O3) I know that any officer should have a higher level of professionalism than you display. If you have a point to make you can just as easily make it in a respectful and professional manner.

For me this whole discussion boils down to cost-benefit.
The benefit to repealing DADT is to ensure that gays currently serving the military feel better about their orientation and no longer have to hide who they are.
The cost to the military is reduced recruitment, especially in combat MOSs and the potential for a reduction on combat efficiency.

Does not add up for me – sorry.

dpierson on December 15, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Where does Zekecorlain get the idea that Christians are supposed to not defend the innocent or defend their nation against aggression? Not only does Christianity not hold that, it’s an insane idea on it’s face.

This argument is not about DADT. It’s about the goal of a federal gay marriage act. The second DADT is repealed, the “out, lound, and proud” crew will sue to have “partners” covered as spouses by military benefits. The gay marriage argument will ensue and we know that even California does not have popular support for that.

Haunches on December 15, 2010 at 2:11 PM

christians are COMMANDED to be pacifist.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Blatantly false.
It seems you know Jack Squat about either the Bible or Christians.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 2:12 PM

I was in the Army before DADT and knew plenty of soldiers – good and bad – who were gay. They were focused on their job and didn’t put their need to be accepted as openly gay above the needs of the unit they served in.

Kaisersoze on December 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM

ABSOLUTELY. It is not that I believe homosexuals shouldn’t serve, but that the ones pushing for public acceptance are mentally unhinged.

All of us have sinful desires. I am attracted to women, but I am married. I work every day to resist my sinful desire and hold to a higher set of ideals. There is just something wrong with people who embrace their lusts, shout them from the rooftops, stick them in your face and use it to identify their very soul.

I believe THOSE people are a danger to combat units and should not be allowed to serve. I believe DADT is an acceptable policy. It is a matter of holding to a higher standard, by sacrificing your personal desires in pursuit of a higher standard of service for your country.

dominigan on December 15, 2010 at 2:15 PM

@Kaisersoze it is a job, it just has strict terms of service and despite having a rather a rather torrid and unflattering history at times is not a religious duty or calling. Gays aren’t asking to wear different uniforms or be treated different than other soldiers. They are in fact asking to be treated just like other soldiers. That means you can talk about where you got drunk, who you slept with and you don’t have to break out in a cold sweat every time you get a care package , worried that people might realize it’s from a guy and not your mom or girlfriend.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM

@katiejane that gays serve under DADT is their choice as a citizen I’m advocating to a change in the law because it is unnecessary, wasteful, and morally wrong as well as stupid.
Saying that straight people can only work with gay people if everyone plays pretend. Besides being childish and stupid it hinders military interaction, team building, and trust.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM

You feel the law is unnecessary/wasteful, blah, blah – others feel that DADT works because many gays do currently serve. Is there some reason you think publicizing ones’ sexual preferences is necessary for military interaction? If a soldier goes about his/her job why do you think he/she needs to make a big deal of their preference? If someone else considers homosexuality objectionable do you really think eliminating DADT will change their mind or improve team building or trust?

katiejane on December 15, 2010 at 2:19 PM

and despite having a rather a rather torrid and unflattering history at times is not a religious duty or calling

What?

Haunches on December 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Zekecorlain knows as much about Christianity as he does about this issue and the military.

Of course coming from one who thinks the military “isn’t a real job” this is hardly surprising.

I will give him this, he sticks to a disproven talking point as well as any hardcore Lefty.

catmman on December 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Would you be ok with a new draft, if it means DADT is repealed?

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM
it is a job, it just has strict terms of service and despite having a rather a rather torrid and unflattering history at times is not a religious duty or calling.

It’s clear to me from this quote that you do not hold the military in high esteem and hence your motivation is to argue for any change that reduces the effectiveness of this organization.

dpierson on December 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Gays aren’t asking to wear different uniforms or be treated different than other soldiers.

Yes, they are or why push for it to be “open and public?”

They are in fact asking to be treated just like other soldiers.

It’s obvious that they’re already treated like other soldiers.

That means you can talk about where you got drunk, who you slept with and you don’t have to break out in a cold sweat every time you get a care package , worried that people might realize it’s from a guy and not your mom or girlfriend.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Banter about one’s social life off duty doesn’t merit a paradigm shift in our UCMJ or code of military conduct and discipline.
Epic fail.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM

@Kaisersoze it is a job, it just has strict terms of service and despite having a rather a rather torrid and unflattering history at times is not a religious duty or calling.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM

OH, BUT LIFE IS SO UNFAIR!!!!

Spare me the coffeeshop claptrap. The military is not “just a job” and no amount of you sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “NAH NAH NAH I CAN’T HEAR YOU” is going to change that.

Kaisersoze on December 15, 2010 at 2:26 PM

When pressed to explain exactly what a breakdown of “unit cohesion” could look like and why it would endanger Marines in combat, or the larger war effort, Amos said he was unsure but that the significant concern of breakdown was good enough for him.

The assumption at work is he is concerned about a breakdown in terms of someone getting assaulted, or worse, killed.

In other words, disruptions could come in a deadly form of a “blanket party.”

But I doubt if the General would be too eager to make any statement like publicly.

The table has already been set, somewhat, for leadership decisions of this kind to be portrayed as following the mold of Nathan R. Jessup.

Otis B on December 15, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Yes, they are or why push for it to be “open and public?”

