November 30, 2010

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Report
— Gabriel Malor

After nine months of study, including the largest ever survey of troops on a personnel matter, the DOD working group instituted to review the law known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell has released its results and recommendations.

It's actually too long and complicated to summarize all of it, but I will highlight a few things that caught my eye because they repeatedly come up in comments here when DADT is discussed. (You can get a fair overview of the more general findings from Allah.)

First, in the recommendations portion of the report, the working group found that sexual orientation should not be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and complaint resolution processes. It noted that such special treatment would itself cause problems. Instead, complaints of discrimination, if they occur, "should be dealt with through existing mechanisms—primarily the chain of command—available for complaints not involving race, color, sex, religion, or national origin."

Second, the study found that among those opposed to repeal, one of the most-repeated concerns was "open" service:

Repeatedly, we heard Service
members express the view that “open” homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome advances within units, invasions of personal privacy, and an overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion, and morality. Based on our review, however, we conclude that these concerns about gay and lesbian Service members who are permitted to be “open” about their sexual orientation are exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences of many Service members.

That's from the executive summary. If you dig into the report you find a marked difference between the conduct anticipated by troops who say they have never served alongside a gay or lesbian person and the troops who say they already have. The report also found that when Service members who had already served with (or believed they served with) a gay or lesbian person 92% stated that their unit's "ability to work together, was "very good," "good" or "neither good nor poor." Hence the conclusion of the study that fears of "open" service are exaggerated.

Nevertheless, to alleviate these concerns, the working group recommends training to remind troops and leaders that standards of conduct already exist which regulate inappropriate dress and appearance; acts of violence, harassment, and disrespect; and (in the Marines) public displays of affection. The working group also recommends that the Services review their standards of conduct to make sure they are sexual-orientation neutral and applied that way. Finally, the working group reminds commanders that they already have myriad tools to punish and remedy inappropriate conduct.

Third, I was struck by this particular statistic:

The survey results also reveal, within warfighting units, negative predictions about serving alongside gays decrease when in “intense combat situations.” In response to question 71a, for example, 67% of those in Marine combat arms units predict working alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit’s effectiveness in completing its mission “in a field environment or out at sea.” By contrast, in response to the same question, but during “an intense combat situation,” the percentage drops to 48%.21 See section VII. While 48% indicates a significant level of concern, the near 20-point difference in these two environments reflects that, in a combat situation, the warfighter appreciates that differences with those within his unit become less important than defeating the common enemy.

Fourth, the working group study is adamant that creating separate housing, bathroom, and shower facilities for gays and lesbians will stigmatize gays in the service (and also oddly require gays and lesbians to disclose their sexuality, something the report finds most do not want to do). The report goes so far as to refer to this idea, mentioned by many Service members during the review and publicly speculated on by Marine Commandant Gen. Amos, as "separate but equal" and flatly rejects it.

Finally, though it does not appear within the report, the whole study is premised on the idea that the DOD will have some time to implement training to minimize the risk of disruption. Sec. Gates has repeated over and over during the past month that it would be better for DOD to have some control over the process than to cede that control to the courts. He repeated that argument during the announcement today:

He said a sudden, court-issued mandate would significantly increase the risk of disruption.

"Given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts," Gates told reporters.

He noted that the version of DADT repeal that has already passed the House and that is currently pending in the Senate contains a delay provision under which repeal actually occurs only after certification of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It therefore gives the military the time to prepare that the working group found necessary.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 01:10 PM | Comments (272)
Post contains 853 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Dogs and hobos need their own DADT.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at November 30, 2010 01:14 PM (QMtmy)

2 I bet if we changed back to calling them queers the problem would fix itself.

Posted by: tarpon at November 30, 2010 01:14 PM (g0QB8)

3 Did it mention anything about the gay soldier who leaked a quarter-million classified documents after a bad break-up?

Posted by: FUBAR at November 30, 2010 01:18 PM (McG46)

4 "First, in the recommendations portion of the report, the working group found that sexual orientation should not be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and complaint resolution processes. It noted that such special treatment would itself cause problems. Instead, complaints of discrimination, if they occur, "should be dealt with through existing mechanisms—primarily the chain of command—available for complaints not involving race, color, sex, religion, or national origin."

This statement is BS, and I think we should all admit that ultimately what WILL happen is the complaints will be handled exactly like those involving the currently 'protected' classes.


Posted by: blindside at November 30, 2010 01:18 PM (x7g7t)

5

This report was a foregone conclusion.

Just like women on Ships in the 80s, they put out the word already that any dissent on this topic would destroy carreers.

And so... the Active Military will spend MORE time on Politicly Correct Training.... and any stats that this is a problem will be swept under the rug... because we DO have a Civilian Controlled Military... so no matter how distasteful the mission... they will do it...

Sad....

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 30, 2010 01:19 PM (AdK6a)

6 There is still a big problem with that survey. It was NOT really representative of the Military. http://minx.cc/?post=308866

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 01:20 PM (0GFWk)

7 This is why Democrats lost...no one really cares about this beyond their base.

It's an issue that does has nothing to do with the main problem facing the country (the economy) and it doesn't even rank in the Top 50 of actual defense issues.

I'd be a lot more amiable to repealing DADT if someone bothered to make the case about how this will help win wars. Right now the best that proponents can do is promise (with zero proof) it won't hurt the effort.

I'm constantly amazed at how much time and effort is expended on a topic that impacts a relatively small handful of people.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 01:21 PM (HicGG)

8 Answer me this: 1) why was Bradley Manning still a PFC? 2) why was Bradley Manning about to be discharged? 3) why wasn't Bradley Manning's security clearance taken away from him? Seems someone didn't want to risk their careers rocking the boat and about this obvious sub-par Soldier Gee doesn't that remind ya of some Army shrink??? This PC crap is gonna get us all killed

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 01:25 PM (0GFWk)

9 (1) I repeat: The Wikileaks disclosures are directly related to the service in the U.S. Army of a homosexual person.  If we're being so open about everything, let's lay that card on the table.

(2) Don't we have "separate but equal" for women service personnel--not only in facilities but also in PT standards.  Let's lump everyone together and hold everyone to the same standard--and you'll see 80% of female personnel wash out or seek discharge within a year.

(3) This whole subject reveals our governing class as deeply, deeply unserious about our national defense, the traditions of our armed services, and the long-term health of both.  If this were 1997 with a booming economy, instead of 2010 and a weak recovery from a bad recession, there would be a significant voting with their feet of the junior-officer and senior-NCO corps against this measure, just as there was under Clinton with his politicization of the forces.

I weep for the country.


Posted by: Leo Ladenson at November 30, 2010 01:25 PM (mAm+G)

10 DrewM makes a good point - we have zero proof that this will not negatively impact the mission of the military, and it's all to benefit a population of how many?

The question being asked should be 'will this make us more effective?'

If the answer is 'no' then why does anything need to change? It represents money, resources, and time we don't need to expend.

The military is not a social experiment.

Posted by: blindside at November 30, 2010 01:26 PM (x7g7t)

11 Well, hell; as long as it doesn't completely screw up the military, what's the harm?

Posted by: t-bird at November 30, 2010 01:26 PM (FcR7P)

12 I'm constantly amazed at how much time and effort is expended on a topic that impacts a relatively small handful of people.

Seconded.

Posted by: angler at November 30, 2010 01:26 PM (SwjAj)

13 1)Any worthwhile review must consider whether repeal would hinder combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruitment and retention -- yet the Pentagon report avoids these critical questions. 2)Let's look at the "evidence." In addition to some focus groups, an anonymous online "drop box" and a survey of military spouses, the Pentagon sent a questionnaire to 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops. Less than 30 percent returned it 3)The time and effort spent studying DADT while two wars rage and a ruthless enemy remains determined to attack the US homeland speaks volumes about the misplaced priorities of the Pentagon brass. The Department of Defense could have been fighting the scourge of improvised explosive devices, preventing devastating intelligence leaks and improving care for the wounded. The burden of proof remains upon those who support repeal to demonstrate that abandoning DADT will make the platoon sergeant's job easier. Neither this Pentagon study nor any other information proffered by the pro-repeal political movement has come close to meeting this burden.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 01:27 PM (0GFWk)

14 Faaaaaabulous!

Posted by: garrett at November 30, 2010 01:27 PM (8x4z4)

15 I'm concerned how the Muslim world will respond to repeal.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 30, 2010 01:29 PM (Y81Xa)

16 (1) I repeat: The Wikileaks disclosures are directly related to the service in the U.S. Army of a homosexual person.  If we're being so open about everything, let's lay that card on the table.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at November 30, 2010 06:25 PM (mAm+G)

Oh for fucks sake. There are plenty of reason to oppose repeal of DADT but that's the dumbest ground to stand on.

Ever hear of these guys? They did a hell of a lot more damage than Manning ever dreamed of. They also were all married and straight.

So what exactly is you point genius?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 01:30 PM (HicGG)

17 forget where i read it, but the return rate on questionnaires to GI's was ~30%....

the troops already know no one cares what they think, and that this is all political bullshit.  i'd be amazed if the percentage of returns from combat arms MOS's, those farthest forward, we're  proportionate to their numbers in the total force, so the survey is likely even more skewed than it shows.

senior leadership has already decided to do what their political masters want done: the rest of this is just Kaubki theater...or, to put in military terms, a smoke screen.

Posted by: redc1c4 at November 30, 2010 01:31 PM (d1FhN)

18

It noted that such special treatment would itself cause problems.

Doesn't matter.  It'll happen.  Special treatment will happen.  At the very least, this is the camel's nose, the preferential status comes later.  But I think it comes on Day 1.  The complaints of discrimination will be frequent and based on the flimsiest of pretexts.  And this isn't because gays are any different than anybody else, but when you have the ability to gain special status by making a nuisance of yourself, you tend to take it.

Service members who had already served with (or believed they served with) a gay or lesbian person 92% stated that their unit's "ability to work together, was "very good," "good" or "neither good nor poor." Hence the conclusion of the study that fears of "open" service are exaggerated.

OK, this is blindingly stupid.  Absolutely, mind-numbingly idiotic.  It's like taking ice cream out of the freezer and saying that fears of melting are unfounded.  Why, see how frozen it was when I took it out!

The atmosphere would change.  These soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines were restrained.  They couldn't make their fellows sufficiently uncomfortable because they weren't able to without consequences.

Nevertheless, to alleviate these concerns, the working group recommends training to remind troops and leaders

Oh, well that's great, just what our fighting forces need, more sensitivity training.

 (and also oddly require gays and lesbians to disclose their sexuality, something the report finds most do not want to do).

Wait, so we're keeping Don't Ask but just getting rid of Don't Tell?  That is the worst possible choice.

Suppose PFC Manning is going for his security clearance.  Under the new plan, can we ask if he's gay?

Here's all you need to know: They want to jam this down before the next Congress meets.

This whole thing reeks of dishonesty, from the study with it's pre-concluded conclusions to the use of raw political power and lame duck shenanigans to get it done.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 01:31 PM (BvBKY)

19 1)Any worthwhile review must consider whether repeal would hinder combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruitment and retention -- yet the Pentagon report avoids these critical questions.

Wow, you completely ignored 3/4s of the working group study. Eesh, you need somebody to read it to you?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2010 01:31 PM (XVaFd)

20

The military is something that has been beyond the reach of most liberals, because they're too afraid to volunteer and risk their lives.  This will finally give the libs a way to exert influence far beyond their actual numbers in the military. 

Just knowing they've ruined yet another conservative institution makes them happy.  It's what they do, it's what they live for.

Posted by: Boots at November 30, 2010 01:32 PM (neKzn)

21 And of course the question all returning gays from military service will be asked is... Was it hard for you in the army? *rimshot*

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 01:32 PM (tJjm/)

22

I'm concerned how the Muslim world will respond to repeal.

Whatever.  Just stay away from our Goats.

 

Posted by: Adam Gadahn at November 30, 2010 01:32 PM (8x4z4)

23 It's raining men! Hallelujah, it's raining men! Amen!

Posted by: Pfc. Julio "Gloria" Jimenez at November 30, 2010 01:32 PM (ZyzoD)

24 All good for me.

I work military construction. The last conference I was at their was some debate (not at all related to DADT) on barracks and other buildings and the issue of DoD requirements of female vs male latrines - suggested they make them all gang style and unisex or all private and neuter.

It's gonna be one way or another.. and I would really hate to be that straight NCO with multiple complaints of sexual harassment for making the same sex subordinates 'feel uncomfortable'.

But it is all in the name of progress.

Posted by: Druid at November 30, 2010 01:33 PM (1lAkj)

25 4) How many problems in the military would not exist if they did not have special "rules" for protected races, women, etc now. Its the military. *I* want them to only accept people that are capable of serving and if this ruins diversity so what?

Posted by: PaleRider -haven't read all comments at November 30, 2010 01:33 PM (dkExz)

26 Obama could show his support by having his own Gay Honor Guard. If he goes for it, by all means repeal DADT.

Posted by: t-bird at November 30, 2010 01:33 PM (FcR7P)

27 Ever hear of these guys? They did a hell of a lot more damage than Manning ever dreamed of. They also were all married and straight. So what exactly is you point genius? Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 06:30 PM (HicGG) EXCEPT Bradley Manning specifically did what he did, reportedly because he was gay and pissed off about DADT.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 01:34 PM (0GFWk)

28 I'm inclined to say, Screw it... give it a shot and see what happens. If it doesn't work out, you can always kick them out. But I have to wonder: will there be a sudden rush of gay volunteers, or is this just another "gay issue" more about forcing the acceptance of homosexuality as "normal," a la "gay marriage"?

