Ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
[Guest post by DRJ]
Incoming Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Obama will end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:”
“The startling pronouncement, which could re-open a dormant battle in the culture wars and distract from other elements of Obama’s agenda, came during a Gibbs exchange with members of the public who sent in questions that were answered on YouTube.
“Thadeus of Lansing, Mich., asks, ‘Is the new administration going to get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy?'” said Gibbs, looking into the camera. “Thadeus, you don’t hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it’s, ‘Yes.'”
It wouldn’t surprise me if Obama wants to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but ending it early in his Administration helps explain the choice of Rick Warren for Obama’s Inaugural Invocation. Obama likes to appear as the great mediator, and the juxtaposition of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” with Warren leaves Obama looking like the moderate.
However, behind the scenes, I think the campaign and transition demonstrate Obama’s desire to maintain total control. His willingness to unilaterally end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy sends a message to the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs: The military may have the brass but Obama is the Commander-in-Chief. I’m sure they’ll get the message.
— DRJ
“His willingness to unilaterally end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy sends a message to the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs: The military may have the brass but Obama is the Commander-in-Chief.”
DRJ – I hate to quibble, but I don’t believe Obama can do it unilaterally. It requires an action of Congress. I also saw a survey recently indicating that 10% of the military would not reenlist if DADT was repealed. What percentage of the military do activists claim is gay or would enlist if they could be openly gay?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/14/2009 @ 10:39 pmNow daley, that wouldn’t matter. Feelings, not facts.
Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/14/2009 @ 10:44 pmdaley,
DADT is a federal law but with a Democratic Congress and the hard feelings in the gay community after Proposition 8, I don’t think Congress would deny Obama a policy change.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/14/2009 @ 11:06 pmEric – Somehow I don’t get the feeling there is a big current demand on the left to enlist in the armed services. I’m happy to be proved wrong.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/14/2009 @ 11:09 pmDRJ – I don’t dispute your #3. I disputed your unilateral.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/14/2009 @ 11:10 pmIf he’s trying to prove to the generals that he has balls, “gays in the military” isn’t exactly the way I’d go about it.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 1/14/2009 @ 11:35 pmWhat percentage of the military do activists claim is gay or would enlist if they could be openly gay?
Don’t worry. Rangel’s ready with a bill to reinstate the draft.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 1/14/2009 @ 11:36 pmPerhaps the spokeshole was confusing the confirmation hearings with the military policy.
Ed (39e6e8) — 1/14/2009 @ 11:36 pm(Man, I’m getting sour in my old age.)
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 1/14/2009 @ 11:36 pmThe Navy can adapt to the new environment.
Joe (17aeff) — 1/14/2009 @ 11:42 pmAnd let’s face it, the Navy has always been gay. (Marines excluded of course)
Joe (17aeff) — 1/14/2009 @ 11:42 pmThe military may have the brass but Obama is the Commander-in-Chief. I’m sure they’ll get the message.
Obama will get the message about who actually does the fighting and dying – and its not Harvard affirmative action admits.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/14/2009 @ 11:51 pmDaley,
You’re absolutely right. I’ll correct it.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:05 amDaleyrocks: what has being on the left and being gay have to do with each other? Or are you a Democrat and just stick people into groups for the sake of convenience?
the friendly grizzly (77fb0e) — 1/15/2009 @ 4:30 am14.Daleyrocks: what has being on the left and being gay have to do with each other? Or are you a Democrat and just stick people into groups for the sake of convenience?
Comment by the friendly grizzly
Daley made no connection between leftwards leaning and openly homosexual tendencies; he did point out a lack of association between leftward leanings and enlisting in the armed forces.
This would imply that you make a connection between leftwards leaning and a desire for open homosexual tendencies.
Foxfier (db0f51) — 1/15/2009 @ 4:51 amFunny thing is, if a “right winger” said “liberals are gay” it would be hate speach….
When I read my daughter’s enlistment paperwork, the Da/DT section was really kind of laughable; they took a whole page to explain the policy, and whether an offense was going to be deemed to be a lifestyle choice or an unlikely-to-be-repeated misadventure, really just a bunch of stupidity.
To me, the biggest problem with DA/DT is that it is a huge security weakness. It means that people who have high security clearances haven’t been asked about their sexual orientation, but if they happen to be homosexual, they have a major vulnerability to blackmail.
As far as I am concerned, we could either return to the old policy of banning homosexuals and investigating whether people are homosexual, or allowing homosexuals to serve openly; from a security standpoint, either could work. But Da/DT was a Clintonian triangulation compromise which was teh worst possible response.
Soldier-daddy Dana (3e4784) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:12 amThe DADT policy was a royal pain in terms of “enforcement”. None of the people I knew liked it. Either say they can serve or they can’t. Military people like black and white interpretations much better. At one of the first briefings we received on the new Clinton policy I pointed out that per the President’s definition of sex it would be difficult to make a clear definition of lesbian.
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:22 amAs a side note the sexual harassment rules in the military are pretty clear. I would expect that the idea of same gender harassment will now be included in annual training.
I will be interested to see how many “openly gay” people enlist or get commissioned.
Offer “out” gays an ironclad deal if they want serve in the Armed Forces:
1. If you’re openly gay, you can enlist or receive a commission.
however…
2. You’ll go straight into a combat-arms unit with no other career options.
and furthermore….
3. If or, more likely, when “the balloon goes up,” you’ll definitely be in the first wave going in.
If there any protests, my suggested response would be, “You’ve been whining for years about how homosexuality won’t affect mission effectiveness and unit morale. This will be your big chance to prove everybody wrong.”
MarkJ (7fa185) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:29 amI am a gay man who considers myself conservative. I am pro-life, attend weekly religious services, am a prosecutor, believe in lower taxes and believe that our military is made up of the finest young men and women that our nation has to offer. I still support GWB despite all of his spending, and I donated to his reelection campaign. I also donated to John McCain and was excited enough following his selection of Palin to donate more. I know many gay men and women who served honorably and courageously in the military under DADT. These men and women are not wearing boas and high heels while marching in the Castro. They were the high school athletes, the altar boys and girls, the straight A students who were raised in families that have an unending love and sense of duty to this country. Let them serve openly and proudly as they do in police forces throughout the nation, as they do in nations like Israel.
Stephen (236526) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:29 amThe Australians show how to adapt to a changing world…
In the Navy indeed!
