1 What do you think about the sidebar article :  New Hampshire may legalize civil unions for all — even siblings

I've long proposed something similar under the slogan:  Let's take the sex out of marriage.

2 Hmmm.. I woulda thought a show called "Da Tech Guy" would be about techy stuff..

I'll try to give it a listen!

3

I wonder if Malor can get away with ignoring the host like he does here when he's trolling the blog with his personal proclivities.

4 #3 - yikes... sounds like someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

5 A boring link to myself from 2008

Time flys.

6 toby928

According to my married friends the wife takes sex out of marriage

7 Snowing steadily in SE PA. AccuWeather says snow and rain, temps in the mid-40s for NYC. Laissez le bon temps rouler!

8 I predict spousal benefits will have to be replaced with "family" benefits and only households where there is kids in the family or a bun in the oven are eligible. I'm not any fan of the femi-nazis but a woman who is not a mom can get a job and get her own insurance and a gay spouse can sure as hell do that. If the household member who is employed or in military service wants just a "trophy" spouse or a spouse to be a full time housekeeper/secretary etc for themselves with no kids in the picture they can cough up the costs of their insurance etc. themselves instead of sticking society with that bill.

9 Ah, good old Worcester, Mass. My birthplace and place of residence for (about) 25 of my 40 years. Birthplace of modern rocketry, cradle of the birth control pill and hometown to minor celebs ranging from Abbie Hoffman to Denis Leary to that guy who played Carmine on Laverne and Shirley. Usually referred to as "a gritty, blue-collar old mill town" by the Boston media, it has it's charms and it's curses. Home to wretched Congress-weasel Jim McGovern, it's entirely run by public employee unions and has a City Council consisting largely of the same people who were on it when I was in high school. Balancing that off is the proximity to the Berkshires, the pretty decent selection of colleges and the finest hot dogs in the Commonwealth. Ask DaTechGuy if he's a "Coney Island" or "Hot Dog Annie's" partisan. If he doesn't say "Hot Dog Annie's", that's a sign that the man is deeply troubled and you should probably cease all contact with him.

10 "New Hampshire may legalize civil unions for all — even siblings"

That should do wonders for the institution of marriage. I can feel it strengthening already.

11

Let's take the sex out of marriage.

Ugh. Then there would be no point.

12 The director of my super libtard city's parks and rec just sent out a racist email, the subject line reads "Holine is down". I can hear the NAACP gasp.

13 Of course they should get the same benefits. This was the motive all along. This in turn will force the rest of the country to recognize gay marriage. Easy peasy...

14 It was never about having gays in the military, it was always about further normalizing it in an effort to make the traditional family obsolete. You go marxists! Chalk another one up!

15 I predict spousal benefits will have to be replaced with "family" benefits and only households where there is kids in the family or a bun in the oven are eligible.

I predict same-sex military spouses will get the same benefits as opposite-sex spouses and it won't be a big deal at all, much like DADT repeal. Remember the claims? Servicemembers will quit or fail to reenlist; the chaplains will quit; unit cohesion will collapse; and it will be the end of U.S. military supremacy. Well, we're only a month in, but given the utter absence of any disruption whatsoever, I feel confident these predictions were just hysterics.

The same will be true of the spousal benefits. Servicemembers do their jobs better when they know that their spouses are taken care of. That includes the things you guys mentioned above (medical benefits), but also things like the military survivor benefit (which includes having the military return the body of your spouse to you) and the right to be buried with your spouse in a military cemetery.

Unequal treatment disrupts unit cohesion and there's just no good reason for it. Explain to me the justification for refusing to allow the same-sex spouse of a servicemember to be buried with his spouse while providing that benefit to opposite-sex spouses. This lawsuit seeks to demonstrate the obvious: there is no constitutionally permissible justification for such discrimination.

16 I'm guessing that you will never hear of any disruptions due to the repeal of DADT. Who would tell you? The MSM? The Obama DoD? Not bloody likely. Of course, I think the primary reason you won't hear about DADT disruptions is that very few homosexuals will enlist. With the repeal of DADT, serving in the US military went from being an "indispensable human right!!" to a hard ass job with very low pay. I expect most gays will lose a lot of their passion for the subject when they figure that out.