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 01:34 PM (tJjm/)

29 With repeal of DADT that means we can expect new high power recruiting numbers from the pacific northwest  , south Florida and  the ever patriotic northeast . Right ? Right ?
I mean , surely gays will join in numbers that will offset the losses from flyover country .

Posted by: awkward davies at November 30, 2010 01:35 PM (YCW1b)

30 First, in the recommendations portion of the report, the working group found that sexual orientation should not be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and complaint resolution processes. It noted that such special treatment would itself cause problems.

C'mon, Gabe, you know better.  Tell you what.  If the military abolishes all of the other diversity programs, etc., we'll both endorse abolishing DADT.  Seems like a win-win, no?

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2010 01:36 PM (8lSIO)

31 But I have to wonder: will there be a sudden rush of gay volunteers, or is this just another "gay issue" more about forcing the acceptance of homosexuality as "normal," a la "gay marriage"? Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 06:34 PM (tJjm/) There will NOT be a sudden rush of gay volunteers at all. But what I fear is how you will deal with open gay service members if and when they have to be disciplined or written up. There is going to be a tendency NOT to get involved because you might be accused of prejudice, which is exactly what happen with our friend the Army Shrink.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 01:37 PM (0GFWk)

32

I'd be a lot more amiable to repealing DADT if someone bothered to make the case about how this will help win wars. Right now the best that proponents can do is promise (with zero proof) it won't hurt the effort.

Better said than I.  If it would make the armed forces stronger, I'd be all for it.  For that matter, gays will serve probably the next time we have a draft.  With the social stigma dying, far too many men will simply say they are gay to get out of military service.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 01:37 PM (BvBKY)

33 Somewhere in a distant cave in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden is laughing his ass off right now.

Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2010 01:38 PM (ZyzoD)

34 EXCEPT Bradley Manning specifically did what he did, reportedly because he was gay and pissed off about DADT.
Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 06:34 PM (0GFWk)

Actually, there's quite a bit of evidence that he had other reasons which may or may not have anything to do with DADT.

It doesn't matter though, every spy does what they do for their own reasons. You simply can't say one class of people is more predisposed to espionage than another.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 01:38 PM (HicGG)

35

Are we going to replace the Hum-V with the Forester, now, too?

Posted by: garrett at November 30, 2010 01:39 PM (8x4z4)

36 It doesn't matter though, every spy does what they do for their own reasons. You simply can't say one class of people is more predisposed to espionage than another. Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 06:38 PM (HicGG) I did not necessarily make that point, but I will repeat what i did say: Why was this apparently subpar Soldier, who was about to be discharged, allowed to keep his security clearance? Was his CO afraid to make waves?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 01:40 PM (0GFWk)

37

You simply can't say one class of people is more predisposed to espionage than another

Yes, you can.

Posted by: M. Ahmadinejad at November 30, 2010 01:41 PM (8x4z4)

38 How about requiring that if you are going to serve in the military as a homo, you have to declare yourself so that all of the straights in your unit know what's up?  I mean, it wouldn't be as big a deal if I knew that Petty Officer Julian A. was gay so that when I saw him in line for the showers I could hang back and brush my teeth first ya dig? 

Be proud gay heroes of the military.  Don't sneak out the closet, kick the fucking doors off!

Posted by: Froggy at November 30, 2010 01:41 PM (3cH2I)

39 This post seems kinda ghey...

Posted by: s☺mej☼e at November 30, 2010 01:41 PM (glsV4)

40 Are we going to replace the Hum-V with the Forester, now, too?

Is the Forester a gay car now?  Who knew?

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2010 01:42 PM (8lSIO)

41 You simply can't say one class of people is more predisposed to espionage than another. Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 06:38 PM (HicGG) Oh and by the way I call BULLSHIT on that. Yes you can and the DOD does it each and every day when they hand out or do not hand out security clearances.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 01:43 PM (0GFWk)

42 Gabe,

You are wasting your time posting this stuff.  Every member of the military could stand in front of congress tomorrow and swear that serving with gays and lesbians would not bother them and the nay-sayers here would swear it wasn't truly representative and that combat efficiency would be highly downgraded because all the troops would be worried about protecting their junk. 

There is no winning this argument.

The fact is that in every military that has integrated gays and lesbians, there has been minimal impact on mission efficiency.  That includes the Aussies, the Canadians, The Brits, and almost every other NATO country, as well as the Israelis. 

This argument really has nothing to do with military effectiveness.  I have pointed out before that at least one (and I believe two) marines of the year were gay.  Hardly an indication of poor military character. 

What it comes down to is people projecting their personal moral code onto an institution and expecting the institution to conform instead of doing what may well be in the best interest of the institution.

Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 01:43 PM (WNcvq)

43 just let de gheys do air force and navy as it always been that is all

Posted by: w at November 30, 2010 01:43 PM (/hdCX)

44 re-title this post "Malor's take on DADT", which is predictably useless and biased

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at November 30, 2010 01:44 PM (UqKQV)

45 You simply can't say one class of people is more predisposed to espionage than another. Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 06:38 PM (HicGG) Which is why DADT was working and should not have been fucked with.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 01:44 PM (0GFWk)

46 I'm no crusader one way or the other on the gay issue, but with respect, Gabe, get off of your Hobby Horse.  The current policy, faults included, works.  I'm sorry that some homosexuals who would otherwise like to serve in the military can't if they openly advertise their orientation.  Tough shit.

I'm too old to serve.  I wish I could.  I wish I would have when I was younger.  But I fucking guarantee you I could pass basic with no problem.  I compete in 4 to 5 tri-athelons per year; am a good shot (hunting every season); and am an amateur MMA participant.  I'm quite certain that I would knock the ever-loving-shit out of any poster or commenter here.  But I have no problem with the military saying that I can't serve because MOST

Posted by: angler at November 30, 2010 01:44 PM (SwjAj)

47 If just one-tenth the effort put into this issue had been spent kicking ass and taking names.....

Posted by: cthulhu at November 30, 2010 01:46 PM (kaalw)

48 28 I'm inclined to say, Screw it... give it a shot and see what happens. If it doesn't work out, you can always kick them out.   Why not try it out on the Coast Guard?

But I have to wonder: will there be a sudden rush of gay volunteers, or is this just another "gay issue" more about forcing the acceptance of homosexuality as "normal," a la "gay marriage"?

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 06:34 PM (tJjm/)

I'm amazed at how much effort is being put forth in an attempt to provide psychological validation, because that seems to be the motivating factor here.

I would guess that recruitment among men would decrease gradually.  Currently, the military is seen as a tough profession.  Digs at Navy guys for being "fruity" would have a little more bite and men who might be inclined to go toward a life in the military might decide that it isn't worth the trouble.

I suspect that there won't be a rush of gay men.  I do think that the atmosphere among women will change and there will be a feeling among the females that straight women are simply not welcome.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 01:46 PM (BvBKY)

49 Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 06:43 PM (WNcvq)

Do you honestly believe this is even remotely an important defense or national security issue?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 01:46 PM (HicGG)

50

Who knew?

We are the official vehicle of the US Lesbian Team.

Posted by: Subaru Corp. at November 30, 2010 01:46 PM (8x4z4)

51 I thought DADT was Pelosi's plan for Obamacare details.

Posted by: dogfish at November 30, 2010 01:47 PM (IqdLq)

52 ... 42 year olds are fat and out of shape.  Sorry for the break in comments.

Posted by: angler at November 30, 2010 01:47 PM (SwjAj)

53 angler u projectin much

Posted by: w at November 30, 2010 01:47 PM (/hdCX)

54 Guys, guys, don't you realize that once DADT is gone millions,  I mean MILLIONS of gays will join the military!  We will DOUBLE our fighting force!  That will help win wars!

Posted by: anon at November 30, 2010 01:48 PM (j/wD+)

55

" If you dig into the report you find a marked difference between the conduct anticipated by troops who say they have never served alongside a gay or lesbian person and the troops who say they already have. The report also found that when Service members who had already served with (or believed they served with) a gay or lesbian person 92% stated that their unit's "ability to work together, was "very good," "good" or "neither good nor poor." Hence the conclusion of the study that fears of "open" service are exaggerated"

What part of "Open" is not understood. No fucking one serves "Openly" now or ever in the past.

Posted by: Javems at November 30, 2010 01:49 PM (kI3Wm)

56

If repeal happens, military parades will certainly become more festive.

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 01:49 PM (HIlgc)

57 What it comes down to is people projecting their personal moral code...

Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 06:43 PM (WNcvq)

Well that may be the pot calling the kettle...

Posted by: dogfish at November 30, 2010 01:49 PM (IqdLq)

58

If DADT is repealed, and gay marriage is mandated as a civil right, what's next for the GLBT alliance?

Posted by: Group W bench at November 30, 2010 01:50 PM (UJH2m)

59 if there was a  42 fat  and out of shape lobby i would sue u and dod to get in

Posted by: w at November 30, 2010 01:51 PM (/hdCX)

60 Can one declare to be gay and share the showers with female soldiers now? Or we only have separate showers for hetero male/female?

Posted by: LAI at November 30, 2010 01:51 PM (DH9np)

61 angler u projectin much

No.  Just pointing out that just because there may be a statistically insignificant number of people within a larger group that may be qualified and/or appropriate to be a member of a larger group means that the group should be compelled to accept everyone.

Posted by: angler at November 30, 2010 01:52 PM (SwjAj)

62
What a shame.

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 01:52 PM (DTy7x)

63

come on, we all know there are already gheys in the military

we call it ARMY

heh

 

Posted by: navycopjoe at November 30, 2010 01:52 PM (S9k9+)

64 If just one-tenth the effort put into this issue had been spent kicking ass and taking names.....

Posted by: cthulhu at November 30, 2010 06:46 PM (kaalw)

This. ^

What a giant fucking waste of time and resources this has become.

No wonder the rest of the world is mocking us right now.

Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2010 01:52 PM (ZyzoD)

65

What part of "Open" is not understood. No fucking one serves "Openly" now or ever in the past.

I openly serve for "Poontang".

Posted by: Animal Mother at November 30, 2010 01:52 PM (8x4z4)

66 da marines could help severely obese people

Posted by: w at November 30, 2010 01:53 PM (/hdCX)

67 OT It has been reported that Representative Conyers' government supplied Escalade was burglarized while his son was using it in Detroit. Why the hell are we supplying these people with cars at their homes? I could possibly see supplying them with transportation in Washington, but they can't even spring for their own cars at home? Then of course this bum lets his kid use his government car, and generously admits that it was misused. No shit. He has no dam business having the taxpayers supply his deadbeat family members with the use of a cadillac. No wonder these f_ckers are so hot to get reelected. Gawd forbid they should have to pay for anything out of their own pockets. Congresspersons need to be told once and for all to get their snouts out of the public trough. Sorry about the rant, but I am pissed.

Posted by: nerdygirl at November 30, 2010 01:53 PM (uG7PE)

68 If repeal happens, military parades will certainly become more festive.

Camouflage assless chaps?  Sorry, Gabe, it had to be said. 

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2010 01:53 PM (8lSIO)

69 if there was a  42 fat  and out of shape lobby i would sue u and dod to get in

You make my point.  This isn't a job fair.  It's our military.

Posted by: angler at November 30, 2010 01:54 PM (SwjAj)

70

Just pointing out that just because there may be a statistically insignificant number of people within a larger group that may be qualified and/or appropriate to be a member of a larger group means that the group should be compelled to accept everyone.

wtf

ENGLISH MOFO, DO YOU SPEAK IT??!!!!!!

Posted by: navycopjoe at November 30, 2010 01:54 PM (S9k9+)

71

25 more days and we can put all this nonsense behind us. I'm opposed to the repeal of DADT for a couple of reasons.

But what is most ridiculous to me at the moment is the fact this impacts about .0005% of the population. It would be like Republicans making the plight of Maine blueberry farmers an obsessive, national issue.

 

Posted by: swamp yankee at November 30, 2010 01:54 PM (3DIBw)

72 not army

Posted by: w at November 30, 2010 01:54 PM (/hdCX)

73 What a giant fucking waste of time and resources this has become.

A better use of the resource is to save gays' lives from the hard imposition of Sharia law.

Posted by: LAI at November 30, 2010 01:54 PM (DH9np)

74 Oh for fucks sake. There are plenty of reason to oppose repeal of DADT but that's the dumbest ground to stand on.

Ever hear of these guys? They did a hell of a lot more damage than Manning ever dreamed of. They also were all married and straight.

So what exactly is you point genius?


Touchy, touchy.  Too close to home or something?

(1) Most homosexuality is a form of mental illness, as the majority of physicians and psychologists recognized before 1974.  Mentally ill or unstable persons are not reliable security risks.

(2) Historically, there is a simply a high correlation between treason and sodomy.  A higher percentage of spies are homosexuals.  That doesn't mean that heterosexuals can't be spies.  That's me point, genius.


Posted by: Leo Ladenson at November 30, 2010 01:55 PM (mAm+G)

75 Great, more bullshit forced behavioral training that troops have to sit through. In addition to "Don't grope women" training, "Don't tell dirty jokes in front of women" training, "Don't fuck women in the barracks" training, "Don't be a racist" training, "Here's how to wear your stupid beret" training, and "Here's how to not completely fuck up your finances or marriage" training, they're going to get "Get along with the out and proud gays" training. All of these are blocks of instruction that most soldiers neither want nor need, but because a few act like assholes, all of them have to suffer for it. This was bullshit in a peace-time Army, and it's super-bullshit in a war.