Joe (17aeff) — 1/15/2009 @ 7:14 amAmen. If you want to serve, serve. I for one won’t tell someone they can’t because they are gay and don’t feel like hiding it.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/15/2009 @ 7:33 am[…] Ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at patterico.com. […]
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to End? | THE WEEKLY POINT (be5b57) — 1/15/2009 @ 7:47 amDuring the excellent PBS doc on the aircraft carrier during the Iraq war, more than a few enlisted men (and women) expressed their desire to be open about their sexuality, yet feared the repercussions from such a disclosure. Yeah, it came from PBS, so you know there would be some kind of slant in that direction – but I would tend to think that some women oriented towards that type of career choice may be predisposed towards being gay.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/15/2009 @ 8:02 amThanks, Stephen, for reminding us of what’s truly at stake here. Are we seriously better off having discharged 11,000 troops under DADT (and that’s as of two years ago)? Are we better off burdening countless others with the need to conceal their personal lives over and above their colleagues? Are straight troops really so unprofessional so as to be unable to serve alongside people who identify as gay or lesbian? Nonsense. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is long overdue for being repealed.
Tom (132fac) — 1/15/2009 @ 9:11 amMolehill meet Mountain?
Tom – That’s 11,000 troops over the course of 13 years, a tiny fraction of one percent of our military on an annual basis. Public opinion surveys among those not directly affected by the policy aren’t particularly credible to me. What do those actively serving think? Is this, as DRJ suggests, just another battle in the culture wars to placate a vocal minority?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/15/2009 @ 9:24 amAdultery and out-of-wedlock sexual pleasures are still violations of the UCMJ. How do openly homosexual (“gay” is a kidnapped word) individuals reconcile their lifestyle with the UCMJ?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 9:38 amvoiceofreason2: My guess is there would be very few “openly gay” servicemen, even if this change were implemented, at least for the first few years. But it would allow gay men and women to serve their country without fear of blackmail or official harrassment into their private life.
Sean P (e57269) — 1/15/2009 @ 9:48 amViewpoint intolerance suffered by conservatives in the workplace is a much larger issue than DADT. Look at the reprisals conducted by the Prop. 8 opponents in California. See how hard it is for professors with conservative perspectives to get hired in academia.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/15/2009 @ 9:49 am#17…. You realize that the DADT was introduced in 1993, long before “Clinton’s definition of sex” was established.
You, sir, have been busted.
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 9:49 amTom, I don’t think that number has much meaning, since it does not account for those service members who themselves choose to use the DADT policy to get discharged early.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/15/2009 @ 9:52 amdelayrocks,
I’m not sure I agree with your effort to downplay the impact of 11,000 troops. Why do you think it is in the best interest of the military that DADT be continued?
John Hitchcock, do you actually know any gay people? Your preconceptions of what being homosexual actually constitutes in practice are amusingly limited. I expect you think that gays and lesbians in uniform spend their evenings off frequenting bathhouses and swapping partners.
Tom (132fac) — 1/15/2009 @ 9:54 amComment by MarkJ — 1/15/2009 @ 5:29 am
So you’re ‘solution’ is to exchange one discriminatory policy with another?
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 9:58 amTom, it is illegal for same-sex partners to get married in most states. This means any sexual activities between same-sex partners is necessarily a violation of the UCMJ.
And any attempt to legitimatize same-sex unions by calling them marriage is an affront to everything I hold Holy. And marriage itself is a Holy union.
Your straw man attack on my statement is quite obvious. Do use the ammunition I have provided to attack me instead of attacking the straw man resembling me you have created.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:00 am#29
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:01 amNot sure what I have been busted for. The briefings came almost annually on the DADT policy. And my sarcastic question at the briefing was more joke than arguing with the policy.
#27
Sean,I suspect you will be proven correct.
And do I know any homosexual people? My ex-wife’s sister was married to a man who left her for another man and openly declared his homosexuality. The fact he participated in NAMBLA-esque events with his under-4 son doesn’t necessarily mean anything, does it?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:02 am#28, daleyrocks, mountains and molehills indeed! Persecution complex much?
Please, point me to the numbers of those who have lost their jobs due to “viewpoint intolerance”. I do know about the 3, maybe 4 people who have resigned their positions in the aftermath of Prop. 8 – but these are quite literally few and far between. Got any actual stats to prove otherwise?
Tom (132fac) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:02 amWell, Hitchcock, you realize that copulation with any woman other than your first wife is, under strict Biblical definition, adultery do you not? Sounds to me like you would be in violation of the UCMJ.
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:06 amI remember an entire “Focus on the Family” program dedicated to the homosexual attack on a CA church and the police not doing anything about it before, during or after the event.
A church which publicly supported the Bible’s stand against homosexuality was accosted by a mob of homosexuality-supporters. The windows were broken, mobs violently entered the church where a service was in progress, large numbers of children were traumatized by the extreme nature of the event. Obvious vandalism, obvious terroristic tactics, obvious traumatization, obvious anti-Christian behavior, yet none of them were so much as CHARGED with a crime.
While this happened more than 10 years ago, it remains true. Christian standards, and those standards Christians espouse, are standards that can be violently attacked without legal repercussions.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:10 amGot straw?
The UCMJ doesn’t use the Biblical definition of adultery, so the Biblical definition is irrelevant to this discussion.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:13 amAnd people have been beaten up because they are gay, John.
I think both are horrible.
And I don’t care who you like to stick it in (assuming legal age of consent)… If you want to serve, you should be free to do so without fear of getting booted out because of who you like to stick it in.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:14 amEd from PA, you are assuming far too much.
First, you are assuming neither of us committed adultery, which is grounds for divorce in the Bible.
Second, you are assuming neither of us were non-Christian or the one who was non-Christian was not the one who filed for divorce. The Bible allows the Christian to be free from the marriage vow if the non-Christian elects to leave.
Third, you are assuming I have been sexually active since my divorce.
That is a lot of assuming, and we all know what assuming does.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:14 amIf the military actively pursued everyone who engaged in adultery or sex outside of marriage the Swiss military would outnumber our uniformed folks…
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:15 am#42, for what it’s worth, I would have to agree. And that is indeed a shame. Quality of character has become so dismal… I don’t have words for it.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:18 amJohn Hitchcock,
The fact he participated in NAMBLA-esque events with his under-4 son doesn’t necessarily mean anything, does it?
Sure, it means he’s a scumbag. But it doesn’t have much bearing on this discussion, unless you believe that pedophilia is intertwined with homosexuality.
You are right that I don’t need to be chasing straw men. Fair enough.
You seem to have an operating assumption that all sexual behavior that occurs outside of legal marriage is adultery, even among those who are not married. Is this your presupposition?
As a matter of fairness, I think it’s unconscionable to deny gay and lesbian people the right to marry and then condemn them for pairing off and engaging in sexual relationships anyway. If your religious framework allows no legitimate option for gay and lesbian people to exist, so be it. But this framework should not be imposed upon all others, particularly when it would limit access to employment in a secular field.
Tom (132fac) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:19 amExactly, VOF2. So why are we worried about sex when we should be concerning ourselves with more important tasks?