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Whatever that means, right? Sure would be nice to have some sort of definition of what exactly is wanted, wouldn’t it?

Otis B on December 15, 2010 at 2:30 PM

That means you can talk about where you got drunk, who you slept with and you don’t have to break out in a cold sweat every time you get a care package , worried that people might realize it’s from a guy and not your mom or girlfriend.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM

In my experience, both as a subordinate in my early years and as a SNCO later in my career, anytime anyone in leadership heard this type of talk going on, they put the kybosh on it. In a public setting, its unprofessional talk – period.

No one wants to hear this kind of stuff. Oh, it does happen amongst the ranks from time to time, but it is patently untrue that soldiers sit around having bull sessions about their sexual conquests for all the world to hear.

And NO ONE gives a shite where or who someones care package comes from as long as they share the cookies!

catmman on December 15, 2010 at 2:30 PM

All of us have sinful desires. I am attracted to women, but I am married. I work every day to resist my sinful desire and hold to a higher set of ideals. There is just something wrong with people who embrace their lusts, shout them from the rooftops, stick them in your face and use it to identify their very soul.

dominigan on December 15, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Very well said, I wish I had been that articulate. That is something that clouds this issue is exactly that point. The people in the gay community that wear it on their sleeves and make demands of everyone else to conform to their worldview are a minority within the gay community. I live in Hollywood where a third of the city is gay and I have a zillion friends and coworkers that are gay. Its not an issue because its not even part of the conversation here.

But for 10% of the gay community every conversation has to start with a discussion of their sexuality. For the other 90%, the discussion starts with “How about this weather?”. The percentage of the activists is small and the percentage within that percentage that want to be in the military is small as well.

Is it really worth impacting the defense of this country to accommodate that tiny fraction of US citizens?

Kaisersoze on December 15, 2010 at 2:36 PM

That means you can talk about where you got drunk, who you slept with and you don’t have to break out in a cold sweat every time you get a care package , worried that people might realize it’s from a guy and not your mom or girlfriend.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Where do you get this from?

Last I checked, there wasn’t a lot of drinking and carousing going on in Kabul or Baghdad.

You get most of your ideas about what it’s like to be in the military from watching movies, don’t you?

Otis B on December 15, 2010 at 2:36 PM

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 1:41 PM

I don’t believe Jen has ever claimed to be a fundamentalist, although she clearly believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God. If that makes her a fundamentalist, then so are millions of Americans. But what exactly is wrong with being a fundamentalist? And why does it apparently render their points moot?

DrMagnolias on December 15, 2010 at 2:39 PM

do you really think eliminating DADT will change their mind or improve team building or trust?

katiejane

In a word, yes.

No one wants to hear this kind of stuff. Oh, it does happen amongst the ranks from time to time, but it is patently untrue that soldiers sit around having bull sessions about their sexual conquests for all the world to hear.

@catmman utter BS besides the food, drinking and women what do you talk about? Strippers?

@Otis B blanket parties are in fact an expression of what is tolerated by command. If command didn’t tolerate them they wouldn’t happen. Treating someone equally and with respect doesn’t create a tense atmosphere, singling out someone for ridicule and torment does.

@Jenfidel at no time in any comment thread that i have read have you ever posted a non hateful or bigoted comment.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:51 PM

@Otis B blanket parties are in fact an expression of what is tolerated by command.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:51 PM

I knew Zeke would eventually post “Colonel Jessup ordered the Code Red!!!”

Kaisersoze on December 15, 2010 at 2:54 PM

@Otis B google prostitutes iraq green zone

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:57 PM

do you really think eliminating DADT will change their mind or improve team building or trust?

katiejane

In a word, yes.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Why? I’d like to see a little more reasoning than just a single little word with nothing backing it up.

Why do you think it will change minds?
Why do you think it will improve teamwork?
Why do you think it will improve trust?

dominigan on December 15, 2010 at 3:00 PM

@Jenfidel at no time in any comment thread that i have read have you ever posted a non hateful or bigoted comment.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:51 PM

There are several on this thread alone.
Nice try at attacking me personally, though.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 3:00 PM

The homosexual activists simply have no answer when confronted with the necessity for a draft if DADT is repealed.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 3:01 PM

My animosity is reserved for fundamentalist twits like you.

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Why?
What’s wrong with us?
And why do you find animosity towards “fundamentalists” desirable and acceptable but won’t tolerate the same towards open homosexuals in any area of life?
See how that works?
Tolerance is a door that swings both ways.

And by the way, you can’t accept my thanks for your service in the military until you prove to the rest of us that you actually served.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 3:05 PM

@Rebar I can’t speak for others but I would have no problems reinstating the draft.

@dominigan you could just read the definitive study on the subject since nothing i say will have any merit to you. It covers every military that incorporate gays and each of the results.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 3:06 PM

The homosexual activists simply have no answer when confronted with the necessity for a draft if DADT is repealed.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 3:01 PM

While I agree with you, perhaps it is time to stop repeating this post. They aren’t going to respond. Chalk it up in the win box and be done with it.

Pattosensei on December 15, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Apparently I was wrong…repetition does work on occasion.

Pattosensei on December 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM

AP, take a look at the film “Restrepo” and then ask yourself if an effeminate male prancing around the forward outpost might affect the operation.
Real world hardcore front line fighting that requires full trust and resolve amongst the troops.

