Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Pace on Homosexuals in the military (update)
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, March 13, 2007

I have to admit being less and less impressed with Gen Peter Pace's judgment as time goes on. There have been a few instances that something he said in this hearing or that made me question his suitability for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It's more of a temperament thing than a competence problem. He's certainly strikes me as being competent.

However, one of the things top generals have to learn is that their job involves as much politics as command. In fact, in Pace's job, it's mostly politics since he really doesn't command anything. In reality he's head adviser among a group of high level military advisers.

His latest statement calling homosexuality immoral is an example of his apparent inability to understand his new role.

I'm not criticizing him for his belief. That's his business. I am criticizing him for expressing it instead of just saying he supports the policy of the civilian leadership, known as "don't ask, don't tell".

What he has now done is divert attention from policy to his personal belief. And, of course, he's stirred up a firestorm among the gay community. I can certainly understand why they object to his characterization.

Full disclosure:
John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.

"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.
That's pretty much where I am. I've changed my mind. However, to be honest, I'd just as soon sexuality wasn't an issue at all, regardless of orientation. We've had gays serving in our military since the Revolution and they've served proudly and well. I think we ought to recognize that fact and move on. We have far more important things to worry about than the sexual orientation of someone who patriotically volunteers to serve his country.

UPDATE: A statement just released by Gen Pace:
Yesterday, during a wide ranging interview with the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board, I was asked if I think the current policy as codified in U.S. Code, generally referred to as "Don't Ask Don't Tell," should still hold.

"People have a wide range of opinions on this sensitive subject. The important thing to remember is that we have a policy in effect, and the Department of Defense has a statutory responsibility to implement that policy.

"I made two points in support of the policy during the interview. One, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" allows individuals to serve this nation; and two, it does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts.

"In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct.

"I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."
Exactly right.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
When Clinton got into trouble with an order allowing open homosexuals in the military, retired Senator Barry Goldwater came to his defense. “Gays should have the same right to die for their country as anyone else” the Senator wrote. Goldwater was right
Ones sexual orientation is irrelevant to their effectiveness as warriors. The Sacred Band of Thebes was a troop of 150 pederastic couples, which formed the elite force of the Theban army in the 4th century BC. When Alexander the Great defeated the Theban army he was shown the bodies of the 300 men each killed by an honorable wound. This was the ultimate example of unit cohesion.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
So you think Peter Pace should shut up and not say what he thinks. Maybe I think you should shut up. Especially when Pace hardly *had* the option to shut up, he is pretty well obliged to answer questions - I do not see that he spontaneously intruded this view into a discussion of say COIN tactics - whereas, as Damon Runyon would say, nobody asked you.

Okay, are we even? Now to discuss the substantive aspects of gays in the *modern-day* military - but first:

On the one hand you have your historic Theban Legion - Achilles and Patroclus - Heracles and Iolaus (Philoctetes?) - but then they reflected their societies. Let’s look at other parallels...

female heroes/warriors/other empowerment of women vs. being sperm receptacles?
child abuse, infanticide, and did the kids really go for being buggered?
KIA/WIA ratios?
tolerance of other minorities? Persians? Jews?
slavery?
suicidal tactics?

...Sure, let’s all be just like Sparta. Exactly like Sparta. Sure, acceptance of gays is the most important lesson to be learned.

Now, as to the present day. Or at least fast forward to the Napoleonic Wars. As well posed as one could ask, the prose stylings of Patrick O’Brian’s Jack Aubrey (The Commodore, Aubrey-Maturin #17), where he describes the problems posed by homosexuality at sea (an offense punished in the Articles of War - as are most of them - by death, " ) depict the problem in terms of "unit cohesion" as perceived today:

Worn and anxious: I have two reasons, two very good reasons for being both worn and anxious
...
The second is that if I do succeed in carrying my squadron up to the rendezvous in time to meet the French, I am not sure how all my ships will behave. It grieves me to say this, Stephen, though a ship being a sounding-board I do not suppose that much of it will be news to you. The fact of the matter is that two, representing forty per cent of our guns and about fifty per cent of our broadside weight of metal, are in very bad order. As a result of all our exercising they can fire tolerably well and they can get their boats over the side tolerably quick; but they are still in very bad order. Neither is in any way what you would call a happy ship; and both are commanded by men who are not fit to command them. The one is a sodomite, or reputed to be a sodomite, and he is utterly at odds with his officers, while discipline among the hands is all to seek; the other is a bloody tyrant, a flogger, and no seaman. If I did not continually check him, he would have a mutiny on his hands, a very ugly mutiny indeed.’
Jack paused, absently cut Stephen another slice of pineapple, and passed it over. Stephen acknowledged it with a bob of his head but said nothing. It was very unusual for Jack to speak in this way: the flow was not to be interrupted. ’I hate using the ordinary coarse word about Duff, whom I like and who is a fine seaman, and whether he is a sodomite or not I do not give a damn. But as I tried to make him see, you have to check it aboard a man-of-war. A girl on board is a bad thing: half a dozen girls would be Bedlam. But if a man, a man-lover, is an unchecked sodomite, the whole ship’s company is his prey. It will not do. I tried to make him see that, but I am not a very eloquent cove and I dare say I put it wrong, being so God-damned tactful, because all that worried him was that his manhood, his courage, his conduct as we say, should be impugned. So long as he was happy to attack, whatever the odds, all was well. It is very difficult. His officers want to arrest him, to bring him to a court-martial, he having angered them so with his favourites. They are said to have witnesses - damning evidence. If he is found guilty he must be hanged: that is the only sentence. It is very bad. Very bad for the service, very bad in every way. I have done what I can in shifting his officers - with the inshore fever and the casualties there have been several promotions - but his ship is still. . .’ He shook his head.
In short, irrespective of a man’s merits, he creates a problem for the group. Individuality is not the very best reason for enlisting in the military...just as one cuts one’s hair, shines one’s shoes, wears one’s uniform...one must obey the rules. In a volunteer Armed Forces, surely this is not too much to ask?

Meanwhile, a gay discharge has become a soft out of the Army - it is not even a dishonorable discharge anymore - and some people are using it as an excuse. I remember a dirty joke where someone tries to get out of the Army in Vietnam - tells the sergeant he’s gay - sergeant tells him to prove it! And then rejects his claim because he wasn’t good enough!

Well, I don’t know how well that would work right now...but are we really losing the war because certain members cannot control their members? Oh yes, you can be asked to take an impregnable position, face certain death, but not to keep it in your pants. Why not? All your straight buddies have to keep it in their pants, no women for them.

If you want to tell the Army what to do, perhaps you should start by figuring out why the men can’t have hookers and booze anymore. Now THAT is a crime.



 
Written By: nichevo
URL: http://
There’s no one arguing that a unit of all homosexual wouldn’t be cohesive or capable. Or that in battle, you can get along with whoever is by your side. Problems arise when groups are mixed together for a long period of time spent outside of battle (or in defense). If your argument to have homosexuals to serve openly is paired with an argument that men and women should share showers, barracks and berthing (a huge cost savings), then at least you have a consistent point. If you see potential problems with mixed gender bedrooms and shower bays, then those arguments apply to gays serving openly as well.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
The General is totally correct.

Homosexuals are immoral and shouldn’t be allowed in the Army.

Adulterers, likewise, are immoral and shouldn’t be allowed in the Army.

Those soldiers who have had premarital sex are immoral and shouldn’t be allowed in the Army.

And, those married folks who’ve had sex with their wives during their "special time of the month" are likewise immoral and shouldn’t be allowed in the Army.

It’s all written down.

Read your Bible!

 
Written By: Continuum
URL: http://
So you think Peter Pace should shut up and not say what he thinks.
Obviously you don’t understand the point or his job.

BTW, see the update. Gen Pace apparently agrees with my analysis himself.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The General is totally correct.
No. No, he’s not. At least not as it concerns the policy of the United States military. And, as you see in the update, he acknowledges that point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
If you want to tell the Army what to do, perhaps you should start by figuring out why the men can’t have hookers and booze anymore. Now THAT is a crime.
In the sexually integrated Army, why would they need hookers? They get it for free now.