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:20 amOddly enough, Scott Jacobs and I are in agreement.
Wow!
Tom (132fac) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:24 amThis comment by Steverino bears repeating:
The UCMJ doesn’t use the Biblical definition of adultery, so the Biblical definition is irrelevant to this discussion.
Yep. The End.
Tom (132fac) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:26 amI feel dirty too, Tom. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:27 amYou seem to have an operating assumption that all sexual behavior that occurs outside of legal marriage is adultery, even among those who are not married. Is this your presupposition?
To commit adultery, one of the two who are involved in sexual acts must be married to someone else. If an unmarried person commits a sexual act with a married person, both have committed adultery. If both are unmarried, both have fornicated but neither have committed adultery.
Does that clarify my position on that portion of the subject?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:32 amSure, John. But going back to your original premise…
“Adultery and out-of-wedlock sexual pleasures are still violations of the UCMJ”
…it is not clear to me how gay and lesbian people commit said adultery under your paradigm. As far as “out-of-wedlock sexual pleasures” are concerned, as I’ve said, it hardly seems fair to deny gay and lesbian people wedlock in the first place, then condemn them for sex outside of wedlock.
Plus, practically speaking, “out-of-wedlock sexual pleasures” could never be effectively prohibited by the military. Leading us back to the original question: why should the mere fact of someone’s pronounced sexual orientation lead to their discharge from the military?
Tom (132fac) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:58 amThe man does make a fair point…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:00 amOne poll indicated that as many as ten percent of junior enlisted would not re-up if open gays were allowed.
Richard Aubrey (a9ba34) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:16 amAs somebody pointed out, our soldiers come predominantly from culturally conservative, religously conservative sub groups within the nation.
They will not take kindly to a new regime.
Whether or not spittle-flecked advocates howl that the troops “Should not” be upset, the fact is that they may be upset if they are upset. They can simply decline to re-up and there’s nothing anybody can do about it.
So, since the new regime will be more tolerant and welcoming and open-minded, can we depend on the libs and metrosexuals to enlist to make up the ten percent their hot idea lost us?
And will we have to enlist, say, twice as many to make up for the fact that we lost the good guys and replaced them with libs and metrosexuals?
The purpose of the military is not “fairness”, it is effectiveness. Until military society has moved to the point where gay and lesbian service members are no longer disruptive to military discipline, it is silly to remove restrictions on their service. I’m hoping that we are at or near that point, but arguments that ignore that are simply vacuous.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:24 amI would imagine that polls in the past (if done) would have had similar results regarding blacks and women entering the service.
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:28 amJunior enlisted often declare they won’t re-enlist for a variety of reasons ranging from too many deployments to a desire to go to college. Once the first enlistment is close to completion many decide to stay on because they have married, had a child, or other life changes and reconsider the benefits of a military career.
With a bad economy it is likely that finding recruits to replace the 10% in the poll will not be hard.
Did you know you do not have 5th amendment rights during a military hearing or court martial?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:31 amvoiceofreason, the black issue in the military is an interesting one. We all know that in WWII, black specialty units like TD battalions demonstrated that they were combat capable. However, in Korea we saw that all black infantry units were poorly trained, motivated and led. The result was a high casualty rate in the opening weeks of the war. A high price for “progress”.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:38 amThat should read “all-black infantry units”.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:39 amBefore I actually read all the comments, I am going to denounce all of you homophobes and bigots.
JD (d51bf5) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:41 amI spent 13 weeks in marine corps basic training and 11 weeks in marine corps infantry training school. I got the opportunity to experience extreme discomfort during the daily 70-man showers where there is absolutely no privacy for 24 weeks. I also got the opportunity to experience extreme discomfort during the more-than-daily sit-down activities during my 11 weeks of ITS due to a complete lack of privacy. And this was prior to DADT. I don’t even like the idea of heterosexual men observing me while I shower or do my seated activities.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:47 amSPQR,
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:52 amThere was a lot of resistance to integrating blacks in the military. Why were they poorly trained, motivated or led are the types of questions that should be asked. Since they had proven themselves in segregated units something must have happened.
I’m not an advocate of using the military for social experiments. It should be a microcosm of society and usually works out that way. 25 years ago the acceptance of gays in society was very different than now. Is now the right time? I don’t know.
58. That is quite mature of you.
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:54 amSince the military doesn’t set marriage policies, and thus doesn’t “deny gay and lesbian people wedlock”, I don’t see the point to your complaint.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:55 amThe military is a governmental institution, Steverino, and if the government denies a right the military is effectively a part of that denial.
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:58 amEd from PA, the military denies your 5th amendment rights. The military also denies your right, as a corporal, to date a colonel. Neither of these actions are appropriate in the civilian world but both are paramount in the military world.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:02 pmRight, Hitch, but the military does not guarantee rights that the Federal government does not. That only works in one direction.
I don’t consider having a gay coworker to be a major obstacle in a soldier’s life, especially if we consider the other hardships we ask our soldiers to endure.
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:09 pmMarriage laws are set by the States, not the federal government. The military doesn’t control government policy at the state or federal level. Thus, your argument is blown away.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:11 pmIt really isn’t, Steverino. Government is government is government. The levels are not completely disassociated groups.
Therefore, your argument is ‘blown away’.
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:13 pmEd, your argument is getting incoherent.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:14 pmI am not sure that pushing pet social issues and causes is the best way to run the military.
JD (d51bf5) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:14 pmYes. The local dog-catcher and the US military are literally indistinguisable, Ed.
JD (d51bf5) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:15 pmSPQR- I am not really sure what you don’t understand. It is written in American English.
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:16 pmCan’t you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:17 pmComment by JD — 1/15/2009 @ 12:15 pm
Is that what I said? I’ll have to review to make sure….
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:17 pmActually, Ed, you said any government is government and the military is government so any government is inexorably tied to the military. And the dog catcher, being a part of the government, is inexorably tied to the military, by your definition and logic.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:19 pmI know many gay men and women who served honorably and courageously in the military under DADT. These men and women are not wearing boas and high heels while marching in the Castro
The real concern is whether, once homosexuality was officially sanctioned, the boas and high heels might come out in some cases. What would the military do if ACT UP types decided to enlist and demand gay bars, etc? What about discrimination suits ?
Everybody who has been in the service has known a gay sailor or troop but it was ignored as long as there was no breach of military behavior. I don’t know how many of the 11,000, for example, were voluntary. There is no good solution but the military is not a sociology experiment. Israel, for example, has ended the combat role of women conscripts. We have had several women who functioned very well in combat and even won silver stars. No easy solution. As Obama will find.
I do think reenlistment rates will be watched very closely.
MIke K (f89cb3) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:19 pm@62 – Steverino, that comment was in the context of a specific back-and-forth with John Hitchcock.