Posted by: UGAdawg at November 30, 2010 01:55 PM (/VjHB)

76 Do you honestly believe this is even remotely an important defense or national security issue?

Not at all.  I ran STD clinics at 3 bases 2 Marine and 1 Navy, both pre and post DADT, and about 10% of our cases were gays who were serving with no issues.  In many cases their Command Master Chiefs would call and try and make sure we weren't going to report them for being gay (there is no medical privacy in the service or wasn't in any case I got out Pre-HIPAA so that may have changed).  The only time there were issues is when the guy had other disciplinary problems then the command would use the gay issue to speed the discharge.  If the command wanted to keep the guy sexuality was not an issue.

(For those wondering how we knew who was gay there were a number of ways, some diseases (syphillis) were so much more prevalent in the day community than the straight that was an early sign, same with gonorrhea of the throat in a male, we also did contact interviews where the patient would admit it or the patient would be named as a homosexual contact on a contact report.  I have mentioned before that in one case the commander of a ship was named as a homosexual contact.  He later went on to a couple other bigger commands with no issues)

Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 01:55 PM (WNcvq)

77 A better use of the resource is to save gays' lives from the hard imposition of Sharia law.

Paging "Queers for Palestine".  (Yes, there is such an organization).

Posted by: Ian S. at November 30, 2010 01:56 PM (p05LM)

78
It's time to bring back

WE ASK, DON'T JOIN

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 01:56 PM (DTy7x)

79

73  i know, you're a marine

i won't bust on the marines for a while because if i can con the wife to let me go to madre gras i plan on trying to get some dang straights cooking

Posted by: navycopjoe at November 30, 2010 01:57 PM (S9k9+)

80 you can be a ragin psychopath and join the army but as soon as you show youre out right.

Posted by: w at November 30, 2010 01:57 PM (/hdCX)

81

What a waste of time. 

Oh well, it's a good thing we don't have guys downrange right now.  Wait...

Posted by: DPR VIII at November 30, 2010 02:00 PM (4XUD3)

82 chad, you are arguing that the system works and has worked.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 02:01 PM (BvBKY)

83

chad, in a case where the patient has to report his sexual partners, isn't the names considered confidential due to patient-doctor rules

we were never told crap for anything by medical for use in our reports

Posted by: navycopjoe at November 30, 2010 02:01 PM (S9k9+)

84 No one is going to be happy with any solution to this, so here's mine: Separate but equal gay/non-gay divisions. The all-gay navy crews might be a little much, but imagine The Angry Lesbian Marine Platoon. Imagine sending them to deal with the muslim asshats. Imagine sending them into battle when their periods are all in sync. Yikes. Of course they'd not be able to drive very well, and they'd get lost a lot, but they'd sure be good at killing stuff. (I might be kidding about some of this, I'm never sure.)

Posted by: cali grump at November 30, 2010 02:01 PM (hL0k8)

85 if  service was compulsory i could see repeal bit its not.

Posted by: w at November 30, 2010 02:01 PM (/hdCX)

86

come on, we all know there are already gheys in the military

we call it ARMY

heh

 

I've heard that the squids sleeping quarters on a ship are cramped for one reason and one reason only.  Spooning.

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 02:02 PM (HIlgc)

87 I'm concerned how the Muslim world will respond to repeal.
Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 30, 2010 06:29 PM

Foaming rage at being crushed by an army with women and gays.

Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at November 30, 2010 02:03 PM (XsNxM)

88 OK WE GET THE ARMYS GAY

Posted by: w at November 30, 2010 02:03 PM (/hdCX)

89 88 come on, we all know there are already gheys in the military

we call it ARMY

heh

I've heard that the squids sleeping quarters on a ship are cramped for one reason and one reason only.  Spooning.


What about the Zoomies in the Air Farce?  "Off we go into the wild blue yonder"?  Need I say more?

Posted by: Drinky Crow at November 30, 2010 02:04 PM (mAm+G)

90 88  jesus dude, even the gheys wouldn't sppon with a nasty sweaty sailor at sea

Posted by: navycopjoe at November 30, 2010 02:04 PM (S9k9+)

91

i won't bust on the marines for a while because if i can con the wife to let me go to madre gras i plan on trying to get some dang straights cooking

Posted by: navycopjoe at November 30, 2010 06:57 PM (S9k9+)

Speaking of dang straights, I haven't seen him around him for a long while?

Posted by: Tami at November 30, 2010 02:04 PM (VuLos)

92 <i>Well that may be the pot calling the kettle...</i>

Maybe it is.  Personally I don't really care strongly one way or another about whether a person is gay, just about whether they are able to do the mission.  I feel the same way about women in the service and when I initially joined women weren't even allowed in most combat support jobs much less on board combatants or flying combat aircraft.  I think my position is consistent others may disagree.

Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 02:05 PM (WNcvq)

93 i have decided to come back and slap everybody here

Posted by: george patton at November 30, 2010 02:05 PM (/hdCX)

94 wheres ike

Posted by: george patton at November 30, 2010 02:06 PM (/hdCX)

95

>> Oh and by the way I call BULLSHIT on that. Yes you can and the DOD does it each and every day when they hand out or do not hand out security clearances.

That's overly simplistic.  The highest risk factors are financial stress and/or greed, addictions (drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex), and the susceptibility to extortion.  By that argument you could say holding the threat of 'outing' someone who serves is a higher risk than if they didn't have to fear it.

I agree with DrewM though (shoot me).  Of all the things on the list of "really important", this isn't.

DADT appealed to me from the perspective of "I really don't need to know, ok?"

Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 30, 2010 02:06 PM (Wh0W+)

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 30, 2010 02:06 PM (UvJqU)

97 you can be a ragin psychopath and join the army Yes, but you probably won't last. They weed out nuts pretty quickly. War Crime violations are discouraged, believe it or not. but as soon as you show youre out right. Posted by: w at November 30, 2010 06:57 PM (/hdCX) One way to spot a raging psychopath is by their inability to type a coherent sentence. Would you care to clarify?

Posted by: fluffy, 11B at November 30, 2010 02:07 PM (SwkdU)

98 and mcarthur     that pompous asshole

Posted by: george patton at November 30, 2010 02:07 PM (/hdCX)

99 wheres ike Posted by: george patton at November 30, 2010 07:06 PM (/hdCX) In bed with Kay Summersby

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 02:07 PM (0GFWk)

100 yes i would slap you first

Posted by: george patton at November 30, 2010 02:08 PM (/hdCX)

101 Prove to me that having openly serving gays in the military will make more Islamofascist terrorists dead, and I'll back it 100%.

Till then, the fucking military does NOT exist as a social experiment to see how fucking fabulous they can make it.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at November 30, 2010 02:08 PM (eCAn3)

102 I'm concerned how the Muslim world will respond to repeal.
Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 30, 2010 06:29 PM

Foaming rage at being crushed by an army with women and gays.

Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at November 30, 2010 07:03 PM (XsNxM)

Good point. Isn't one of the first rules of war about demoralizing the enemy?

Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2010 02:09 PM (ZyzoD)

103 i was told there would be no spellin and sentence constuction here

Posted by: george patton at November 30, 2010 02:09 PM (/hdCX)

104 <i>chad, in a case where the patient has to report his sexual partners, isn't the names considered confidential due to patient-doctor rules

we were never told crap for anything by medical for use in our reports</i>

Again this may have changed, HIPAA came along after I got out, but no the command always had the right to that information.  In a lot of commands there is a standing order that restricts access to that information and every medical department I was part of restricts dissemination to the Medical Officer or the SMDR.


Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 02:09 PM (WNcvq)

105 If this is inevitable, can the Army at least get better uniforms out of it? The Marines have sharp dress uniforms for pete's sake, the Army can't come up with something similar? Go back to the khaki WWII ones or something.

Posted by: UGAdawg at November 30, 2010 02:10 PM (/VjHB)

106 oh fluff

Posted by: george patton at November 30, 2010 02:10 PM (/hdCX)

107 im now patton

Posted by: george patton at November 30, 2010 02:11 PM (/hdCX)

108

From my experience in the service, since 2000 and with DADT, gays in the service were not an issue precisely because of DADT.

You usually knew who the gay ones were, some you suspected, some you didn't. But from my experience, they were not OPEN about it. Even the ones you knew were gay.

DADT. It ain't broke so don't fuck with it!

Posted by: matterson at November 30, 2010 02:12 PM (o90eJ)

109 Ya know I was readin some interesting stuff but it got mixed in with some boring crap. I lost interest.

I am wondering and maybe someone can help me out.

What was the DoD policy before willy-jeff and DADT?

If DADT is repealed then we return to that policy right?

I'm good with that.

Posted by: Blacksmith8 at November 30, 2010 02:13 PM (H8NCN)

110

Great, another navy post.

 

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2010 02:13 PM (hVDig)

111

There will be those in the gay community that will enlist just to prove a point.   The thought that they may have to go into battle will be besides the point.   Some of them will do it just to be in your face about being gay.   Just the nyaa, nyaa, nyaa will be a victory for them.

People can deny that all they want, but it will happen.  

Posted by: Steph at November 30, 2010 02:13 PM (kOSds)

112 That's overly simplistic. The highest risk factors are financial stress and/or greed, addictions (drugs, alcohol, gambling), and the susceptibility to extortion. By that argument you could say holding the threat of 'outing' someone who serves is a higher risk than if they didn't have to fear it. of course it's overly simplistic. This is not a dissertation. Anything that makes you stand out could be a risk factor. And you don't think being gay in a basically straight world isn't a susceptibility to extortion? You don't think "SEX" is used as a tool to extort people? Come on now who is being simplistic now? The Security Clearance document is close to 100 pages long. They are classifying you in every way possible.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 02:14 PM (0GFWk)

113 fluff u stink.look at that.after my post

Posted by: george patton at November 30, 2010 02:14 PM (/hdCX)

114

wheres ike

Writing a rebuttal story about Tina.

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 02:14 PM (HIlgc)

115 FUBAR Guaranteed.

Posted by: texette at November 30, 2010 02:14 PM (OW0nw)

116 Well, if my boy friend makes me mad, just let me get to those computer files.

The Ghey, stable, and ready to serve, ourselves.

Posted by: Bradley Manning at November 30, 2010 02:15 PM (JpFM9)

117 "Based on our review, however, we conclude that these concerns about gay and lesbian Service members who are permitted to be “open” about their sexual orientation are exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences of many Service members."

Now tell me, what freaking experiences are they talking about here?  If gays can't serve openly now, then just how in the world can they evaluate the reacions to gays serving openly?

Posted by: jellytoast at November 30, 2010 02:17 PM (1fSKb)

118 Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 06:55 PM (WNcvq)

The experiences you write about seem to indicate the system is working just fine. And if it's not a major defense issue...why do we have to have this conversation?

Isn't the right position...don't fix what isn't broken?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 02:18 PM (HicGG)

119

Who knew?

We are the official vehicle of the US Lesbian Team.

Posted by: Subaru Corp. at November 30, 2010 06:46 PM

Get away from her, you bitch!

Posted by: Volvo at November 30, 2010 02:18 PM (QgmBR)

120

>>  You don't think "SEX" is used as a tool to extort people?

 

I listed sex.  I've held a clearance, post 1980s espionage crazy times, when getting a Secret went from 6 weeks to 9 months.  And I'm all crazy about the sex, ask around.

I'm just saying if you remove the threat of outing someone, the risk for that kind of extortion goes down.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of repealing DADT.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 30, 2010 02:18 PM (Wh0W+)

121 In response to question 71a, for example, 67% of those in Marine combat arms units predict working alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit’s effectiveness in completing its mission

"Working alongside"?  Is that what these dipshits were asking about?  This isn't about "working alongside", but living with.  Bit of a difference.

This report is as much of a joke as Gates is.  ALthough Gates is more of a twerp than a joke.  ... Okay, this report is a twerp.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 30, 2010 02:19 PM (G/MYk)

122 tina used to slap me around but nobody wants to hear ikes sad song

Posted by: ike at November 30, 2010 02:19 PM (/hdCX)

123
General Harry Kinnard just called me and said,

"NUTS!"

/thread

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 02:19 PM (L0wbB)

124 fluff u stink.look at that.after my post I smell worse than dysentery-plagued goat's ass, but I can use the language well enough to express my thoughts.

Posted by: fluffy was at KTCKY-42223 at November 30, 2010 02:20 PM (SwkdU)

125 The experiences you write about seem to indicate the system is working just fine. And if it's not a major defense issue...why do we have to have this conversation? Isn't the right position...don't fix what isn't broken? Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 07:18 PM (HicGG) Yes and there in lies a problem. Why are gay activists hell bent on making waves?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 02:20 PM (0GFWk)

126 One of the reasons cited is that the military of some other countries have an open policy now and they have not had a problem.

1> The other militaries are not defending the entire world like we are called to do and we're the best at what we do.
2>  We have had precious little use for a 6903rd Interior Decorating Battalion in the past -- do we need one now?

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 30, 2010 02:20 PM (UvJqU)

127
okay, General McCauliffe just called me and said,

"Hey, waitaminute, I said NUTS!"