17 How does unequal treatment of spouses disrupt unit cohesion?

18 I predict same-sex military spouses will get the same benefits as opposite-sex spouses and it won't be a big deal at all, much like DADT repeal.
...........
Here's the problem.. you recognize those couples in the military, and you have to recognize same-sex couples throughout all federal law.  Benefits for Social Security, survivor, etc. etc. etc..  It would end up costing us billions.

19 @18 That was the plan all along.

20 The country is broke and should not be giving benefits it can no longer afford. I have no problem with equal benefits though, just eliminate the benefits that cost a lot of money regardless of whether its a hetero marriage. Insurance is the big one and it shouldn't be needed unless a spouse is hampered from working because of having to raise children --thus replace it with family benefits. I don't even have a problem with military spouses getting insurance and stuff but the country is broke and can no longer afford to hand out generous spousal benefits to all the childless CIVILIAN government employees. If you aren't raising a future taxpayer only the actual employee gets bennies.

21 Who would tell you? The MSM? The Obama DoD? Not bloody likely.

You've gotta be kidding me. What other conspiracy theories involving hundreds, if not thousands, of people keeping quiet about something of national interest do you believe in?

If there were disruptions, we'd hear about them. AFA and CMR would be all over it. Elaine Donnelly would be screaming her head off on Capitol Hill.

It always amazes me how many people even here in the blogosphere, who should know better, believe that it's possible to keep big secrets.

Of course, I think the primary reason you won't hear about DADT disruptions is that very few homosexuals will enlist.

Non sequitur. Nobody said DADT repeal was about getting gays to enlist. It was about treating the thousands of gays who are already in the military equally.

22 I have no problem with equal benefits though, just eliminate the benefits that cost a lot of money regardless of whether its a hetero marriage

Exactly the point. The federal government isn't required to give out benefits. But if it does decide to provide benefits, equal protection requires that it must provide them in an equal manner.

23

"Remember the claims? Servicemembers will quit or fail to reenlist; the chaplains will quit; unit cohesion will collapse; and it will be the end of U.S. military supremacy. Well, we're only a month in, but given the utter absence of any disruption whatsoever, I feel confident these predictions were just hysterics."

No one credible was saying unit cohesion would collapse.  But it does affect unit cohesion and it already has.  The fact that you think this would be reported, that you grasp at the weakest claims, and are trying to draw conclusions based on no military experience, data, or significant time elapsed shows lack of clarity in your thinking or understanding of reality in our media.

"Unequal treatment disrupts unit cohesion..."

This is what most people refer to as "bullshit".

"...and there's just no good reason for it."

Just because you don't agree with the reasoning doesn't mean it's not "good". 

"Explain to me the justification for refusing to allow the same-sex spouse of a servicemember to be buried with his spouse while providing that benefit to opposite-sex spouses."

There is none.  Camel's nose is under the tent now, but don't let that little flaw in your request stop you from making it.  Explain to me how the military won't create promotion quotas for gays or using your same twisted constitutional logic - why a Fundamentalist Mormon shouldn't be allowed to have more than one spouse with benefits in the military.

24

Yeah, it's a HUGE conspiracy theory to think that the MSM might engage in selective reporting regarding one of their little pet issues.

"Non sequitur. Nobody said DADT repeal was about getting gays to enlist."

Oh pity, you mean those legions of gay Arabic translators lining up to serve Uncle Sam were a complete fiction? I am shocked, shocked to hear that.

Nothing is lamer than an ideologically blinded civilian trying to explain military realities like "unit cohesion" to a veteran.

25

"You've gotta be kidding me. What other conspiracy theories involving hundreds, if not thousands, of people keeping quiet about something of national interest do you believe in?"

Are you fucking serious?  Does this blog not give you countless examples of the media embargoing stories that don't fit the liberal narrative?  I know the bloggers don't like to read the blog, but come on.

Your childish/liberal tactic of characterizing an opposing opinion as a "conspiracy theory" is pathetic, even for you.

26 Can I get a SCoaMF over the radio?

27   Does this blog not give you countless examples of the media embargoing stories that don't fit the liberal narrative?  

