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 2 3 4 5

I am of the opinon though, that if we want to allow gays to openly serve, and women to serve in combat (Infantry) units then we should just knock down all barriers. No privacy for anyone. Common barracks, showers, etc..for all. This will alleviate any special treatment for any one group period. If it’s okay for a straight man to room with a gay man regardless of how he feels, then there should be no issue with men and women staying in the same barracks room, right? Right? They want full equality in all roles then give it to them.

gator70 on December 15, 2010 at 10:11 AM

No worries as an E-4 VET I am used to arrogant officers.

At times some of them even got the hint on who really owns the aircraft they are allowed to fly.

F15Mech on December 15, 2010 at 2:57 AM

My son is in the Security Forces…he likes to say, “Don’t confuse your rank with my authority!” LOL

As a matter of fact, I think owe another note to LadyInGray about her son too.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 2:23 AM

I got your note, hawk! Thank you. And depending on when your ceremony is, I might take a little trip over the mountain…

ladyingray on December 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM

HondaV65 on December 15, 2010 at 10:09 AM

gator70 on December 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Yep, and you just know these liberals would have loved it for us to lash out against the Bush Administration during the height of the war, right? Nope, not here though. We get the, shut your f*cking mouths and do your jobs, you public servants you!

gator70, you hang tough, buddy.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Excellent post, ma’am.

kingsjester on December 15, 2010 at 10:10 AM

I thought so too, KJ.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:15 AM

ladyingray on December 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Thanks, and we would love that.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:15 AM

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Year and a half until retirement!

gator70 on December 15, 2010 at 10:15 AM

DrMagnolias on December 15, 2010 at 8:09 AM
So the issue isn’t one of “Can gays serve in the military?” but one of “Can they openly serve?” The distinction really is important, because the demand for the latter is the demand for acceptance, regardless of beliefs.

This is precisely my point. While serving in the Army, I had a strong sense that a number of the men I served with were gay. However, if they were gay, they obviously were not open about their status. No doubt, many people gay individuals have served their country well and with great distinction. There is no doubt that any service member would fight and die for his fellow soldier. But the military has every right to regulate behavior it believes may be a distraction.

For example, adultery is an act between consenting adults and happens with some degree of frequency in the service. however, when a complaint of adultery is made, there can be severe ramifications for someone who engages in this sort of behavior. The reason is it creates a distraction within the military and undermines unit effectiveness.

R Square on December 15, 2010 at 10:17 AM

@R Square boring red herrings. Rules of fraternization don’t need to change, and asking members of the military to play pretend so you don’t have to acknowledge that gay people exists and can do your job just as well or better than you while working with people they may or may not find attractive is just stupid. Are you saying that only by playing pretend and engaging in witch hunts that you can do your job? Do you rape every woman whose bare flesh you see? If the military didn’t take DADT into the private lives of their soldiers off base and even counting things that happened before they enlisted than you might have a point but since DADT makes people hide and lie about their private lives you make the military less safe and increase the psychological burden on enlisted men and women with no gain. Spending millions drumming out perfectly capable soldiers and tying up tens of thousands of man hours on pointless witch hunts and paper work you waste my tax dollars and our soldiers time.
If two soldiers wash themselves and aren’t gay that’s okay? but if they are gay suddenly you think that you are entitled to have them drummed out? For fun why don’t you google booty shaking, youtube, and military. Than tell me that the army will really change. Also like I told @Hawkdriver read the book

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Do you support Epstein boinking his daughter?

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:30 AM

I see we’re still effing the chicken comparing DADT to race.

I don’t know if I buy the “we’ve served with tons of gay soldiers over the years” point, either.

I just retired last year after 22 years. In all that time, I know of only one person who was gay. He was later discharged under DADT because he outed himself so he could get out of the military and pursue a civilian opportunity.

Gays make up 3-5% of the general civilian population. If I’m being generous, maybe 2-4% might serve in the military, though it would probably be closer realistically to 1-2%, if that since gays (generally speaking) wouldn’t be as apt to serve in the military as the general population.

So maybe there are a few thousand (on the high end) serving across all branches in a service of over a million people. Yet I constantly hear advocates tell me how I probably served alongside tons of gays over the years and didn’t even know it. Sorry to break up your talking point, but the numbers just don’t support that argument.

catmman on December 15, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Dr. Nathaniel Frank, the author of the book that Zeke is touting is the Senior Research Fellow at the following:

The Palm Center is a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara, committed to sponsoring state-of-the-art scholarship to enhance the quality of public dialogue about critical and controversial issues of the day. For the past decade, the Palm Center’s research on sexual minorities in the military has been published in leading social scientific journals. The Palm Center seeks to be a resource for university-affiliated as well as independent scholars, students, journalists, opinion leaders, and members of the public.

The Palm Center is an official unit of the Institute for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

‘Nuff said.

kingsjester on December 15, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM

I see your still effing that ‘witch hunt’ meme.

I guess one can espouse anything if the facts don’t matter.

catmman on December 15, 2010 at 10:32 AM

If members of the Marine Corps do not like it, the exits are clearly marked.

