1 You also will have to amend the UCMJ as Sodomy is illegal.

2 Might not go anywhere but not one single MSM outlet was spewing HUGE BUDGET BLOWOUT...42 cents of every dollar to be borrowed (or printed). 

Our media, AP in particular, is better than Pravda ever hoped to be because they have the guise of being a free and independent media.

3 I was just listening to talk radio on the way home.  Opinions were all over the map, from repeal DADT and allow gays to serve openly,  to go back to no gays in the military at all.  One caller who had previously served and is gay said that he thought DADT was good - since it was a forbidden subject, it took pressure off of him.

It was an interesting conversation. 

4 I'm curious about gays showering and living in close quarters with straights. How's that work out? I had that situation in the college gym (I was one of the straighties) and I thought it was kind of funny -- but I could see where some people might not.

5 I always thought that DADT was a good compromise. I don't think the military is a good place for in your face gays

6 Speaking of a different kind of DAD:
Geithner and Bernanke getting it on:
http://tinyurl.com/yccermp

7 ACE you were right about Mullen and so was Michael Savage.  I worked with a retired Air Force bomber pilot who had done bombing missions over Vietnam and Cambodia  and I'd serve with him anytime.  However, he was also very conservative and  and never flaunted it, though evryone knew it.  In those days nobody cared.  It was his business and not ours.  And it worked well for everyone.  Mullen is a Liberal I didn't even liked the way he talked on his 60 minutes interview.

8 Since gays can already serve, and since many single people serve without their sexuality being know, what exactly is the issue here?  It does not appear to be to strengthen the US Military. 

9 I don't think I have an opinion about this, except a vague suspicion that the top brass are not immune from elevating political correctness over the good of the service if pressed by the CIC. How do the enlisted men feel about it?

10 I would like to see DADT repealed.  Anyone who wants to serve and is physically and mentally capable should not be denied because of their sexuality.  Our armed forces are well trained, well disciplined and of superior character.  Sexualilty has nothing to do with that. 

11 I was about to say, pull the plug on it. By now just about everybody, in the armed services or out, has some openly gay friends or acquaintances. It just isn't that big a deal anymore.

BUT:  As I was typing those words I realized a huge can of worms this opens. From now on every gay man or lesbian in uniform can go run crying to a superior with bleats about harassment and discrimination the first time they have to do something they don't like, or don't get something they wanted. The ACLU and every gay organization in the country will swoop in to litigate the nation's defenses out of existence.

12 10 I would like to see DADT repealed.  Anyone who wants to serve and is physically and mentally capable should not be denied because of their sexuality.  Our armed forces are well trained, well disciplined and of superior character.  Sexualilty has nothing to do with that. 

Posted by: Ms Choksondik

That seems to support the DADT policy. Sexuality has nothing to do with it, so why make it an issue?

13 I always thought that DADT was a good compromise.

Me too.

14

Sigh.  Why is the left so obsessed with using the military for social experimentation?  My theory is that they know it is a fundamentally conservative institution - therefore it gives them joy to defile it by forcing their ways on it.  The Left loves to shit all over everything good and decent.  They can not build - they can only tear down.

Debating this policy accomplishes nothing good.  It stirs up bad feelings on both sides.  If the policy does not change, it's a distraction for no good effect.  If the policy does change, what does it add to force strength?  Will battallions of new homosexual enlistees flood the recruiting offices?  Seems improbable to me.

I do not suggest that homosexuals can't fight - Greece and Sparta showed that they can.  But, as things stand, that way of life is not considered normal or manly in our culture.  Open homosexuals WILL have some measure of trouble in the armed forces.  There will be an affect on morale.  Especially in peace time.  There's no positive outcome to batting this around.

15 I'm with McCain on this one. People lie about who they are all the time to get what they want. That isn't anything new. Do you have to get waterboarded or even take a lie detector test to get into the military? DADT may not be perfect, as nothing is perfect,  but the question is are the benefits of openness greater than any morale affect the change would have? I dare say Zero gives not a shit. IMHO, political correctness has no place in a functional military. They exist to break things and kill people. That ain't politically correct, and thats why leftists like Bill Clinton and Obama not only don't give a damn about soldiers, they openly despise them, as has been illustrated on multiple occasions when they used soldiers as a camera back drop and little else. This is nothing more than a bone thrown to the leftard base.

16 Sexuality of any kind (when on duty or representing the country) should be off limits in our armed forces. Would you want your daughters to enlist and then be the subject of overt sexual conduct in the field? Heterosexual, homosexual, bestial...whatever. it is a professional army. They are expected to behave with dignity.

But off base, in a bar? Who gives a shit?

17 What is so controversial about Digital Audio Data Tape....oh... nevermind...

18

There have been and are gays and lesbians in the military -- it's a joke to think otherwise (even when it was forbidden).  But I think DADT serves a good purpose: really, your sex life is not anyone's business, but you shouldn't make it anyone's business either.  It is flawed, but it has served the purpose of keeping discipline -- and sorry, but pc doesn't belong in the military.  I really don't give a flying fig about any groups' "feelings" about being accepted when it comes to the military especially -- if it keeps discipline and morale, then that's the way to go.  The harsh reality is that in the military you are in very close, intimate proximity to a lot of people -- you have to stay professional.  There are a lot of straight people who don't like gays, and who aren't going to be professional when it comes to dealing with them -- this will be excerbated in the military.  Similarly there are some gays who are not the most professional folks in the world and who will purposely throw their sexuality out in the open for the shock value and will purposely hit on straights just to do it -- this too would be excerbated in the military.  All of it would, imho, create problems within the ranks, and that cannot be tolerated. To a certain extent women in the military can create the same issues -- and yes, as former military with female kids in I shouldn't be saying this I suppose, but it's the truth.

This isn't a condemnation of gays or straights -- just the harsh facts of human nature.  If everybody was decent and professional all the time it wouldn't be a problem, but I don't see humans becoming perfect overnight any time soon.

19 "Senator Chambliss noted that military life is not like civilian life for good reason and compared DADT with military prohibitions on alcohol, adultery, and tattoos."

Um... what?  If gays in the military are as prohibited as getting drunk, fucking whores and getting tatts, then it's already as mainstream as anything else.

That said, keep fuckin' that chicken Barry.

20 Ms Choksondik, you realize that in the past it was ASKED? If you were gay and wanted to serve you'd have to lie; if you were later outed as gay, you'd get an OTH or DD. That's what a repeal would presumably return us to.

21

#2 Our media, AP in particular, is better than Pravda ever hoped to be because they have the guise of being a free and independent media.

True, and I wonder if they know it.  I get a sense that like most Liberals they are not really aware of how grotesquely nuts they are because they are so deranged and full of rationalizations, denial, self delusion, scorn, hatred and ar so bitterly partisan that they believe everyone else is too, and is playing the same phony game as they are.  Basically, they are devoid of any moral compass except their "feelings" which makes them fall for any asshole bullshit that makes them feel good about themselves.  They cannot be changed they must, and they will, be DEFEATED!

22 arhoole:

I don't think they're looking for repeal of DADT.  They are looking for replacement policy.  Think 2,000 pages of intricate legalese allowing skirts on soldiers wearing panties. 

23 Would not a repeal of DADT mean a reversion to pre-Clinton policy where you got yourself a Dishonorable Discharge for such? (not rhetorical, words still mean something, maybe)

Personally I would suggest a reinforcement of DADT - as in everyone needs a hobby, and your hobby after duty is none of Command's business so long as it does not affect performance on duty.

24

This, despite the finding last year that 69% of the public support repeal, including 58% of self-identified conservatives.

Yay, 69% of the public doesn't have a clue about the military.  I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

How's about we leave the military decisions to the military?

25  Sexualilty has nothing to do with that. 

Posted by: Ms Choksondik

So why is your handle a sexual innuendo?

26 Personally, I think DADT should be repealed.  A person's sexuality don't reflect upon a person's honor or integrity, in my opinion.

But I wonder how many gay men and women don't want DADT to be repealed because it gives them an easy out when they tire of military service.  I know three folks who outed themselves to get out of the Army.

27 I don't think they're looking for repeal

Come to think of it, has anyone actually said whether this is revert-to-previous or replace-with-nanny-edict?

28

We will never be truly free until every fashionable and politically correct concept becomes firmly entrenched in our military... or something.

DADT was originally a compromise to allow otherwise honorably serving gays to remain in the military without fear of being outed. Now the gay lobby demands more as 'live and let live' is now not good enough as everybody must now embrace the diversity.

Screw that.

Dump DADT and go back to the previous rules.

29 How's about we leave the military decisions to the military?

Clinton should never have butted in. But once you get the government camel's nose under any tent, that's it. Now we'll have to "fix" it by roping off an area for the camel and a small herd of sheep.