You might have a point on the booze.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Although Lenny Bruce said, if necessary “Men would stoup mud” Gays are not a treat to heterosexual men. If you are secure in you sexuality you have nothing to fear. I admit I can’t understand how men can make it with other men, then I also don’t understand how women can make it with men. The prohibition against homosexuals serving in the military is based on homophobia, just as the segregation of Blacks was based on racism, and Women on sexism.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
So you think Peter Pace should shut up and not say what he thinks. Maybe I think you should shut up
I never said Pace should shut up. He has the right to believe anything he wants to. The movie quote was fiction. When in port ships of the Royal navy, during the time of sail allowed "wives" to live abord the ship with their men. This pratice lead to the phrases "Shake a leg", At revelie the bosin would call out shak a leg, meaning show a leg. It the leg was shaved it ment a woman was sharing the hammock and the couple were given an extra five minutes to get ready. The term "Son of a gun" refers to a woman who was having difficulity giving birth. A cannon would be fired as she bared down as an extra incentive, and the resulting child was known as a "Son of a gun"

Thare is no evidence that a mix of hetro and homosexuals in a unit is a problem. Gays are not going to seduce straights. The only problem would be with hetrosexuals who assualt gays because of their sexual orentation. That not only wrong, it’s illegal.

As I said in my post, I don’t understand how men can make it with other men. I don’t find males to be attractive, but for those who do, it’s ok with me as long as they don’t do it in the street whare they can scare horses and small children.

Jim

 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Continuum;
Adulteres are kicked out of the Army.
One of these reasons for the success of the American military is the decentralized decision making. This places relatively young and inexperienced men and women in situations where they have to make ethical decisions. If the Army did not have any value structure, we could not expect reasonably consistent or ethically correct decisions. These decisions would have to be passed on to higher levels of authority, slowing response time (like the Soviet Army system).


Don;
Hookers service anyone who has the funds, like barbers. In the current Army, some get it for free, but the women in the military have the choice of who to sleep with. Sometimes this leads to power for the women, sometimes it leads pressure on the women. Either way you have forces outside of the chain of command are in action. Imagine if your promotion could depend on your hairstyle, and the barbers were allowed to service whoever they wished.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Gen. Pace is correct! I add; what is it about people that they don’t understand the basic principles of plumbing and God’s intent for purpose?
 
Written By: Jim (Retired Marine)
URL: http://
A quick point, Don: the US Army -isn’t- fully sexually integrated. Unless I missed a major news story in the last few years since I ETS-ed, there are still no women allowed in Combat Arms, which means there are still several one-gender OSUTs. I can also say from first hand experience that Fort Knox’s BCT was all-male as of 2000 (although the cadre there were had mentioned that it was -going- integrated at some point in the not-too-distant future.)

The arguments against gays serving openly comes down to one basic point which frankly does not stand up to close scrutiny: It’s bad for unit cohesion and will be prejudicial to good order and discipline, both because homosexual men can’t keep it in their pants (note that in this discussion that there’s little mention of lesbians in uniform? It’s an odd lapse), and because the straight men in the unit would be too discomfited by gays to be able to work or live with them on a daily basis. The first issue is simply stereotyped nonsense with little to no basis in reality, and the fix is simple: enforce the damn rules against fraternization regardless of gender or orientation. The second (basically the "homophobia will wreck the unit" issue) can be solved in a similar manner.

I’m sure anyone here who has served heard some branch-specific variant of the old saw "Everyone here in my Army is the same #$@*-ing color: Green." A study of history (or a discussion with a Vietnam or Korean-era veteran) will tell you that integrating the military was not a painless process, and that it took a lot more than Truman’s executive order 9981 (the last all-Black unit wasn’t broken up until ’54, and there wasn’t specific command guidance directing enforcment 9981 until the ’60s in some cases). Still, it got done, and I can say from personal experience that there’s less racism in the modern US Army than in most average civilian communities here in the Western US (including supposed bastions of enlightened and "liberal" thinking).

"Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" costs us service members who can and do serve honorably, fight honorably, and if necessary give their lives for their fellow soldiers or to accomplish the mission. I would argue that in the long term we will be better served by something rather like a "Don’t Give a $%*#" policy, where the onus is not on homosexuals to keep their mouth shut, but on NCOs and commanders at every level from Squad leaders on up to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the senior NCOs of each branch to combat homophobia and any prejudice that harms the functioning of their unit or their soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines whether those men and women are straight -or- gay.