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Any time someone says this, it is either dishonest (Admiral Mullen, I’m talking to you), or he/she is not serving. So the question is, are you willing to enlist to replace the person who uses one of those exits?

DrMagnolias on December 15, 2010 at 10:42 AM

@R Square boring red herrings.

lol, your comment is rife with red herrings.

Rules of fraternization don’t need to change,

Then how are you going to billet then together. Your arguments no longer make sense.

and asking members of the military to play pretend so you don’t have to acknowledge that gay people exists and can do your job just as well or better than you while working with people they may or may not find attractive is just stupid.

And asking other soldiers to act like they believe your lifestyle is normal even if they don’t is better?

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

The witch hunts will officially start when the military goes after soldiers who weren’t on board with this and make waves. You’ll support that though.

Do you rape every woman whose bare flesh you see?

Just a plain stupid remark.

If the military didn’t take DADT into the private lives of their soldiers off base and even counting things that happened before they enlisted than you might have a point but since DADT makes people hide and lie about their private lives you make the military less safe and increase the psychological burden on enlisted men and women with no gain.

Exactly, and this is a good thing. Don’t tell us and we dont care.

Spending millions drumming out perfectly capable soldiers and tying up tens of thousands of man hours on pointless witch hunts and paper work you waste my tax dollars and our soldiers time.

But you’re all supporting the “get the f*ck out” treatment for those who won’t toe the gay line.

If two soldiers wash themselves and aren’t gay that’s okay? but if they are gay suddenly you think that you are entitled to have them drummed out? For fun why don’t you google booty shaking, youtube, and military. Than tell me that the army will really change. Also like I told @Hawkdriver read the book

Screw your book. Read the Bible.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Your comments are near poinless, but just a joy to take apart.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Good morning hawk, good morning F15 mech, thanks to you both for your service.

Now, in a move surely to discredit whatever I’ve got to say, based upon several earlier snide remarks, I’m a 24 year AF vet (retired), who served in a position about as close to the pointy end as few other than PJs and Ground FACs in the AF can – I flew recce, as a guy in the back, for a bit over 20 of my years in, and have a raft of tales that involve headline events over the years. I served in line units, and at headquarters paper shuffling extravaganzas. I served as ‘just one of the crowd’ following direction, and in positions charged with the responsibility of both the crowd and critical aspects of the mission.

No, I can’t speak with the authority of either experience or galactically nebulous academic research projects as to the specific dynamics of interpersonal relations within a Marine rifle company, or a squad of Army 11 Bravos during field deployment conditions. I can only go with what I observed and experienced, during various deployments, overseas assignments, exercise TDYs, and in-garrison day to day events.

Which lead me to the conclusion that much of the rhetoric and the back and forth over the subject of repealing DADT is overblown hyperventilation – particularly when it comes to speculating about who will or will not do what, when and in what manner, to who. Also, that when the discussion reaches the level of “we have to do X, or else someone is gonna DIE“, absent any rational reason for such an argument, that someone is grasping at straws.

One of the hallmarks of American military effectiveness is the talent of the American service member to assess, adapt, and overcome. Out ability to deal with change. Some do it very well, some, not so much, and some do a good job, but will bitch a blue streak about the damned inconvenience of it all. So, speaking of talking points that get dismissed out of hand, the ones that predict utter gloom and desolation over what is basically a minor issue so insubstantial that it only comes up when people have a chance to sit around and stew on it, and get themselves all worked up – that’s where most of the dire predictions about the implementation of this policy fall in the rack and stack of operational concerns from my perspective.

While the analogies are not complete cut and paste or predictive examples of what we can expect in a post DADT military, the instances of the integration of blacks and the integration of women (particularly into combat associated roles) are instructive, in that those changes were probably more disruptive and difficult than what is being considered by allowing gays to serve without the threat of ejection from the service simply for their orientation.

That said, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with servicemembers, who also happen to be gay, being disciplined and even dismissed from the service (or sent to Leavenworth, if called for), for inappropriate, unwanted, or forced sexual conduct – which I believe covers the few anecdotal incidents hawk mentioned from his deployment experiences. As it would also cover the incidents involving inappropriate heterosexual behavior, which although he chose not to include examples of, quite likely occurred with even greater frequency, and probably severity as well.

I really don’t have a problem with the ‘if you’ve got that big a problem with this, then there’s the door’ approach – because when it comes up to put up or shut up, it’s hard for me to imagine the level of obtuse stupidity required to toss aside a military career over a peripheral issue. And, quite frankly, if someone is actually so undisciplined as to be that ‘distracted’, personally, I’m not sure I’d want THAT sort of person watching my back, and it’s probably for the best they be allowed to pursue excellence some place else.

Wind Rider on December 15, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Do you support Epstein boinking his daughter?

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:30 AM

And Zeke, what about David? He is waiting on your strong show of support. Are you afraid to answer this question? Do you support his behavior?