30 DADT is a completely brain dead policy from a security POV.  When you force people to be closeted, then they become obvious targets for compromise attempts by foreign intelligence services. 

Liberalism/conservatism/morality/etc arguments all become secondary to the security one. 

The only logical position I see is we need to be either all in, or all out.  The middle ground is fraught with unacceptable danger.  Even if we were to adopt the "all out" position, that's still NOT going to prevent gays from enlisting and the situation degenerates back to the DADT one on security.

There may be issues with unit cohesion/morale, service on subs and whatnot that would need to be ironed out if some problem arose, but I suspect savy CO's and XO's could handle these with internal roster adjustments or transfers to different units.

31 DADT was originally a compromise to allow otherwise honorably serving gays to remain in the military without fear of being outed.

Then why dump it, Jim?

32

Look, let me be clear, as I've said in the past, I'm not an ideologue and that stuff about rescinding don't ask, don't tell was just lip service for the gays and the libs.

33

Some jobs aren't for everybody.  If taking a stand and stating you are a homosexual feel free to do it but don't be surprised if hetero's don't want to shower or share a pup tent with you.  The nickname for one of our aircraft carriers is the love boat.  Deploying women in close quarters with men seems to have had unintended consequences.  Female troops that get pregnant in a combat zone are being considered for court martial.  Two more types of shower and sleeping quarters for male and female homosexuals would be in order.  Unit cohesiveness would be down the drain.  A litany of lawsuits for our warriors to deal with would rain down on them. Write a new CMJ for hate speach or the guy that punches another one in the face for looking at his junk in the barracks. 

 Every new day brings another bucket of shit for POTUS to stir up for no reason. 

34

Look, let me be clear, as I've said in the past, I'm not an ideologue ....

Posted by: Barry Obama

Exactly the point. Should have been settled by the military instead of by, erm, non-ideologues who are, eh, perfectly clear about their intentions and who, ah, abide by all their pledges.

35 31 DADT was originally a compromise to allow otherwise honorably serving gays to remain in the military without fear of being outed.

Then why dump it, Jim?

Posted by: arhooley at February 02, 2010 10:40 PM (B/dEP)

If it was never expanded beyond DADT, I wouldn't want to dump it. I really don't care either way.

But since DADT isn't now good enough, and it seems was only an intended as the first crack in the door, then I have no interest in keeping it as against all previous promises; it's just a mechanism for forced social acceptance of a lifestyle most people don't find acceptable.

36 it's just a mechanism for forced social acceptance of a lifestyle most people don't find acceptable.

Well, my view is a little different; I think this new interest in it is just a mechanism for destroying military effectiveness and national defense.

37 arhooley writes:

I'm curious about gays showering and living in close quarters with straights. How's that work out?

I'm also certain that something there will have to be ironed out. Several people have raised privacy and forced intimacy concerns for straights and gays serving together. A flippant "they already do under DADT" doesn't exactly answer that concern. And if things are supposed to be all out in the open and above-board, that needs to be part of DOD's review.

av wrote:

I don't think the military is a good place for in your face gays

And unknown jane wrote:

There have been and are gays and lesbians in the military -- it's a joke to think otherwise (even when it was forbidden).  But I think DADT serves a good purpose: really, your sex life is not anyone's business, but you shouldn't make it anyone's business either.  It is flawed, but it has served the purpose of keeping discipline -- and sorry, but pc doesn't belong in the military...Similarly there are some gays who are not the most professional folks in the world and who will purposely throw their sexuality out in the open for the shock value and will purposely hit on straights just to do it -- this too would be excerbated in the military.

I agree that a person's sex life isn't the most professional topic of conversation and that "throwing" one's sex life in the faces of others is detrimental for disciple. But DADT goes much further than merely maintaining discipline. Not only is a gay soldier prohibited (as he should be, mind you) from doing those things you note you do not like: "throwing their sexuality out in the open for the shock value" and purposely hitting on straights. He is also prohibited from things so simple and non-disruptive as keeping a picture of a boyfriend or even referring to a boyfriend in casual conversation, two things that straight soldiers do routinely with respect to their girlfriends, fiances, and wives. A gay soldier can't even kiss a boyfriend goodbye at the airport like a straight one can his girlfriend without fear of DADT.

More than that, under DADT gays in the military are prohibited from marrying their boyfriends in the states where gay marriage is lawful.  Can you imagine the outcry if straight soldiers were prohibited from marrying?

I agree with you that disruptive behavior, routinely characterized as "flaunting it", must be sharply prohibited for the sake of discipline. But things like phone calls to a lover, letters and photographs from loved ones, simply holding hands with a boyfriend if he comes to visit on or near base, are not "flaunting it."

barbelle writes:

How's about we leave the military decisions to the military?

Really?

38  I served during the Southeast Asian War Games, back in the '60s. During that time I knew a few gays in uniform. A couple of them were in the vernacular of the day, flaming faggots.  One, a Doc in an infantry platoon died, shielding a wounded Marine with his body. That Marine is now a grandfather.

 Others were disruptive, perhaps they were trying to get out of touring the Land Of Bad Things. Oddly, today young women in the services are getting out of dangerous and hardship tours by becoming pregnant, which is sort of the same thing. In both cases it was lightweights unwilling to carry their gear and leaving holes in the unit.

 I wish I had the answer, I don't. And the thing that bothers me is that no one is asking the small town and country, unfashionable 18-19 year old kids who might find themselves in the recruiting office, talking to the professional liars, recruiters.

 I don't care what McCain says, or Gates or Admiral Mullen. It's those kids that are enlisting or, if all those important people guess wrong, not enlisting. I don't know what they think, it's been 40 years since I was wearing Uncle's suit.

 I do know that all those important people, plus all of us that are not those 18-20 year olds are simply bloviating. So, I'll shut up.

39 what a sad state of logic this thread has put up, let's see "Live and let live" seriously folks? with the underlying message that you would be forced to kill a gay if you knew they were really gay? how different is that from muslim honor killings? Haven't we moved beyond that as a culture? "It's working perfectly fine no reason to change anything" Well despite the obvious security issues of blackmail and coercion that other have mentioned, what you are saying is give me your blood your sweat your years and that's fine but I don't want to think of you as a person, your just a cog in my shiny military and you'll pretend to be what i want you to be" You can't have anyone waiting for you when you get back, your loved one can never know if you've been wounded or killed, moving them around is your problem as is jobs benefits and dignity. You can't have them at functions, you can't talk about them and you can't have any social supports that we've found to be super helpful to all the straights. Your spouse can never confide in anyone, your life must be completely whitewashed with lies to fit in. How is that right? How can you condemn anyone to that and say you care about the men and women in the armed forces?? As for favoritism or eros, with women serving in the military these issues are faced everyday in every branch and guess what we still have the greatest military of all time. As a gay man that lived in the closet for 14 years, who at first thought that living in the closet was an easy alternative I can testify to the invalidity and damage that the philosophy entails. Besides the fact that it nearly ruined every friendship that i had, the stress nearly drove me insane and almost destroyed me as a functioning human. Condemning men and women to a life of secrecy and lies is an unacceptable democratic position to take simply so others can avoid the truth about their fellow man.

40

I haven't read most of the comments, but I should point out that in seven years and change in the military, split between two branches of service, I never saw DADT used against anyone that command wasn't looking to get rid of anyway.  If the guy was a good Marine/soldier nobody gave a fuck. 

Just saying.

41 What about trannies?

42 To the 69 percenters... Less than 1/3 of 1 percent of the population serves. When there is a mass exodus from people not re-enlisting because you chose to force your ideas onto a society and culture that you know nothing about, how many of you will come rushing forward to fill the gap caused by your ignorance? Yeah, thats what I thought.

43 What?

44

Really?

Golly gosh gee willikins, yes.

45 Gabriel, some people would probably consider a kiss good-bye at the airport or a photograph of a boyfriend major, flaming, royal "flaunting." But I agree it would be incredibly damaging and cruel to deny a military man or woman the support of family, including significant other. The intimate living quarters issues you say need to be "ironed out," but that sounds like something much easier said than done. I don't know what all the answers are, but I agree, they should be reached by the military.

46

Less than 1/3 of 1 percent of the population serves. When there is a mass exodus from people not re-enlisting because you chose to force your ideas onto a society and culture that you know nothing about, how many of you will come rushing forward to fill the gap caused by your ignorance?

But but but...how else can they feel all socially superior and open-minded than the people who actually know what they're talking about firsthand?

47

I think there are some here who don't understand what DADT does and what repeal/reversion to the previous would do.

DADT allows gays to serve, as long as they stay in the closet. Repeal (and reversion to previous) bans gays from the military. If you're outed, you're eligible for an OTHD or a DD.