@69 – JD, I agree. But we’re talking about people who are already in the military. I don’t think it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that there is an actual need for them to serve with extra restrictions compared with their straight colleagues.
Tom (132fac) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:23 pmI’m not arguing that they are completely disassociated, only that the military doesn’t set government policy. Further, it has no involvement in state policies. To argue that the military bears responsibility for policies it has no power to control is absurd.
The words are in English, but the logic is losing its ability to hold together…its coherence.
I understood that, Tom, I was merely pointing out that the military doesn’t make the marriage laws in the several States. As such, it isn’t denying anyone the ability to marry. So, the argument that it’s not “fair” for the military to punish out-of-wedlock sexual activity doesn’t wash.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:45 pmSteverino: so how should the military handle gay soldiers who marry in Massachussets or Connecticut?
Also, as a side note, I think it’s extremely unlikely that the military punishes all, or even a majority, of sex had by unmarried soldiers.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/15/2009 @ 12:53 pmBreaking News: US AIRWAYS PLANE DOWN IN HUDSON RIVER. Happening now. Pray for the passengers for a safe rescue.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/15/2009 @ 1:00 pmSteverino, it may not be “unfair” for the military to punish out-of-wedlock sexual activity, but it would certainly be unfair for the military to do so selectively, as aphrael points out.
Tom (132fac) — 1/15/2009 @ 1:01 pmFor the sake of your hypothetical, I’d say that the military should treat all soldiers equally under the UCMJ. Since the military doesn’t set marriage policy, it should treat a gay soldier married in Massachusetts the same way it would treat a straight soldier married in Utah, at least as far as extra-marital behavior goes.
Agreed.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/15/2009 @ 1:04 pmA while back, I mentioned DADT to my daughter and she corrected me. She said DADTDI — don’t ask don’t tell don’t investigate. Some things, while illegal under UCMJ, are not pursued, but if thrown out in the open they will necessarily be dealt with.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 1:06 pmRight, but that’s not what was being argued.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/15/2009 @ 1:06 pmISTM that the greater concern of the brass are adultery and fraternization, due to the effect on unit-cohesiveness that both can have, over and above any “gay” behavior.
Any sexual activity between soldiers (generic) of different ranks is fraternization, and can lead to deterioration of unit-cohesiveness, just as it can in a civilian office but without the more severe consequences.
Adultery, particularly where both parties are military or military-connected, is just a ticking time-bomb. Even if one party is civilian, it rarely ends well.
In the pre-Ice Age period when I served, you still had to have your CO’s permission to get married if you were a junior enlisted (E-1 – E-4), and they would make sure (including mandatory counseling with the Padre) that you were aware of the consequences you were going to be walking into.
AD (d614d2) — 1/15/2009 @ 2:08 pmAdultery is certainly a ticking time bomb. Sex by unmarried persons, however, is not adultery, and is not automatically a ticking time bomb in the way that adultery is.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/15/2009 @ 2:47 pm“I’m not sure I agree with your effort to downplay the impact of 11,000 troops. Why do you think it is in the best interest of the military that DADT be continued?”
Tom — Can you point to where I specifically said DADT should be continued in this thread please? What I see in this thread is you deliberately distorting the comments of others rather than making any kind of persuasive argument in support of eliminating DADT.
I suggest ignoring opinion polls of people not affected by the issue and go right to the folks most affected, but you ignored that point. You focus on your 11,000 number over 13 years out of a military of 1,600,000 (0.7% total, but divide that over 13 years) as if it were the defining statistic on which to focus yet provide no insight as to the breakdown of the 11,000. What portion of that 11,000 is composed of people who voluntarily outed themselves because they no longer wanted to serve? You claim a theory about the rest of the military being to unprofessional to serve with openly gay service members. Who is advancing that type of bigotry and homophobia Tom?
All I see you doing is making a feel good argument that we have removed barriers elsewhere and that we need to do it in the military as well. What evidence do you have that it is the right thing to do?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:00 pmArticle from Military Times referencing the military’s opposition to the repeal of DADT and the survey I mentioned above:
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:09 pmYes, I did say “Government is government is government.” No, I did not then claim that “any government is inexorably tied to the military.”
Generically speaking, if a business sets a policy, different branches/factions of that business cannot claim that they have nothing to do with that policy.
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:35 pmEd, I misspoke in my understanding of your statement, introducing a straw man.
The military has no voice in forming laws or government policies. It does set military policies, but is limited in it can only set military policies in congruence with the US laws and regulations. As such, the issue of out-of-wedlock occasions and the inability of some to become in-wedlock, that conundrum is out of the pervue of the military. They don’t decide who can get married, they just enforce (actually often turn a blind eye to) regulations concerning out-of-wedlock activities.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 4:06 pmHitch: Agreed, so what is wrong with getting rid of the limits restraining exactly who can and can’t serve. That makes the most sense, as we struggle to meet our recruiting quotas.
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 4:38 pmSocial engineering and pushing issues for special interest groups by mucking around with the military just seems like such a wonderful idea. The US military is not a democracy.
JD (d1f299) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:35 pmBut it isn’t social engineering. It is opening it up so a segment of society that is largely excluded (which IS social engineering) can – if they so choose – join.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:39 pmMaybe there are really really really good reasons why there are restrictions and limitations on those that can serve. Naw. No way. Must just be a bunch of homophobes.
JD (d1f299) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:42 pmSex by unmarried persons, however, is not adultery, and is not automatically a ticking time bomb in the way that adultery is.
Comment by aphrael — 1/15/2009 @ 2:47 pm
But, you have to factor in the issue of “fraternization”. This is where you get tripped up if you have a relationship between non-equal ranks, and it is a No-No.
Plus, if one of the parties is a Non-Com, or a Commissioned Officer, you will generate additional charges of “Conduct Un-becoming…”
It is a different world, and should not be confused with what goes on at your average civilian jobsite; either governmental, educational, of corporate.
AD (d614d2) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:45 pmIf the definition of a homophobe is someone who repeats the Bible when it says “homosexuality is an abomination,” then call me a homophobe.
(side note: isn’t it interesting the typo-alert hits on “homophobe?”)
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:45 pmBut sarcasm and condescension are going to serve as your reasons, JD?
Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:46 pmScott, it is social engineering if one intends to allow that segment to serve regardless of whether it undermines efficiency of the service.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:46 pmLike the reasons why blacks couldn’t serve? Poor night vision, maybe?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:46 pmLike how integrating blacks and whites undermined the efficiency of the service?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:47 pmI’d like to extend my personal apology to Aphrael and all the other regulars to the blog who are gay.