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 02:21 PM (L0wbB)

128

If the repeal doesnt pass and Dan Choi still wants to make himself a martyr in the gay community, may I suggest that he kill himself. I heard its all the rage.

...a little too harsh.

Posted by: swamp yankee at November 30, 2010 02:22 PM (3DIBw)

129

One of the reasons cited is that the military of some other countries have an open policy now and they have not had a problem.

Really? Have any of those other countries ever defeated the US Military?



Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2010 02:23 PM (hVDig)

130 just came back to say i said nuts. i could have spelled my name wrong but ive been dead for quite a whle

Posted by: general Mcuailfe at November 30, 2010 02:23 PM (/hdCX)

131 This is the "Don't Think, Don't Stop Talking Shit" report.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 30, 2010 02:23 PM (G/MYk)

132

To Blacksmith 8 @111

What was the policy before Willy Jeff and DADT?

I served in the Army  in the Late Eightis and while Idon't know what the policy was, I can tell you the witch hunt for homosexuals in the military that was supposedly going on was non existent.  I read All the military journals and newspapers, like Army Times and never heard of a case where a person was drummed out of the service for being gay. 

Never heard so much as a rumour that someone was in or could be in jeopardy of being canned for being gay. The whole thing was a figment of liberal activist's and the media's imagination.

Posted by: Call me Lennie at November 30, 2010 02:24 PM (GOsSG)

133 89 I'm concerned how the Muslim world will respond to repeal. Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 30, 2010 06:29 PM Well, considering their reputation for little boys and raping male prisoners... they might want to sign up.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 02:24 PM (tJjm/)

134 Why are gay activists hell bent on making waves?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 07:20 PM (0GFWk)

Anger.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 30, 2010 02:24 PM (V9Q+f)

135 This thread is gheyer than the dressing room at the Liza Minelli Lookalike Contest.

Posted by: SurferDoc at November 30, 2010 02:25 PM (o3bYL)

136
the policy was We Ask, Don't Join

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 02:25 PM (L0wbB)

137 I'm just saying if you remove the threat of outing someone, the risk for that kind of extortion goes down. I'm not saying I'm in favor of repealing DADT. Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 30, 2010 07:18 PM (Wh0W+) See I don't buy that. You can't legislate morality. Even today out in the civilian world, most gays are still in the closet because the majority still view homosexuality as wrong or different. I am not making a judgement as to whether that is right or wrong, but it is what it is. Now in the Military I do NOT think gays are all of a sudden going to come out of the closet with the repeal of DADT, for the same reasons they do not in the civilian world either. So I think the threat of extortion still exists.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 02:25 PM (0GFWk)

138 Obviously the system wasn't working or commands wouldn't have been worrying about potentially having to discharge high performers.  Pre-DADT the law was they will be discharged, commands were ignoring that, Post-DADT it was they will be discharged if their status as a homosexual becomes known, commands were ignoring that also.  That indicates a broken system.

Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 02:26 PM (WNcvq)

139 Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2010 07:23 PM (hVDig) Bingo!

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 30, 2010 02:27 PM (UvJqU)

140 Why are gay activists hell bent on making waves?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 07:20 PM (0GFWk)

Self-hate, leading to a desire to take Western civilization down.  Typical leftards.  They used to make fun of marriage and speak derisively about "breeders".  When they realized that no one cared, they turned in the opposite direction and demanded that "gay marriage" be accepted - to ruin the institution of marriage, that they have long hated.  This little dance with the military is no different.  Gay activists change their argument depending on what has the best chance of harming our society.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 30, 2010 02:27 PM (G/MYk)

141 Obviously the system wasn't working or commands wouldn't have been worrying about potentially having to discharge high performers. Pre-DADT the law was they will be discharged, commands were ignoring that, Post-DADT it was they will be discharged if their status as a homosexual becomes known, commands were ignoring that also. That indicates a broken system. Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 07:26 PM (WNcvq) Where do you get that from? You really have to go out of your way to violate DADT.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 02:28 PM (0GFWk)

142

Really? Have any of those other countries ever defeated the US Military?

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2010 07:23 PM (hVDig)

How many of those other countries have been victors in war without the help of the US Military, since at least WWI? 

Posted by: Steph at November 30, 2010 02:28 PM (kOSds)

143
chad, you're talking out of your ass.

high performers? Gimme a break.

You're just repeating the popular lie from a few years ago that homosexual Arab translators were being discharged instead of helping us win the war on terror.

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 02:29 PM (L0wbB)

144 I'm so tired of this gay shit.

Posted by: TexBob at November 30, 2010 02:30 PM (7cXE7)

145
Add that lie to the rest of them:

Bush's policies create more terrorists.
Homosexuals are kept from visiting their "partners" in the hospital.
Health Care Reform will lower costs and reduce the deficit and create jobs.

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 02:32 PM (DTy7x)

146


Whether or not the bad things come to pass, one thing is clear:  The image of the US military in devout Christian households will take a hit, and some significant proportion of the young men most disposed to serve with true honor and distinction will be subtly and/or overtly discouraged from service.

Whether that will be balanced by an equal number of gays joining, I don't know, but it seems doubtful.  Furthermore, it is even more doubtful that the now-joining gays who feel "welcomed" will be of the same caliber of character.

We are not conquered from without, we corrode from within.

Posted by: s'moron at November 30, 2010 02:32 PM (UaxA0)

147 Correct me if I am wrong, but any of the following is casue for discharge under DADT:

1.  Admitting to being gay or bisexual
2,  Engaging in homosexual behavior. 
3.  Attempting to marry a person of the same sex.
4.  Stating an intent to engage in homosexual or bisexual behavior
5.  If the command discovers that a person is homosexual without actively pursuing the knowledge.

Those aren't real high bars. 

People have been discharged and the discharges have been upheld because other people have emailed their commands with claims that they are gay. 

Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 02:34 PM (WNcvq)

148 I'm so tired of this gay shit.

Posted by: TexBob at November 30, 2010 07:30 PM (7cXE7)

I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2010 02:34 PM (ZyzoD)

149 58

If DADT is repealed, and gay marriage is mandated as a civil right, what's next for the GLBT alliance?

Posted by: Group W bench at November 30, 2010 06:50 PM (UJH2m)

Well they still probably can go after any state that has preference of adoption of children going to heterosexual couples.  Or they can start going after churches that won't allow them to get married in their location and attempt to have them removed as tax exempt.  Because remember the aspect of sexuality comes off as being secondary to the aspects of the liberalism

Posted by: buzzion at November 30, 2010 02:35 PM (oVQFe)

150 Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 07:26 PM (WNcvq)

Not necessarily.

It seems the system found an equilibrium where it could work around problems without opening up a whole can of new problems whose consequences can't be foreseen.

If the goal is individual feelings and esteem...it's failing.

If the goal is 100% intellectual consistency...it's failing.

If the goal is to balance competing desires and winning wars...it's succeeding.

Not sure why we want to mess with that.


Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 02:35 PM (HicGG)

151 @145: Lady Gaga is a "megastar?" Really?? Why? She's not even pretty.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 02:35 PM (tJjm/)

152

DADT appealed to me from the perspective of "I really don't need to know, ok?"

Apparently, we will be getting rid of DT but keeping DA.

I said before that it might be the case that PFC Manning escaped a lot of scrutiny in his security clearance because they couldn't ask about him being gay.  Ordinarily, they'd know about his lovers, girlfriends, etc. but if they aren't able to ask him anything about his sexuality, then they wouldn't know a lot about his life that would be uncovered that way.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 02:37 PM (BvBKY)

153 152 58 If DADT is repealed, and gay marriage is mandated as a civil right, what's next for the GLBT alliance? Posted by: Group W bench at November 30, 2010 06:50 PM (UJH2m) Well, in Britain they've already got the government telling traditional Christian married couples they can't adopt kids unless they swear that homosexuality is a peachy-keen morally upright lifestyle. And in Canada & Britain, pastors can be hauled before Orwelian-name "Human Rights Committees" if they dare preach homosexual acts are a sin. So don't think the gay activist groups will EVER satisfied in our lifetimes.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 02:38 PM (tJjm/)

154 The only angry, militant gay I accept is Rob Halford.

Posted by: swamp yankee at November 30, 2010 02:38 PM (3DIBw)

155

The typical issue brought up for this usually seems to be about gay men and straight men.  How about analyzing this by flipping the gender?  Issues of the women in the military.  Haven't we had multiple comments in the past here about how uncomfortable it is for some of the female military members when there is a superior that sure seems to be gay even now?  How's that going to change if they get DADT repealed?

Posted by: buzzion at November 30, 2010 02:39 PM (oVQFe)

156 1. Admitting to being gay or bisexual 2, Engaging in homosexual behavior. 3. Attempting to marry a person of the same sex. 4. Stating an intent to engage in homosexual or bisexual behavior 5. If the command discovers that a person is homosexual without actively pursuing the knowledge. Those aren't real high bars. People have been discharged and the discharges have been upheld because other people have emailed their commands with claims that they are gay. Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 07:34 PM (WNcvq) Other than # 5 which I have no idea what you mean, yeah those are pretty high bars. When I'm on duty I am doing my job, not having sex with either sex. And when I am off duty I do not hang out at out of bounds clubs nor do i beat my wife in from of my CO.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 02:39 PM (0GFWk)

157 @155: someone mentioned the free pass Major Hassan got before he killed all those people. Seems the entire chain of command was afraid to go after him because they could be charged with not being PC. Yeah, I can see gays very quickly getting similar passes in the military.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 02:40 PM (tJjm/)

158 Using the military for social engineering is bad policy, period.  All this report is is another rationalization for the libtards and statists keep doing what they're doing.  You can say what you want to say to defend this, Gabe, but the results are always the same.  Another American institution or tradition is destroyed. 

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 02:40 PM (HIlgc)

159 So was there analysis on the extreme leftwing political organization of homosexuality in the US?

If not, shouldn't we be learning something like from the recent case of PFC Manning?

Posted by: 18-1 at November 30, 2010 02:40 PM (bgcml)

160
What's next?


Anti-bullying regulations in the military with enhanced penalties for the "protected" classes.

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 02:41 PM (DTy7x)

161 Just for clarification was Manning being processed for a discharge under DADT or is that an assumption?  I remember reading the initial article about him and I don't remember seeing that.  This is what I remember:

Before being arrested, Manning had been demoted from Specialist to Private First Class for assaulting another soldier and was to be discharged early.

Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 02:42 PM (WNcvq)

162 People have been discharged and the discharges have been upheld because other people have emailed their commands with claims that they are gay. 

Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 07:34 PM (WNcvq)

Chad, people have joined the miltary or were drafted since WWII and decided they either made a mistake in joining or weren't going to serve and the easiest way out was to say you were gay. It got harder during vietnam as the army actually investigated to find out if you were telling the truth. Now if you want out you just tell them you're gay and you get discharged.

My point is that I believe a bunch of the people discharged for being gay brought it up themselves because they wanted out.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2010 02:42 PM (hVDig)

163 Whether that will be balanced by an equal number of gays joining, I don't know, but it seems doubtful.

Well, after the number of liberals recruits we got when Obama took over the WoT I'm sure the military has no concerns about hitting recruiting goals. Oh...wait...never mind.

Posted by: 18-1 at November 30, 2010 02:43 PM (bgcml)

164 @155: someone mentioned the free pass Major Hassan got before he killed all those people. Seems the entire chain of command was afraid to go after him because they could be charged with not being PC. Yeah, I can see gays very quickly getting similar passes in the military. Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 07:40 PM (tJjm/) That was me and that is my major concern. Personally i could not care less if someone is gay who is serving with me if he keeps it to his self. And for that matter i do not really want to hear the personal details of the sex life of the heterosexual next to me either.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 02:43 PM (0GFWk)

165

If there is one word I am sick of hearing it's the word fair.  Life isn't fair.  It never has and never will be.  Maybe its not fair to a homosexual to not be able to talk about his homosexuality.  Maybe it's not fair for him to not be able to make sexual advances on a guy in his unit that he finds appealing but its not fair for a hetero sexual male in that same unit to have to deal with the gay guy giving him longing looks.  Maybe it just creeps him out but if he says anything he's prejudice and homophobic.  The military must put forth an image of warlike males.  The esprit de corps is an integral part of the units effectiveness.  I haven't taken a survey but I assume most homosexuals are not flaming prancing queen but even a few in a unit would lead to a breakdown in unit discipline. 

DADT works.  A few disguntled people aren't unhappy they can't talk about who they like to screw.  In the real world the military is the only thing standing between us and the muslim's who would kill all open homosexuals.  Let's not fuck up the military.  If it ain't broken don't fix it. 

Posted by: Ohio Dan at November 30, 2010 02:44 PM (wwThC)

166

My point is that I believe a bunch of the people discharged for being gay brought it up themselves because they wanted out.

My feeling is that this is true of the Arabic translator(s) who found that their services were suddenly far more valuable.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 02:45 PM (BvBKY)

167 @robtr

That's fine, believe what you want, of course it doesn't explain why they would fight the discharge in court, but I'll let you figure that one out. 

Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 02:46 PM (WNcvq)

168 147 I'm so tired of this gay shit.

Posted by: TexBob at November 30, 2010 07:30 PM (7cXE7)

Add me to this sentiment. Give it a rest already. Ability to complete the job/mission is the only thing that matters. 