48

"Live and let live" seriously folks? with the underlying message that you would be forced to kill a gay if you knew they were really gay?"

Posted by: Tim at February 02, 2010 11:02 PM (ZVCmH)

Gabe, is this one of your "excitable" twitter friends that only seem to show up in your gay issue threads?

This is the same "Tim", with the same matching hash, that thinks it's just peachy to harass Prop 8 donors in California.

 "This is just cause some prissy mormons and baptist house wives are suddenly aware that their name is on a statement that their gay sons or daughters are going to read.  Gays make up what 3% of the population and the FRIGGIN christians are afraid of witch hunts? Give me a break if you want to play public politics the price is that your views are in the open."

Posted by: Tim at January 11, 2009 10:47 AM (ZVCmH)

49 @1 - Sodomy should be removed from UCMJ as just about every straight soldier has broken that law and frankly the way someone is getting it on has no bearing on the military.

@40 - That is the truth.

I'm a soldier (weekend warrior type now days), and honestly I can care less if a man or a woman is looking at me clothed or naked.  Just as long as they maintain their bearing, all is good.  I personally think a lot of people are giving themselves way too much credit for gays wanting to check out their junk, you aren't that attractive, get over yourselves.

50 As has been mentioned, the prohibition against homosexuality is part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The military only has discretion as to how it will enforce the UCMJ. 
The military really doesn't have the power to ignore the UCMJ.  Only Congress can change the UCMJ.
McCain's objection to the military's "usurping" the law.
It's strange that The One has chosen this route to do this.
If he the votes, he should just do it and the military will simply obey the law.
If he doesn't have the votes, it really doesn't matter what Admiral Mullen comes up with, repealing DADT will simply mean we go back to the days when gays were simply banned outright.

51 McCain's objection to the military's "usurping" the law was valid.

Dyslexic fingers.

52 Re the living quarters....Over the years, I had 8 different barracks room mates. This is in a room that is about 300 square feet. There are 4 doors in this room. The entrance, bathroom, and 2 closets. The beds are about 20 feet from each other. How do you quarter homosexuals? Going out to the field, my team would pile into 3 man tents, about 20 square feet. How do you quarter homosexuals? When we went to the field and had to use pup tents, its two men (each man gets a shelter half) sleeping shoulder to shoulder. Females get issued two shelter halves to ensure they aren't put into a potentially nightmarish situation. Do we issue homosexuals two shelter halves as well? But, I guess the dolts that support this have taken less time to actually think about this situation in depth than it has taken them the time to read this post.

53 Senator McCaskill had an interesting question. She wondered if there was any way they could get the input of gays currently serving in the military. Mullen noted that, for obvious reasons, they cannot make that inquiry, nor can gays currently serving step forward. Gates suggested one possibility is talking to gays who have already been discharged under DADT.

---

I've got some input from heterosexuals currently serving in the military:

http://tinyurl.com/adz5fl

Would you have still joined the military if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve
openly?

10% No
13% Not Sure

So, we'd lose at least 10% - and as much as 23% - of our military recruits, all in order to satisfy the demands of the 2% of the military that is homosexual ( http://tinyurl.com/yfy4wo4 ). While fighting a two-front war.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

54 Just out of wild curiosity, I did a search on "can diabetics serve in the military?" Turns out, they can't. Typically, they get a medical discharge.

There's several good reasons for this, including the fact that stress ping-pongs your blood sugar levels and you could let down your fellow soldiers. It seems like it's painting with a very broad brush, however, and I'm sure there are quartermasters who develop diabetes during their service who resent the hell out of being discharged.

In civilian life, the ADA would require that "reasonable accommodations" be made to keep you productive. It's painful to contemplate losing skills and experience over something that may not directly apply to the situation at hand. But that's the way the military runs things.

If I had my druthers, both diabetics and gays would receive specific, personal evaluations as to whether their circumstances were likely to impact their military service. But nobody's shooting at me. Nobody's trying to overrun my house. It would be quite unusual for me to be shipped halfway around the world and have to immediately take orders from some complete strangers and give orders to other complete strangers, based on what I was wearing. I'm planning on sleeping in my own bed tonight, as I do most nights, with a special someone who I picked out of a multitude to partner with -- instead of dossing down with whoever happened to be transiting the area. So, really, my druthers don't matter all that much.

On the flip side, the US military routinely copes with all of the above complications, and more besides -- and they do it better than anyone else. If they determine that they'd like to reconstitute the Sacred Band of Thebes in the service, stick with DADT, go back to the previous system, or move onto something different, great weight should be put on their assessment. Perhaps a pilot program could be initiated....

If someone were to tell Picasso, "uh, could you have a little more teal in the blue in that painting? It'd match my drapes better," they'd be lucky to get, "I'll think about it" in response. While the ultimate goals of our military are properly set by civilian oversight, the CinC and SecDef look foolish if they micromanage.

55

Do away with separate facilities for male and female, as well, and I'll go for it.

Are we going to let the military unionize next?

56 What about trannies?

Posted by: runninrebel at February 02, 2010 11:14 PM (i3PJU)

No shit. Which uniform do they wear? Do they have to pick one and stick with it?

57 My List of Military Priorities 1.Win in Afghanistan 2.Capture Osama Bin Laden 3.Defeat Al Qaeda around the globe 4.Take care of our wounded soldiers 5.Take care of our vets 6.Protect the homeland. 1000. Repeal DADT

58 This isn't about gays in the military. Its about undoing societal norms so the libs can replace it with whatever they think will bring them utopia.

In order to create a perfect world, the libs believe that all the structures of the previous society must be torn down so they can be replaced with their perfect vision. And the strongest building block society has is the married pair.
Do you think its a coincidence that the liberal denigrates marriage and undermines it wherever he can? He mocks it in the culture. Makes laws that undermine the permanence of the bond. Quickie divorce, consequence free sex, gay "marriage" etc.
And who does the fatherless, family-less, person turn to? The lib in the form of the government. We've already witnessed the destruction of the black family. Now they go after the rest.
And once they get their perfect society, who're the first in the gas chambers? That's right blacks and gays. Don't believe me? Just ask Che, Stalin, Mao, Shaw, Sanger, and good all Uncle Adolf.

59 Sexualilty has nothing to do with that. Posted by: Ms Choksondik ---- So why is your handle a sexual innuendo? - Bill R. ----- What does my name (south park character) have to do with sexuality in the military?

60

I served in the Marine Corps with gays and had no problem with them. That was in Viet Nam and it was live and let live. But those were the conditions that made survival the only thing you cared about. Here is a list of my cons on repeal of DADT

1. Men/women in authority positions take a lover in the same company they lead. Favoritism? You betcha.

2. In your face taunting by extreme gays like everyone in San Francisco has seen will not go unchallenged in the military. This will be as uniting as Obama is.

3. Any of you ever had a roommate bring home the bacon while you were sleeping in the other bed in the same room? Fun ain't it? Lots of noises and unpleasant things for you to listen to instead of sleeping.

4. Imagine you are in the showers and two or more gays start to play soap-a-dope? It might be funny one time but not every time you go to the head or showers. Talk about making life even worse than it need be.

5. A mean Sgt. makes life hard for a grunt during basic training and it turns out that the grunt is gay. Does he act like a man and do the extra crap or does he call the ACLU?

6. You are really in the shit where dying is a real possibility in a foxhole with your assigned buddy when the fan is hit. He realizes that this might be it and leaves the hole you share and heads to the hole where his true love is. Military discipline?

7.You are a straight man and ask the general if you can shower with the lezzies since you know they are not interested in you and no sexual problems will arise.What are the odds that he will say "Hell Yes" to make you feel more accepted?

8. As mentioned above what if two of these guys/gals decide to get married while in basic or after training where they have to serve in the same unit? If the military did not recognise the marriage they could then serve as man and man in the field where the problems would be limitless.

There many more areas of difficulty that can be presented that will kill morale. Some have tried to equate it with blacks in the military. That is so faulty on so many fronts to be considered a serious comparison. The only way to go on this is to make sexuality in the military a non issue and DADT does that. 

61 @Jim in San Diego wow quoting that I think people who sign petitions should understand that their names become part of the public record instead of trying to pass laws completely invalidates everything I said. Brilliant asking someone to lie so you don't have to alter your opinions is a shallow hypocritical way to honor those serving in the military. Pretending that if you don't know someone is gay somehow affects the reality of the situation is the most ridiculous head in the sand attitude adults can spew. and twitter rocks anyway

62

Seriously, why are men and women not showering together now, if the sex thing is not an issue?

Lose that and let me know how it works.

63 "Comes down to integrity."

Hey Mullen!  Would that be the same "integrity" that allowed a certain mental case posing as an Army Major get favorable evaluations when he was a worthless piece of shit?