Exactly my point. You're granted my point. There is no such thing as a successful "media embargo" anymore. Obviously, otherwise we wouldn't hear about these things.

You seem to think that DADT repeal-related disruptions can be hidden by the media and from interested bloggers and other interested parties (e.g. Elaine Donnelly) who have dedicated their lives to keeping gays out of the military. That's fantasy. It is pure fantasy that there have been disruptions over DADT repeal that we just haven't heard about because everyone involved has just stayed mum about it.

Lincolntf, I find your invocation of the chickenhawk meme as convincing as when the Left used it against the Bush Administration. Also, this is beneath contempt:

Oh pity, you mean those legions of gay Arabic translators lining up to serve Uncle Sam were a complete fiction? I am shocked, shocked to hear that.

It was translators who were already in the military and who were given the boot because of DADT that garnered so much news. Not some fictitious group of gay translators just waiting for DADT repeal so they could enlist for the first time.

28 Can I get a SCoaMF over the radio?

Hmm, I'll see if I can work it in. It's family-friendly radio, though, so I can't actually say the full thing.

29 But if it does decide to provide benefits, equal protection requires that it must provide them in an equal manner. Well what happens to BOQ's versus the standard housing? Don't you have to be married with kids to get the housing vs. BOQ? Isn't that "unfair" using your standard to single members of the military? Hell shouldn't female members of the military be highly offended by the term 'bachelor" in bachelor quarters? The humanity. (OK I went on a sarcastic rift...pfffft.)

30 The host sounds like the magician from Frosty the Snowman.

31 To me, the concern comes when gay soldiers start pushing for opposite sex roommates similar to what has happened in the civilian world at a number of universities.  Straight soldiers will have to be afforded the same opportunity, which means that every time a commander refuses to assign Joe and his girlfriend to the same barracks room he's going to see protests and calls to IG.  Furthermore, managing issues such as fraternization will be a hell of a lot harder than they already are, since right now you can restrict access to opposite sex members, especially downrange where living space is tight.  And there will be an incentive to not rock the boat when a gay NCO is screwing around with his subordinates because the Army leadership will prefer to throw a junior officer under the bus rather than defend him against cries of "homophobia" when he takes action.

Additionally, the left has already started on it's next crusade, pushing for the acceptance of transgender soldiers as well as those with disabilities such as deafness. 

32 You know, if I could have equal benefits extended to Enrique the pool boy, I could really save a lot in medical expenses whenever one of our games of find the gerbil goes bad...

33 Why can't female members of the military shower with the guys? But now homosexual males will be able to shower with the guys? Were is the "equality"-damn it!?

34 If I'm not mistaken, didn't the famous rout of the Union Army at the first battle of Bull Run occur as a result of lack of unit cohesion caused by hard feelings over unequal treatment of spouses?

35 The females get privacy but the guys that are heterosexual don't get privacy while showering because damn it -that's equal!

36 Nobody called you a "chickenhawk", you pissy little cunt. The fact is that you don't know shit-all about the topic that you can't stop talking about and it's aggravating to those of us who do know what we're talking about.

37 Oops-unforced error Where is the equality damn it!?

38

"Exactly my point. You're granted my point. There is no such thing as a successful "media embargo" anymore. Obviously, otherwise we wouldn't hear about these things."

No, this was not your point and your rhetorical switch was pretty lame to boot. 

"You seem to think that DADT repeal-related disruptions can be hidden by the media and from interested bloggers and other interested parties (e.g. Elaine Donnelly) who have dedicated their lives to keeping gays out of the military. That's fantasy. It is pure fantasy that there have been disruptions over DADT repeal that we just haven't heard about because everyone involved has just stayed mum about it."

And you seem to think that disruptions haven't occurred and aren't occurring.  Even in the process alone, the DoD survey was conducted poorly and with greatest deference to the repeal narrative and, while it was reported on on this very blog, you seem to ignore such facts because they're inconvenient to you.  That is fantasy. 

Hell, that gay Marine who was recently acquitted for dishonoring the uniform in a gay porn video is an excellent example.  That guy should have fried regardless where he liked to stick his dick.  But he didn't.  Golly, I wonder why!!!