Under McNamara the DoD actually worked to be -ahead- of the civilian world as far as racial integration and race relations went. The policy wasn’t always successful, but it made a big difference, and what we need now is a repeat of that sort of policy directed towards homophobia instead of racism. I’m not even going to touch the semi-hysterical stuff put out by some of the above posters except to point out that Spartans (while great warriors) are bad examples because it was not only homosexuality that was institutionalized as part of their training regimen but pederasty, and the two are neither synonymous nor even closely linked in terms of personality or prediliction.
 
Written By: Lysenko
URL: http://
Nichevo: So you think Peter Pace should shut up and not say what he thinks. Maybe I think you should shut up. Especially when Pace hardly *had* the option to shut up, he is pretty well obliged to answer questions

You did indeed miss McQ’s point. Perhaps matters have changed since I left the military, but I seem to recall that free speech is limited during service especially when speaking in an official capacity. If General Pace is unable to deflect a reporter’s question with a more appropriate answer, how can he possibly perform his duties as CJCS?

Ted: If you see potential problems with mixed gender bedrooms and shower bays, then those arguments apply to gays serving openly as well.

How is it that our NATO allies have managed to allow known gays to serve without this being a big concern? If the unit cohesion argument had any merit, how then can we truly rely upon our NATO allies, all of whom I believe allow gays to serve alongside heterosexuals? Are our soldiers at mortal risk because the Her Majesty’s Armed Forces (UK) in Afghanistan and Iraq have poofters among their ranks?

Ted: Adulteres are kicked out of the Army.

Not necessarily, but they are disciplined under the UCMJ and rightly so. Betraying one’s fellow soldier by sleeping with their spouse does not help with unit cohesion. The argument you and General Pace are making is not one about unit cohesion, something shown to be false and absurd, but stems from religious objection to homosexuality. Tough. You and your religious beliefs do not get to run ramshod over the rest of the country. You’ll notice that the military does not discipline or expel fornicators, those who divorce, or atheists all of whom the Bible holds in low esteem.


 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Gays are not a treat to heterosexual men
James? Threat, right? tHreat?
Sorry, couldn’t help myself man.... 8^)

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Pace is entitled to his opinion, and required to separate it from the performance of his duties.

Which he failed to do in this instance.

However, when I read the interview, it was clear to me he was expressing his opinion.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
James? Threat, right? tHreat?
Ahh looker, it umm, ah goes both ways ;-) Gays are neither a tHreat nor a tReat to heterosexual males. Unfortunately, there are quite a few hetero males who are a tHreat to gay men.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
However, to be honest, I’d just as soon sexuality wasn’t an issue at all, regardless of orientation. We’ve had gays serving in our military since the Revolution and they’ve served proudly and well.
That’s just it. They’ve served proudly and well by being good soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen - not by being good gay soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen.
 
Written By: Arcs
URL: http://
John;
Nothing I’ve posted was religious, when I brought up adultery I was making a point about how our Army operates compared to most others. You brought up the British. In the UK Army, the average 100 soldier company is commanded by a Major. They promote to major at between eleven and 16 years of service. A similar unit in the U.S. is commanded by a Captain, who can reach that rank in 4 years. The UK is an example of an Army that has the same decision being made by a person with more rank and experience.
Just as I said.
Another big difference with the U.S. and UK is that soldiers generally stay in the same unit for the first four years, if not most of their career. This allows the unit plenty of time to indoctrinate new members into unit culture and standards, increasing unit cohesion. Unit history means a great deal more to the British. In the U.S. Army a typical unit will have at least 90% turnover in three years, so it’s a constant battle to welcome new soldiers. The US Army attempts to shortcut this by declaring certain standards as Army values and beliefs so that those with less experience can make (hopefully) consistent ethical decisions.


On a side note, adulterers aren’t just subject to UCMJ for sleeping with a fellow soldier’s spouse, but with anyone other than their own spouse.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
That’s just it. They’ve served proudly and well by being good soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen - not by being good gay soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen.
I agree with this completely. It also made me think, could it be that in this day and age of "I am a gay American" some commanders are afraid that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell goes away and soldiers can be open about their homosexuality, they will be open about it, in the sense that they cease to be soldiers but become "gay soldiers" (if you follow my semantic point)?
 