Welcome to why I don’t claim to be a Republican any more…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:49 pmThe ironic part about all of this is that I am inclined to think that DADT is a real piece of shit policy. But, simply making the claim that the military should be subject to the whims of interest group politics is head-scratching to me. If Congress or Baracky wants to muck around with it, then they should pass legislation that either mandates admission, or denies admission. But tinkering around with the military to score political points with interest groups is what I expect from Baracky. Ironic since he previously informed us that in the Baracky theocratic tradition, that his religion informs his politics, and he is opposed to gay marriage.
JD (d1f299) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:49 pmScott, yes, that was social engineering. Expressly so. And it cost lives.
However, the analogy rapidly breaks down. The issue of gays in the military is more complex. The issue of whites and blacks in the military was one solely of skin color with no real differences. The differences between hetereosexuals and homosexuals involve fundamental issues of behavior, relationships, etc.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:49 pmStrawman, Scott.
You can’t defend segregation since there is no real difference between men of different races.
There is still an argument going on as to whether or not women should be in the combat arms, because you can cite physiological differences between men and women, and the combat arms operate at a very physical level. The IDF argument was dis-proven early in the existence of Israel. Women were taken out of the combat arms due to deterioration of unit-cohesiveness by application of the quite human desire to “protect the girl”.
Whether or not homosexuals should, or should not, serve is a question that is ongoing, and will not be answered for decades, if then – but it is an argument that is separate from race.
AD (d614d2) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:56 pmCan gay soldiers also be allowed to marry?
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/15/2009 @ 6:04 pmThere is no law I know of anywhere in the country that forbids gay soldiers, or gay anyones from getting married. It is just a question of who they wish to marry.
JD (d1f299) — 1/15/2009 @ 6:48 pmComment by JD — 1/15/2009 @ 6:48 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/15/2009 @ 7:02 pmYes. I know that. But I know you know what I mean. 😉
I suspect we will see the effect as Obama will see this as a cheap way to pacify the gay rights people who supported him. I doubt the exhibitionists can resist making an issue of their “rights” and we will get to see why it was a policy for centuries.
Moderation is not a virtue to the left.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/15/2009 @ 7:07 pmThe only logical next step to unfettered homosexual enlistment is unfettered co-ed rooms.
If being forced, by your job, to room with someone who views your gender as a sex object is not objectionable when one member is homosexual, then logically it is not objectionable when one member is male and one is female.
If our troops are “mature” enough to deal with rooming with someone who may be openly physically attracted to them, then…what does it matter what gender they are?
Foxfier (db0f51) — 1/15/2009 @ 11:13 pmNor is there any real difference between men of different sexual orientation.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:01 amScott, don’t agree. There are differences in behavior or we would not have a label for them.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:16 amSo being sexually and/or romantically attracted to a member of the same sex is aberrant enough as to effectively classify someone unfit for service.
I can’t help but be exceedingly dissapointed.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:25 am#111
Being sexually and/or romantically attracted to the people you share a room, a shower, a toilet, etc is “aberrant” enough to cause unit problems.
The fact of forced intimacy is part of being in the military.
Your disappointment might be eased if you try to look at the situation from the perspective of the good of the institution, rather than focusing on people and their “right” to serve.
Folks that are fat, old, thin, blind in an eye, disabled, have asma… the list goes on and on… cannot serve, because it wouldn’t be to the good of the institution.
Foxfier (db0f51) — 1/16/2009 @ 10:40 amWhy should homosexuality be special?
How true… Tell them darkies to get the hell out! They will only damage unit cohesion!!
And if a gay guy is any of those things, they shouldn’t get in either… But to exclude someone based solely on their sexual preference is VERY much like what used to keep blacks out…
And that would be “ignorance”.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/16/2009 @ 10:50 amI remember when women started being assigned to the missile crews. Part of the duty required living in the bottom of the silo for 72 hours (or more)straight – just the two crew members in very close proximity. The biggest critics were the spouses of the male crewmembers — they felt there would be too much “temptation”.
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 1/16/2009 @ 10:53 amIt worked out okay as I am sure this will work out.
The sexual harassment regulations and rules apply to same gender harassment. Sexual assault training talks to the less frequent but real cases of male on male assault.
Well, of course, The One is going to end this dilemma with his mandatory national service in either a military or civilian corp – you’ll be able to wear either camo, or brown-shirts – the choice is yours!
AD (87db80) — 1/16/2009 @ 10:58 amI wonder if they’ll have those neat little red arm bands for the brown shirts?
For myself, I think I’ll wait until they come up with the next step – with those neat black uni’s!
Maybe there are really really really good reasons why there are restrictions and limitations on those that can serve
There might be. But I haven’t heard any really really really good reason for this particular restriction. Shouldn’t the burden be on the person who is asserting the good reason?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/16/2009 @ 11:08 amScott: thank you, but it seems unnecessary for you to apologize for someone else’s words. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/16/2009 @ 11:10 amLove2008: I imagine that a gay soldier who got married to another man in Massachussets would be fine as long as he kept it a secret.
How any honest man could do such a thing, however, is beyond me.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/16/2009 @ 11:12 amI suspect we will see the effect as Obama will see this as a cheap way to pacify the gay rights people who supported him.
Not just the gay rights people. In several of the debates, every single Democratic party candidate for President endorsed doing away with DADT. Allowing gays to serve in the military, as long as they comport themselves with military norms of behavior, has become the default position not just on the left but on the center-left and, if polls are to be trusted, in the center as well.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/16/2009 @ 11:13 amAs I said above: the reasons open homosexuals should not serve are the same reasons the military doesn’t bunk opposite sexes in the same berthing.
Foxfier (db0f51) — 1/16/2009 @ 11:24 amScott Jacobs- please argue on the value of your view, not by saying something is the same as racism.
Foxfier (db0f51) — 1/16/2009 @ 11:28 amAs evidenced by the voting patterns for prop 8 in California, blacks do not agree that homosexuality is the same as skin tone, so why keep bringing it up?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html
“… every single Democratic party candidate …”
And most of these candidates were Members of Congress in 1993 when that (Democrat controlled) Congress passed DADT, and made it the law of the land upon the signature of the sitting President, William Jefferson Clinton (D).
AD (87db80) — 1/16/2009 @ 11:30 am“In several of the debates, every single Democratic party candidate for President endorsed doing away with DADT.”
aphrael – Please remind me, did any of those candidates ever serve in the military?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/16/2009 @ 11:35 amI don’t casually toss out the charge, and you’ll note I’m not accusing anyone of homophobia, either…
But I have yet to hear a single reason against gays in the military that doesn’t sound like the reasons used to keep blacks out of the service, or at least out of jobs like cooking and cleaning.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/16/2009 @ 11:53 amDaleyrocks: I don’t know; whether or not the candidates had served in the military wasn’t important enough to my assessment of them as candidates for President that I bothered to note or remember their status. 🙂
But the question is somewhat orthogonal to my point, which is that it is not just gay-rights activists who are pushing for this change.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:05 pmAD: most is probably an overstatement. I think only about half of the candidates were in Congress in 1993.