You should really stick to legal analyses because you come across like an ignorant jackass liberal (BIRM) when you attempt to speak authoritatively on military culture and lifestyle.

39
Hope all you enlightened moderate liberal-cons are happy.

You just opened the door for tranny freaks to serve in the US military.

Who knows what's next after that. Because it will never stop with this left-driven anti-American-traditional-values agenda.

40 I think I've got a serious question- why do female military members have a right to showering privacy- while male heterosexuals in the military do not?

41

Gabriel Malor:  Thinking that the military is the perfect place for social experiments.

I wonder if the he'll claim to be impartial and unbiased in his views on the radio about this like he says he is here.

And Gabe I just can't help but think that those gay Arabic translators were actually kicked out for other reasons and they used DADT as the simplest method to remove their disruption.  I'm basing this on my friend in the navy has said which is basically "We know" when someone was gay and if it wasn't affecting the job they just let it go.

42 it's aggravating to those of us who do know what we're talking about.

You have yet to demonstrate that you know anything about what we're talking about, Lincolntf. You simply say that you served and therefore you're predictions of doom are to be taken as fact, despite the lack of evidence.

43 40 I think I've got a serious question-

why do female military members have a right to showering privacy-

while male heterosexuals in the military do not?

Posted by: tasker at October 29, 2011 11:21 AM (rJVPU)

They probably actually don't.  I imagine it may be more uncomfortable for female straight military dealing with lesbian military.

44 Glad I'll miss that.

45 Nobody should serve anymore.

46 I'm still curious - what does Gabe have on Ace that allows the same-sex pseudo-marriage lover to post here?

47 Sure, Gabby, that's why the Lamestream Media has been pushing thousands of stories about Fast and Furious cell-phone hacking in Britain?

Is this clown just here for comic relief?

48 Yeah, I remember when Walter Cronkite would lead off every edition of the CBS Evening News with another story of JFK"s infidelities and drug addiction.

49 Zzzzzzzzzz soooo sleeeepy zzzzzz.

50 They probably actually don't. I imagine it may be more uncomfortable for female straight military dealing with lesbian military. Posted by: buzzion at October 29, 2011 11:24 AM (GULKT) Damn it! How did I miss that... I guess I should have said-when in the past females had a certain right to privacy in the military-as in separate showering facilities...

51 "I'm still curious - what does Gabe have on Ace that allows the same-sex pseudo-marriage lover to post here?"

I may be wrong, but I think Ace shares the same position.

52 Where is that rabbit. Hocus Pocus.

53 What is going to happen are gay members of the military going to be regulated to non-combat positions? How will that effect their ability to "fairly" compete for rank?

54 You have yet to demonstrate that you know anything about what we're talking about, Lincolntf. You simply say that you served and therefore you're predictions of doom are to be taken as fact, despite the lack of evidence.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 29, 2011 11:22 AM (wPT1m)

He, and others, were calling you on your blind assertions that have no basis in fact or reality, and you're pulling an I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I argument???

You're a schoolyard clown.

55 This lawsuit seeks to demonstrate the obvious: there is no constitutionally permissible justification for such discrimination.

The problem of course is that levelers always level down.  There's no reason not to allow polygamy either.

56 What I do think is funny is that there were people on Twitter seriously asserting that repealing DADT was teh awesome because calamity hadn't occurred by the end of the day it happened.

Can we at least wait and see before declaring TOTAL VINDICATION!1!!

I mean, "we're only a month in, but..." is a remarkable bit of sleight of hand.

57 Gabe, you just gave the address as "aceofspadeshq.com." Dude!

58 IT'S A TRAP!!!

59 He said backdoor method.

60 Which guy speaking is the gay guy?

61 The military isn't a job you can just up and quit.  Everyone has a contract that they have to fulfill, and even guys who can drop their ETS paperwork right now are still looking at 90 days minimum before they get out. 

62 I'm not one to be out persecuting people for their sexual proclivities, but I've always wondered why this particular fetish has so much more respectability in the US than other fetishes.

I assume its because it is the richest persecuted minority in the world and big donors to a particular party.

63 The rules of engagement are reason enough to keep real  humans who aren't mentally ill freaks of nature from serving in the military.