Written By: Jinnmabe
URL: http://
in the sense that they cease to be soldiers but become "gay soldiers" (if you follow my semantic point)?
Great - just what we need... more hyphenated Americanism. I’ll use that as my cue to post my favorite Teddy Roosevelt quote - (emphasis mine)
When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Let’s see, his statement starts out with "I believe". Can’t have that in an open democracy, can we? One’s beliefs might offend other people.

But there are two things here: is the homosexual lifestyle immoral? I think it is, as do all the major Western religions. There are some who think it isn’t - mainly those who practice it or are afraid of being called immoral for other facets of their life - and the two views aren’t ever going to agree.

The second part is what U.S. military policy should be for those who serve in it. I think if we let those who serve in the rank and file - who share quarters 24/7 with one another - decide, we all know what the answer would be. And it is for them that the rules are made, not for policy makers in Washington or lobbyists for NAMBLA.
 
Written By: Director Mitch
URL: www.windowmanager.blogspot.com
I think there are plenty of things done by heterosexual couples that would be considered immoral too if others found out about them.

But with other hetero’s we all pretty much play don’t ask don’t tell in that regard, right?

So, why the need to ponder what the homosexual couples are doing up there in their bedrooms?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
So you do not choose to oppose "Don’t ask, don’t tell" itself? If your point is narrowly that Gen. Pace should have stuck to quoting doctrine and squelched the interjection of the fact that he agrees with the policy, you have made a - narrow - point

Of course if he disagreed with it, he would have been more likely to do so. Often it is heartening (to some) for a man in such a position to show that he indeed endorses the policies he propounds. This is just controversial - if he said he agrees with the policy of no booze because a) it decreases readiness b) offends Muslim hosts c) is immoral to drink, I suspect you would feel less strongly that, e.g., distilleries and Catholics had been offended and that he was not up to his job.

Some sincerity in a spokesman is a virtue. And though to your credit you are not saying, in Stephen Crane’s words,
"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;
You are a toad."
And after I had thought of it,
I said, "I will then, be a toad."
your whole narrow point appears to equal, "Shut up." Or, at least, "Keep your...opinions to yourself."


As for Patrick O’Brian:

The quote was from a book, not the movie. His books were extensively researched and if you think the situation unrealistic, give me a few days in the Naval Chronicle and I will dig you out some sodomy trials, though much effort was given to covering up this sort of thing. Article 29 was no fiction:
If any person in the fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable sin of buggery and sodomy with man or beast, he shall be punished with death by the sentence of a court martial.
BTW, "son of a gun" refers merely to a woman giving birth belowdecks, laid out between two cannon, as between two spead iron thighs. I think the "encouragement" aspect may be apocryphal.

There are other examples which I omitted for space. A chief practical concern was not harassment, it was favoritism. He would call young foremast jacks to the cabin after lights-out - and then these privileged lads were far more difficult to discipline, especially when the captain forbade their punishment. The men were uncontrollable, the officers on the verge of denouncing him as a result, a fellow captain forced to choose between loyalties at trial.

Sexual competition - the point of the passage I quoted. ’Nuff said.

You think it might be hard to order your woman to charge a machine-gun nest when there are plenty of other squaddies not potentially the mother of your child, or at least the comfort of your long nights? Think such feeling is extinct in gay men?

If you then did your duty, and he or she did not sulk but went off...and were pinned down or captured - were this lover in danger, might you not overestimate his or her value and make bad decisions, sending men on a forlorn hope for rescue, or going yourself into the guns, when the right decision is to let him or her die or be captured?

How about they squeeze the connection out of the captive? Something new to add to the propaganda, that Captain X’s lover tells all. How about ransom, blackmail, extortion? (The one plus of eliminating any policy, I suppose, would be to eliminate blackmail.) How is it for the captain’s morale to listen to broadcasts of his lover’s fingernails being pulled out, or more intimate violations of his or her person? Might it lead to some impulsive thinking?

IDF field experience shows that even without intimacy, fellow troops would run unacceptable risks to come to the defense of a woman. I do suppose this wouldn’t apply to gays, but OTOH, might they scorn to rescue him in that case?