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:46 AM

@hawkdriver let’s see your at the “I used to be openminded but now I just couldn’t be bothered stage” yup that really shows how you’ve matured in life and how well your experience has guided you. You acknowledge the human cost that you put on gay soldiers but think that your religious views are more important. Despite the fact that NO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE SUPPORTS YOU BEING IN THE MILITARY AND DEDICATING YOUR LIFE TO KILLING PEOPLE
But let me get this straight your so worried about your immortal soul and your religious doctrine that you can’t be bothered to leave gays alone and stop the witch hunts or even let them alone when they are off base because your so worried about who they have sex with that you have to impose your morality on them? Despite the fact that you routinely serve with people of all religions even satanists and seem to be okay allowing them free expression, you now say that you being stubborn is more important than the lives that DADT destroys? Wow you most be a really great christian.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM

You say that rules of fraternization don’t need to change but you are failing to address the context by which they are applied. It is silly to suggest, as you do, that this is simply a matter of pretending that gay people don’t exist. The issue is if we are going to allow people to openly engage in homosexual behavior.

Among the many straw men you erected, you failed to address my main point regarding privacy. So shall we tear down all walls between the sexes and mandate unisex showers and billeting?

Lastly, you use the term “witch hunt” and I have heard this many times before by proponents, perhaps you’d like to define that term and put some meat on those bones by giving us specific data in terms of numbers of affected individuals. How many have lied to gain access to the military and were subsequently were found to be engaging in the very behavior they specifically swore in legal documents they did not engage?

R Square on December 15, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Screw your book. Read the Bible.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Your comments are near poinless, but just a joy to take apart.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:42 AM

+1

kingsjester on December 15, 2010 at 10:46 AM

@hawkdriver um that’s straight behavior shouldn’t you be the one supporting him? After all only gays are icky and can give you cooties.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM

One point – Hawk, I think you’re being overly paranoid wrt ‘backlash’ against sevice members who honestly expressed the personal opinion of opposition to repeal. The only ‘backlash’ I could see coming out of this would be if it passes, and individuals act out because they are unable to salute smartly and get their focus back where it belongs – on the mission.

Wind Rider on December 15, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Your comments are near poinless, but just a joy to take apart.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:42 AM

+2

R Square on December 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM

This entire controversy isn’t. The gay lobby wants DADT repealed so that they can make a case for a federal gay marriage act. They could care less about the military and whether or their repeal not it affects performance. When someone on the DADT repeal side tells me how they want to handle classifying “partners” and their benefits, then I’ll believe they give a damn about military strength or not.

Haunches on December 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM

@hawkdriver gays and straights already billet together are you still suggesting that without playing pretend your going to not act professional?

Still I suppose you christians are just the lessor men unable work with others?

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM

That is not straight behavior.

ladyingray on December 15, 2010 at 10:53 AM

@hawkdriver um that’s straight behavior shouldn’t you be the one supporting him? After all only gays are icky and can give you cooties.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Now wait a minute. Everyone notice the biggest cop-out remark probably in the history of Hot Air.

You have stated you support…

Gay
Bisexual and
Transgender

Behavior as being appropriate for military service and that further, these groups of people should be made to billet together. But you can’t state whether you support this behavior or not. Are you willing to adopt a policy of DADT for incest?

Is his behavior acceptable, please answer the question.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:53 AM

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.

As a guy who did not serve in the military, I don’t claim any expertise in how things should be done there. So it never ceases to amaze me when some NY metroRINO wants to afflict the military with the social engineering mores of his world.

Here we have Allah, NY lib-RINO blogger, apparently saying that hey, gays seem to work OK in my blogger world … and you Marines are tough guys, right? Why would having gay guys in your unit distract you from killing IslamoNazis? Would bother me a bit.

I guess I don’t know why, either, having never put on a uniform and trained to kill bad guys in far away places. But if 60% of them think it would be a pretty big problem, I am willing to accept that their opinions are better informed than mine.

Jaibones on December 15, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:53 AM

I worked with a gay manager for 6 years. Try again. Build another strawman.

kingsjester on December 15, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Wind Rider on December 15, 2010 at 10:49 AM

I’m mostly commenting on what people I directly work with are saying.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:55 AM

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 9:42 AM

So let me get this striaght, you’d tell an otherwise model soldier to “get out”, if he or she has moral opinion about open serving gays?

Any member of the armed service is entitled to whatever opinion they like. Expressing it is another story. And encouraging hijacking civilian control of the military over that opinion is still another, far more serious matter.

And you have served?

No I haven’t. But I am a citizen of the US, and my vote towards my member of Congress is worth exactly the same as that of a US Marine… no more, and no less.

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2010 at 10:59 AM

NO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE SUPPORTS YOU BEING IN THE MILITARY AND DEDICATING YOUR LIFE TO KILLING PEOPLE

On what planet? Christian doctrine has ALWAYS HELD THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, STOP AGGRESSION AND PROTECT THE INNOCENT. The Church accepts that in our imperfect world there may be times when the greater good is served by using violence as a means to defend the innocent or restore order. Protecting the innocent, stopping aggression and defending a nation are far more in line with Christian ideals than pre-extra-homo sexual activity.