I can't get the italics off. Sorry

Posted by: Museisluse© at November 30, 2010 02:46 PM (DTfXb)

169 For some reason, I think the study results were rigged.

Bottom line to me is that in a military organization, the distinction between personnel is (or at should be) rank so that command authority exists and is clearly traceable.  There is no real civilian counterpart.  Under DADT, this illusion is loosely maintained, just as  it is for women even tough we tweaked a number of standards to let them qualify for positions where men standards were measurably higher.
Once you blow away DADT (sorry I couldn't help myself), you just empowered a "special" class that is automatically more equal than the non-gays.  As someone already said, once you know you have the power, eventually you will use it.  Once again the liberals win, because this inevitably destroys the chain of command, lessens our ability to train cohesive units, and creates tension in the shared living environment that pretty much a standard part of military life.
Of course, our fast-track officer class, bring the good political animals they are (consider Major Hassan's career, and the leaking PFC having unfettered access to volumes of classified data), they will never step up to the needs of the service and yell "STOP!".

Posted by: Hrothgar at November 30, 2010 02:47 PM (8nf3A)

170
  My service was from 61-67, and AFAIK, being gay was a quick ticket out--if memory serves it wasn't legal at that time.  Never did know, or care, if any of my fellow soldiers were gay. The subject just didn't arise.

 Far's I can see, DADT is a very workable idea, the Military is NOT a fitting place for social experimentation. If DADT is repealed,it won't be long before the activists start making waves, I'd bet.

 Can't wait for that.

Posted by: irongrampa at November 30, 2010 02:48 PM (ud5dN)

171

Well, in Britain they've already got the government telling traditional Christian married couples they can't adopt kids unless they swear that homosexuality is a peachy-keen morally upright lifestyle.

And in Canada & Britain, pastors can be hauled before Orwelian-name "Human Rights Committees" if they dare preach homosexual acts are a sin.

So don't think the gay activist groups will EVER satisfied in our lifetimes.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 07:38 PM (tJjm/)

Yeah got to remember,  the term "the gay agenda" is the scary term to use or the term to mock.  The truth is that the agenda is actually the liberal/progressive agenda.  Using homosexuality to push it is just the option they see as a good way to accomplish it.

Posted by: buzzion at November 30, 2010 02:49 PM (oVQFe)

172

The research said 131 male respondents identified themselves as "bisexual or mostly/100 percent homosexual." More than 28 percent of them reported suicide attempts. That is compared to more than 4 percent of heterosexual counterparts claiming suicide attempts.

Traditionally, females are up to nine times more likely to attempt suicide than males, according to American Association of Suicidology documents. Males, though, are six times more likely to complete a suicide, a fact attributed to greater handgun use for suicide by males.

---

Family and friends of 19-year-old Brad Matthew Fuglei of Omaha remained bewildered Sunday on why the talented and outwardly upbeat youth took his own life Friday.
---
As a student at North High School, Fuglei was senior class president and homecoming king in 2001, a student council officer, a member of the National Honor Society and a performer in numerous theatrical productions, most recently in the Omaha Theater Company for Young People's production of "The King and I" in June.


Fair enough? 

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 30, 2010 02:49 PM (UvJqU)

173
Here's an interesting experiment.

Ask a group of homosexuals if they do or don't mind showering with heterosexual men.

And then ask a group of heterosexual men if they do or do not mind showering with homosexuals.

I guaranfuckingtee the poll results will be inversed for each group. Now why is that? Now tell memilitary living quarters will not be impacted by a change in policy.

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 02:50 PM (L0wbB)

174 That's fine, believe what you want, of course it doesn't explain why they would fight the discharge in court, but I'll let you figure that one out. Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 07:46 PM (WNcvq) your talking in abstracts. your not giving specific examples and then your extrapolating that to the whole Military. Sure have some "innocent" ( meaning they tried to keep their sexuality a secret)homosexuals caught in the wringer, sure, but the majority "caught" were sloppy and stupid.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 02:50 PM (0GFWk)

175 One of the reasons cited is that the military of some other countries have an open policy now and they have not had a problem.

After seeing the heroism of the Dutch in Bosnia, how can we not follow their lead?

http://tinyurl.com/39jebfc

Posted by: 18-1 at November 30, 2010 02:51 PM (bgcml)

176 It's time to start sucking each other's dicks.

Posted by: The Pentagon at November 30, 2010 02:52 PM (cxGtL)

177 One thing for sure: first guy that pops a woody in the men's shower at a marine base is chopped liver, with a side order of fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 02:52 PM (tJjm/)

178 Once you give benefits to gay partners, then what about the straight servicemembers with longtime girlfriends and boyfriends? Posted by: CDR M at November 30, 2010 07:51 PM (5I8G0) What about polygamists? Talk about a Brave New World...

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 02:54 PM (tJjm/)

179 That's fine, believe what you want, of course it doesn't explain why they would fight the discharge in court, but I'll let you figure that one out. 

Posted by: chad at November 30, 2010 07:46 PM (WNcvq)

Thanks for trusting me with that, of the 15,000 that have been discharged under DADT only a handful have fought it in court.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2010 02:56 PM (hVDig)

180
holy shit, they'll have to remake an OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN, now

there's no way louis gosset jr.'s treatment of May-O-Naise will be tolerated.

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 02:57 PM (DTy7x)

181 read some of those wikileak reports......how..underwhelming? boring? no-shit-sherlocky?.....this assange guy should be put away on dullness charges.


Posted by: str8 outta the mon at November 30, 2010 02:57 PM (dwOwg)

182

What about polygamists?

 

What about my dog?


Posted by: Hobo Soldier at November 30, 2010 02:58 PM (HIlgc)

183 holy shit, they'll have to remake an OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN, now there's no way louis gosset jr.'s treatment of May-O-Naise will be tolerated. Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 07:57 PM (DTy7x) Well I always thought that little spanish guy was gay anyway? /

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 02:58 PM (0GFWk)

184 Didn't we have to call in an aircraft carrier because so many of the female sailors were pregnant it was losing it's combat effectiveness? 

Posted by: Ohio Dan at November 30, 2010 02:58 PM (wwThC)

185 It warms the heart to see that there are still a few of us willing to fight the gay agenda in this God forsaken country.

Posted by: Rev. Phelps at November 30, 2010 02:59 PM (+lsX1)

186
Well I always thought that little spanish guy was gay anyway?

That's no way to talk about a lady.

I have a mustache. So sue me.

Posted by: Debra Winger at November 30, 2010 03:00 PM (L0wbB)

187 Didn't we have to call in an aircraft carrier because so many of the female sailors were pregnant it was losing it's combat effectiveness? Posted by: Ohio Dan at November 30, 2010 07:58 PM (wwThC) Well with gay sailors pregnancy would not be a problem, so which side of the argument are you on? /

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 03:00 PM (0GFWk)

188 Didn't we have to call in an aircraft carrier because so many of the female sailors were pregnant it was losing it's combat effectiveness? 

Posted by: Ohio Dan at November 30, 2010 07:58 PM (wwThC)

How did that happen? Must have been some Marines onboard.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2010 03:01 PM (hVDig)

189 So the survey says there is no problem?

That is not how I see it. Where is the greatest opposition the a change in policy? Combat arms. They seem to think there would be a problem.
Should we risk bending the tip of the spear just to appease a small group of people?

Does the 24 percent who predict recruiting/retention problems refer to themselves?
If 15 percent are telling us they won't re-enlist, we are well and truly screwed.

Posted by: kidney at November 30, 2010 03:01 PM (ENRGu)

190 I answered the survey honestly, but in my branch and AFSC (AF Pilot), serving with open gays really isn't much of an issue for me in my line job, but as a Commander it's a huge deal that no one seems to care about.

Other services and specialties probably have differing opinions.

I did leave comments in the survey. To paraphrase:

'As a Squadron Commander, how do I handle the family picnic when one of my airmen comes in holding hands with their partner? Or kiss and sit in each others laps while everyone's kids are running around? My answer will be to cancel the damn thing. No more picnics, no more xmas parties, no more squadron sponsored activities. I don't want to deal with the blowback. I'm not a coward on this, but after 23 yrs in service I know how hard you get trampled if you stand in the way of the PC du jour. No one has EVER won that fight.

My troops are dealing with enough real life/real war issues. I will not force them to explain to their kids why Amn Joe Smith is sitting in another mans lap.

How do we handle survivor benefits, TRICARE, SGLI? All of these are questions line commanders have that have not been answered, all to serve a political agenda."

BTW, I do not expect to make O-6.

-LtCol Phat


Posted by: Phat at November 30, 2010 03:03 PM (8tbum)

191

Yeah got to remember,  the term "the gay agenda" is the scary term to use or the term to mock.  The truth is that the agenda is actually the liberal/progressive agenda.  Using homosexuality to push it is just the option they see as a good way to accomplish it.

Posted by: buzzion at November 30, 2010 07:49 PM (oVQFe)

You will note that the organized "gay agenda" doesn't really have much to say about Islam.

I'd like to see the LGBTWHATEVERTHEACRONYMIS protesting the Muslim Students Association, for instance.

Do they have much to say about Iran and their treatment of the homosexuals that don't exist there (a la Ahmedinejad's statement)?

Sure, there might be a written statement here or there, but where is the energy spent?  Where is the money spent?

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 03:04 PM (BvBKY)

192 I retired from the Navy and my last ship was the USS John F. Kennedy CV67.  We had a character that was labeled " The Mysterious Cocksucker " who would strike in the Aviation wing berthing compartments.  Woe be it to the Airdale who fell asleep and kicked his blanket off as he might wake up with his unit in the grasp of "Mysterious". We enjoyed asking the Chief Master at Arms about the progress of his investigation and after a while, he avoided the Chiefs Mess and our kindly comments. This was in the 1983/1984 time frame and before the advent of women on combat ships.  I found it hard enought to run a Main Engines Division ( I was a Master Chief Machinist Mate ) with 150 mostly teen age males, let alone throwing women into the mix.  Throw a third goup like gays into the stew and I would have never drawn another sober breath.  Sing  Kumbaya all you want folks but the "Law of Unintended Consequences " is a bitch.  This rant brought to you by Yuengling Beer and Croatian Plum Slivovitz Brandy.

Posted by: Haze Gray at November 30, 2010 03:05 PM (iq5rJ)

193 If anyone wants to know what open male homosexuality will lead to, just look at what has happened in civilian society with gay men turning many of our public bathrooms into sex-cruising spots (which is really quite gross, just generally) and have shown no respect for anything that gets in the way of their banging each other (often in public spaces).  There is no heterosexual comparison to the antics of many gay men, with the sexual activity of gay men being orders of magnitude greater (and stranger) than even the most prolific hetero casanova.  This is the gay male lifestyle, and everywhere that lifestyle is even partially accepted, these things happen.  We even have Congress Critters who think that public bathrooms are meat markets for toe-tapping fun.  That sort of shit is what we can look forward to in the new gay military, but even worse, since we will have a population of gays who are kept in very close quarters for a very long time.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 30, 2010 03:07 PM (G/MYk)

194
Eric Massa?

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 30, 2010 03:07 PM (L0wbB)

195 Posted by: Haze Gray at November 30, 2010 08:05 PM (iq5rJ) Well said Master Chief Well said. LCDR Nevergiveup

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 03:08 PM (0GFWk)

196

When I was on the USS America CV66 3 of my shipmates concocted a plan to get out of the Navy with a general discharge. They each went to the chaplain and confessed to being gay. The master at arms thereupon raided their lockers and found convienently place gay fuck mags. All three were then flown off the ship while in transit to the Med and given a general discarge.

Now the fags want to screw up one of the least harmful and most effective ways of short-circuiting an enlistment. What a bunch of selfish assholes.

Posted by: torabora at November 30, 2010 03:10 PM (GtDKF)

197 How do we handle survivor benefits, TRICARE, SGLI? All of these are questions line commanders have that have not been answered, all to serve a political agenda."

Posted by: Phat at November 30, 2010 08:03 PM (8tbum)


Yep, follow the money and the benefits:

He sued for reinstatement, but the legal process was a long one, with the case moving back and forth between United States District and Circuit Courts. When, by September 1980, the Air Force had failed to provide US District Court Judge Gerhard Gesell an explanation of why Matlovich did not meet their criteria for exception [which by then had been eliminated but still could have applied to him], Gesell ordered him reinstated into the Air Force and promoted. The Air Force offered Matlovich a financial settlement instead, and convinced they would find some other reason to discharge him if he reentered the service, or the conservative US Supreme Court would rule against him should the Air Force appeal, Matlovich accepted. The figure, based on back pay, future pay, and pension was $160,000.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 30, 2010 03:10 PM (UvJqU)

198 Yeah,what a shock the PC kissasses over at the Pentagon drafted a report that surports the acurrent administrations desired policy.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2010 03:10 PM (+q/R9)

199

True story.

I remember when Catholic Charities of Boston ended its adoption program. It was a vital program that provided an invaluable service. It was deeply rooted in Boston ans was as tolerant towards dissenters as possible.

Not enough.

They did not place children in gay households. Radicals in Boston, backed by the courts, insisted that they place children in gay households. So they ended the program.  The state and the radicals, who thought they could force the Catholic Church to accept their world view, were shocked.

People skeptical of the long term motives of the gay lobby are justified. They will not quit if DADT is repealed. They are messianic in their zeal.

There are a lot of idiots in the conservative ranks who make opposition to the gay agenda looks backwards and retarded. But we hear about them. We rarely hear about the fanaticism of the other side.

They will not stop. It will go on and on and on and on... 