And as for fairness, everybody who is not gay (or lacks Lynndie England’s favor) has to keep it in their pants, at least on the battlefield or on ship. So why shouldn’t gays? You want to get your salad tossed ashore, I guess you could go ahead and do it quietly, no?

Of course, AIDS and other diseases are entirely irrelevant to this discussion, so I will not mention the interest of the Armed Forces in their troops’ health.



Sure there is prejudice, but the conclusion that "it is all fag-bashing" is unsustainable.


PS:
So, why the need to ponder what the homosexual couples are doing up there in their bedrooms?

Written By: looker
That’s the don’t-ask part. Come to think of it, it’s also the don’t-tell part.
 
Written By: nichevo
URL: http://
Mind you, it may be correct for him to keep his opinions to himself, given the flak. But not from his soldiers this flak, just certain squawkers at home. Presumably if the mass of soldiers are behind this policy, they will be pleased that policy will be enforced with conviction. Hardly detrimental to discipline, but perhaps buying trouble in the media. Of course, there is no pleasing some people anyway.
 
Written By: nichevo
URL: http://
On another angle - how many guys have made ’poor’ decisions in combat to try and save a guy or guys who are just their friend or friends?

How many decisions made out of a desire for revenge for a dead comrade?

How many heroes have been created as a result of a guy protecting, or trying to protect, his buddies?

Let’s not pretend that emotion isn’t a part of these decisions, regardless of sexual preference.

The fact that people have to mention NAMBLA (the limit for my tolerance is instantly exhausted by this group) and buggery by older on younger suggests the thinking that most homosexual males, at least, are more likely to be (male) child molesters and male-on-male rapists than hetero males are to be child molesters and male-on-female rapists.
Does anyone have any credible statistics that would bear out that view?




 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Ted: The US Army attempts to shortcut this by declaring certain standards as Army values and beliefs so that those with less experience can make (hopefully) consistent ethical decisions.

I have no doubt there are significant differences between the British military and the American. Yet the fact remains that the difficulties expressed with allowing gays to openly serve have been dealt with by the UK and our NATO allies. I’m not saying it won’t take some adjustment, it will, especially given our differences, but this isn’t the first time our military has had to something like this. Changes were made to fully integrate blacks and women. I’d like to avoid the problems of differing standards, quotas, etc., but not the lifting of the ban. It serves no purpose other than to reinforce people’s prejudices. I’m not speaking about a person’s religious convictions, but that they are used as an excuse to denigrate or refuse to work with others they may not agree with. There is no room for that kind of thinking in the military.

On a side note, adulterers aren’t just subject to UCMJ for sleeping with a fellow soldier’s spouse, but with anyone other than their own spouse.

That wasn’t the case when I was in. I personally knew of a sailor who was charged and convicted of adultery for sleeping with his (ex) buddies’ wife.

 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Oh, also, on the general topic of sexual jealousy, look to the Bible (if that’s all right). David sending Uriah to his death to possess Bathsheba? Or if that’s too farfetched, imagine Lt. X sending Sgt. Y into that machine-gun nest because he desires Cpl. Z (of whatever sex).

Also...another one: an affair fizzles within the squad. Sgt. XYZ orders ex-lover Pvt. PDQ into the breach. PDQ refuses on the grounds that it is revenge for being spurned. Whether a right or wrong decision, for the right or wrong reason, it is mutiny, and/or perhaps abuse of power. More to the point, they may all die before any court-martial can rule. If this is too dramatic, just consider it in the context of excess KP or denial of transfer, plum assignments, etc.

But on the bright side, everybody can get their freak off.
 
Written By: nichevo
URL: http://
Jinnmabe: It also made me think, could it be that in this day and age of "I am a gay American" some commanders are afraid that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell goes away and soldiers can be open about their homosexuality, they will be open about it, in the sense that they cease to be soldiers but become "gay soldiers" (if you follow my semantic point)?