Haunches on December 15, 2010 at 10:59 AM

NO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE SUPPORTS YOU BEING IN THE MILITARY AND DEDICATING YOUR LIFE TO KILLING PEOPLE.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Wow. What an epic failure to comprehend both Christian doctrine and the purpose of the U.S. military.

TexasDan on December 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Very well, then I’ll change the pronoun to ‘they’.

Wind Rider on December 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM

@hawkdriver gays and straights already billet together are you still suggesting that without playing pretend your going to not act professional?

Again, exactly. Don’t Ask, Don’t tell, I don’t care and it works like a champ. Are you upset that it works like a champ?

Still I suppose you christians are just the lessor men unable work with others?

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:53 AM

I sitting here just unable to understand how I will past the fact that you don’t consider us good Christians.

Is David Epsteins behavior acceptable?

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Oh, and hawk, stand by to stand by, got a rather lengthy comment that appears to be held up in moderation. . .I’m sure you’ll love it. Maybe as much as folks love the burgers from the burger stand in the Pentagon courtyard burger stand. . .

Wind Rider on December 15, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Wind Rider on December 15, 2010 at 10:49 AM

I think hawkdriver is reasonable in his concerns about backlash. The “my way or the highway” attitude conveyed by Admiral Mullen and others can very easily translate into punitive behavior against those who disagree. The military, as with the civilian world, have plenty of petty, mean-spirited people who made it to “leadership” positions, and who hound people they disagree with. It is hard to see how a “those who don’t like it can leave” attitude will lead to anywhere good for those who oppose the repeal (remember, this is the same sort of environment allowed Hasan to remain in the Army, despite poor performance reviews).

DrMagnolias on December 15, 2010 at 11:03 AM

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Screw your book. Read the Bible.

My continued high regard, deep respect and thanks for your service, your moral clarity, and your stamina dealing with this issue.

fourdeucer on December 15, 2010 at 11:03 AM

@hawkdriver gays and straights already billet together are you still suggesting that without playing pretend your going to not act professional?

Still I suppose you christians are just the lessor men unable work with others?

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Just a dumb point. This has no religious overtones for me…I’m agnostic. Nor am I anti-gay…I have friends that are gay. These are all stupid and simplistic red herrings your side always trots out. nor am I afraid straights are going to be jumped in the shower or that gays are unable to do a job. Nor does it have anything to do with playing pretend. For some reason this appears to be a tough one for your side to comprehend. It has everything to do with privacy.

Why should I be forced to shower, change clothes or live in the same room with a guy that is openly gay. What does openly gay mean? How would it be applied in the military? What you do on your off duty hours is your business? How would that apply in practical terms to living in barracks? Would 2 gays be allowed to bunk together in the same room? If so, why not a male and female on the same floor? If it is not a problem with gays then it should not be a problem for 100% coed living.

You fail to appreciate the practicality of what you are suggesting in real world terms. Have you actually served in the military…if so, which branch, when and what was your MOS?

R Square on December 15, 2010 at 11:04 AM

NO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE SUPPORTS YOU BEING IN THE MILITARY AND DEDICATING YOUR LIFE TO KILLING PEOPLE.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Then why do you want your gay friends doing it. Do you have a gay bible that does condones killing.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Really Right on December 15, 2010 at 9:49 AM

So your story is that whatever Congress wants you want?

No. My story is that whatever Congress passes becomes the law of the land, for good or ill, whether I want it or not. They want to raise taxes… well, I think it’s a bad idea. But I sure don’t go around saying that one class of citizens’ opinion is all that matters.

Unlike some of us around here, who think that what the Marines t hink is more important than what congress thinks.

Well, it looks like Congress wants to continue tax cuts for the rich. Therefore, your view must that anybody who does not want that can hit the exits.

I would certainly prefer that they did. But I’m not about to say people who don’t pay income tax don’t get a say in it.

Just like I’m not prepared to say that those who are wealthy don’t get a say in it.

Tell me, what would you say to someone on the Left who said that only the opinion of those who don’t serve in the military is all that matters?

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2010 at 11:05 AM

@hawkdriver honestly if you think having a conversation on morality will somehow make me think that only an imposed for imaginary sky wizards you are incorrect.
Incest is wrong because it in most cases it is a form of rape and an abuse of position and authority. Historically however most cultures have actually practiced what we call fraternal incest such as the royal bloodlines of europe, or more commonly in southwest Asia for cultural and religious resasons. In fact it’s a growing problem in the UK because of pakistani immigration. However biblically it’s actually been done a fair bit so I suppose if you are making an argument for biblical morality you could allow it and of course polygamy, and also impregnating your servants in case your wife isn’t putting out (abraham)
Gay sex between consenting adults is not incest, pedophilia, or bestiality.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:05 AM

But I am a citizen of the US, and my vote towards my member of Congress is worth exactly the same as that of a US Marine… no more, and no less.

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Absolutely, but your opinion of what will and will not work in the military is decidedly less valuable.