FireBlogger on December 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM

@Rebar I can’t speak for others but I would have no problems reinstating the draft.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Really?

You would reinstate the draft to force Americans who do not wish to serve with homosexuals, as well as those who do not wish to serve at all, into the military – in order to please those homosexuals who wish to serve “openly”?

Amazing.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM

@Otis B blanket parties are in fact an expression of what is tolerated by command. If command didn’t tolerate them they wouldn’t happen.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:51 PM

And in Zeke’s world, crime doesn’t really happen either since society doesn’t tolerate it… or maybe because crime happens, our President, Congress and local police officers actually approve of it!

Where in the world did you come up with this argument? If all gay advocates are this dense, a simple math test should weed them out before they even have to worry about DADT.

WAIT! I THINK I JUST FIGURED OUT ZEKE! Zeke is hoping to use gay advocacy to drop those hard logic questions that weed out “reason-challenged” people like him!

It’s ok Zeke… after all, not everybody can be smart enough to serve in the military! The rest of the world needs dog-poop scoopers too!

/SNARKY SARC

dominigan on December 15, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 3:06 PM

And if they were better than our military, I might actually give a rats ass! Until then, I’d suggest they would be better off modeling a first-rate military, than us modeling a second-rate military!

dominigan on December 15, 2010 at 3:17 PM

@dominigan you could just read the definitive study on the subject since nothing i say will have any merit to you. It covers every military that incorporate gays and each of the results.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Humorous, the “definitive study” of a military issue that was written by an academic who has never served a day in the military. Posted in a thread on the policy opinions of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

This is the author’s bio –

Dr. Nathaniel Frank is author of Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America (March 2009). He earned his Ph.D. and M.A. in History at Brown University. Dr. Frank is Senior Research Fellow at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara and teaches history on the adjunct faculty at New York University’s Gallatin School.

His book, drawing on hundreds of exclusive interviews, presents the latest research and over a decade of evidence on gay service showing that gays can and do serve openly in the U.S. military without incident, and that the policy itself is weakening the military it was supposed to protect.

Dr. Frank’s publications on gays in the military and other topics have appeared in The New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Republic, Slate, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, Newsday, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Lingua Franca, among others. He has been interviewed for national television and radio programs, including ABC’s Good Morning America, the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, CBS News on Logo, the BBC and MSNBC’s Abrams Report.

He has also consulted with ABC’s 20/20 and CBS’s 60 Minutes. Dr. Frank’s research and opinions have been cited on the Congressional floor, in syndicated columns, in the blogosphere, the New York Post, The Advocate, National Review Online, the AP and other venues, including college syllabi and media roundups. He lives in Brooklyn, NY.

Kaisersoze on December 15, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:57 PM

You realize, of course, that those activities are against the UCMJ.

So your mention of sexual conversationa and drunkeness are both against the rules in those zones.

So your point about gays being able to hang out and casually talk about those things, like everyone else does, including presumably the prostitution rings, is out in left field.

No one, if they don’t want to be prosecuted under the UCMJ, is sitting around bragging about their sexual exploits within prostitution rings, or about their drinking, which are both against policy.

Otis B on December 15, 2010 at 3:29 PM

AP, take a look at the film “Restrepo” and then ask yourself if an effeminate male prancing around the forward outpost might affect the operation.
Real world hardcore front line fighting that requires full trust and resolve amongst the troops.

FireBlogger on December 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM

This shit always cracks me up when commenters assume that every gay man currently serving is going to turn into Charles Nelson Reilly if the policy changes. This is silly stuff.

Chazz on December 15, 2010 at 3:33 PM

I knew Zeke would eventually post “Colonel Jessup ordered the Code Red!!!”

Kaisersoze on December 15, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Indict them all!

@Otis B blanket parties are in fact an expression of what is tolerated by command. If command didn’t tolerate them they wouldn’t happen.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:51 PM

I don’t know of any senior officers that would tolerate this type of behavior.

The UCMJ also condemns theft within the ranks – yet it still happens.

I suppose, in your view, leadership tolerance of theft enables that activity to the same extent.

Otis B on December 15, 2010 at 3:34 PM

@Rebar obviously I think that everyone has an equal duty in defending the country when we are at war. I guess your sense of duty does go much past that boys have cooties stage. I’m sure that in Stalingrad strict rules of conduct where followed when conscripting every man woman and child

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Reinstating the draft is a legitimate viewpoint.

However, decoupling the repeal of DADT from the necessity of a new draft is disingenuous bordering on propaganda. How many people really would be for homosexuals serving openly, if they knew it would mean an end to the all volunteer military? Very very few, which is exactly why no one is mentioning this inconvenient fact.

What is propaganda, is this whole “if you’re not down with the homosexual agenda, you can quit the military” nonsense. Not only can’t the vast majority simply quit at will, the new draftees have absolutely no choice whatsoever – not even counting all the stop-loss which will inevitably used to staunch the hemorrhage of those refusing to reenlist.

The homosexual agenda is based on lies, and this is the biggest lie of all. It will tear the military and the country apart.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 3:46 PM

You would reinstate the draft to force Americans who do not wish to serve with homosexuals, as well as those who do not wish to serve at all, into the military – in order to please those homosexuals who wish to serve “openly”?