Let me be clear: if this hypothetical "gay soldier" you are speaking of is unable to perform their duties to the exact same standards as everyone else than I for one do not want them in the service at all. The mission and the lives of servicemembers place in harm’s way come first - always. I recluctantly agreed with DADT in early 1990s, though I was angry with it, because I believed General Powell and the others about "unit cohesion". Since then I’ve seen that argument become a mockery by the military’s own contradictory behavior and the example set by our allies. I do NOT want seperate standards or quotas for gays, nor do I would I tolerate the stereotypical "gay pride" type of soldier. All I want is for gays to have the opportunity to serve and prove themselves as individuals. Some will do outstanding jobs, others will be average, and some will be miserable failures. That’s just like every other group of Americans.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
looker, so this is an unalloyed virtue? You want to throw more fuel on the fire? Or did I miss something, and disobedience is now a course at the war colleges?

Ever hear of a honey-pot? When a sniper shoots and wounds the point man, to lure more targets into the kill zone? Whereas one might just be able to stomach being ordered back from rescuing a friend, wouldn’t the urge to disobey be stronger in the case of a lover? And then one’s friends have two casualties to worry about, and perhaps the knowledge that one is special to the other. Whom to rescue first?

In other words, I’m not sure all those emotional stories ended happily.

...As for NAMBLA and all that, I trust you’re not talking to me. I don’t think I started that hare, did I?
 
Written By: nichevo
URL: http://
DM: The second part is what U.S. military policy should be for those who serve in it. I think if we let those who serve in the rank and file - who share quarters 24/7 with one another - decide, we all know what the answer would be. And it is for them that the rules are made, not for policy makers in Washington or lobbyists for NAMBLA.

Those who volunteer to enlist in the US Military are not their own masters but serve The People of the United States. Such reasoning as you display here would have kept our military segregated because there wasn’t a chance in hell a majority wanted to sleep next to a...Negro.

If polls are to be believed, 60% agree that gays should be allowed to serve openly. Knowing that polls can be skewed, feel free to give them as much or little weight as you please.

Finally, nice parting shot there Mitch. I won’t dignify it further, except to say that gays should be subject to the same policies on fraternization and sexual harassment as everyone else is.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Nichevo: IDF field experience shows that even without intimacy, fellow troops would run unacceptable risks to come to the defense of a woman. I do suppose this wouldn’t apply to gays, but OTOH, might they scorn to rescue him in that case?

Yet somehow the IDF does not see this as a major concern and allows gays to openly serve.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Nichevo: Sgt. XYZ orders ex-lover Pvt. PDQ into the breach.

The Sgt. and Pvt. are subject to prosecution for having an inappropriate relationship (superior/subordinate).
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
...As for NAMBLA and all that, I trust you’re not talking to me. I don’t think I started that hare, did I?


Nope, it was a general observation, not a specific one.
Ever hear of a honey-pot? When a sniper shoots and wounds the point man, to lure more targets into the kill zone? Whereas one might just be able to stomach being ordered back from rescuing a friend, wouldn’t the urge to disobey be stronger in the case of a lover? And then one’s friends have two casualties to worry about, and perhaps the knowledge that one is special to the other. Whom to rescue first?

In other words, I’m not sure all those emotional stories ended happily.
And I didn’t say they did - what I said was, taking gender, or sexual preference out, everything you described still has happened, can happen, and does happen in the military and in combat situations. None of them necessarily have anything to do with the gender or who rolls in the hay with whom.

A wounded buddy laid out as bait by a sniper is a wounded buddy.
A Sgt who hates your guts and orders you to rush a gun doesn’t have to desire your lover too, it’s usually enough that he hates your guts.

Same for the duty issues you cited. There’s nothing specific that you cited that couldn’t, and hasn’t, occurred with two heterosexual males wanting the same woman, where one has power to dun the other, or to order the other to attempt something that may result in his death. Cripes how many romance war stories are based on that premise?

They don’t have to be a couple of sugar booted troopers for this stuff to happen.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
My first post sure set off a hornet nest. GOOD Now look at your posts. They might enlighten you
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
John, is this policy recent? You may have noticed the IDF, or the Israeli government, have been influenced by PC rather a lot lately. Not, it would seem, to their advantage. And they don’t have a hundred million men of draft age to choose from.