64 But Obama is still a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

65 Pink Berets should be mandatory for them.

66 Gabe, Gabe, Gabe, you have lost me on your defense of gays in the military and everything you are bringing up is exactly what everybody in my circle of friends was saying would happen. It never was about repealing DADT but the larger agenda. As long as you feel good about yourself when the barbarians storm the wall and slit our throats that is all that counts. Conducting social experiments with the armed forces always results in disaster.

67 Gabe, you are getting owned.

68 The state of Oregon allows medical marijuana cards.  If my state grants me one, am I allowed to smoke dope around the US?  The world?  If the military is National, then state laws must take a back seat, it would seem.

69 Butt Piracy was considered a mental illness until about 1974 when social engineering began to trump science.

70 That's gonna leave a mark.

71 www.filters-king.com, filters wholesale, filters manufacturer, spare filter parts

72 The condescending laugh is a nice touch.

73 Perryesque.

74 Come on bloody snakes.

75 "It all boils down to 'can't we all just get along'?"

Well, no, because everyone always wants to "get along" strictly on their terms.

It's a pointless aim.

76 William F. Buckley reincarnated.

77  I swear, aceofspadeshq.com used to work. Damn.

Oh, and I couldn't work in SCoaMF. He just didn't come up.

78 Is that guy syndicated? He sounds pretty good.

79 Progressives getting rid of the progressive's DADT idea, an idea sold so that gays could just do their jobs,  is necessary because it is standing in the way of co-opting the definition of marriage.  It is as simple as that.

We won't agree Gabe, but you are well spoken on the air.  Nice.

80 It's mostly about the money, and only secondarily about "equality." Married benefits in the military are the best of any profession -- housing, extra allowances.

Just like resistance to civil unions are all about "spousal benefits" in industry.

Follow the money.

81 So.... in law isn't there a boundary -where a person can have their rights so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others..... I guess what I am concerned about is a great many will have their right to privacy infringed on to accommodate a few. I'm undecided about gays in the military and I doubt that matters much-but I do find it disconcerting about how the concerns of-mostly male heterosexuals in the military-for their right to some semblance of privacy is laughed off.

82 So when do I get to join and have my own portable basement complete with sex slave?

83

I tried to listen on my Blackberry but the media player kept crapping out on me. Presumably it's archived at WCRN, so I'll listen later.

84 So he has his own blog as well?

85 Married benefits in the military are the best of any profession -- housing, extra allowances. Well there is a downside. Your spouse is gone particularly in these times a majority of the year-there are hidden costs to that. The divorce rate back in the '80's for some critically manned fields went up to 82% then 85%-that is astronomical. Then their are the moves. If the spouse is on the 'fast track" it can be every two years, I think the average is three. Their are hidden costs to that. I think the biggest one is to the spouse's potential career. How do you gain seniority at your job when the spouse has to move at random every two to three years? It doesn't happen and in this current economic environment -unemployment for the spouse is a very real prospect.

86 edit:Then ^there^ are the moves. (Cripes I'm losing my English.)

87 We won't agree Gabe, but you are well spoken on the air.  Nice.

Thanks.

Presumably it's archived at WCRN, so I'll listen later.

He emailed to let me know when the podcast would go up, so it'll either be at WCRN or at his webpage, which is the first link up there in the post.

88 Shit make that back in the '90's-I really don't want to know what the divorce rate for the critically manned fields is now...

89  Flavius, yes, DaTechGuy's own blog is linked up there in the post. First link.

90 I don't understand how someone can say that as many kids are being adopted now that the Catholics are out of the adoption business. Does anyone really believe that the state picked up the slack?  Yeah, right, all those state workers are just working harder & extra hours. More & more kids in paid foster homes, that's the end result. Do you have any idea what most of those paid foster homes are like? Try being a Big Sister or Big Brother. But admit it, it's not "about the children", it's "about the gays". It's sickening, they don't care if the kids get hurt, it's all about their emotions.

91 Gabriel do you have a legal opinion on this- I am reposting- So.... in law isn't there a boundary -where a person can have their rights so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others..... I guess what I am concerned about is a great many will have their right to privacy infringed on to accommodate a few. I'm undecided about gays in the military and I doubt that matters much-but I do find it disconcerting about how the concerns of-mostly male heterosexuals in the military-for their right to some semblance of privacy is laughed off.