Since they have to live with it.  Here's an interesting proposition.
LET THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE VOTE ON WHETHER TO REPEAL DTDT AND ALLOW GAYS IN THE MILITARY.

64 Which part of the Constitution makes it a right to serve in the military?

65 there is no reason for this take so long to implement.  just stop tossing people out based on their sexual orientation.... done !

66

Alinsky is going to have his way on this one too, huh?

 

67 62 @Jim in San Diego
wow quoting that I think people who sign petitions should understand that their names become part of the public record instead of trying to pass laws completely invalidates everything I said. Brilliant

Posted by: Tim at February 03, 2010 12:01 AM (ZVCmH)   Actually it does Tim. It "outs" you as a single issue whack job that would trash the secret ballot voting section of the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of an agenda of not what is good for the country, but instead what is best for gays. More importantly I think it reflects very poorly on Gabe as it gives me some insight on how his friends think, which is likely how he thinks, when he's not here.  

68 Posted by: Tim at February 03, 2010 12:01 AM (ZVCmH)

wow quoting that I think people who sign petitions should understand that their names become part of the public record instead of trying to pass laws completely invalidates everything I said. Brilliant

***********************************************

"The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788.

...

At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely-guarded secret, though astute observers guessed that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were the likely authors."

************************************************

Gee, how about that -- the same people that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights also engaged in pseudonymous publication so that they wouldn't be subject to harassment. I guess that's why the first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances unless the chickenshit SOBs don't want their home addresses to be part of the public record."

I can't see why Jim in San Diego might think that your previous writings might undercut your credibility. Nosirree. Not at all.

69 @ Jim in San Diego the fact that I'm talking about a single issue doesn't make me a single issue person I just feel strongly about gay marriage and gays in the military. the fact that you avoided talking about any of the issues i raised says more about how you stereotype people and make assumptions about their beliefs. As for being out, well duh I tell people I'm gay in my posts because I have a personal stake in the outcome and i want people to understand that from a personal experience I can tell you that hiding people in the closet is bad policy and bad morality. As for judging Gabe by me simply because he knows me is simple mindedness. Gabe's a great guy and has a great head on his shoulders and I'm proud to know him. What I believe does not contribute to a "gayblogmind" that spits out ready made blog comments. why your even associating the two is beyond me. So to reiterate when you get this far. When you figure out the moral compromise for keeping DADT and find a way of notifying their loved ones of their demise and gives them benefits that doesn't violate DADT you come back with an answer.

70 Oops -- sorry, Jim, didn't mean to step on your argument.

And please don't hit Gabe up with "guilt by association" -- I've broken bread with sinners and with saints; those whose thinking amazes me because they can leap forward where I trudge along, and those who can't seem to make it over the hurdle of "if A, then B, and if B, then C, really means if A, then C".

71 @cthulhu to easy I'll just use the impecable logic of the anti gay crowd who say that gays have the right to marry the opposite sex just like everyone else. I'm not advocating that they can't petition just that they don't mind standing by their views. As for quoting the anonymity of the writers of the federalists papers ( have these become religious canon now?) the federalist papers were not a petition and there were more reasons for staying anonymous than avoiding harassment. first you have to prove the point before you can use it in an argument, making assumptions about historical events to prove your point is a weak rhetorical slight of hand that doesn't prove anything.

72 71 Oops -- sorry, Jim, didn't mean to step on your argument.

And please don't hit Gabe up with "guilt by association" -- I've broken bread with sinners and with saints; those whose thinking amazes me because they can leap forward where I trudge along, and those who can't seem to make it over the hurdle of "if A, then B, and if B, then C, really means if A, then C".

Posted by: cthulhu at February 03, 2010 12:35 AM (u+gbs)

If I thought it was just a one-off or occasional knuckle head siding with Gabe I wouldn't have said anything. It just seems to be a recurring theme with some of his posts. He sends tweets to his LGBTOMGWTFBBQ friends and they all show up here, and only in those posts, and frequently they espouse views (on non-gay topics) usually only held by the Honest Clouds of the world.

73

Tim, earlier in this thread, tried to draw a parallel between live and let live as only being a step away from the killing of gays.

Live and let live doesn't work for him, we must be forced to embrace whatever it is he decided he likes, and if we dare say anything, we must be outed and harassed until we conform.

I don't have any friends that think like that about anything, be they sinner or saint.

74 If this goes through there will be a story every day about some abuse against homosexuals by enlisted men. You can't expect a bunch of testosterone-filled young men, most away from home for the first time, to avoid slinging abuse at one another. They do it ALL the time. Slinging crap is part of being a young man.

They call each other all kinds of things, and using homosexual terms as slurs against straights is common among young men, period.

Are our soldiers now going to be expected to constantly moderate their speech, so as to not offend the sensibilities of homosexuals? THAT is a distraction the military does not need.

Yet ANOTHER example of the radical homosexual agenda, demanding that society adjust to their extremist minority position.

BTW, you can join the conservative open-forum conversation at It's About Freedom, by clicking on my name.

75 Tim:

Try to remember the first rule of holes. Your own statements: "I'm not advocating that they can't petition just that they don't mind standing by their views." and "the federalist papers were not a petition and there were more reasons for staying anonymous than avoiding harassment." cannot be squared. By saying, "more reasons", you concede that there are valid reasons -- even if you imply that avoiding harassment isn't valid in itself.....a position with which I disagree.

Then you attempt to say that the Federalist Papers -- which advocated a specific political act -- were not intended to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances".............and this would mean what, precisely? That pseudonymous communication would instead be freedom of speech or the press? Er, ok.....

The fact is that the same people who were negotiating and writing the Constitution were publishing advocacy pieces under pseudonyms. So when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, it is a bit of stretch to say that it bars the same behavior that its authors were performing as it was written.

And, frankly, it can be an indicator of unreliability to maintain otherwise. Now, you can stick a gloss on it -- for instance, you could say that Hamilton wanted to make it impossible to instigate a successful revolution in the same way that Hamilton had instigated the one they were currently operating.... But that would fall under the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" rule.

I would also caution against polarizing oversimplifications -- e.g. "I'll just use the impecable [sic] logic of the anti gay crowd". For one thing, you're straying from the subject -- and for another, you may be characterizing allies as enemies. If you read my comment, above, I am just as much anti-gay as I am anti-diabetic. Furthermore, although I generally support gay marriage, I voted for Prop 8.

Process means something. In 1973, the Supremes went around the process in Roe v. Wade......which recently bought us the Tiller murder. We all have things that we want, but can't have -- I'd like to drive to wherever I'm going at 100 mph, but I have to respect and acknowledge all those other folks on the road. If we don't start talking about what is reasonable and what can be worked out between reasonable people -- and, in horrific situations, resorting to judicial fiat -- we'll end up with carnage and chaos.

Returning now to the theme of the thread -- the military has said that they'll look into it. That's awfully nice of them, considering that they're slightly busy at the moment, but..... Shouldn't we let them come back with the results of their investigations? And shouldn't we scrutinize those results for any bias, whether for DADT or against?

76

And shouldn't we scrutinize those results for any bias, whether for DADT or against?

Posted by: cthulhu at February 03, 2010 01:17 AM (u+gbs)

I'm sure any report out of the tarnished brass currently running things, will be as unbiased as the report on Maj. Hassan.

77 Jim in San Diego:

Gabe is Gabe. You can get him rolling on the subject of gay rights, just like you can get me rolling on the subject of the Internal Revenue Code (I'm a CPA).... it's one thing to have interests and aspirations. It's quite another to (a) get unprofessional about it [I've so far managed to avoid chanting, 'Die, m***erf***ers, die' while speaking to the IRS] or (b) fixate to the point of parody [see Sullivan, 'I don't care who he bombs, he was against gay marriage like everyone else.'].

Gabe's interested in gay rights. Well, duh. But in the middle of a loud crowd of half-drunk morons, we exchanged a couple of comments regarding the proper role of Federalism in sorting it all out. Did he go bananas about "laws be damned, it's what's RIGHT!!!!", or did he go "if we can't get married, it's the end of the world!!!!"? Er, no -- not even close.

From what I saw, Gabe's more of a good guy, a fellow moron, and an attorney than he is "a gay". YMMV.

Oh, and he has friends who show up and throw stinkbombs. Holy crap, am I grateful that all the whack and semi-whack people I know don't write comments!

78 Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at February 03, 2010 01:26 AM (dQdrY)

Unfortunately, a very good observation.....

79

Gabe, is this one of your "excitable" twitter friends that only seem to show up in your gay issue threads?

I think it reflects very poorly on Gabe as it gives me some insight on how his friends think, which is likely how he thinks, when he's not here. 