 

Posted by: swamp yankee at November 30, 2010 03:11 PM (3DIBw)

200 Yeah,what a shock the PC kissasses over at the Pentagon drafted a report that surports the acurrent administrations desired policy. Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2010 08:10 PM (+q/R9) Yup and that's what the Pentagon did to me also

Posted by: F-22 at November 30, 2010 03:12 PM (0GFWk)

201

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at November 30, 2010 08:07 PM (G/MYk)

It's not a problem...it's an opportunity!

Posted by: Bwaney Fwank at November 30, 2010 03:13 PM (GtDKF)

202 There are a lot of suspiciously detailed opinions on the danger of the homosexual lifestyle® on this thread.  It makes one wonder how much time a fellow has to spend hanging around freeway rest stops to witness all of these sex-cruising antics.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at November 30, 2010 03:14 PM (+lsX1)

203 It doesn't matter though, every spy does what they do for their own reasons. You simply can't say one class of people is more predisposed to espionage than another.

I don't remember, Drew, are you for airport profiling? Cause that is the way they do security clearances. Got a bad credit rating? No clearance for you. Because they know that spies often act out of monetary need and because they know that espionage services will find out about your money problems and use them to entice you. Same with homosexuality. Closeted gay? That used to mean no clearance for you because we didn't want Vladamir to threaten to send those sensitive photos of you and your Beau to Grandma. Your "spies will be spies" attitude is unserious.

Posted by: kidney at November 30, 2010 03:16 PM (ENRGu)

204 So gays have the right to shower with people of the same sex.

Who knew?

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2010 03:19 PM (HzhBE)

205 BTW, I do not expect to make O-6.

-LtCol Phat


That is a damn shame. Thank you for your courage in answering this survey and for your years of service. Which brings up the question- If the troops are pretty certain that honest answers that are against DADT repeal will bring retribution, how much is this survey worth?

Posted by: kidney at November 30, 2010 03:20 PM (ENRGu)

206 Sumday we're going to force all you stwait people to have gay sex or go to our re-educashun camp where we force you to have gay sex.

Posted by: Bwaney Fwank at November 30, 2010 03:20 PM (GtDKF)

207 Hey,let's unionize our troops next!

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2010 03:22 PM (+q/R9)

208 Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at November 30, 2010 08:14 PM (+lsX1)

Oh really, Rev Phelps? (heh)



Posted by: Yahoo Answers at November 30, 2010 03:25 PM (UvJqU)

209

It's really the culmination of a lot of shit. If it isn't the massive over spending, the endless wars, the gay crap, the stupid drug war, the be kind to murderous muslims, the anti gun insanity, soft on crime in general, shipping of jobs overseas, no death penalty, child protective services, IR FUCKING S...you get the drift.

I just want to have it out with the pricks or split the sheets. No more compromise, no more go along to get along....let's either kill each other or figure out who gets to live where. Fuck them and their PC crap.

Posted by: torabora at November 30, 2010 03:25 PM (GtDKF)

210 One additional comment:

Once you make 2 star general you are a purely political beast.

Yes, the war generals are a bit different: Peteraus, Ordierno, Austin, etc. But there's a reason they are in theater and the rest of the asshats are in the 5 sided clown circus.

Once you get to that level you will NOT act counter to DOD or CINC direction. You are cashiered on the spot. A report from the DOD saying they approve of the CINC's policy is so normal that it is not news. The fact they massaged the survey, however, would be.

Assuming we had any real journalists.

Once upon the '90's I turned down promotion to Maj (it would've added another two years to my service commitment). As a consequence I had to have a meeting with the 3-star. I was apprehensive, but I got some great advice from an older Academy grad who predicted the encounter:

"Phat, you're going to go in to the meeting well prepared with all of the reasons you're getting out, but don't waste your time. Here's all that he's thinking about: "How Do I make 4 Star, How Do I make 4 Star, How Do I make 4 Star, How Do I make 4 Star, I LIKE PIE, How Do I make 4 Star, How Do I make 4 Star, How Do I make 4 Star.."

It wasn't that bad, but the mindset is correct.

Oddly enough, my career recovered.



Posted by: Phat at November 30, 2010 03:25 PM (8tbum)

211 I wonder if General Casey, the dipshit, ran this report?  It sure sounds like him.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 30, 2010 03:32 PM (G/MYk)

212 Repeatedly, we heard Service members express the view that “open” homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome advances within units, invasions of personal privacy, and an overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion, and morality. Based on our review, however, we conclude that these concerns about gay and lesbian Service members who are permitted to be “open” about their sexual orientation are exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences of many Service members. This sets a record for new levels of stupid. People are concerned that when gays are allowed to openly be in the military, they will act more gay. So teh commission responds that currently closeted gays in the military don't act gay. Wow, what a shock!

Posted by: Greg at November 30, 2010 03:34 PM (T/jb3)

213 The best way to stop this is to bring back the draft. The same people advocating homosexuals in the military will suddenly change their minds so they can use homosexuality as a way to avoid service.

Posted by: Aaron at November 30, 2010 03:35 PM (XUIJ5)

214

I know ! I know! If they repeal DADT then all the queers will enlist and us straight people won't have to enlist and fight and maybe die to protect all the queers! We can stay home and have orgies on Folsom street in Frisco while all the gays are freezing their ass off in fox holes on the DMZ in Korea. We win...they lose!

*sigh*

Posted by: torabora at November 30, 2010 03:36 PM (GtDKF)

215 Now my kids are calling for me to get out of the office and watch GLEE.

I think that makes me gay and I will appeal for special protection.

Posted by: Phat at November 30, 2010 03:36 PM (8tbum)

216 Remember how every now and then in the old TV series M*A*S*H they would give cross-dresser Klinger a form for his easy out - admit you are gay - he always refused.

Posted by: Druid at November 30, 2010 03:38 PM (1lAkj)

217

Posted by: Aaron at November 30, 2010 08:35 PM (XUIJ5)

..see my earlier post #201

Posted by: torabora at November 30, 2010 03:40 PM (GtDKF)

218 Jesus H. Christ tap-dancing on a tamale... not this again.

Based on our review, however, we conclude that these concerns about gay and lesbian Service members who are permitted to be “open” about their sexual orientation are exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences of many Service members.

UNADULTERATED 100% PURE BULLSHIT. Just who the fuck was their pool of "reported experiences"?

Gah. We're going suicidally insane with this PC garbage.

Posted by: My Combat Tu-Tu Is Torn at November 30, 2010 03:44 PM (A7anl)

219 Funny how Malor takes this report at face value.He'd question any other bullshit coughed up by the bureacracy.He wants to believe it.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2010 03:55 PM (+q/R9)

220 why can not men and women shower together. answer this and fuck the survey

Posted by: pd at November 30, 2010 03:57 PM (ZR8/4)

221 There are a lot of suspiciously detailed opinions on the danger of the homosexual lifestyle® on this thread.  It makes one wonder how much time a fellow has to spend hanging around freeway rest stops to witness all of these sex-cruising antics.

In my state there are gay cruisers regularly in the parks and condoms all over the ground. I have also seen a mysterious eye pushed against a hole in a bathroom stall. There are frequent  written invitations to certain activities in public restrooms.

But you go ahead and keep cast aspersions on those who tell the truth.

Posted by: kidney at November 30, 2010 03:59 PM (ENRGu)

222 Gabe is biased and has never served.  Nothing wrong with either of those two things, but he should not comment on an area where he has only one level of experience.

Oh wait, that has never stopped him before. 

Personally, I don't care where someone puts their genitals, but I have seen people catch "gay" right before deploying.  While I am sure there are many who have and are serving who are gay, and done so with honor and courage, the rest of the troops did not have to worry about Private Pole Smoker taking a shower next to them.  Knowing soldiers of the toughest variety as I do, I do not see this ending well for anyone.

Posted by: MAJ O at November 30, 2010 04:04 PM (ThQkB)

223 Is watching Glee a man-card infraction?

Absolutely NOT if you are watching it with your little girl(s).

Nothing more manly than a father.

(If you are watching it with your son(s)?  I dunno.  That's probably gonna take some sort of fact-finding tribunal.)


Posted by: Deety at November 30, 2010 04:10 PM (Jb3+B)

224 "He's big, he's mean, and he kills a lot of bad guys": The DADT Report


volokh.com headline

Posted by: Druid at November 30, 2010 04:15 PM (RnujI)

225 Lt Col Phat is correct.  The ancillary ramifications are very significant.  And by very, I mean extremely huge.  If you blow your male friend, does that mean your "life partner" can claim adultery?  SGLI, Death Gratuity, and good order and discipline go out the door. 

There is one significant legal issue 9th Circus Gabe has failed to mention, until recently the courts have refused to involve themselves in military matters as the stakes were too high and their breadth of experience was too shallow.  The military has due process protections for soldiers currently in place and if the civilian courts become involved, you might as well not have a military.

Pick up a rifle Gabe, and stand a post.  Otherwise, shut your @uck hole.

Posted by: MAJ O at November 30, 2010 04:18 PM (ThQkB)

226

After giving this a lot of thought I have kind of reversed my opinion on this.  The telling question I asked myself was: given my druthers, would I have rather served with, or had as a superior, a squared away, professional acting homosexual, or a blue falcon, dirtbag hetero?  I have had knowledge of both, and the answer was pretty easily and quickly gotten to.  In short, as long as whoever is good troop, nothing else really matters.  Good troop are there to do their job for their country and do it to the best of their abilities -- bad troop are well, pogey bait and should be dealt with harshly.

Now, I still have reservations concerning another preferential treatment class of people, which is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.  I do still have a lot of worry about that -- we don't need mission effectiveness and overall cohesion/efficiency compromised due to PC crap.  As long as this doesn't turn into more freaking drama llama, so be it...but I think a compromise should be reached: gays get to serve, fine by me if they are squared away; the PC bullshit gets stripped -- here you are all equally worthless until proven otherwise...and Heaven help you if are proven worthless.  Tighten up discipline and performance standards; stick to them -- end of story.

I think that's fair.

Posted by: unknown jane at November 30, 2010 04:27 PM (5/yRG)

227 You simply can't say one class of people is more predisposed to espionage than another.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 06:38 PM (HicGG)

Deucedly funny, old chap.


Posted by: Kim Philby at November 30, 2010 04:33 PM (7+pP9)

228 I agree.

Posted by: Donald Duart Maclean, Brevet Colonel, KGB at November 30, 2010 04:34 PM (7+pP9)

229 It is not about class, you know.

Posted by: Guy Burgess: at November 30, 2010 04:36 PM (7+pP9)

230 unknown jane,

Pogey bait is food you bring to the field that is not issued to you.  Therefore it is bait for pogues.  A pogue is a "poseur" or someone who appears to be squared away, but is not.  I agree that good leader and soldiers are just that, changing a system that works will not engender success.  Once you allow a certain separate class, you end up protecting that class, and will have a harder time getting rid of the "dirtbag gay person".

Posted by: MAJ O at November 30, 2010 04:37 PM (ThQkB)

231 You simply must not say one class of people is more committed to treason than another. That is simply beastly.

Posted by: Anthony Blunt at November 30, 2010 04:40 PM (7+pP9)

232 I wonder what would happen to unit cohesion and morale to have a pedophile or a beastality or necrophilia freak in their midst. Give it a decade or two and we'll be discussing that too.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 30, 2010 04:40 PM (61b7k)

233 Unfortunately, DADT is likely to end very soon. The smart thing for the Army to do would be to immediately institute a gender blind policy towards PT scores, billeting, latrines and every other aspect of military life.  None of this separate barracks rooms or different PT standards bullshit. Hell, I'd go so far as to require females to get close in haircuts, at least during basic training. Also, make fraternization within a unit punishable by UCMJ, no matter the ranks involved.  This allows you to nip any special treatment in the bud, by eliminating it completely, and allows you to go after the issue of sex in a unit which is going to cause problems.

Posted by: Alex at November 30, 2010 04:53 PM (yY28H)

234 gays get to serve, fine by me if they are squared away; the PC bullshit gets stripped -- here you are all equally worthless until proven otherwise...and Heaven help you if are proven worthless. Tighten up discipline and performance standards; stick to them -- end of story. I think that's fair. Posted by: unknown jane at November 30, 2010 09:27 PM (5/yRG) Which is pretty much what DADT is all about, so why screw with it?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 04:56 PM (0GFWk)

235 I will never believe that allowing homosexuals to openly serve is for any reason other than forcing the issue of acceptance on the greater public and government at large. Homosexuals represent too small a percentage of the overall population and that population wanting to serve in the military is smaller still to be for any reason other than activism. That’s how I see it. How do I know this? Homosexuals can already serve if they so chose, they just have to keep their business to themselves. If your ‘call to serve’ isn’t strong enough for you to keep a lid on your sexual proclivities, then I submit it ain’t got nothing to do with Service.

Posted by: catmman at November 30, 2010 05:37 PM (DTzwU)

236 To the "Everyone else does it" crowd: Funny how we're trying to keep from descending into the Hell that is the rest of the world in almost every issues, but on this issue we want to be like the rest of the world?

Posted by: catmman at November 30, 2010 05:38 PM (DTzwU)

237

Gays are free to join the military. They are not free to make their sexuality our business, however. But that's not good enough, is it? The goal of this is very much to make their sexuality our business. Bradley Manning's FBook tagline is, "Accept as who I am or face the consequences." All the aguments that what's behind this is a humble appeal towards fairness, towards some egalatiarian ideal, that's all whitewash. The goal is cultural change.