DrMagnolias on December 15, 2010 at 11:06 AM

@hawkdriver you didn’t answer the religion question you just avoided why it’s ok for you to kill but not why you have to hunt for gays.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Wind Rider on December 15, 2010 at 11:03 AM

I am getting ready to head out to the flightline, but I’ll definately read it.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 11:06 AM

NO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE SUPPORTS YOU BEING IN THE MILITARY AND DEDICATING YOUR LIFE TO KILLING PEOPLE

Haha. Let’s get rid of that pesky military that doesn’t want to jump on-board with the gay agenda. The islamofacists who take over will be so much more understanding of the GBLT lifestyle./ Snort.

Haunches on December 15, 2010 at 11:07 AM

@hawkdriver you didn’t answer the religion question you just avoided why it’s ok for you to kill but not why you have to hunt for gays.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:06 AM

I don’t want to hunt for gays. I want them to be able serve if they want to for their country.

I answered your question, now answer mine. Is Davis Epsteins behavior okay?

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 11:08 AM

PFC Manning

Haunches on December 15, 2010 at 11:09 AM

DADT is repealed and any servicemember who wants separation based on this can immediatly leave the service and void the rest of his contract.

If you really believe that John – GO FOR IT.

You won’t do it – and neither will Congress – because all of this “like it or lump it” talk is just chest beating horse manure from a bunch of cowards who KNOW that our folks in uniform can’t leave.

HondaV65 on December 15, 2010 at 9:54 AM

I have no problem with Congress instituting such a policy.

Because I think very few of our armed forces are so bigoted as to throw away a promising career and an opportunity to serve this nation over something so trivial. And for those who do, I have faith in the patriotism and wisdom of our young people of this country to make up the difference in spades.

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Gay sex between consenting adults is not incest, pedophilia, or bestiality.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:05 AM

So, you’re drawing the line at incest. You believe that that sexual behavior is wrong. Good for you and thanks for answering. I’m actually proud. See, people have opinions.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 11:11 AM

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM

This, this seems to be the crux of the disconnect from me understanding the rationality of your position -

Again, exactly. Don’t Ask, Don’t tell, I don’t care and it works like a champ.

It appears to me to be the ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ approach – which, again (as I’ve mentioned on DADT threads before) is what I see as the problem with the entire issue. Basically, that everything is hunky dory till the cat gets out of the bag, and then there’s a huge hissy fit over the ‘discovery’ that somebody is gay. Not because there was an incident of inappropriate conduct, just the simple fact of the matter.

Now explain, if you will, how THAT is not hugely disruptive to morale and unit cohesion. Because I know for a fact that it is – as in my experience, the VAST majority of incidents involving gays in the military were exactly this sort. In 24 years, I can recall only ONE incident involving actual homosexual conduct being the issue – mainly because it was situationally inappropriate, and would have been DESPITE the gender or orientation of those involved, and would have been prosecutable regardless of DADT.

Wind Rider on December 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM

No I haven’t. But I am a citizen of the US, and my vote towards my member of Congress is worth exactly the same as that of a US Marine… no more, and no less.

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Apparently, to a lot of people involved in elections, your vote is worth a whole lot more than that of a US Marine.

ladyingray on December 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Fly safe!

Wind Rider on December 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Absolutely, but your opinion of what will and will not work in the military is decidedly less valuable.

DrMagnolias on December 15, 2010 at 11:06 AM

And Congress has heard testimony from all types of experts, both civilian and military, regarding how this will affect readiness. And if they think it is a serious enough concern, they can vote it down. Likewise, if they think the military can handle it, they can vote to repeal.

But they, as representatives of the citizenry, get the final say… not the armed forces. Contrary to the opinion of some of those who would, as I said, flirt with fascism over this issue.

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Why don’t you address the term witch hunt you and other keep applying.

Lastly, you use the term “witch hunt” and I have heard this many times before by proponents, perhaps you’d like to define that term and put some meat on those bones by giving us specific data in terms of numbers of affected individuals. How many have lied to gain access to the military and were subsequently were found to be engaging in the very behavior they specifically swore in legal documents they did not engage?

On its face the continuous use of the term “with hunt” is such a simple, pejorative and stupid term to use. You fail to provide any justification for its use beyond the fact that it is apparently an easy cudgel for you to swing.

R Square on December 15, 2010 at 11:17 AM

@R Square if your really going to pretend to care that I used the term witch hunt please read the stories of those discharged under DADT you can find many here or review the case of Margaret Witt

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:23 AM

The comments at HuffPo regarding David Epstein are really quite revealing. And I’m not sure any gay here or their supporters has a moral position to argue what he did was wrong. What would be next?

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Exactly.

The line in the sand is what is offensive to ME. PC be damned.

Roy Rogers on December 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM

I don’t want to hunt for gays. I want them to be able serve if they want to for their country.

I answered your question, now answer mine. Is Davis Epsteins behavior okay?

hawkdriver

supporting DADT does not allow them to serve and continues the witch hunts for gays. Your just falling back to the I’m a bigot but it doesn’t bother me line

Davis Epsteins behavior okay?