If I thought it was just a one-off or occasional knuckle head siding with Gabe I wouldn't have said anything. It just seems to be a recurring theme with some of his posts. He sends tweets to his LGBTOMGWTFBBQ friends and they all show up here, and only in those posts, and frequently they espouse views (on non-gay topics) usually only held by the Honest Clouds of the world.

First, I sent no tweets calling anyone in to comment on this post, although under circumstances in which I wasn't being attacked for something I didn't do and for comments I didn't write I would be amused at the thought of having my very own posse. I did write a general tweet that I had a new post up. I do this for almost every post, with the exception of things like the daily Top Headlines Comments thread. It was not, however, directed at anyone. I asked no person to participate in this thread.

Second, this whole "you must think exactly like other gay people who know you and it reflects very poorly on you" is a frankly stupid thing to say. I suppose it was intended to irritate me. Congratulations. I'm irritated. Oh, look how irritated I am. Aaaaargh. ::makes dinosaur claws at computer::

Third, there's no reason at all for you to guess "likely how think" based on your "insight" into the comments of readers who are, well, not me. If you hadn't noticed, I blog here. What I think is often clear from what I write. As they say in my line of work, always start with the text. And if you're unsure of what I think but would like to know, you can always ask. I suspect you'll get much closer to "likely how I think" if you do that instead of relying on your "insight" based on the comments of others. Just a suggestion.

Fourth, as you note, it is not "just a one-off or an occasional knuckle-head" who sides with me. In fact, several people on this thread aside from Tim have also expressed support for doing away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As I wrote in the post, a majority of Americans and a majority of conservatives are ready to get rid of it. So it doesn't seem like a view "only held by the Honest Clouds of the world." I'm not really sure why you believe it is.

80

I strongly doubt DADT will be repealed anytime soon. Obama and the Democrats talk about it a lot, but have they done anything about it since he took office? Wow, some investigations. That's... utter bull. They're just a fig leaf thrown to make to the gay activisits happy. If they really wanted to repeal it, Congressional Dems would vote on it or Obama would sign an executive order - y'know, actual actions rather than words. But considering they wildly applaud a man that is vocally opposed to gay marriage, the gay activists are dumb enough to fall for this stunt.

Me? I don't care if they repeal DADT or not. I'm just sick and tired of all this meandering on an issue that is - frankly - nowhere near as important as the wars or the economy. Piece of advice to both sides of the argument currently serving in the government: put up or shut up.

81 The majority of Americans do not get to vote, directly, on military policy. For a very good reason. They don't know dick about it.

82 Gabe's interested in gay rights. Well, duh. But in the middle of a loud crowd of half-drunk morons, we exchanged a couple of comments regarding the proper role of Federalism in sorting it all out. Did he go bananas about "laws be damned, it's what's RIGHT!!!!", or did he go "if we can't get married, it's the end of the world!!!!"? Er, no -- not even close.

cthulhu, I have written hundreds and probably somewhere north of a thousand posts. A tiny fraction of them have been about gay issues. Here's my lodestar, because you're right, I could talk about this stuff every day: I only write about gay stuff when other top conservative blogs do.

It's my way of making sure that an issue is actually newsworthy and not just my special interest getting the better of my judgment. (And actually, I write about gay stuff a hell of a lot less than Maggie Gallagher over at The Corner. She just can't shut up about teh gays.) Usually I have the same frequency of gay-related posts as Ed over at Hot Air, although he hasn't been around for this week's news (he's meeting with the Boss) and Allah had three posts on DADT last week. Please note that I had none in the same time period.

83

Holger: You also will have to amend the UCMJ as Sodomy is illegal.

Being gay is not synonymous with sodomy, because you can be gay yet not have sex. Besides, sodomy is not necessarily a gay thing. Straights can be sodomites, because they can have oral or anal sex too, both of which are forms of sodomy.

I doubt a nerd like Gabriel gets much action anyway. He's probably never even swallowed his own load.

84

This is an easy conversation to have between 30something and up aged folks.  But nobody's asking the 18 year old's who are loaded with testosterone how they feel about it.

We can all pretty much speak openly and calmly about things.  But kids make a much bigger deal out of things at times.

85 I would guess, with Skelton opposed, this doesn't happen.

86 Cute Japanese Girls

87 Fourth, as you note, it is not "just a one-off or an occasional knuckle-head" who sides with me. In fact, several people on this thread aside from Tim have also expressed support for doing away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As I wrote in the post, a majority of Americans and a majority of conservatives are ready to get rid of it. So it doesn't seem like a view "only held by the Honest Clouds of the world." I'm not really sure why you believe it is.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at February 03, 2010 01:46 AM (Mi2wf)

Like any competent attorney, you are able to misrepresent an opposing argument. As you say Gabe, go back to the text. The text I actually wrote. Yeah, that text. Now let's review it in the context that I wrote it. I pointed out that your supporter "Tim" is a loon that wants constitutional protections stripped from certain wrongly believing groups and individuals that work against his beliefs. Please see my quote from him on one of your earlier threads posted here. That is what I took "Tim", and by extension you, to task on. DADT had nothing to do with it, but the larger argument of a forced acceptance of your sexual predilections. Tim has only posted here at AoSHQ before on gay themed issue threads that you have started. I consider that one hell of a coincidence. Finally I tend to disbelieve your claims of innocence about the extent of the radicalism of your beliefs due to the vast amount of effort you expend refuting my post, yet you utterly ignore some fairly reprehensible ideas espoused by those on your own ideological side of the isle, like Tim. I think your failure to stick to any clear demarcation line of what even our founding fathers considered decent and necessary for a functioning republic speaks volumes.

88 This is ridiculous. DADT is good policy that works well. Repeal will benefit no one--least of all gays.

89 Would somebody please explain Sen. McCain's change of opinion ot me? It's totally  ridiculous. I've heard several Repubs say in the past if the military doesn't oppose it, then they'd rely on their opinion. Now he's changing his stance? What a hypocrite.

90 Senator McCaskill had an interesting question. She wondered if there was any way they could get the input of gays currently serving in the military.

Maybe she was trying to run one of those stings where they send letters to fugitives telling them they've won free tickets to the Super Bowl then, when they show up to claim them, the cops swoop in and arrest them.

"Dear Possibly Gay Servicemember,
We would love to hear your opinions on repealing the DADT policy (but only if you are gay.)  Please come to the Convention Center on Monday to meet with us.  If you see a bunch of guys that look like MPs, ignore them.  They are shooting a movie there.  This is real.  This isn't one of those scams.  Seriously.  DO we look like we would do that to you?

Signed,
The Military"

91 Oddly, today young women in the services are getting out of dangerous and hardship tours by becoming pregnant, which is sort of the same thing. In both cases it was lightweights unwilling to carry their gear and leaving holes in the unit.

I agree, but I also have a counter-example.  During Desert Storm, I was in a Field Artillery Brigade headquarters.  I had some women serving under me.  The hardest-working one got knocked up just before the shooting started.  She was such a good soldier that she knew but didn't tell anyone.  She was going to suck it up, not tell anyone, and fight with the rest of us.  Only when they wanted us to start taking a prophylaxis for nerve agent did she became worried about the effects on the baby.  At that point, she came forward and we had to send her home.  Had it not been for that, she would have stuck it out with the rest of us.

92 Special rules and special deals for folks all because of an abnormal behavior.  It never ends.

93

Our company is always making effort on wholesale and retail of <a href="http://www.jordanol.com/">Air Jordan Shoes</a>, <a href="http://www.brand-jerseys.com">NFL Jerseys</a>, <a href="http://www.mbt-shoescom.com/">MBT Shoes</a>, <a href="http://www.chaussure-tn-air.com/">Nike TN </a> and <a href="http://www.speedcatshoes.com">Puma Shoes Men </a>. I would like to inform everyone likes sports apparels, we will offer discount up to 50% discount for large order, especially in <a href="http://www.jerseysol.com">NFL Jerseys</a>, if you like these, please donÂ’t hesitate to tell you friend, welcome group purchase in our online store.

94 To repeal the UCMJ ban on sodomy would mean being FOR sodomy. Sell that. Go ahead, just try it.

95 Diversity is all that matters to Obama's administration and the Washingtonian PC Brass looking for more lucrative power over/from the "America" they are coercing.

Question the timing, distracting everyone's attention away from the problem with PC enabling radical Muslims within our military to terrorize not only our troops at home and abroad, but to terrorize American citizens at home. Also, the Karzai 12 Rules of Engagement must be rescinded in order for our troops to have a fighting chance to survive their service for our national security. Obama does everything in his power to sabotage our troops, and our national security, to destroy the USA in order to CHANGE. What better way to avoid doing what is right for our troops than to focus on homosexuality? That's my gripe; so far as homosexual activists are concerned, everything has to be ALL ABOUT THEM, not for equality, but to practice their bitter superiority complex issues as they are more "special" than others.