Amazing.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM

Now there’s a military we want to count on in tough times – gay & straight people who didn’t want to serve at all being forced to serve coupled with straight people who didn’t want to serve with openly gay soldiers – so some small percentage of gay military feel good about themselves and think they can tell others about who they scored with last night or who sent them a care package.

katiejane on December 15, 2010 at 3:53 PM

@Otis B your conflating individual actions with condoned extracurricular behavior. The difference between theft and blanket parties is that a group has to gathered, built up, they have to feel safe, they have to feel that any repercussions will be minor and that it won’t impact their career. Theft is a singular or personal act by someone who thinks they deserve something or just want something.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 3:54 PM

a singular or personal act by someone who thinks they deserve something or just want something.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Perfect, thanks Zeke.

Otis B on December 15, 2010 at 3:56 PM

@Rebar threatening the disbandment of the military if gays are allowed to serve is far different than it actually happening. In every country including Israel where service is mandatory the same thing was threatened however it didn’t happen. In fact who would you rather have serve along side you? a clean cut gay or a convicted rapist and drug dealer that was straight? They’ve already allowed the latter because of low recruitment numbers can you really justify kicking out gays simply because you don’t like them?

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 3:57 PM

@Rebar threatening the disbandment of the military if gays are allowed to serve is far different than it actually happening.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 3:57 PM

It is magical fantasy thinking that ending the all volunteer military will have no consequences – especially for the sole reason to force Americans to swallow whole the homosexual agenda.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 4:02 PM

@Rebar actual studies and facts show that there are no consequences

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 4:11 PM

@Rebar actual studies and facts show that there are no consequences

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 4:11 PM

No consequences for ending the all volunteer military?

Ok, you stick with that story. Just be honest and talk about repealing DADT along with reinstating the draft, I’m sure that will build a groundswell of support.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 4:18 PM

@Rebar actual studies and facts show that there are no consequences

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 4:11 PM

If there’s no consequences (negative OR positive), why do you feel that the change needed? After all, drill instructors aren’t used to instill feelings of self worth… so that’s not a valid objective!

dominigan on December 15, 2010 at 4:21 PM

People willingly sign up for the military knowing they may lose their life in a foreign land, but being in close proximity with a homosexual is a bridge too far.

Chazz on December 15, 2010 at 4:28 PM

@catmman utter BS besides the food, drinking and women what do you talk about? Strippers?

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 2:51 PM

BS? Based on what? Your extensive military experience? Oh wait, thats me…

To answer your question though (in no particular order):

cars, books, news, current affairs, music, SPORTS, firearms, movies, games (mostly system based gaming, but some PC), computers, booze, politics, religion (sometimes), hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, work, exercise, PT, intra-office politics, intra-service politics, military policies (uniforms, equipment, funding, etc.), deployments, war, history, training, philosophy, home, education (schooling, classes, degree programs, etc.), what we’ll do when we retire/get out, travel, previous duty stations, previous/current co-workers/supervisors, ‘war stories’, weather (especially as it relates to duty), etc., etc., etc…

You know, you continue to show your disdain for the military and its service members with almost every comment you make.

catmman on December 15, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Does not add up for me – sorry.

dpierson on December 15, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Amen.

I’ll support whatever the troops want (DADT, fishnets with their uniforms, or even free conjoined hooker Fridays).

Laura in Maryland on December 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM

@catmman While I understand what your saying and I’ve had almost all those conversations with my military friends, at no time did we stray far from sex, music, families, and drinking. Also PT and exercise can usually be rolled into a single subject and you also mentioned booze as I said.

My love of the military is tempered only by my experiences with it’s paper work and the to frequent breakup of it’s families.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 5:02 PM

I hope I can bring a little bit of a different perspective on the conversation. I am a female and spent a good amount of time in the Marine Corps or at least enough to know what life is like at different bases and different command levels. I guess you could say that I was the minority in the minority seeing as the Marine Corps is the smallest branch of the services and the numbers of females are even smaller still. I imagine homosexuals would even be a smaller minority. I have no doubt there are homosexuals. In fact, I know they were there because one of my best friends is homosexual and any time someone found out I was in the Marine Corps they were surprise because I didn’t look more butch. And usually the butch looking girls were the ones that were homosexuals. There were a couple of those.
My best friend and roommate was figuring out that she was gay and wanted me to figure it out with her. Seeing as I had no doubt that I was heterosexual I declined but that did highlight that our lives were going in very different directions and really weren’t meshing so to save our friendship I moved out. Grant it, we didn’t live in the barracks and this was a move I could make. She and I still hung out all the time even after moving and still talk to this day. We didn’t work at the same command so we weren’t around each other 24/7 when we lived together but the situation brought some stress in when she tried to get me involved. She didn’t get busted by her command, she didn’t get kicked out. She was also very private about it and didn’t put the fact that she was sleeping with some girl out there. At least not around people from her command.
Now, apply the situation above to two people that aren’t as good of friends, that live in the barracks and can’t move out of the situation and work in the same command. It brings up much more that I believe anyone is really thinking about.
If the repeal of DADT is going to happen it shouldn’t happen now. Those fighting have enough on their plates to deal with and this situation and yes this would be a big destraction to those fighting. Making a change to what would be the character of the Marine Corps would be a big destraction. I would say the those in the Army fighting, would look at it the same way.