92 As to "what I know" Gabe, here it is in a nutshell:
You know all those movies that feature basic training as a setting? That's pretty close to the daily reality of an active duty enlisted man. Next to zero privacy, huge clashes among people forced (and you are "forced", believe me) to work together, and all the stresses of being in a physical, often competitive to the point of being hostile, environment. There are codes of conduct, pecking orders and unwritten rules that have developed over the ages to make dealing with this life manageable. Imposing a sexual, political and social experiment on an already complex and difficult situation in one of the most important (and dangerous) fields in the world is asinine at best.

93 It's sickening, they don't care if the kids get hurt, it's all about their emotions.

Posted by: jeannebodine at October 29, 2011 12:18 PM (byR8d)

===

Nailed it. That's where the cultural Maxist's 'center of logic' resides: their feelings. If it feels good, do it! If it feels bad, force it down everyone's throats until they think it 'feels good'.

94 Off, dirty Austrian sock!

95 If female members of the military because of recognized sexual differences and/or preferences are segregated in the military then gay male members of the military should get the same treatment-in the interest of "fairness.".

96 40. Late to the party, but in USCG boot camp, I showered in a big communal shower with the other chicks. Not as sexy as it sounds. Not nearly.

97 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

98 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

99 OK gotcha-but then why can't straight gals shower with the guys? What's the legal reasoning if gay guys with hetero males is kosher, so to speak?

100 I'm confused--I thought DatechGuy was Leo Laporte and he is a computer nerd.

101 re: 100

There is no logical difference as regards sexual preference. This is another bit of logic that (I believe) well meaning folks like Gabe refuse to deal with.

As I understand it, their logic is this:  what is legal in a state (some state granted a "marriage" to two homosexuals) must be recognized by the US Military.

Well, if that is the case, then what if (apologies in advance to the fine people in Utah) a state, say Utah, granted legal status to polygamous "marriage"?  Or Massachusetts decides that, in the interest of fairness, a brother and sister can have a civil union (a marriage of sorts?) because of Doctor visits and survivorship benefits, etc?

[Those of you who are arguing the larger point:  that this is just another step, a trap from the cultural Marxists to kill Religious Influence and The Nuclear Family, you are absolutely right.]

102 I'm curious. For gay couples who receive partner benefits (spousal benefits where permitted) does the marriage penalty apply when filing federal/state taxes?  Actually, I think I know the answer, so perhaps this is a bit of a rhetorical question. I'm just not absolutely certain of it.

103 Remember the claims? Servicemembers will quit or fail to reenlist; the chaplains will quit; unit cohesion will collapse; and it will be the end of U.S. military supremacy. Well, we're only a month in, but given the utter absence of any disruption whatsoever, I feel confident these predictions were just hysterics. Possible but.... Every time you accept a new rank you are obligated to serve another three years. Every time you accept a transfer to a new duty station you owe the military another three years of service. (these can run concurrently, but it doesn't always flop out that way.) If you get your masters-which is pretty much "required" to make rank and you accepted matching funds you owe them-I think three years. When you graduate from one of the academies you are obligated to serve four years. (this could have increased...I'm pretty damn sure it hasn't decreased) If you are a USAF pilot you incur a ten year commitment after training. IOW-the military doesn't have a get out of jail free card-you can just quit-like the civilian world does.

104 Blue Hen- gotcha.

105

the latest DOMA lawsuit against the DOD---married gay servicemembers are seeking the same spousal benefits for their same-sex spouses that the military provides for opposite-sex spouses of servicemembers

Who didn't see this shit coming?

106 If female members of the military because of recognized sexual differences and/or preferences are segregated in the military then gay male members of the military should get the same treatment-in the interest of "fairness.".

The need, perceived or otherwise, to segregate individuals with regard to certain activities, would seem to be in and of itself and argument against open-disclosure of one's sexuality. The act of segregation would create an undue burden upon the military to furnish and manage such facilities/activities. Further, it creates a known barrier to complete integration and bonding.