"Senator McCaskill had an interesting question. She wondered if there was any way they could get the input of gays currently serving in the military. Mullen noted that, for obvious reasons, they cannot make that inquiry, nor can gays currently serving step forward. Gates suggested one possibility is talking to gays who have already been discharged under DADT."

It isn't as if all enlisted men and women couldn't take a survey asking them their opinions. THAT matters. What our troops want matters; not what Washingtonians "think" or what non-military families "feel" should be done to the "military family" whom those non-military families don't even like, in order to force the death of tradition that has to date produced the finest military in the world.

I don't think that our troops already serving should forcibly be placed by Obama's administration into a different contractual agreement than they enlisted to join. Here again, Obama disregards contract law. However Obama wants to twist and break the military from its tradition, our troops are the ones living the military life in barracks, not the CoC, not the brass Joint Chiefs. Our enlisted men and women deserve the rights to circumstances they signed into, not Obama's CHANGE.

Put gays and lesbians permanently into the Obama's bedroom first. Obama's acceptance of those circumstances would still not give him the moral authority to dictate the change of military protocol regarding sexuality. Particularly since the Obamas could be bisexual. (We know he endorses sexual perversion of all children via formal education.) Don't Ask, Don't Tell. See how that works? So long as it's not out there, America Really Does Not Want To Know, since knowing requires response and we'd rather leave private and personal matters in private. We already know more about Obama's twisted life that exists contrary to TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING of the US Constitution than we're comfortable addressing. That makes America less amenable to Obama's CHANGE now.

96

ADM Mullen is gay? Just askin'...

97 young women in the services are getting out of dangerous and hardship tours by becoming pregnant, which is sort of the same thing.

Women preparing for and serving in battle should be non-fertile, period. There are means to temporarily prevent pregnancy for months at a time; and our women troopers trained to fight and support battles abroad should be given those measures under medical supervision to be secured.

Morning sickness is one thing that tough women work through without complaint. But by the 6th month, the pregnancy absolutely hinders physical performance in battle. There's no way that a woman can "tough it out" while constantly running for cover given the Karzai 12 Rules of Engagement unless she's trying to miscarry the baby. The constant adrenalin rushes will affect the gestation before the physical muscular stress takes a toll.

98 The military is the most PC institution in the country. You don't rise in rank if you aren't a good politician, and the politicians understand political correctness has the force of holy writ. That's all you need to know about the Fort Hood fiasco. Nothing, not brilliance, bravery, steadfastness or any other warrior quality, is more important to a military career than absorbing PC values and spouting them in the presence of superiors.

99

Yes, this pursuit is a distraction from more important issues facing the country.

And this room is filled with a number of mild-mannered gay trolls. I suspect they are here at Gabriel's behest. Probably nicely manicured and coiffed, but trolls nonetheless.

100 I love how just "open minded" folks are here. DADT shouldn't be repealed. Many of you forget that in Boot Camp men have to shower together. The last thing you need is knowing a guy or guys are gawking at you. The Marines separate men and women from training for a reason. The same applies to gays. When you get to the fleet you'll be sharing rooms with 2 - 3 other Marines and to have a room mate who may have a "crush" on you or someone else in the unit is a major distraction. And to many repulsive. This will decimate our forces. Warriors will leave and those who want to join to become a Warrior won't. What do you have left? A bunch of progressives with all the heavy weapons. Do some of you people think before you post? Do you not know how the progressive enemy thinks yet? This isn't about the gay. It's about decimating the Armed Forces one of the last obstacles to their having unbridled power. The military and the gun owner is the last obstacle, a mighty one at that, from them to turning this into a progressive tyranny. For all you people that have no problems with the gay then go find one get on your knees and service him! Repulsed? Then why do you support something you aren't willing to do yourself and you find repulsive. This makes no damn sense.

101 I don't normally chime in on a forum twice but I think there is a tendency here to assume that gays are just like straights except same sex. This is bogus idea and from reading the above comments I think a little explanation is in order. My old gay friend from home and I spent many a night talking about his life as a gay man and all of the areas of his sex life. If any of you straight men out there think that the young gay male is anything like you and your approach to sex is similar you are wrong. My friend who is a PhD told me that he would go to a gay bar and have sex with two or three men in the bar that night. He told me of going to the gay bath houses where he would have sex with five or six men in the 6x10 foot cubicles provided and maybe never speak to a single one of them. Remember gays can be passive or aggressive and be the doer or the doee. He told me of going to look for transport sex. That means going to train, bus and airport men's rooms to troll for sex at any transportation terminal. Remember the "Glory Hole" stories in Wambaugh"s books?  The normal wine and dine of a straight male towards a woman is so alien to them that it is not funny. By the time a straight male scores he's drunk and full and falls asleep with his date after sex. The gay guy has had sex with five other guys and ends up with the guy's roommate that he went home with. OK I know there some gays that are like straight men but you and I don't know which ones they are. If you turn this behavior loose on the unprepared military there is going to be massive resignation by the troops. I know things that I would not put on this forum that he told me about that went on at some of their parties. Trust me you would not want to be any where near them. They deserve to serve if they want but their sexual proclivities should not be public and if they become so they should be discharged.  

102 I don't really know where I stand on the issue, but I think I'm more along the lines of either dropping most enforcement of the outsters, or making sure that whatever new rules appear get explicit about what conduct becoming a solider entails. You can't have sex in a barracks (hetero or otherwise), etc.

I believe (not military, so correct me if I'm wrong) that, if not for PC fear, most of the flamboyant actions people are spouting here would get a hetero thrown out of the military.

103

I work in West Hollywood with lots and gays and I'll stipulate that gay men are not the same as straight men, except for a penchant for cock.

Tempermentally, gays are quite different. Gays too often are petulant, whiny and bitchy. What is going to happen when gays who act this way receive complaints? What could the gays possibly be disciplined for... being gay?

The huffy and prissy hissy-fits are inseparable from gay culture. It will destroy the military.

104 @Eca
But do you think that the fact that it is the military would separate out a lot of the victimhood gays? I mean you don't go into the military lightly (well most people don't).

I'm sure there would be a few troublemakers trying to get a lawsuit lifestyle going, but I would have to imagine it'd be the exception.

105

@Kerncon

No, I don't agree with you. I think it will be a problem.

106 @Eca
Other militarys have accomplished it, but I haven't looked into any problems they have with it (if any), plus you have the cultural differences so its nowhere near apples to apples.

Like I said, not in the military, and have no close family enlisted so I'm the quintessential outsider looking in. But if it would cause a real problem, then by all means keep DADT as the basis, and maybe change the 3rd party outing stuff.

107 Nice to see we have an Admiral who tweets.  Anyway, DADT was working fine, I see no reason a soldier would need to announce his sexual orientation one way or the other. Nobody's rights are being denied here, gays can serve as long as the keep their preferences to themselves.

The brotherhood of the military can be damaged by having openly gay men serving.  It is based on a non-sexual bonding that is completely different from that you would feel towards a partner.  If 2 gay men are in a unit and are also lovers, I would see this as having an adverse affect on cohesion.  As others have said, there is a reason that men and women do not shower together.  It is a known fact that the Nimitz was turned into the love boat because of men and women becoming too close.  Female soldiers were getting knocked up and morale was damaged.

The other problem is we are in 2 wars, this is not the time to be engaging in social experiments with the military.  The last poll I read from the men themselves is 60% were opposed to gays serving openly and 10% they would not re-enlist.  If these numbers are even close the truth I say leave it alone.  The gay agenda is far more extensive as well, don't think that DADT ending will pacify them for long.  There will be another series of demands right after that.  It is left-wing politically motivated grievance group that has gone well beyond mere civil rights.  Remember the Kevin Jennings situation, he proclaimed that he only wants gay people treated fairly, but the real record shows he wants to impose his ideology on others.  He has nothing to do with the military but there are others like him.

108

20 year enlisted Marine vet's opinion to follow:

"Ironing out" any problems that may occur from repeal of DADT is an EPIC understatement.  FUCKING EPIC.

Sexual harrassment in the military is already a big enough issue.  The training everyone must endure on the subject would make even the most "sensitive" corporations blush.  The amount of real training time lost to bullshit, feelgood, completely non-miltary training was criminal in my opinion.  Let gays serve openly and the sexual harraassment/misconduct allegations will get so goddamned convoluted as to make already overburdened commanders devote even more time to adjudicating shit that should just never have happened in the first place. 

How many non-vets here have any clue as to how much non-operational bullshit commanders already deal with?  Depending on the unit, a battalion CO or equivalent spends roughly 1/3 of his time (if he's extremely lucky) on the issues that actually revolve around why his unit even exists.  That's even when he delegates down to junior officers and his senior enlisted.