TturnP on December 15, 2010 at 5:09 PM

@TturnP we’ve been at war for 10 years and theres no end in sight. I’m afraid that holding off on peoples actual rights simply because it would involve some stress and learning is moral cowardice. At some point interpersonal relationships can be problematic but playing pretend doesn’t change that, in fact it complicates them when command has to try and sort out issues. Imagine trying to report domestic abuse or get help for it when you can’t even mention the relationship that spawned it. Shutting people off from social services and interaction is a cold hard road that our service members don’t need to walk.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 5:02 PM

The conversations you have with your military friends may not stray far from sex because of your apparent obsession with it.

I gave all the examples I did to make the point that military folks, folks not so self-absorbed by their own petty desires as you and your friends, talk about plenty more other than sex.

You guys are like Obama. Everything is about you and your own personal wants and desires. Nothing else matters. Even when people illustrate your shortcomings, you still either don’t see it or refuse to.

You have also made it very clear how far your ‘love’ for the military goes in plenty of previous comment threads. Spare me your affectations. You don’t even know the meaning of the word in relation to military service.

catmman on December 15, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Here’s some interesting info

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/15/dont-ask-dont-tell-foe-dan-choi-involuntarily-committed/

Seems Capt. Choi was committed.

warren on December 15, 2010 at 5:40 PM

@catmman look my dad was a 1st lt in the army in the 70′s he’s a tea totaler never talks about sex and only quotes from the bible and I understand what your saying. But I was 19, my friends were 20 and 21 it was the most important thing in the world. However my cousin was an engineer on a fast attack nuke sub and was showing us pictures of his travels and every one of his stories started “and this is where we got blinding drunk and charlie picked up hookers” he was 35, and my navy friends in their 50′s routinely bring up donkey shows they watched together during their 20 some odd years in during thanksgiving…with their wives present. I’m sensing a theme.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 5:54 PM

My love of the military is tempered only by my experiences with it’s paper work and the to frequent breakup of it’s families.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 5:02 PM

You have no love for the military, that is obvious. Even for military members who support the repeal of DADT, or are neutral, their love of military is obvious.

ladyingray on December 15, 2010 at 6:05 PM

People willingly sign up for the military knowing they may lose their life in a foreign land, but being in close proximity with a homosexual is a bridge too far.

Chazz on December 15, 2010 at 4:28 PM

I’m guessing you never served, so let me help you.

Should we allow boy freinds to sleep together in the same barracks with 70 other Marines? What if they get so overwhelmed by their undying love that they decide to have hot wet monkey sex in the barrack? Does the guy in the top rack have to leave the room? What about the 68 other guys in the room who are skeeved out by it? Do we now need to set up conjugal rooms for those special times? Do we let them kiss in the barracks only or do we limit it to the head, or do they have to sneak into a stall? Can they hold hands in the chow hall? Because I could hold my girl friends hand in the chow hall when she visited. What about deployments? We were stacked in cots that were 5 high 80 marines to a 20 x 20 berthing room. You don’t think gays openly flirting or doing more in this situation would lead to BIG problems? I could go on for pages with this sh!t but you get the idea.

We signed up to fight not play Dr Phil to the sexual fringe groups.

Alden Pyle on December 15, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Of course, the military will turn into a giant gay orgy. Perfect logic.

Chazz on December 15, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Chazz on December 15, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Don’t be stupid and use a strawman argument no one is making. What is the cost/benefit to overturning DADT?

dpierson on December 15, 2010 at 6:27 PM

No one is making that argument? See the post above mine.

Chazz on December 15, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Gays can’t accept that they are anomolies

most people have no interest in their gay parades which they can freely have

but they will constantly impose themselves on the St Patricks day parade just to be in the faces of people who don’t accept them

the radical agenda driven gays have no respect for others

they enjoy being the fly in the ointment and can’t wait to upset the military where the design is simplicity and not centered around the fringe

Sonosam on December 15, 2010 at 7:17 PM

People willingly sign up for the military knowing they may lose their life in a foreign land, but being in close proximity with a homosexual is a bridge too far.

Chazz on December 15, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Finally, the mother of non sequiturs.

And, Allah, this is precisely why your opinion is irrelevant. You’ve never served in the Marine Corps in a combat situation. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You don’t even have a basis from which to ponder.

Cpl. Nico
USMC
1980 – 1984

nico on December 15, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 5:24 PM

I’m afraid that holding off on peoples actual rights simply because it would involve some stress and learning is moral cowardice.

The funny thing about the military is that when you join there are certain things that you are no longer allowed to do. Your personal rights or at least some of them, are put on pause for the duration of your contract. The fact that I couldn’t sue the government like I could a private business seems like a violation of my actual rights but considering I volunteered and signed my name to the dotted line…I am thinking that reason doesn’t fly. You can be gay all you want and be in the military, you can’t practice the lifestyle. Do you think that homosexuals are the only ones that have to change the way they are in order to serve? That rapist or drug dealer that you spoke of in an earlier post, you don’t think they had to change their lifestyle? They did or they got kicked out. (Luckily, our recruiting standards are different and they only get better as time goes on.) I cannot go in to the military and behave anyway I please. And if I did and my behavior violated the regulations I would be punished. As backward as that may seem that is the military.

At some point interpersonal relationships can be problematic but playing pretend doesn’t change that, in fact it complicates them when command has to try and sort out issues. Imagine trying to report domestic abuse or get help for it when you can’t even mention the relationship that spawned it. Shutting people off from social services and interaction is a cold hard road that our service members don’t need to walk.