But it doesn’t really matter, does it? Politicians are notorious for changing their mind, for one thing; and the view of society as a whole on the issue of homosexuality has shifted considerably in the intervening 15 years.
The way someone voted on this issue in 1993 is not necessarily indicative of how that person would vote on it now.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:08 pmComment by aphrael — 1/16/2009 @ 12:08 pm
How many of the ’08 Dem Presidential Candidates were in Congress in ’93?
It’s a close call:
Dodd, Biden, Richardson, & Kucinich were.
Obama, Edwards, Gravel, & Vilsack were not.
Hillary’s significant-other signed the bill.
Now, the question arises as to how they each voted?
AD (87db80) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:21 pmDon’t know!
But I have yet to hear a single reason against gays in the military that doesn’t sound like the reasons used to keep blacks out of the service, or at least out of jobs like cooking and cleaning.
Comment by Scott Jacobs
I know you haven’t heard because you don’t want to hear. The same sort of advocates are pushing for women in combat. It has nothing to do with the good of the service and everything to do with the careers of a few women officers. Combat arms branch assignments speed promotion.
You don’t care about the military. This all about gay rights.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:27 pmThen list them. Detail them for me. I fucking dare you.
And Mike? I know you might not be entirely used to the idea, but one does not need to be a devout supporter of gay rights in order to find fault with DADT or an outright ban on gays in the military.
But I suppose for every “you’re a racist because you don’t worship Ocarter” leftie, there had to be a “you’re a gay rights activist because you would day let gays serve in the military” rightie…
I’d forgotten.
And the argument against women in combat is, while not entirely, different. Women – on the average – lack the physical strength of men, and thus are less suited to such roles. But to say a gay man could not display the exact same qualifications as a straight man, besides where he likes to stick his dick, is idiocy.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:33 pmAnd another thing…
Suggest again that I don’t care about the military and we’ll end up having words. Short, vulgar words that could possible cause your computer to burst into flames.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:36 pmScott, the issue is integration of openly gay service members into military units. I happen to believe that it is not impossible, but I don’t support arguments for ending DADT that ignore the problem.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:37 pm“But the question is somewhat orthogonal to my point, which is that it is not just gay-rights activists who are pushing for this change.”
aphrael – The question may be orthogonal to your point, but not to ones I raised earlier in the thread. I see a lot of people advocating the elimination of DADT who are not directly affected by it or who have no direct knowledge of the policy. Do the branches of the military have any current studies or position papers or any other information for the civilian leadership to evaluate in coming to a decision or is everyone operating blindly? I want to know what the military thinks since they are the ones who will have to implement any decision.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:37 pmFrom my understanding of what I heard on Fox News, the military has done no studies concerning DADT in nine years. The military has done many studies of many issues coming into the change of CIC, but DADT was not one of them.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:43 pmJohn Hitchock: if they have done no such studies despite the fact that (a) every Democratic presidential candidate said they’d overturn DADT, and (b) it seemed likely for most of last year that the Democratic nominee, whoever it was, would win … then on some level they’ve failed to do their homework. It wouldn’t have taken a whole lot to predict that this is something the new CiC woudl want to know.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:50 pmI could be mistaken, but didn’t the military have studies about the adverse affect that would occur should the military become integrated?
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:51 pmComment by Scott Jacobs — 1/16/2009 @ 12:36 pm
Scott, we’re here to have a discussion, not a brawl.
AD (87db80) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:52 pmTry to dial it down a bit (which would apply to all who are edging too close to the line).
AD, at 127, like I said. About half. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:52 pmComment by Scott Jacobs — 1/16/2009 @ 12:51 pm
AD (87db80) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:54 pmThat was 60-years ago, and before Brown.
It is not germane to this discussion.
Comment by aphrael — 1/16/2009 @ 12:52 pm
I’ll stick with most, have you seen the size of those thighs?
AD (87db80) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:56 pm…snicker…snicker…snicker…
But it is… The military said “We’ve looked at this, and nope… blacks should be in the same unit as whites. It would be a complete disaster…”
And look now. Would you say they were wrong?
So if the military says “We’ve looked at this, and nope… Gays shouldn’t serve in the military. It would be a complete disaster…”, how much credence should we give that?
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/16/2009 @ 12:59 pmAD, I don’t agree that it’s not germane. The argument basically is “the military thought racial integration would have an adverse affect; they were wrong. they think that letting gays serve would have an adverse effect; how do we know they’re right this time?”.
I don’t think it’s fair to assume that they are wrong just because they were wrong on this other issue, but it does demonstrate that they can be wrong.
For what it’s worth, I think there will be a couple years of adjustment during which it’s a problem and then it will be irrelevant.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/16/2009 @ 1:00 pm“I could be mistaken, but didn’t the military have studies about the adverse affect that would occur should the military become integrated?”
Scott – Do you think we could change a few key words in 60 year old studies, reprint them and then point and laugh?
Is that all you’ve got?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/16/2009 @ 1:36 pm“they think that letting gays serve would have an adverse effect; how do we know they’re right this time?”.”
aphrael – Do you know the above is the current position of the military?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/16/2009 @ 1:41 pmScott – If you had a homosexual transvestite join the military, should the individual wear a male or female uniform on duty?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/16/2009 @ 1:42 pmI’ll say it again… When the military was integrated, it changed standing policy, and doom was forecasted…
Why do you think they would be right THIS time?
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/16/2009 @ 1:58 pmDaleyrocks: if that’s *not* the current position of the military, then why does anyone object at all to abolishing DADT?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/16/2009 @ 2:02 pmSuggest again that I don’t care about the military and we’ll end up having words. Short, vulgar words that could possible cause your computer to burst into flames.
Comment by Scott Jacobs
Now, my hands are shaking so hard in fear that I have trouble typing this but:
There were all negro units in WW II. That included the Tuskeegee Airmen who flew P 51s in Italy and prided themselves in that they never lost a bomber. Edward Almond (surely you know who he was, as you are a military expert) commanded a black division in Italy in WWII.
Here is a proposal: recruit a gay unit, maybe a battalion. Send them into combat for a year or two. We need more troops for Afghanistan so they would have plenty of chance to prove themselves. There is your analogy to integration. No problem. In a couple of years, you would have the evidence that there is no problem. It doesn’t solve the problem of personal space but it would be an analogy with integration that you are using.
If it was good enough for the Thebans (I’m sure you know that story), it should be good enough for the Army.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 1/16/2009 @ 2:16 pmI personally don’t know what the position of the military is on this issue.
One problem, is which military are we talking about:
Are we talking about the Brass who refine policy into regulations?