I have no idea I haven’t read any of the facts of the case other than the title “columbia professor admits to incest” seeing how incest is a painful chapter in my mothers family i had no wish to read another families dirty secrets. My great grandfather on my mothers side raped his daughter and than raped her children from the incest. Personally I find it a disgusting practice that typically happens in ultra religious families to be perfectly frank about it and since it is usually rape and always a betrayal of trust and position I find it morally wrong.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM

If I have a good explanation for why guys would lose less limbs, are the tank rounds and grenades obliged to support my explanation–or are they free just the same to take those limbs that they’re able to take–regardless of an explanation?

This is you thinking like a liberal again, Allah. Explanations aren’t real things–and they don’t prevent casualties. Quick, if you were going to lose a limb on the field of battle–what would the culprit be? Mortar round? Grenade? High-caliber sniper rifle? So, if you can’t explain how you would lose a limb, obviously you aren’t going to lose a limb, right? Maybe it’s just public hysteria and folk wisdom that thinks that spreads fear about losing limbs in battle. (Not to mention you couldn’t even explain which limb!)

People talk about “winning a war” without much for details as well. How will we win it? For the most part the rabble put it down to such nebulous ideas as “American can-do”, superior firepower and technology–that somebody’s going to come up with a great tactic? What tactic? That doesn’t seem to have much of an explanation behind how we’re going to “win a war”. Thus unless we can explain how the war will be won, it won’t be, right?

Who besides Napoleon might have predicted that he would use cannon in such unexpected ways to turn the tides of battle? If you lost a limb to one of Napoleon’s cannon, would you really have been able to make the case that it would come from a cannon lashed to a raft?

Explanations are also curious things–they most often convince people who accept similar premises.

Axeman on December 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM

But here you have a Marine general saying this will not work, and in fact, the Marines (and the majority of troops, in general) consistently raise objections to this, yet this is dismissed because other “experts” disagree. But the military brass doesn’t deal with the day-to-day realities of military life that most members of the military experience–they are significantly shielded from the ramifications of their positions.

And no one is asking what we will do if this goes disastrously. Do you think Congress will ever have the courage to reinstate DADT, or go even further by instating an Ask-Tell policy? Do you think any of these “experts” will have to deal with negative ramifications in any meaningful way? Of course not, which means no matter what negatives might come from this, no matter how clear this is to all objective observers that a repeal was a mistake, it will never, ever change, in no small part because they will never, ever admit what the problem is.

DrMagnolias on December 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM

However biblically it’s actually been done a fair bit so I suppose if you are making an argument for biblical morality you could allow it and of course polygamy, and also impregnating your servants in case your wife isn’t putting out (abraham)
Gay sex between consenting adults is not incest, pedophilia, or bestiality.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Biblically, it wasn’t done “a fair bit” and was condemned loudly by the Lord and his prophets!
Regarding Abraham and his lying with his handmaiden Haggar, he and everyone involved were punished soundly because he and they doubted the Lord’s promises.

It doesn’t matter whether or not gay sex is “not incest, pedophilia or bestiality.”
It can be the first 2 things, however.
You don’t join our armed forces to have sex.
Any fraternization is punished by the UCMJ.
You join to fight.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM

I have no idea I haven’t read any of the facts of the case other than the title “columbia professor admits to incest” seeing how incest is a painful chapter in my mothers family i had no wish to read another families dirty secrets. My great grandfather on my mothers side raped his daughter and than raped her children from the incest. Personally I find it a disgusting practice that typically happens in ultra religious families to be perfectly frank about it and since it is usually rape and always a betrayal of trust and position I find it morally wrong.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Revealing.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM

So Mackensie Phillips and her dad are ultra religious? I didn’t know that. And they were both consenting adults during their sexual relationship.

Do you find that disgusting?

ladyingray on December 15, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Our soldiers are too busy getting killed in Afghanistan right now to conduct any “witch hunts” for closet gays.

As to your suggestion that reading some book will rectify the “wrong thinking” of men on this board who have actually served in combat and know better, shame on you!
I found it highly offensive, disrespectful and condescending.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Wind Rider on December 15, 2010 at 10:44 AM

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

I have no idea I haven’t read any of the facts of the case other than the title “columbia professor admits to incest” seeing how incest is a painful chapter in my mothers family i had no wish to read another families dirty secrets. My great grandfather on my mothers side raped his daughter and than raped her children from the incest. Personally I find it a disgusting practice that typically happens in ultra religious families to be perfectly frank about it and since it is usually rape and always a betrayal of trust and position I find it morally wrong.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM

And where’s you link of proof that it’s found in ultra religious families? David Epstein certainly isn’t. Your entire history of debate here at HA is anti-Christian bigotry. That you call us that, is humorous.

Off to work.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM

You don’t join our armed forces to have sex.
Any fraternization is punished by the UCMJ.
You join to fight.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM

And how would the repeal of DADT change any of that?

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM

I think you’re FOS, but at least you’re being honest.

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Dude, I’m really tired of the tenor of your remarks and then your outrage that people repond directly back to you. I haven’t said at any point I’ve based my opinion on the matter based on my religion. But I’ll take this one last opportunity to respond to your assertion after I’m done flying tonight where you make the cliam. After that, I’m not going to bother reading what you write.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

And how would the repeal of DADT change any of that?