DADT was supposed to be "the end of it". DADT provides a workable context for gay people to enjoy military careers. It was a hard fought victory, and yet almost instantly decried by all its backers as "not enough". Bill Clinton was going around apologizing to gays for it by 1996. Clintonites who worked to get it were being held in contemptuous suspicion by gay activists by 1998. Because it wasn't enough. Nothing is ever going to be enough. Again, the goal here is changing the culture, not achieving parity.

The moment DADT falls toward more open acceptance, you'll see gay soldier support groups, whether they have official standing or not. A familiar interest group culture will begin to materialize. Aspects of the new arrangements will soon begin to be tested. It is very likely gay activists will win each battle one by one over time. They've done it once (DADT), and are likely to do it again (repeal of DADT), what's to stop them?

Gay soldiers are not a bunch of effiminate queens, either. From the homoerotic Mithra cults of the old Roman Praetorian Guard to the gay culture of the Nazi's S.A. cum Waffen-SS, military gay men have proven quite capable of organizing themselves into quite formidable elite corps. There well might be a Gay Brotherhood or some such network (informal or otherwise) formed among the American services over time, who become their own force to be reckoned with inside the Pentagon, operating with their own agenda, and entirely their own set of fierce loyalties not shared by the rest of the service or indeed the broader culture. Food for thought.

Posted by: Cowboy at November 30, 2010 05:45 PM (g9AYc)

238 Anyone who thinks that homosexuality won't become a protected class, regardless of what this report says, your kidding yourself. It will happen. Yes. It. Will. Current 'mechanisms' may indeed be used to handle the issues, but does that make any sense? They're telling you right there they know there will be issues needing to be addressed because of homosexuals. They are admitting more ineffectual 'special training' will be needed. Who do you think that training will be geared towards? Not homosexuals. We had the same crap in 93/94 when DADT cam on line. We had to attend homosexual sensitivity training. That isn't some urban legend, it happened. Same thing will happen this time. The training won't be geared towards anyone who may be gay, it will be geared towards telling straights how to treat gays. But there won't be a special status for gays? They're starting off making them a protected class for rice sakes.

Posted by: catmman at November 30, 2010 05:47 PM (DTzwU)

239 I will say this: Shit or get off the pot already. Change the policy or leave it the fuck alone. Get it done or SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP. I’m tired of hearing about it.

Posted by: catmman at November 30, 2010 05:49 PM (DTzwU)

240 Whether or not the bad things come to pass, one thing is clear:  The image of the US military in devout Christian households will take a hit, and some significant proportion of the young men most disposed to serve with true honor and distinction will be subtly and/or overtly discouraged from service.

Yep, worrying about devout Christians is a valid reason to keep DADT! The first amendment says so.

Posted by: Just Some Guy Who Posts Here at November 30, 2010 06:05 PM (Fz4bB)

241 Gabe is biased and has never served.  Nothing wrong with either of those two things, but he should not comment on an area where he has only one level of experience.

Oh wait, that has never stopped him before.

MAJ O, if you weren't so blinded by your own sneering bias, you would have noticed that I did not comment on DADT in this post (and frequently don't comment on it in any posts, though I may in comments), but rather presented the official findings of others. Others who have both served and have extensive experience in the military leadership.

Your objection is all about attacking the messenger, rather than addressing the content of the message. You gave no substantive comment on the DOD's own study, but rather accused me of bias which...what...somehow caused Admiral Mullen to want to overturn DADT? Somehow magicked up the quoted portions of the review study?

I'd love for you to explain to me how I've "never been stopped before" from commenting on things I "should not." I frequently write only to report the news -- as I did in this very post -- and without the time or the interest in presenting my own views.

I understand that folks will sometimes project their own expectations of my views onto my writing. But I urge you not to assume you know anything about what I believe unless I've actually told you. Do me that simple courtesy, please.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2010 06:22 PM (XVaFd)

242  re-title this post "Malor's take on DADT", which is predictably useless and biased

Actually, that's the "take on DADT" of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the DOD working group established to study the law.

Because the study is rather lengthy, I pulled some of the issues that have repeatedly come up in comments here: billeting and bathroom issues, the "special treatment" question, and the concerns of Service members about "open homosexuality."

Had I more time (or the desire) I could also have included other parts of the report, for example discussing retention rates, proposed changes to the UCMJ, or the responses of spouses of Service members. But I figured I was pushing it already and, after all, the report is freely available to anyone who is interested in those issues.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2010 06:29 PM (XVaFd)

243  I frequently write only to report the news -- as I did in this very post -- and without the time or the interest in presenting my own views.


That is just silly. You are an interested party and continuously cover all things gay for this blog. You may not have explicitly stated your views this post but they are well known.
Calling you out for not serving is wrong, however. As a thinking human being Gabe has the right to his oppinion, Maj O. We haven't yet remade the Constitution in the image of Heinlin.

Posted by: kidney at November 30, 2010 06:51 PM (ENRGu)

244 Gabe, bottom line: unless you can GUARANTEE that any personnel losses from social conservatives leaving the service will be replaced on a one-for-one basis by gays and the oh-so-tolerant folks who support them and bash Christians, I'm opposed to repealing DADT.

Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at November 30, 2010 07:32 PM (G0yb2)

245 If your ‘call to serve’ isn’t strong enough for you to keep a lid on your sexual proclivities, then I submit it ain’t got nothing to do with Service.

^THIS

Posted by: Henry Ford at November 30, 2010 07:40 PM (Jb3+B)

246

After sixteen years as a military spouse, I have known gay servicemembers who served honorably -- that is the LEAST of the problem. As I wrote to Bill Clinton back in the day, once the door is opened, all sorts of other issues will almost immediately arise, including benefits for same-sex partners. Military housing isn't only limited to barracks: military families will be forced to accept Heather's Two Mommies/Daddies next door in family housing, regardless of our personal beliefs. "Amn Joe Smith sitting on his partner's lap at family day" is the next no-big-deal we'll have to face. Family rights and benefits for gay partners, including medical care, and ultimately an enlistment-to-the-grave working hospice for both gay military member and his/her partner are further considerations I've not heard discussed. I don't have any faith that the DADT panel looked beyond the surface at this issue; as too many other commenters have already noted, the die was cast and PC crew are the only winners. Just as with the health care debacle, the first step is easy; it's the unintended consequences that are so devastating. If it's discriminatory to exclude openly homosexual folks from serving, it will be equally discriminatory to exclude openly homosexual families -- so what's left? The old bromide, 'if the Army wanted you to have a wife, we'd have issued you one' will get modified to 'family' and the traditional protocols are out the window...

Posted by: volgirl004 at November 30, 2010 07:46 PM (WvzbU)

247 There will be those in the gay community that will enlist just to prove a point. The thought that they may have to go into battle will be besides the point. Some of them will do it just to be in your face about being gay. Just the nyaa, nyaa, nyaa will be a victory for them. People can deny that all they want, but it will happen. Posted by: Steph at November 30, 2010 07:13 PM Yep. Similar to how when places like San Francisco and Massachusetts created "same-sex marriage", many homosexual couples got "married" simply to do the "nyaa, nyaa, nyaa we won, you lost!" stuff. This is not about DADT and is not about what is best for the military. Homosexuals can serve in the military and, as many have pointed out, they can serve well in the military and the military has functioned just fine with DADT all these years. So this isn't about making things better. This is about the GLBT agenda, whose goal is federally created "same-sex marriage" and "fundamentally transforming" American culture to "normalize" all non-heterosexual "sexual orientations". They have been losing with "same-sex marriage" through the vote, so they're trying another route with going for the repeal of DADT. Once they repeal it and homosexuals can serve openly, that then opens up a whole new can of worms. They will then push for homosexual couple housing, homosexual couple benefits, and every other benefit received from the military for married couples. If the military refuses, then the GLBT movement can say "we need 'same-sex marriage' because homosexual couples in the military cannot get marriage benefits". This has absolutely nothing to do with what is best for the military and everything to do with the overall GLBT agenda.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 30, 2010 07:48 PM (NITzp)

248 Isn't the right position... don't fix what isn't broken? Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2010 07:18 PM Yes and there in lies a problem. Why are gay activists hell bent on making waves? Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 07:20 PM The same reason they are hell bent on making waves RE: civil unions/marriage. They should be fine with civil unions and fine with DADT. Civil unions grant them the same benefits of marriage and DADT allows them to serve in the military. But they're not happy with this, because those (same benefits and serving in the military) aren't the goals. The goal is to normalize non-hetersexuality as being the same and equal to heterosexuality and force everyone to accept and support that normalization.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 30, 2010 08:02 PM (NITzp)

249 So don't think the gay activist groups will EVER satisfied in our lifetimes. Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 07:38 PM Yep, remember when the movement claimed they just wanted to "live and let live"? So much for that. It's like anything else with liberalism. They start out with a lie about just wanting to be "equal" and then after they achieve that, they move on to getting protected status for themselves. Just look at how unions started and how they work now, how feminism started and how it works now, how the civil rights movement started and how it works now. The thing is, I bet the vast majority of homosexuals could care less about the GLBT movement. It's the leaders and activists of the movement that cause the problems (ie, if you have no problem with homosexuals, but you're against repeal of DADT and against redefining marriage, the movement will deem you a "bigot" and "homophobe". Meanwhile, there are plenty of homosexuals who could care less about DADT and "same-sex marriage". Are they "bigots" and "homophobes" too? There's probably some derisive name akin to "Uncle Tom" for homosexuals who "go off the reservation".)

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 30, 2010 08:16 PM (NITzp)

250

253 Gabe is biased and has never served.  Nothing wrong with either of those two things, but he should not comment on an area where he has only one level of experience.

Oh wait, that has never stopped him before.

MAJ O, if you weren't so blinded by your own sneering bias, you would have noticed that I did not comment on DADT in this post (and frequently don't comment on it in any posts, though I may in comments), but rather presented the official findings of others. Others who have both served and have extensive experience in the military leadership.

This is bullshit and disingenous on your part Gabe.  You didn't comment because you know that your commentary is that you want DADT repealed.  So now you're attempting to pull a MFM John Stewart by saying "Oh but I didn't give my personal views on this."  Its in your presentation.  If your view wasn't in line with them you would have no problem including your own commentary into your post.  His slam against you not serving is wrong.  But don't pretend you're taking some above it all approach by not posting your own views.

Posted by: buzzion at November 30, 2010 08:19 PM (oVQFe)

251 You will note that the organized "gay agenda" doesn't really have much to say about Islam. I'd like to see the LGBTWHATEVERTHEACRONYMIS protesting the Muslim Students Association, for instance. Do they have much to say about Iran and their treatment of the homosexuals that don't exist there (a la Ahmedinejad's statement)? Sure, there might be a written statement here or there, but where is the energy spent? Where is the money spent? Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 08:04 PM You will also note that the Muslim groups here in America are keeping quiet about all issues relating to homosexuals in America. What is that phrase about not getting involved when your enemy is shooting themselves in the foot, or something (I'm blanking on the damn phrase at the moment)? I'm guessing that Muslim groups here in America are not too keen on all the homosexual stuff, but they see it as undermining American culture, so they are staying out of the way while American culture weakens itself. Basically, for Muslim groups in America, they see the GLBT agenda as an "enemy (homosexual activists) of my enemy (America) is my friend" sort of thing.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 30, 2010 08:31 PM (NITzp)

252 The study is crap because it relies on a faulty survey. When it comes to the military the only response you are ever going to get out of a soldier is the one he thinks won't be held against him. Unless the survey is done by someone outside the military and the troops can be assured there is no way in hell anyone in the service could ever know what they answered on the survey, the survey is worthless. On ANY subject.

I doubt there is anyone in the military under the illusion that the higher ups wanted any other answer then gays are just fine.  I'm surprised there was even as large a number against repeal as they got. It just shows the number of members who are either close to retirement or leaving anyway.  I would love to see the numbers for repeal in this survey for career officers. I'm sure they were at least 90% in favor.
I

Posted by: Rocks at November 30, 2010 08:38 PM (BpRs+)

253 I've read a lot of people state that "the military is not a social experiment". While I wish that were so, I have to disagree. I think it became a social experiment when they allowed women to serve without requiring them to meet the same standards as men. Had they allowed women to serve only if they could meet the same standards men had to meet, then it would not be a social experiment. But when they lowered standards specifically to make it easier for women to join, that's when the military became a social experiment. And were women allowed to join for the betterment of the military? No. They were allowed to join, because of the feminist movement saying women could do anything men could do and should be allowed in any men's organization. In other words, it was done to appease a social activist group. DADT under Clinton was another case of treating the military as a social experiment. Was it enacted for the betterment of the military? No, it was done to appease a social activist group. The same thing is happening now with the effort to allow homosexuals to serve openly. Is it being done for the betterment of the military? No. It is being done to appease the GLBT activist agenda. That said, the fact that the military has, through decades of social experimentation, remained such a successful institution shows how strong it is as its core.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 30, 2010 09:00 PM (NITzp)

254

>What it comes down to is people projecting their personal moral code onto an institution and expecting the institution to conform instead of doing what may well be in the best interest of the institution.

Exactly...gays are doing this.  Homosexuality has been against the military moral code, so those who are "pushing" their own code are homosexuals.. You don't see swinger, BDSMers etc. pushing for military acceptance of their sexual behavior.  And the issue with that is- if someone says "Geez, I don't want to room with this guy"  he is a... fill in the blank.  Most people would understand that the guy has an alternative sexual practice that is roommate feels uncomfortable, but you can't say that with homosexuals.. Then it would be homophobic. 