Are we talking about the line officers and non-coms who have to enforce those regulations?
Or, are we talking about the grunts, who have to live with those regulations?
We have a report of a probably informal poll that says that the grunts are not completely sold on this.
We’ll probably not hear what the line Officer & Non-Com class thinks, as they will not want to cause possible damage to their careers.
The Brass will reflect whichever direction the political winds are blowing, and are not a good indicator of what the “military” is thinking.
Anyway, as everybody knows (or should know), you tell me what you want studied, and hint at what outcome you’re looking for, and I’ll put together a study group that will confirm your outlook in spades – it doesn’t matter what you want, we’ll get it confirmed.
I just don’t want to introduce a great deal of conflict into an orginization that is currently trying its’ damndest to preserve my freedom and liberty. It doesn’t need that distraction.
AD (87db80) — 1/16/2009 @ 2:29 pmHomophobes. Insensitive to the plight of minorities. Evil bigots. Haters of gays and UFOs.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/16/2009 @ 2:36 pmHey, some of my best friends are UFO’s.
AD (87db80) — 1/16/2009 @ 2:39 pmHey, AD, don’t ask, don’t tell.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/16/2009 @ 3:10 pmI was married to a UFO once, so don’t dis UFOs… on second thought…
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/16/2009 @ 3:13 pmYes, you simpering idiot. There were also all black units in the Civil War. However, I’m talking about INTEGRATING the service, which was the cause of much agitation on the part of the white folk what didn’t want them colored boys in the same unit.
You say that gays and straights serving together, side by side, will destroy the military?
I say “They said the same thing about blacks and whites. They kinda got that one wrong.”
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/16/2009 @ 5:59 pmI’d also remind you that they were NEVER intended to see active duty, but were sent over seas because the First Lady leaned on her husband.
Once over seas, they were never intended to see combat until a pair happened upon a stray bomber and helped fight of a few german fighters.
And I can’t recruit an all-gay unit to see how it would do. The military would kick them out.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/16/2009 @ 6:02 pmPreference is not the same thing as degree of perma-tan or roundness of eyes. Equating them is inappropriate.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/16/2009 @ 6:03 pmWhy? Because the similarity to the treatment of those groups, and the wrongness of the dire predictions makes you sound ridiculous?
Ok, I can see why you might take issue with that.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/16/2009 @ 6:17 pmChoices you make are not tied to skin color, roundness or the lack thereof of eyes, or plumbing fixtures. They are choices you make. And choices can have undesirable repercussions.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/16/2009 @ 6:29 pmAh. So they CHOSE to be gay.
Yeah, because *I* sure would want to make a choice that will get my stigmatized, ostracized, and possible savagely beaten…
*rolls his eyes*
You also consider it an abomination unto the Lord, so forgive me if I find you just a little bit ridiculous.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/16/2009 @ 6:32 pmI can trace my heritage back to American Indians, Mexicans and Irish. None of those groups were well-treated over the history of the US.
I am left-handed and red-headed. Neither of those traits were well-treated when I was going thru school.
I was a passive Christian in grade school and throughout my life. That causes me social hardship the likes of which I’m certain you cannot understand. The greatest experience in my life occurred in 1981 when I overheard a student asking the geology teacher “What does he do? Read the Bible every day or something!?” That event of disdain caused the greatest joy I have ever experienced.
In USMC basic training, my Senior Drill Instructor accused me of thinking I was God’s 13th disciple. That was the second greatest joyful experience I had. (I had caused trouble for a Drill Instructor who was forcing everyone to call him the God of the platoon.)
My own heritage and genetic appearance has caused me issues. My choices have also caused me issues. The choices of others should not be free-and-clear just because it is a liberal agenda.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/16/2009 @ 6:40 pmSo you deem me ridiculous because I believe the Bible is God-breathed? You deem the vast majority of professing Christians ridiculous? Is that what you’re saying? Because the vast majority of Christian churches say the Bible is the inerrant word of God. And I believe it with all of my being.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/16/2009 @ 6:54 pm“It doesn’t need that distraction.”
AD – Ince we get more muslims in our military they’ll probably demand that we resegregate it by gender and execute the gays, just like at home.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:07 pm“So you deem me ridiculous because I believe the Bible is God-breathed? ”
Hey its your lifestyle choice. But its ok we can engineer society around it.
imdw (b1617d) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:10 pmJohn, you know, grading your religiosity based on how much it bothers others is fine. But to then be upset that someone finds your views ridiculous seems inconsistent.
You say that most Christian churches view the bible as inerrant. Which bible? The mormon one? The king james? The NIV? Versions with apocrypha or without? All of those disagree with eachother. Heck, even one bible can disagree with itself (and I realize some claim there is a good explanation for that).
It’s a book that goes from God murdering everyone on Earth except for Noah, to Jesus telling us to turn the other cheek. Some would find that incoherent and ridiculous, and I don’t see why that should upset you.
You have to have faith to be a Christian… therefore you aren’t basing your view on anything you can observe or prove. So God’s given us a world where it’s rational to doubt his existence.
And I ask every Christian to help me understand their view that Jesus being crucified would in any way have a bearing on whether a believer’s sins are paid for or not. That doesn’t make any sense to me. Apparently, God made rules about sacrificing animals, and Jesus was the final sacrifice… but it makes no sense why that would work. It’s ridiculous, but it’s also motivated a lot of good in the world, so I can accept it.
Joco (4cdfb7) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:18 pmThe Dichotomy of God…
In the Old Testament, He is a fierce taskmaster all HellFire and Brimstone;
In the New Testament, He is a gentle Savior.
No one said being a believer would be easy.
AD (87db80) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:25 pmAD, back in 1997, I actually had someone tell me to change my Christian principles because they were hurting my popularity. Go figure.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:30 pmNo, just on what parts you take over others.
You forget that the Old Testament God is the one the Jews follow, and Israel has little problem letting Gays serve, and seem to do ok despite it. At least, Hamas thinks so…
So… I’d like to hear why you would be so against it…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:36 pmWell, are you talking about Conservative, Liberal, Reformed, or Orthodox, or what? The modern Jewish religion has almost as many varients as Christianity.
AD (87db80) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:42 pmIt is in the Old Testament, is it not, that the faithful are told not to engage in homosexual acts (I must apologize for not being able to cite the relevant passage, I never pretended to be a Biblical Scholar)?
You say that gays and straights serving together, side by side, will destroy the military?
I say “They said the same thing about blacks and whites. They kinda got that one wrong.”
Comment by Scott Jacobs
You really are a creep, apparently. I don’t debate creeps. Strawmen, I debate even less.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:46 pmMy Bible-based Christian view that abortion is murder has not caused me to even contemplate executing those who commit this form of murder. And I stand fully against those who take the law into their own hands in such circumstances.