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Because it amounts to an announcement by homosexuals in the ranks that they’re ready for sexual activity with their fellow soldiers and that that is THE defining behavior of their lives.

Why don’t straights announce that they’re heterosexual to everyone all the time?
Because it’s not that important to them.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

After that, I’m not going to bother reading what you write.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

C’mon hawk. You and I both know that’s not true. BTW, “outrage”? No “outrage” here brotha.

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 11:49 AM

And how would the repeal of DADT change any of that?

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Ask the CO’s of any unit who were falsely accused of failing to promote on the basis of gender, were subsequently relieved and their careers ruined. When did PC become so important to the national defense?

DADT has worked up to now. Why change it to suit the radical agenda of gay activists who keep losing ballot measures to re-define how a majority of Americans currently define marriage?

Homosexuality is no more a Civil Right than consensual incest between adults.

Roy Rogers on December 15, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Why don’t straights announce that they’re heterosexual to everyone all the time?
Because it’s not that important to them.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Spoken by somebody who clearly doesn’t understand the culture of the armed services. Also spoken by somebody who likely has never worked with or had any other substantial dealings with gay individuals. The caricature you’ve painted is laughable.

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 11:52 AM

The caricature you’ve painted is laughable.

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Pot meet kettle.

Roy Rogers on December 15, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Religious people tend to believe that morality has to be imposed because they are not use to having to explain their actions or rationalize their behavior. However any atheist or agnostic or even a reading of humanist philosophy will show that it’s remrkably easy to construct morality based solely on the principals of property, and equality. Rape is wrong because it violates your body which is your property and was not consented to. Biblical scholars on the other hand would have to justify that a woman is her husbands property to do with as he sees fit and until recently a woman could not file rape charges on her husband.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Homosexuality, like bestiality, incest, and pedo, is a deviant sexual behavior that is simply not in line with the military.

Alden Pyle on December 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I haven’t said at any point I’ve based my opinion on the matter based on my religion. But I’ll take this one last opportunity to respond to your assertion after I’m done flying tonight where you make the cliam. After that, I’m not going to bother reading what you write.

hawkdriver

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

How do you establish the principles of property and equality? (The principals are busy at the teachers’ meeting). From whence do they come? Who establishes them? The state, right?

Haunches on December 15, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM

It’s quite clear that both you and “dakine” have a marked animosity to Christianity and attribute our general repulsion to open homosexuality to our “religious” views.

Why doesn’t it occur to you that most people find it disgusting, unnatural and perverted without any reference to our “religion” at all?

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 12:06 PM

This is just Step one to renewing the draft

Bevan on December 15, 2010 at 12:07 PM

I always find the DADT threads very enlightening, and I mean that in the best way.
Still only halfway through this one, but has anyone ever thought of what monstrosities would ensue for a captured soldier found with his/her PARTNER’s pic in his pocket or gear ??
I mean, the thought of female POWs is bad enough, but THAT ??
Talk about missing, um, limbs !!
sigh

pambi on December 15, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Biblical scholars on the other hand would have to justify that a woman is her husbands property to do with as he sees fit

The Bible has never said this and in fact, is quite clear that a wife/woman is her husband’s equal.
This is why the Lord made Eve out of Adam’s rib (so that she would be side by side with him) and why Christ told husbands to love their wives “As Christ loves the Church.”

and until recently a woman could not file rape charges on her husband.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM

You’re all over the place now…
The Bible and Christianity have very little to do with the modern treatment of rape victims in our civil and criminal courts.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM

If members of the Marine Corps do not like it, the exits are clearly marked.

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2010 at 9:19 AM

So you would be cool with, say, one in twenty quitting the military if DADT is repealed?

Because even that small percentage is the equivalent of five Army infantry divisions magically vanishing. Such a loss would require a new draft.

Is repealing DADT important enough to reinstitute universal conscription? Because that’s what will have to happen.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Homosexuality, like bestiality, incest, and pedo, is a deviant sexual behavior that is simply not in line with the military.

Alden Pyle on December 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Thank you.

UCMJ Section 925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Roy Rogers on December 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM

De-construction and invalidation of the laws and moralities that have made a culture strong are not necessarily a good thing.

Perhaps a night class on what morality is may help?

Roy Rogers on December 15, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Having stood on those yellow foot markers among many other liars, thieves, adulterers, deviants and assorted miscreants I was the worst. In 1967, in San Diego, California at the Marine Corp Recruit Depot those behaviors set aside in the interest of a higher goal. Everyone of us were reduced to the same basic status and no one was exempt from or excused from our past indiscretions but they would no longer be tolerated. We were going to be Marines, morally and professionally trained by our drill instructors. We were their recruits to be trained,disciplined, physically fit and thoroughly indoctrinated in love of God, Country and our Corps. Now some 40 years later we are going to allow one particular immoral, unnatural and deviant lifestyle be legitimized and accepted as if there would be some benefit to the services and the country. Not in my opinion.

fourdeucer on December 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM

fourdeucer on December 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Semper Fi

Roy Rogers on December 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM

fourdeucer on December 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Wow. Well said.