As a senior enlisted, I could tell you that you can go fuck yourself if you want me to deal with figuring out how to house homosexuals either in a garrison environment or a deployed environment.  It's already out of control in a mixed gender environment (the first person to tell me that gender is between the ears gets their throat ripped out) and is damn near a full time job for an E-7.  Let gays serve openly, and like another moron already pointed out - how are you going to house them?

You don't house men and women together for obvious reasons (the first one who mentions co-ed boot camp gets their nuts ripped off, I don't have anymore time or space to educate you), so you're not going to house homosexuals together for the same reasons.  You're not going to house a gay man with a straight man unless you're going to expect the Company Gunny to canvass the whole goddamn company to find straights who are "cool" with it.  Good luck with that.  So do you house gay men with straight women in a co-ed unit?  HAH!  Carry that one forward. 

Do you then allow gays to get their own rooms?  Watch how THAT one goes over with the folks who are required to have 1, 2, or even 3 other roomies.

I've served with several gay folks in my time.  The way you hear it portrayed, you'd think all gays that serve are model soldiers.  Some are, but just as many are fuckups too.  It's about proportionate to the straights, but out of all the gays I knew to be gay that were fuckups, their problems centered on their sexual orientation.  Every. Single. One. 

And it usually involved other gay people either in the unit or in the barracks.  It's already ridiculous in co-ed units.  You think it's not going to happen with openly gay people serving?  You're deluded and inexperienced.

I have no problem with teh gheys.  I actually lean toward letting them serve openly believe it or not.  But that's from an ideological perspective.  The reality of it is what gives me second thoughts.  It's a reality that the vast majority of people who support repealing DADT will never have to deal with.  It's a reality whose surface was only scratched, SCRATCHED in this post and above.

I'm all for reviewing the policy.  IMO it should either be all or none.  But the time for review, and especially implimentation is NOT now.  The talk about how "commanders" will have to deal with this is fine and all, but it's the enlisted leadership that does all the "dealing with".  The recently former senior enlisted leader is glad I won't have to waste my time figuring it out.  I already wasted too much time dealing with non-operational bullshit.      

109

Tim at 39  - "the underlying message that you would be forced to kill a gay if you knew they were really gay?" -- Don't know where you got that.  It's a long stretch from "live and let live" to here.  "forced to kill" gays hasn't been in any of the policy or proposals I've seen over the last 25 years. 

obvious security issues of blackmail and coercion Could be a problem - how many documented cases of this have come up in the last 50 years?

what you are saying is give me your blood your sweat your years and that's fine but I don't want to think of you as a person, . . . " How is that right? How can you condemn anyone to that and say you care about the men and women in the armed forces?? -- No, we are saying don't give me your blood sweat and tears.  The military is voluntary - nobody is forced to serve.  If we had a conscript army, there would be a valid argument in this.  We aren't condemning anyone - they are condemning themselves. 

As for favoritism or eros, with women serving in the military these issues are faced everyday in every branch and guess what we still have the greatest military of all time.  The sexual and romantic issues do not make things easier.  There are many documented cases of "these issues" causing real problems in the military.  In wartime, we need to focus on reducing problems and distractions, not on increasing them. 

Condemning men and women to a life of secrecy and lies is an unacceptable democratic position to take simply so others can avoid the truth about their fellow man.  -- So don't join the military. 

I have a number of hobbies that put me in minority groups that occasionally feel oppression from majority groups, usually out of ignorance.  In the civilian world, I am in favor of gay rights and I believe the Constitution supports gay rights, as it supports the "life, liberty, and property" rights of all Americans.  The military is not the civilian world. 

How about we integrate gays into the NFL or the NBA first?  Put an openly gay man on the basketball court and see how the other players react.  There will be a far smaller number of deaths resulting from this, than from integrating gays into the military. 

110 @101 - I have slept with and showered with both gay and straight males.  I'm a straight male and nothing happened because we were all professional.  If you can't tell the difference between being able to work with a gay and servicing them, well not sure what to tell you.

@102 - You obviously have never seen the moral degradation of the normal straight Cavalry trooper.  After living in the barracks for a number of years I have seen men do just about everything imaginable to a woman that they have just barely met, then that very same woman switch partners to the trooper's buddy(ies).  I have also had the pleasure of being on the phone to my girlfriend while my two roommates reenacted a porno with their girlfriends (that's fun trying to explain to the girl that you aren't messing around on her).

111 @Jim in San Diego not that I need credentials but I've been reading Ace since it's inception so sorry to make you adjust your understanding of the conservative crowd you've been a part of. That is of course the reason I tell people I'm gay because most times people just assume the ones around them aren't. @inspectorudy despite the fact that yes there are some gays that have crazy sex all the time, It doesn't let you make broad assumptions about gays on the whole. And despite their sterling reputation I have watched my straight military buddies have sex with more than three women in a single night and I didn't want to strip them of their right to serve in the military. In fact I think we had a party around the theme and he banged two sisters that night. @cthulhu you write a thoughtful post not as sympathetic as I'd like but heh we wouldn't really be posting if we all agreed on everything. I'm a strong advocate for gay marriage because I believe that inclusion into society is the moral thing to do as well as a solution for some of the odder aspects of gay social life that develop because we are made social pariahs. As I explained to my mom if your biggest complaint with gays is that you think they are promiscuous than shouldn't you encourage them to be more monogamous? Despite the popular misconception the vast majority of gays are not having sex everyday with everyone I meet, One of my friends has been in a monogamous relationship for 4 years the other hasn't had sex in a year and a half. I've been with the same guy for almost two years. I still think that the major issues gays face is social stigma and isolation and the mental issues that that accompany that. As for the federalist papers I always thought there was a strong argument that the writers did not want to color the argument with their reputations and it was not an uncommon practice of the day to write under a pseudonym or anonymously, however writing an opinion in a paper is a far cry from the organized campaigns that companies and non profits undertake in which thousands of people are employed to gather names and signatures, man phone banks, go door to door, purchase ad time on all media, and lobby government officials. That is a far cry from some small town secret ballot that endangers the common citizen by eliciting a government response. Perhaps you really have no idea of what these modern petition campaigns entail but I can tell you it's big big money, and for people to hide behind all that and try to play the sympathy card while talking about how hard it was on them doesn't tug any heart strings. and for every picture of a broken campaign sign I can show you a picture of a gay or lesbian that has been beaten or stabbed to death, in random violence, violence that has for to long been officially sanctioned by the same people how now say that live and let live should be good enough for everyone.

112

serving in the miltary is not a right, the military chooses who they want and who they don't want.

if a paticular group presents a problem the military has the authority and duty to exclude them from service.

 

113 and quite honestly for all the people bitching about we shouldn't do stuff because we are fighting two wars.. first ff we are fighting a generational war, a war with no ending in sight, no set goal and no realistic expectation of it ever ending. So thanks for moving that goal way out there, but beyond that, WE ARE FIGHTING TWO WARS WHY ARE YOU GETTING RID OF PEOPLE THAT CAN FIGHT??? and how is showering with a known gay different showering with a 100 people that COULD BE GAY?? are the assumed gays raping you? no they aren't cause they're as professional as the next soldier that you profess to honor and respect. As for perceptions of "occasionally feeling oppression from majority groups, usually out of ignorance." just wiki gay bashings 2009 and you'll have ur answer. and that's just a few of the reported ones.

114

I think some of you are trying to make this into a civil rights issue and it won't work. Sexual orintation is not a civil right. And the US military is not an equal opportunity employer. You do not have freedom of speech in the military. You do not have freedom to participate or not. You cannot quit when you want to. You cannot change jobs when you want to. You cannot marry anyone you want when you want to. The squishy public that has never served doesn't have a clue what conditions are like in the military. For them to start calling for equality and for the freedom to be weired any time they want will be the death of the fighting unit we have now. The military is no place for an experiment of this nature because the problems mentioned above by the Marine will overwhelm everyone concerned. To jthesaint you have no idea what you are talking about trying to equate gay and straight behavior. I don't know the breakdown on wild gays versus straight acting gays but I'll bet the ones who are thirty and under have been to more bath houses with many more parteners than their straight counter parts have been to whore houses. How many straights do you know who "Fist"? They have a range of sex events that would make your whole body ache. And frankly I don't give a damn what they do to each other but I don't want to have to worry about turning the wrong corner one night while serving and witnessing this crap. I was the duty officer one night at Cherry Point years ago and made the rounds to all of the barracks after lights out. In a surprise inspection of the womens barracks when we turned on the lights  it looked like a roach convention in a kitchen when the lights are turned on. It took over a full minute for all of them to get back into their own beds.   Think how the few straight BAMs felt living in that hell hole. I have a better policy and it is Don't tell and Don't enlist.