I do not hold one part of the Bible above another. The entire Bible is God-breathed. The Old Testament and the New Testament. That means those who are committing abominable sins can be forgiven of those sins.
Why am I against homosexuals in the military? So I can add cannon-fodder for you to shoot me down, I believe, as the Bible says, that God holds nations responsible for their actions. I believe natural events can, and do, act on God’s will. I believe the Roman Empire was destroyed from within. Their immoral depravity destroyed them.
Aside from that, men and women are quartered separately for good reason. It is wholly inappropriate to house one man and one woman in the same “dorm.” It is likewise inappropriate to house a heterosexual man and a homosexual man in the same “dorm.” It is inappropriate for 30 women and 30 men to shower together. It is likewise inappropriate for several people who are sexually interested in those showering to shower with them. Cohesiveness will be destroyed by such things.
As an aside, Scott, this is not a (R) v (D) thing, as has been shown in the Prop 8 results. And (R) has not been conservative for a very long time. It has been centrist. The lack of a viable conservative party has caused conservatives to vote (R).
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:49 pmScott – My #144 was a serious question. What gender do you think the military would require a hmosexual tranvestite to dress as on duty if we remove DADT?
Your repetition of the DADT comparison to integration is a strawman. I agree with Mike K. Gays can already serve, just not openly. Blacks would have had a tough time hiding their pigmentation. The argument that the military was once wrong and therefore is always wrong should be useful to you in debating other military matters as well. Good luck with that.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/16/2009 @ 7:59 pmWhy haven’t any of the proponents of eliminating DADT been able to present the military’s case for retaining it to argue against instead of relying on strawmen like Scott’s argument or hey, we’re social engineering everywhere else, why not here too? It seems like this thread is occurring in a vacuum.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/16/2009 @ 8:05 pmComment by Scott Jacobs — 1/16/2009 @ 7:36 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/16/2009 @ 8:14 pmCareful Scotty, you are beginning to sound like a liberal. Soon you are going to become a troll on this blog. ;(
The military’s case – or at least the case of those speaking on behalf of the military, since to my knowledge the military has given no formal position – is that it would be bad for moral, and be bad for unit cohesion.
I fail to understand why drawing a parallel between “gays in the military” and “integrating the service” is invalid, since the exact same arguments were used at the time… Arguments which obviously have turned out to not be true.
Are you saying that integrating the service was social engineering? If so, since obviously it has turned out to work pretty well, doesn’t that suggest that not ALL social engineering is a Bad Thing (though I do not grant that eliminating DADT is social engineering).
I want to hear an opponent of eliminating DADT state a reason to NOT get rid of the policy that does not use A) the argument that gays are evil/an abomination (since I wasn’t aware this was a theocracy) or B) arguments that with but a word/phrase-change mirror the reasons given to not integrate the services.
Because I haven’t seen such a statement yet.
Then explain how I have mis-stated your position. Utter refusal to debate suggests I have not mis-stated.
Ah, I see. You’re a Phelpsian. That explains a lot, actually. Thanks.
Poor New Orleans. If only they hadn’t let them queers walk in the Mardi Gras parades…
That is hardly my position. I simply think that idea that the military is always right in regards to policy – and the effects of policy – to be demonstrably false.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/16/2009 @ 8:20 pmFrom what I just read in the Urban Dictionary, your categorization of me was meant as a dysphemism or outright inflammatory remark. I’ll take it as a badge of honor. And don’t fret, I won’t act like the mohammedan extremists. I won’t declare a Jihad for your dysphemism. 😉
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/16/2009 @ 8:37 pm“I fail to understand”
Scott – I think you would have been best stopping right there. You have not sought out the military’s position. Surely there have been some hearings over time on this subject. You are indeed making the argument that the military was once wrong and therefore must be wrong again.
What is the compelling need to change this policy? How many people does it potentially affect? All I keep hearing is abstract bullshit about how it is the right thing to do, which is fine, but obviously the military has had reasons for objecting. Those reasons may be complete bullshit. I don’t know, but I can guess, but until they’re adequately addressed or considered and discarded I don’t think the discussion is complete.
I fail to understand how people could think otherwise.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/16/2009 @ 9:49 pmConsidering the man is a vile pile of crap, I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked that you would…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/16/2009 @ 9:56 pmWe can’t know, since to get a number, we would be asking people to potentially throw away their military career.
And I’ll say it again: The military had reasons for objecting to integration, and those turned out quite wrong. Why are those reasons above questioning in this case?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/16/2009 @ 10:01 pmAnd I’ll repeat the degree of permanent tan is different than personal choices. Beyond that, someone who wishes to overturn 200 years of historical standard should bear the burden of proof instead of the other way round. To place the burden on the establishment to prove a radical change is improper is improper.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/16/2009 @ 10:03 pmMr. Jacobs-
I gave an argument, twice over, that is nothing like “keep the blacks out.”
You ignored it– and still haven’t defended the logic of forcing folks who are sexually attracted to disinterested folks to share rooms, showers and toilets.
Might want to read this essay:
Foxfier (db0f51) — 1/16/2009 @ 10:10 pmhttp://superversive.livejournal.com/35211.html?view=545675
Foxfier, I just added that link to my blog and I have only read the first 12 paragraphs so far. Thank you for that link.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/16/2009 @ 10:34 pm^.^
Foxfier (db0f51) — 1/16/2009 @ 10:56 pmAlright, I admit that was mostly to spread a really good essay.
Glad someone liked it!
“Why are those reasons above questioning in this case?”
Scott – I keep asking what the militari’s objections to removing DADT are, but you don’t know. Why would you keep arguing to remove something without understanding the counter arguments, and no, I’m not interested in 60 year old arguments about racial integration of the military? You clearly don’t understand. You’ve ignored legitimate questions to focus on a different 60 year old topic.
Other militaries around the world allow gays to serve openly but some have put restrictions on types of units gays can serve in, specific postings and discourage open behavior. Some militaries report difficulty with the integration process and many gay members of their armed forces apparently feel it is more prudent to remain in the closet than to serve openly.
The burden of proof here is on those wishing to change a 200+ year old tradition to show that it will not have a negative impact on the armed forces. As far as I am aware there is no constitutional right to military service. The military discriminates among those it accepts and retains for a variety of reasons and that discrimination has been supported by courts. So far all I have seen is a bunch of feel good touchy feely rhetoric in support of eliminating DADT.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/16/2009 @ 11:09 pmdaleyrocks: presumably, the same as a non-homosexual transvestite. Transvestism and homosexuality are two different things. The majority of homosexuals are not transvestites. The majority of transvestites are not homosexuals. Some people associate them both with “gender confusion”, and thus lump them together, but there is no real reason to do so.
Aaron (80bd67) — 1/20/2009 @ 11:00 am