DrMagnolias on December 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Amen, fordeucer, and Semper Fi.

pseudonominus on December 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM

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?

In short, yes. Combat Marines are confronted with uncertainty and danger at a torrid pace and, in many areas, live worse than dogs do. Doubt it? Marines near Talil AF in Iraq lived along the river amongst garbage, animal sh!t and that was in the nice areas. The few comforts that they have is in knowing that the cohesiveness of their unit is holding. Things that threaten that, such as this gay BULL SH!T, are a concern–hence the commandant’s concerns are validated and legitimate.

ted c on December 15, 2010 at 12:54 PM

fourdeucer on December 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Roy Rogers on December 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM
pseudonominus on December 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Gentlemen and hawkdriver and everyone else on this thread who has honorably served in our military, I’d like to express my deep gratitude for your service to our nation!
You are the best of the best.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Perspective: I was in a Marine rifle company and at Fort Picket for Tank training with the Army in the spring. Some of the trenches we dug gave way under the weight of the tanks and several of our platoon got buried. We dug them out with our bare hands and stuck our fingers down their throats to scoop out the mud that blocked their airway before giving mouth to mouth.

Would I have given M2M if I knew was they were gay? Probably not, the gay lifestyle is way too risky and I’m pretty sure most of my squad members feel the same way, I know them pretty damn well. I stared down the business end of too many AK’s to go out by Aids, or catching Hep-C.

I’ve also been splattered with my A-gunners blood, bone and brains, peeled a marine of the rocks when his chock let go on a cliff climb at MWTC, and shared parts of my jaw and bicep with my fire team so it’s not like bodily fluid exchange is isolated or unlikely, especially as a grunt.

Outside of the occasional paper cut, I’m guessing you don’t have to deal with these types of concerns in the cubicle where these social experiments are dreamed up. Stick to your books and meetings, we’ll take care of the fighting, fair enough?

So call me a hater or whatever name you want, I’m not bothered by what you think in your comfy warm marketing firm office. Come play in our world and see how your ideas work for you.

Alden Pyle on December 15, 2010 at 1:01 PM

ABC is out with a new poll finding that 77 percent of the public supports letting gay troops serve openly

And would that 77% of the public serve in the military themselves?

katiejane on December 15, 2010 at 1:09 PM

supporting DADT does not allow them to serve and continues the witch hunts for gays.
Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Since everyone recognizes that gays currently DO serve in the military, hard to say that DADT is preventing serving. Based on less than 450 discharges of gays in 2009 it appears that witch hunts haven’t been that rampant, especially when no one can identify how many of those were due to the discharged servicemember having an agenda.

katiejane on December 15, 2010 at 1:19 PM

And would that 77% of the public serve in the military themselves?

katiejane on December 15, 2010 at 1:09 PM

And how many of that 77% would still approve, if they knew this would have to lead to a new draft?

My guess this number would drop to around 3%.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 1:19 PM

ABC is out with a new poll finding that 77 percent of the public supports letting gay troops serve openly

Let me know when then they strap on the battle rattle and leave the wire.

Alden Pyle on December 15, 2010 at 1:22 PM

NO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE SUPPORTS YOU BEING IN THE MILITARY AND DEDICATING YOUR LIFE TO KILLING PEOPLE.

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 10:46 AM

You should read Numbers 1. In the Old Testament, all able-bodied men twenty years and older were expected to serve. You served in the military to protect your nation and your people, and yes that meant taking life. BUT YOU DID NOT SEEK IT OUT. And killing in defense of your nation, according to God’s law, IS NOT MURDER but instead the act of judgement.

In fact, God made it clear that when the Israelites entered the Promised Land, they were to kill all people who lived there because of their sinful ways (which included homosexuality and infant sacrifice). God states that the use of their army was a JUDGEMENT upon their sinfulness.

dominigan on December 15, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Where is that ABC poll 77% public approval every time a Gay Marriage proposition is placed on the ballot?

Only 47% of Californians voted AGAINST Proposition 8, while 53% voted in favor of banning same sex marriage.

That is the best gay rights advocates could do in California!
California for goodness sake!

Roy Rogers on December 15, 2010 at 1:32 PM

This has always been a pro-homosexual “rights” website but, since Michelle left and the Redstate people took over, it has just gotten ridiculous.

Allah, you are intentional working to establish homosexuality as the new normal. It’s obvious. That’s neither here nor their, but I’d respect you more if you had the guts to just declare that to be your official stance on the matter.

HOT RINO would be a good start.

Venusian Visitor on December 15, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Gentlemen and hawkdriver and everyone else on this thread who has honorably served in our military, I’d like to express my deep gratitude for your service to our nation!
You are the best of the best.

Jenfidel on December 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Why, thank you Jen. BTW, no animosity toward Christianity or any other religion. My animosity is reserved for fundamentalist twits like you.

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 1:41 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.

@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

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Smells like an angry young troll to me.

Roy Rogers on December 15, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5