Posted by: melle1228 at November 30, 2010 09:19 PM (o3WEK)

255

>If the repeal doesnt pass and Dan Choi still wants to make himself a martyr in the gay community, may I suggest that he kill himself. I heard its all the rage.

Yeah a little harsh, but only a little.   He is a perfect example who is more gay than military.  The man has an agenda, and it certainly isn't team first.  Lucky Army - for the two days that recruiters took openly gay recruits he signed back up.  You know he is a scumbag though... Even before he outted himself- he was still a Lt. after 6 years even though he had a combat tour.  This was a time when people were making Captain in three years.   Now we will never get his kind(and I don't mean gay-I mean incompetent) out, because the minute this douchebag isn't promoted- he will cry homophobia.  Get prepared for General Choi one day!

Posted by: melle1228 at November 30, 2010 09:29 PM (o3WEK)

256

>For some reason, I think the study results were rigged.

Just the way they present it is rigged. 70%,but in that percentage is people who are undecided and have mixed feelings.  Who interpreted the study on what "mixed feelings" are?  Why didn't they seperate the undecides and the mixed feelings in a different category?  Could it be that they made up the majority of the percentage? 

Also if 30% of 115,000 have a huge problem with that- that is 33,000 troops-TWICE of the amount of homosexuals that have left due to DADT- and yes I said left.. When Aaron Belkin of the Palm Center even admits that the majority of DADT are those that tell and 1/2 are because they want to get out of the military; then they left of their own volition knowing the contract they signed up for. 

If we really are using this poll as a "representative" of the military; then if 30% of military members have a big problem and even 10 % of those don't reenlist-- there is a huge problem.



Posted by: melle1228 at November 30, 2010 09:39 PM (o3WEK)

257

241  Person with the vapors: it's also an old term for several other things: like a person of no particular warrior value (a bit unfair -- it isn't always about the infantry, but I digress).

Get off your freaking high horse and maybe breathe into a paper bag for a while.

Posted by: unknown jane at December 01, 2010 04:22 AM (5/yRG)

258

245  Yes, and no -- which is why I said I thought about it a long time, and came to the conclusion I did.

Have witnessed second and first hand that DADT does leave a loophole whereby a gay can be ratted out -- and this can happen to the ones who are actually decent soldiers who go by the book, especially officers.

Straight soldier, sailor, marine who happens to be a piece of...pogey bait (just for you Major O), a knuckle dragging unprofessional puckstick gets sideline source of income, or recreational hobby taken away by rumored to be/known to be gay nco or officer (or reported by noncom of the rumored to be not hetero persuasion)...what happens?  Straight and his/her buddies get together with enough evidence and jump first -- accusations of violating DADT, who gets articled, and who gets to stay free for a while enjoying their sideline source of income or recreational hobby...which may be endangering the lives of other troops or the mission's success?

(and while there's putting it in one's face and being discrete...there is no way to completely hide your sexuality in the field or even on base...close quarters make for no secrets)

And please spare me that our guys and gals don't do shit like that -- it's always been a problem, in every military.  There's always that small percentage that are just worthless and yet still manage to stay in.

Posted by: unknown jane at December 01, 2010 04:36 AM (5/yRG)

259

Just what we need, a bunch of mincing rump rangers representing the US military to the world. Whatcha gonna do, hit 'em with your handbag?

Those presently in the military that are homosexual do carry the responsibility of being military quite well. I believe (without statistical proof) that DADT forces a certain behaviour standard on homosexuals despite all the BS that open declaration of queerness will be controlled by current regulations and standards.

As stated above, show me how this change will IMPROVE the military's ability to kill people and blow $hit up. If it will improve the military's actual and putative reputation for killing our enemies in wholesale lots then fine. Otherwise go pack sand.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at December 01, 2010 05:04 AM (EhYdw)

260

Three ways to determine that this survey is garbage:

1. They actually present as an important finding the obeservation that combat troops in an active combat situation prioritize doing their jobs and staying alive over their disconcertment regarding gays actively serving among them. Who decided that this gem was worthy of note; Captain Obvious?

2. As for the bilge about "existing regulations" and no preferential treatment", note that the survey presenters finally admitted that preferential treatment exists for certain groups. How bad do you think that these guys are reaching if they felt compelled to admit this (finally)?

3. Still no one has explained why women and men cannot billet together if orientation is supposedly of no consequence? Or should we accept that heterosexual servciemen and women as to be preceived as being unable to control themselves, while homosexuals can?

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 01, 2010 05:11 AM (R2fpr)

261

And perhaps to elaborate: DADT didn't really work because of the "special" component...just enact (or enforce) rules of protocol and behavior -- same for everybody, no special groups with special priviledges.

I think that may be the reason DADT didn't work (it singled a group out -- based on something other than performance) and what might be a way to make things better (no singling out -- everybody's starts out on the same page, content of your character).

Posted by: unknown jane at December 01, 2010 05:15 AM (5/yRG)

262
Re#142 iknowtheleft

"Self-hate, leading to a desire to take Western civilization down.  ...This little dance with the military is no different.  Gay activists change their argument depending on what has the best chance of harming our society."

That pretty much sums it up for me.  I don't take barbecue advice from vegans and I don't trust leftists when it comes to the military.  If this didn't hurt the military, they wouldn't bother. 

Posted by: RayJ at December 01, 2010 05:47 AM (YcjCJ)

263 That said, the fact that the military has, through decades of social experimentation, remained such a successful institution shows how strong it is as its core. Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 02:00 AM (NITzp) Do you know the resentment felt by males about the double standard females receive? They have separate standards for PT. They have separate standards for weight and appearance. They get preferential treatment when they get pregnant - shortened work hours, can't deploy, light duty for many, many months. There is even a bias towards females when it comes to child care and child issues, though this area isn't as explicit as the others. The biggest problem is females aren't allowed in combat. Tell me, why should a female who doesn't do the same job as a male in all of the above areas and who cannot even fight in a war, get the same pay and benefits as a male that does? That's a success? It is a cancer and it constantly eats away at the service.

Posted by: catmman at December 01, 2010 05:58 AM (DTzwU)

264 Here's the thing - homosexual conduct is discreet now because it has to be. Anyone's experience of working with gay men in the army is related to that old paradigm of "keep it under control, keep a lid on it, keep it to yourself". I cannot argue that this old discretion would persist in a situation where that discretion is no longer required. Gay women seem to have less difficulty attending to business ins a serious way, and I would suspect continue to besexu ally continent even when the "lid" is off. Are you so very certain the same will apply to homosexual men? Although roughly analogous in the "prefer the same sex" way, lesbianism and male homosexuality appear not to have the same physiological basis or cause, but arise out of different mechanisms and may not manifest the same problems in real-wrold out-and-proud behaviors. Even assuming some differences, women might also be more willing to push forward with attentions to others who do not desire them and may feel prsessure to put up with harassment. I'm not sure I trust any report that relies on behaviours that are necessarily checked by policy as it has been set out - policy that demands discretion.

Posted by: SarahW at December 01, 2010 06:06 AM (Z4T49)

265 Do you know the resentment felt by males about the double standard females receive? They have separate standards for PT. They have separate standards for weight and appearance. They get preferential treatment when they get pregnant - shortened work hours, can't deploy, light duty for many, many months. There is even a bias towards females when it comes to child care and child issues, though this area isn't as explicit as the others. The biggest problem is females aren't allowed in combat. Tell me, why should a female who doesn't do the same job as a male in all of the above areas and who cannot even fight in a war, get the same pay and benefits as a male that does? That's a success? It is a cancer and it constantly eats away at the service. Posted by: catmman at December 01, 2010 10:58 AM I 100% agree. When I said the military remains a "success", I meant in the context of still successfully fighting and winning wars. That happens in spite of the drama that happens within a co-ed military as opposed to the drama that would not exist in an all-male force. But I agree, it is a cancer eating away at the military and it's not right or fair that the feminist movement forced the military to become a social experiment by lowering standards to allow females to join. (Had they simply allowed females in without lowering standards, I'd have no problem with that.) Unfortunately, just like every other American institution, liberalism and political correctness have taken it over and we have to deal with the consequences, because no one is willing to make a stand against it.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 07:24 AM (NITzp)

266

279  As somebody who knew the military before and after DADT, and thinking about this again I think maybe DADT itself was more of a corrosive policy than either an outright ban or just allowing gays to openly serve.  Think about it: we went from "no gays" (there were gays in, but really had to keep it undercover...so on the surface "no gays" and more importantly, no secrets) then we had DADT...which meant "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, it's ok...just play along and don't say anything...our little secret".  From that standpoint, having there be "no little secret" is probably better.  Now, there is the arguement about no gays or allowing them, but this little, Clintonian behind the back thing really wasn't such great policy in retrospect...now that I think about it.

 

Do I have some worries and reservations?  Yes, I do.  However, after re-thinking, I'm not so sure DADT was such a great policy to begin with; in fact, I'm beginning to believe it was bullshit and damaging all along.

 

Posted by: unknown jane at December 01, 2010 07:33 AM (5/yRG)

267

278  Hey Catman (and the rest who agree with that statement at 27 , you need to go spit in the face of the next batch of female troops coming home -- tell them they aren't worth a shit.  Tell them after they step on the tarmac after a year long deployment that you can't stand them and are a disgrace to their country because they aren't really soldier-soldiers (and by inference, aren't really there to serve their country, only themselves).

Might as well be open about it.  Whatever you do, don't support them, don't wave the flag in front of them or anything else -- because essentially that would be a lie.

Hell, go protest at their funerals while you're at it. (am I hyperbolizing? yeah...but at the bottom of it all there's a kernel of truth: this is about emotional reaction more than anything else, on both sides).

Posted by: unknown jane at December 01, 2010 08:04 AM (5/yRG)

268

>Hey Catman (and the rest who agree with that statement at 27, you need to go spit in the face of the next batch of female troops coming home -- tell them they aren't worth a shit. 

Why? They weren't "spitting on female military members."  They were stating a fact; female military members are treated differently than their male counterparts.   They have different standards, and are given preferential treatment due to their sex, and what goes along with it (pregnancy). How is this creating cohesion in a team atmosphere, especiall when one member of the team generally picks all the slack for the other member. 

Posted by: melle1228 at December 01, 2010 11:11 AM (o3WEK)

269 This integration is a very simple piece, is a failure of marketing. Not give any marketing incentives Puma Ferrari Shoes

Posted by: Puma Ferrari Shoes at December 01, 2010 05:14 PM (fbf0W)

270 customers and work together, the result is integrated marketing. Integrated Marketing, is a practice.

Posted by: Emu Boots at December 01, 2010 05:16 PM (fbf0W)

271 Posted by: unknown jane at December 01, 2010 01:04 PM (5/yRG) The thread is probably dead, but I gotta respond. Emotion has nothing to do with my comment. It is the cold, hard truth. Females in military service are given preferential treatment - period. Yes, females do deploy, but they don't deploy to combat do they. All of the things I mentioned in my comment are 100% true. I didn't make them up. I'm not being hyperbolic to make a point. I spent twenty-two years on active duty, retiring last year. I put my fair share of boot leather down range over that time. I know many females who did and continue to do a great job in the service. I'm not slighting their service. I was addressing a previous comment about double standards and preferential treatment. Advocates say if DADT is repealed, there will be no preferential treatment for homosexuals. Bullspit. Their selling it in the report. If gays don't or won't get preferential treatment, then why the need for 'training'? I said it in another comment: so the 'straights' will treat the gays 'right' - that 'right' defined by the government (Chain of Command). That is the essence of preferential treatment isn't it? The government setting up a code of acceptable behavior addressing a specific group of people, in this case, gays? But this report says there won't be any preferential treatment? Please... Why does the truth make you so angry? I didn't set things up that way, but I had to live with it and see the effects double standards have at the personnel/personal level. Yeah, most of the time we shrug it off. But you don't think it doesn't piss on the trooper who's deployed 3 or more times in the last few years to be told he has to go again before his rotation is due because a female in his unit got pregnant? It wouldn't piss you off if you had to be the one to tell a man he had to spend another six or eight months away from his family because a female got pregnant? I've had to do it and it isn't fun. You don't think that doesn't breed resentment, not just amongst the players, but everyone in the unit? You don't think it makes the females who do pull their weight sick to their stomachs to have other females use their wombs as a way to get out of their duty? You make not like what I said, but I didn't say it lightly. Which is part of the reason this whole DADT debate pisses me off. Its setting up another protected class within a military which is supposed to be beyond such nonsense. If your gonna repeal it, then fucking do it already. But don't tell me your doing it for any reason other than to make a small segment of people 'feel good' about themselves. If your lifestyle needs affirmation that badly, then perhaps this issue isn't about what your trying to sell everyone on. Get off your damn high horse, quit being so offended by the truth. I'd hate to see how wound up you get when someone blows smoke up your ass.

Posted by: Meghan McCain at December 01, 2010 05:23 PM (DTzwU)

272 The first priority of the ikinci el eþya site administrator for your comments ikinci el esya right know, thank you. ikinci el esya Really very good information-ikinci el esya sharing gives you. ikinci el esya
Thanks in knowledge ikinci el eþya

Posted by: Chris at December 05, 2010 12:44 PM (sd9Ri)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
243kb generated in CPU 0.16, elapsed 0.1949 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0633 seconds, 459 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.