The command will be sorting out MORE issues if the policy is changed especially at this point in time. Military life does not mirror civilian life. The laws are different. When there are problems such as abuse they are handled in a different way. The military is the place where you can be punished for cheating on your spouse or getting a sunburn or having your ear pierced (if you are a guy) or not having your haircut correctly. The military isn’t an 8 – 5 job. When you go home and take you uniform off you don’t stop being in the military and the military justice system applies to you regardless of where you are.

The issues that you spoke of, that the command would need to sort out, that would be happening on the front line just as much as in the the states.

TturnP on December 15, 2010 at 8:08 PM

I’m afraid that holding off on peoples actual rights simply because it would involve some stress and learning is moral cowardice.

And, coincidentally, the mother of ignorance all in one evening.

Civilians tend to conflate some nebulous concept of “the military” with the very small percentage of that military which will ever have a combat experience. The vast majority of all military members will never see a combat situation. Those who have will tell you that the basic Marine Corps fighting unit requires absolute unit cohesion. The objective of a Tactical Marine Assault Team is to seek out and kill the enemy. Imagine your most stressful day. Lost a job? Divorce? Death in the family? Auto accident? Multiply it by 1,000 times. You have not begun to reach the stress level of combat – trying to kill the bad guys before they kill you.

Each member of the team has a weapons and/or tactical specialty which dovetail to make the team an effective fighting force. These assaults are surgical. It isn’t the A-Team with men firing blindly. Without an absolute bond between these men, every mission is in danger of failure and failure, let’s remember, means death.

Any distraction, any additional influence beyond the mission is a danger to that mission.

I am so sick and tired of civilians whose biggest stress moment in the last three months was a bad hair day pretending that they have the slightest idea what is good for the Marine fighting team and what isn’t.

Moral cowardice? Eff you. Let me get your ass in country and we’ll see who wets their self-righteous, sanctimonious panties.

nico on December 15, 2010 at 8:59 PM

um Hawkdrive you have totally said it was because of religion to me several times, not in this thread but previously. That’s why I hammer you about it as well.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Link or it didn’t happen.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM

what a minute..

The good news for me, I’m out in about 50 days and won’t have to serve under these rules.

Lastly, when do we care what anyone else did with their Armed Forces? Why should we care? Our military is the finest on the planet and should have to emulate, no one!

hawkdriver Oct13

aren’t you suppose to be out already?

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Are you trying to upset me with narrowminded nonsense. My faith in God carried me on every flight, in every battle and in every long deployment where I thought I couldn’t last another tour. Are you kidding? Many of my men and women I flew into battle with prayed with me at the nose of our aircraft before we flew off to face the enemy. As far as taking a bullet, I’ll tell you this. I would have rather died in a smoking pile of aluminum on some battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan than to be some pitiful progressive begging for a handout and bidding their time waiting for Sharia law.

hawkdriver

And I’m not a perfect Christian, but my faith guides my life. That doesn’t really have a bearing on the argument though.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:02 AM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:12 PM

Hotair needs to get rid of this anonymous Allahpundit or there is no reason to come here.
Allahpundit could be someon in Pelosi’s office for all we know.
He is no conservative by any measure. He is most likely a sockpuppet for the far left whose job is to less the blow anger directed at non-sense liberal policies.
Stop being fooled.

LeeSeneca on December 15, 2010 at 11:44 PM

@LeeSeneca first of all assuming the worst of your host is poor hospitality, second if free expression is against your beliefs you’re in the wrong country

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:52 PM

In my experience, both as a subordinate in my early years and as a SNCO later in my career, anytime anyone in leadership heard this type of talk going on, they put the kybosh on it. In a public setting, its unprofessional talk – period.

No one wants to hear this kind of stuff. Oh, it does happen amongst the ranks from time to time, but it is patently untrue that soldiers sit around having bull sessions about their sexual conquests for all the world to hear.

Maybe in the Army, but I got out of the Corps as an E-5 and discussion of sexual liaisons was a favorite topic when out in the field with downtime. And we’d have not wanted to hear some guy talking about sodomizing another guy. To quote Office Space, “I do believe a feller might get his ass kicked if he said that.”

Gee, I can just imagine the boost to morale when the Platoon Commander brings his boyfriend to the Marine Corps Ball.

quikstrike98 on December 16, 2010 at 1:48 AM

Hotair needs to get rid of this anonymous Allahpundit or there is no reason to come here.
Allahpundit could be someon in Pelosi’s office for all we know.

LeeSeneca on December 15, 2010 at 11:44 PM

You do realize that Allah is the only one who was here from the beginning, right? With no offense to Ed, AP sort of is hot air.

Anyway, how do we know you’re not working from Pelosi’s office. See? Anyone can play this game!

Seriously, if there is no reason for you to be here, no one minds if you leave.

RINO in Name Only on December 16, 2010 at 2:27 AM

aren’t you suppose to be out already?

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:06 PM

I am, what’s your point? Two weeks now as of 1 Dec.

Sherlock Hokmes, we can’t get anything past you!