115 @Inspectorudy - I think I do have an idea.  I guess I work with and associate with more extreme people than you are used to.  Currently, I know 3 straight women who I'm pretty good friends with who fist.  I also had a trooper in my Squadron who had anal intercourse with over 70 women during the course of one year (yes, we counted).  If you can name a sex act or even kinda think of one in your head, I'm pretty sure it has been done in the barracks by straight guys.  Now if you think straight guys can't have random sex with strangers without much introduction, I will tell you that you are flat wrong on that one too.   Also, please don't try to have some moral arguement where what consenting adult likes to do in his bedroom has some bearing on how well they can kill people and blow stuff up.  They are soldiers, not preachers.

Honestly, if I had my way both women and gays would't be allowed in the military, but if you are going to allow women and all the f'd up stuff that brings, denying gays at that point is just pointless.

116

Not a problem.

Straight males start flooding the chain of command with sexual harassment complaints. Daily.

Something will give.

117 This is not about whether gay sex acts so stop raising red herrings, neither gays nor straights are 'suppose' to be having sex in the barracks or in the field so that can all be handled by the code of conduct. As for people asking if I know what the military is really like? Yes I do, it's a giant bureaucracy that has you jumping through hoops for the right paper work, weeks and months of boring duty and 15 hour days of drudge work in the worst conditions politicians can think to send you to. The only glory you get is memories and riding in giant weapons that make you feel like a million bucks and the brotherhood that (usually) forms by enduring hardship together. What if you never had a shoulder to lean on? what if you never had someone to call home to, what if you never had some one to send you a care package? This is what you condemn people to when you champion DADT and this is the most basic reason it's wrong.

118 What if you never had a shoulder to lean on? what if you never had someone to call home to, what if you never had some one to send you a care package? This is what you condemn people to when you champion DADT and this is the most basic reason it's wrong.

Posted by: Tim at February 03, 2010 04:26 PM (nA+tQ)

Very dramatic. Also bullshit.

Name your boyfriend as beneficiary on you SGLI. Care packages can be sent by anyone, and should be even if you aren't fucking them. And buy your own god damned health insurance. You won't have kids from the relationship, so your paycheck should stretch that far.

You missed the "suck it up, and drive on" part which should tell your brain that compassion is not a primary goal of the military. The mission is. Compassion is a corrosive poison when applied wrongly.

119 @rodent Since I know gays that had married while in the military and both of them served at the same time it's not near as easy as you profess, people ask questions, innocent questions and that can lead to a discharge. So most end up lying and keeping their web time short. The majority of their problems came about when they couldn't work through the system openly to get in touch with each other when their were problems. Also if your married how would you like your wife to find out your dead by getting a check in the mail a few months after you get splattered? I used to think DADT worked, I used to think it was a good compromise but it's long term effects are to detrimental for me to continue to believe in. I was raised thinking that gays chose their lot, I was raised by by an army officer and his god fearing wife (mom) who passionately believed that if you didn't want to be gay God could help you. They were wrong and the solutions they came up with were wrong. Sucking it up works in the short term but if your goal is a strong army, basing it on lies, witch hunts, and innuendo is not a good start.

120

Also if your married how would you like your wife to find out your dead by getting a check in the mail a few months after you get splattered?

I would imagine your family could give them a call...unless you are hiding it from them too. Which would be really lame for this argument.

DADT proscribes witch hunts

It is still voluntary. You don't have an arugument unless you back conscription. Then I would have to surrender. Not until then. And I'd still push for segregated units. If you want greek soldiers, go all in.

121 @Rodent well since families aren't always cool with their gay kids it's not uncommon for them to react negatively to the surviving spouse so sadly that's part of the equation to. And yes about 25% of gays have children one way or another so you have to account for them too. Conscription is never off the table so in the Military's mind it should be accounted for, considering the low number of troops we have at the moment it's not unlikely that a severe attack would lead to the draft. the DADT has never stopped a witch hunt, go to http://www.sldn.org/ if you want the truth about DADT and how it is used. Well since your a decent blog sort I suppose I should raise the fact that most young gays don't acknowledge that they are gay to themselves or their families and a great way (in their minds) to prove that they aren't is to do things like join the military or get married to show themselves and everyone around them that they can do manly things. heck i realized I probably was gay at 16 but refused to believe it wasn't a stage for another 6 years and didn't come out of the closet till 29, we aren't talking about static comfortable situations where everyone is well balanced and in full understanding with themselves. It's one of the main reasons I'm so against DADT is I've experienced the negative side of it personally and would never wish it on anyone.

122

How about segregated units?

Doable from your side?

123 Well your duplicating the entire chain of command and segregating your own troops, led to issues in the civil war and WW2. History has a dim view of it and all someone has to do to serve on the straight side is lie. So I think it would give you a false sense of security at a steep price

124

Segregated units wouldn't double anything.

They performed outstandingly in WWII. The competitiveness of young males should be harnessed as a motivator. Segregated units would do that. You'd be in for some legendary bar fights, but from all I've heard, you should hold your own.

If they are outstanding soldiers and sailors, they will have outstanding ships and battalions. Assuming the purpose of this is to serve honorably, of course.

125 @Rodent well if you look at the larger picture of segregation, internment camps, tuskegee experiments, and equipment issues, along with instituionalized discrimination in a corp that is built on shared experiences I don't think the military can afford to have a separate gay army. This doesn't even deal with the fact that if someone doesn't tell you their gay you can't weed them out (see our current situation), the fact that many don't see themselves as gay till later and that there aren't enough gays to field an army (around 66,000) you haven't even learned from all the allies that allowed gays to serve without issues. Lets not forget that gays are already serving honorably and on all fronts and if the military didn't want them they wouldn't do so much to ignore the many gays serving now. Yes there may be bar fights but including gays will not affect the military on masse and it's time people stopped using prejudice to judge their fellow man and depend on actions instead.

126

You could field an army corp with 66,000.

Excesses, or lapses, of the past are not relevant today.

Decide you are gay and you need to tell the world, mid-career, just transfer. Easy peasy.

European armies look good against third world mobs. They have few quality units.

The most expensive army in the world is the one that is second best.

127 @rodent well like I said you seem like a good sort but at the same time I have to disagree that segregation would solve anything specially since you give people a negative incentive not to join the gay corp. Face it either accept our common humanity or continue to practice self deception. Gays come from straights, they have existed throughout all recorded time, they are a natural product of our species.

128

I'm not decieved.

I think letting gays serve openly would harm the military's readiness. It does not matter to me whether it would be by a little, or a lot. It does not matter to me that some few will have their feelings hurt.

I will certainly oppose any, and all, attempts to do away with DADT. If the deal is not to your liking, don't sign the contract.

129 If I thought even for a second that openly gay soldiers could hurt the military and it's missions I would oppose it, but there is not a shred of evidence that supports that position. Besides the fact that being gay doesn't impede one's readiness the huge number of highly decorated gay men and women in our military who have come out as gay also argue against that point.

130

"we aren't talking about static comfortable situations where everyone is well balanced and in full understanding with themselves" -- No shit.  We are talking about chaotic situations involving life and death.  As you said, there are plenty of problems with heterosexual relations.  These lead to murder and suicide too often.  How is adding in another complication going to make this better? 

"not unlikely that a severe attack would lead to the draft." -- The military doesn't want the draft.  We would have to change too much about our way of doing things.  The last draft was what, 38 years ago?  There's nobody left who rememebers how to manage draftees.  One of our stronger punishments is kicking people out - doesn't work too well with people who want to get out. 

"I know gays that had married while in the military . . . it's not near as easy as you profess" -- Well, yeah, when you are in violation of regulations, it complicates things.  Drug dealers have the same kinds of problems.  Hey, maybe, don't violate regulations, and then things stay more simple.  And you are still full of crap - you can put anyone you want on your DD93.  If you are already lying about your life, why not lie about their status?  Don't list him as "wife", just "friend", and everything is fine.  Nobody can tell you who to put on your DD93 and nobody can prosecute you for what you put on it.  Follow the regulations, and this isn't so hard.  If your goal is to be a flaming provocateur, then maybe you cause your own problems.

And that whole "common humanity" thing - If I see you on the street, I will say hello, just like I do to everyone else.  If you walk into my wife's store, we will treat you like a customer and try to get money out of you.  Like we do for everyone else.  If you come into the military, we expect you to follow the rules.  Like everyone else. 

 

131 Heh. Conscription would de-professionalize the military faster even than PC. I thought I'd float that out there to see the response.

132 Whoa! The treatment of gays should be equal to both sexes (man and woman).  Besides, we can't blame them for what they are now.  Most gays are productive than any other natural born man. We live on earth that belongs to all, with/with out sophisticate special occasion dresses, sex is just a gender not a personality aspects that we judge for.  Let them live as natural and with love.