Years ago a gentleman explained to me his belief that homosexuality is genetic. He attended a gym daily, usually later at night. He had been in the locker room with men in various states of undress and had never given it a second thought. One night he was in the locker room, the last man in the gym, when a woman with whom he had struck up a conversation suddenly appeared in the locker room, butt naked. SCHWING! He instantly got an erection.  He reasoned that it was a biological response and that he had never experienced anything similar in the company of a man, regardless of how handsome or successful or witty or charming the other man might have been.

If homosexuality is, indeed, biological (and I believe it is), then the reactions to certain visual or other stimuli may result in a less than ideal working relationship amongst comrades.

So, to segregate or not to segregate? If the reaction is simply anatomical/biological, then how the hell were those differences ever hidden?

I'm interested and honestly do not know the answer to any of it.

107

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 29, 2011 10:18 AM (wPT1m)

"Remember the claims? Servicemembers will quit or fail to reenlist; the chaplains will quit; unit cohesion will collapse; and it will be the end of U.S. military supremacy. Well, we're only a month in, but given the utter absence of any disruption whatsoever, I feel confident these predictions were just hysterics."

The jury is still out.

I served for a total of 30 combined years (Reserve and Active Duty) in the United States Army. Most homosexuals I knew kept it discreet. They didnÂ’t flaunt it and they certainly didnÂ’t have an in-your-face attitude. They focused on their duties and the mission. Their sexuality was secondary. The Dems in particular, have been chomping at the bit to get this repealed and now that their pal B. Hussein Obama is in office, and sure to sign any bill in front of him, theyÂ’ve finally succeeded.

I think this opens a PandoraÂ’s Box of problems. This is NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE, no matter how much they insist.
Gender, nationality, ethnicity, and skin color are difficult, if not impossible, for most people to conceal. Sexuality, on the other hand, can be kept private and none of anyone elseÂ’s business.

This new “openness” is going to cause unnecessary distractions and needless complications. Now comes the problem of how to deal with gay same-sex “harassment”, gay military partners who want to marry, and gays using their “protected status” by “acting out” and refusing to deploy to war.
Not to mention AIDs. Or how this will affect on post housing for “partners”. Or the rules on fraternization.
Or those who would use their sexuality as an excuse not to do what they were trained for: Break things and kill people.

Just wait until a transsexual shows up at the recruiting station. Or until someone in the military decides to get a sex change. WonÂ’t that be interesting.

It also subjects openly gay service members to ostracizing, distrust and violence, especially if they try sexual advances on straight Soldiers and Marines who arenÂ’t receptive to a pass from the same sex.

Okay advocates, you got what you wished for. LetÂ’s see how you deal with the consequences.

108 I remember when I thought this was a conservative blog.

109 Anybody else see the contradiction in the arguments for the expansion of benefits of the gay community in the military and screaming by the self same liberals to cut military spending? I'm sure the solution is to cut a division or two of troops to make up for this discrepancy. As long as none of the troops shown the door are gay.

110 YouÂ’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, IÂ’ve shared your site in my social networks!

111 In the olden days, being in the military was all about war and fighting.

Now it's all about love and sex. 

112 Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! ItÂ’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained!

113 You were a great guest.

That's the difference between us and the left, disagree with the left and they try to destroy you, disagree with the right and we have you on the show to argue the point with 50,000 watts

I'll let you know when the podcast is available

114 I donÂ’t usually add my comments, but I will in this case. Nice work. I look forward to reading more.

115 Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! ItÂ’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained!

116 Thanks for sharing, please keep an update about this info. love to read it more. i like this site too much.

117

Well, we're only a month in, but given the utter absence of any disruption whatsoever, I feel confident these predictions were just hysterics."

Because every E2 in the Military would employ his boundless First Amendment right to criticize the civilian leadership and its policies and bring forth the evidence that the civilian leadership and career officers don't want to hear about right now.

Fucking ignoramus. 

118 111 Okay advocates, you got what you wished for. LetÂ’s see how you deal with the consequences.

+1
__________________________________

You know what they will do:  they will blame YOU and all of the evil, white, religious,conservative, patriarchal system.

Then they'll demand that YOU change things and fix it.

119 spare filters parts, filters manufacturer, filters wholesale

120 www.genset-china.com