Are you trying to upset me with narrowminded nonsense. My faith in God carried me on every flight, in every battle and in every long deployment where I thought I couldn’t last another tour. Are you kidding? Many of my men and women I flew into battle with prayed with me at the nose of our aircraft before we flew off to face the enemy. As far as taking a bullet, I’ll tell you this. I would have rather died in a smoking pile of aluminum on some battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan than to be some pitiful progressive begging for a handout and bidding their time waiting for Sharia law.

hawkdriver
And I’m not a perfect Christian, but my faith guides my life. That doesn’t really have a bearing on the argument though.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 1:02 AM
Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:12 PM

Again there Sam Spade, I never said i wasn’t a Christian. My statement above was that it didn’t influence my opinion as to the repeal of DADT.

Oh look, shiny!!!

You really have to try harder.

hawkdriver on December 16, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Hmm, that would be Sherlock “Holmes” Zeke, I don’t want to confuse you further.

BTW, you were pretty much commenting non-stop for two days there. Did you finally pass out in Mom’s basement?

hawkdriver on December 16, 2010 at 9:24 AM

@hawkdriver yes as I said before how do you square training killers with the pacifist commandments that christ taught, yet rail on gays whom christ never mentioned?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM

BTW, you were pretty much commenting non-stop for two days there. Did you finally pass out in Mom’s basement?

hawkdriver

basically been doing a lot of cold calling work lately which always involves repeated hold times. had my last final yesterday and think I will get blitzed tonight after the gym.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Try to draw that question out a little and cite some verse that supports your point because I don’t understand the premise.

hawkdriver on December 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM

think I will get blitzed tonight after the gym.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:45 AM

That’s no way to live your life.

BTW, what was your point about the day I retired. I’m not getting that revelation either.

hawkdriver on December 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM

“…it’s hard to fathom how…”

That’s the one and only thing that you, Allah, and this pink-flag waving blog can get right about how we in the miiitary–as opposed to the tiny, whining minority of degenerates demanding this silly social expriment be carried out in a time of war–feel about this matter.

Ed Snyder on December 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Ed Snyder on December 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM

This.

hawkdriver on December 16, 2010 at 10:57 AM

@hawkdriver I’m avoiding thinking about the next week with the family. Things are at an awkward stage since i told my brother off for being a sanctimonious jerk which no concept of politics or history and that he was teaching his children lies and that he knew better. This after my mother said the kids were better off learning lies if it made them nice people he’s home schooling all four of his kids and to be fair neither he nor his wife have much more than a high school education and his wife while a sweet woman probably about a 10th grade level on english, math, and science. They even let their oldest develop a speech impediment because they couldn’t be bothered to take him in for speech therapy which was free.

Honestly not to be rude but if you don’t know that much about your religion and are just a habitual christian there’s no real point in debating the finer points of it. If you can square “turn the other cheek, with let’s just kill them, then your not really following the new testament probably just a mishmash of the old testament and Acts.
It’s pretty common for most North americans though because of the puritan strain and lack of daily guideline in the new testament.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 11:24 AM

@Hawkdriver the retired bit? oh just curious how your doing with the sudden slack time, it’s often hard for career military people to retire I know it terrified my friend Rod he eventually retrained as a home inspector.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM

In other words, I’ve hammered you argument again and you got nothing.

hawkdriver on December 16, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Sounded for like a “gotcha” moment with this…

what (sic) a minute..

The good news for me, I’m out in about 50 days and won’t have to serve under these rules.

Lastly, when do we care what anyone else did with their Armed Forces? Why should we care? Our military is the finest on the planet and should have to emulate, no one!

hawkdriver Oct13
aren’t you suppose to be out already?

I’m a contractor, flight instructor, now and I still work with the Army. If you care.

hawkdriver on December 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 11:24 AM

You could fill books with what you’re ignorant about. Not the least of which is our Bible.

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars:
see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Matthew 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Matthew 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

God knew there would be wars.

I pity that you will never know the exhilaration of really being alive by having survived it. “On your death bed, you will wish you had been me”.

hawkdriver on December 16, 2010 at 12:09 PM

@hawkdriver lol no I’m trying to be polite, if you don’t know that the new testament christianity is about pacifism than I really don’t know what to say. It’s not like it’s hidden in anyway. The american conflagration of a religiously ordained military is a fairly new construct that happened after World war 2 and I think came about due to the socio-economic make-up of the armed forces. Before WW2 pacifism and isolationism were the routine church stance on war and the military.
The fact that you no longer even recognize that the central message of jesus was total pacifism in the face of adversity is only shocking to people that perhaps follow the bible. I realized years ago that people don’t actually read the bible, they search for quotes and try to apply them to their lives to feel better.
That people like you assume the bible says what it does about gays is only a construct of your upbringing and education. If you thought about the fact that people try to apply anything in the bible to their lives despite the vast differences in time, culture, science, and politics and the multiple translations than you would realize that even a loose adherence to it would be completely filled with misunderstandings and lost points.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:14 PM

flight certifier? ah they do a lot of that here at Tinker, a friend’s husband worked for the company that certified c130 pilots a few years ago, lost touch with them after she had a long running medical condition that drove her a bit insane. Still glad you have work.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Show me a quote where I said the Bible said anything about homosexual behavior. What the heck are you talking about. Link, Quote. You’re making stuff up. I’m getting ready to head out to the flight line agian and this really isn’t going anywhere with your insistance that I’ve said things that I haven’t. I have an opinion what the Bible says about homosexual behavior but can’t think of a single time I’ve expressed it here. I have argued the logistics and repecting the opinion and privacy of servicemen and women who don’t wish to be subjected to your lifestyle.

hawkdriver on December 16, 2010 at 12:18 PM

@hawkdriver being gay is not a lifestyle, it’s a biological issue about who I can form bonds with. As for finding quotes that wasn’t my point at all I thought we had wandered into a new subject about religion. You’ve stated that religion guides your life, but you claim not to know that Christianity is a pacifist religion. Now you are claiming that despite enforced tolerance of every religion on the planet that people shouldn’t be expected to actually tolerate regular people that aren’t even claiming a religion.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 1:01 PM

@hawkdriver being gay is not a lifestyle, it’s a biological issue about who I can form bonds with.
Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Your insistence on believing that is a coping mechanism. It’s based on the easiest way to make yourself feel better, not on observation.

Count to 10 on December 16, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Who said this?

49 “I came to set fire to the world, and I wish it were already burning! 50 I have a baptism[a] to suffer through, and I feel very troubled until it is over.51 Do you think I came to give peace to the earth? No, I tell you, I came to divide it.52 From now on, a family with five people will be divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 They will be divided: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”


PACIFIST!

Inanemergencydial on December 16, 2010 at 7:30 PM

And if any gay soldiers get killed, the media scandals and accusations of fragging, or failing to give enough help to gay combatants. There will be no presumption of innocence. Gay rights groups will turn this into a new way to attack society and make everybody else feel sorry for them.

flataffect on December 17, 2010 at 1:23 AM

The american conflagration of a religiously ordained military is a fairly new construct that happened after World war 2

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Wow. If I had any doubts of Zekecorlain’s utter ignorance of all things military and religious after the rest of this thread, that line dispelled it.

Not only is the U. S. military specifically NOT religiously ordained, religiously-ordained militaries are as old as religion and military service. As a very obvious example, what the Hell do you think the Crusaders were?

q2600 on December 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Yes, there were many Christian religious Orders based on military service – the Templars and Hospitallers come to mind immediately – and the Turkish Janissaries were composed of the sons of Christian subjects, forcibly taken and raised as Muslims.

And thinking about that – how the Turks claimed the sons of Christian subjects as their tribute and the undying hatred that created – brings to mind the Wars of Religion in Europe that lasted from the Renaissance until the end of the Thirty Years War. Never was there more rapine, plunder, massacre, and misery in Europe than that time. Many survivors of religious persecution came to the new world. That is where America came from.

There was a time when religious differences provoked this sort of inhumanity in people. America’s genius is tolerence. That doesn’t mean that I have to like people who differ from me, it means that I will put up with them and leave them in peace.

Tolerance is what homosexuals have gained in America today. It is not an inconsiderable thing. Why homosexual activists would continue to provoke people who think differently is, to me, incomprehensible.

Venusian Visitor on December 17, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Lt. Dan Choi, an openly gay Army veteran who has been an outspoken critic of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, confirmed Wednesday that he has been hospitalized after suffering a “nervous breakdown.”

Choi indicated he was distressed by the failure by Congress to repeal the 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops in the military.

The Senate last week blocked a military spending bill that would have repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The House on Wednesday passed a stand-alone bill that would overturn the policy.

Anxiety attack and nervous breakdown after senate dadt ndaa vote. Overall stressors were many: family, homelessness, discharge and activist rollercoaster,” Choi said in an e-mail message sent to msnbc.com from his iPhone.

He said he was “highly medicated/sedated” and being treated at the VA Medical Center in Brockton, Mass. “Here for the time being,” he wrote.

On Tuesday, Choi said in an e-mail to Pam Spaulding and Rex Wockner, two colleagues who blog about gay and lesbian issues, that he was “involuntarily committed” to the hospital’s psychiatric ward Friday morning after experiencing “a breakdown and anxiety attack.

On her blog, Pam’s House Blend, Spaulding shared the contents of Choi’s e-mail.

. . . . (MORE IN ORIGINAL)

This fellow, Dan Choi, while formerly serving as an infantry officer in the United States Army, was improperly and very publicly engaged as an active protester and participant in the effort to change the DADT law (it is NOT a military policy, as incorrectly stated in the story.)

He even went on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show and outed himself in violation of that federal law, and thereafter he also, along with another protester, handcuffed himself to the White House fence . . . twice!

His story is obviously a sad one, but from my perspective, a very telling one. He simply had no business whatsoever in the United States military, and somehow concluded that it was all about him!

The United States military simply cannot survive as an effective fighting force if his kind of behavior is tolerated in the way that it was for far too long.

Choi went to West Point, incidentally, which means that because he is from California, he was probably recommended or sponsored by one of the United States Senators from that state.

With all of the talk about discrimination and polls, I have not seen ONE clearly articulated reason why the mission of the United States military, on balance, will be enhanced by the repeal of DADT. And, I have seen reasons articulated about why the mission may be harmed by the repeal of DADT, including serious concerns that have been expressed about possible serious effects on unit cohesion. That is central to the mission.

The idea that federal law should declare the protective primacy for open and notorious declarations of sexual orientation, thereby creating a blanket status protection for members of the military to make such statements, is a problem. Being gay itself is not the issue at all.

Having served in the military myself (in a war zone) I can certainly understand the unit cohesion concern.

Trochilus on December 17, 2010 at 3:12 PM

let the men & women in the military decide, NOT idiots in DC.

mmcnamer1 on December 17, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5