Also, though I would not say so, perhaps their small, cohesive population has a different outlook on homosexuality than the USA - allegedly, many Mediterranean cultures do. After all, fundamentalists in Israel have their out from service, which BTW is compulsory and unisex. If the Greek Army went to all-gay units, who would I be to say them nay? As for the rest of the NATO members, if their bunks in Afghanistan were a little colder, perhaps they wouldn’t be so slow to get up and fight the Taliban. (Britain honorably excepted, but then there is all that public school background...;>)

What’s your dog in this fight? Do you really think that even without all the disadvantages, winning the war at this time hinges on an extra thousand (?) men and women who took steps to leave the Army when they could have shut their mouths and stayed in? A dozen translators? Or is military readiness secondary to The Cause? Perhaps if it weren’t an honorable discharge - you know, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is supposed to be progressive - perhaps if we went to the previous policy, they would have more incentive not to take that out? You don’t even have to be gay, you just have to say it. Sounds like a fast ticket home to me.

As for:
The Sgt. and Pvt. are subject to prosecution for having an inappropriate relationship (superior/subordinate).
They don’t have to be a couple of sugar booted troopers for this stuff to happen.
Sure, though there are always variables to confound. There are a couple of unique scenarios I have named, I believe. Also, you maintain the presumption that everything will be fine until they are caught. I’m not sure I buy that. How long did the sexual harassment at Ft. Leonard Wood go on before the drill sergeants were caught? How much harm was done in the interim?

Overall I don’t see that a change in the policy would help. If it would I guess I would have to change my mind. All you are doing is creating more opportunity for trouble. Harder in an all-male combat unit in the field to sleep with a female buddy in another unit back at base, than in a foxhole (sure, tell me how nobody ever screwed in a foxhole - but first read The Thin Red Line, or even the bit in Black Hawk Down about CJs).

You know, banning alcohol (or drugs, hookers, gambling, whatever) doesn’t eliminate the problem - as well we all know. What it may achieve is harm reduction. The RN was satisfied to keep drinking and whoring within limits, if they could.

Whereas your ideas will make appx. 2% of the population happier (minus those who lose their easy out, and incidentally then become malcontents just as fans of the all volunteer force are afraid would happen with draftees). I dunno, you think if Bush allowed gays to serve, Andrew Sullivan would get behind (no pun intended) the war again? Maybe that’d be worth it.

 
Written By: nichevo
URL: http://
My first post sure set off a hornet nest. GOOD Now look at your posts. They might enlighten you

Written By: James E. Fish
Be so kind as to elaborate for us proles. I don’t think I’ve said anything I have to climb down off of.
 
Written By: nichevo
URL: http://

" The prohibition against homosexuals serving in the military is based on homophobia,"


Partially, perhaps, but there are legitimate concerns.

"Gays are not going to seduce straights."

ROTFLMAO!!!

You must live in a convent. They will at least try, and that is a problem.

Young males of all species, including humans, have been known to fight, sometimes to the death, over a romantic interest. Why would homosexual males be any different than heterosexual males in this regard? This would obviously be detrimental to discipline and good order. This is why women are segregated, and I see no reason the same should not apply to same-sex situations.

I have seen soldiers come within a few ounces of pressure on a trigger from killing each other and probably innocent bystanders, over a matter so trivial I do not remember it. The presence of sexual tension, homo or hetero, would certainly lead to violent incidents, as I am sure it already has. Sexual harassment causes problems, no matter which sexual variation(s) is/are involved.

Having said that, I personally have no qualms about serving with gays, provided, as has been suggested previously, regulations prohibiting sexual conduct of any sort are enforced. I have served with a number of gays, and had very few problems. At least I am pretty sure they were gay; I would bet large sums, but I am not 100% sure, if you get my meaning. One guy used to literally serenade me every time we were in the latrine at the same time, which was much too frequently. Had we not been friends(Platonic), and had there been other stressors involved, the situation might have been more than merely uncomfortable.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
John;

When I said: On a side note, adulterers aren’t just subject to UCMJ for sleeping with a fellow soldier’s spouse, but with anyone other than their own spouse.

I meant that in addition to the case you described, UCMJ also applies when the other party to the adultery is unattached.


The difficulties with dealing with homosexuals to serve openly have been dealt with mainly because of the differences I pointed out. So far, you haven’t answered any of the concerns I raised. The situation for the U.S. Army would be more difficult than I described earlier because, as you mentioned, we end up having quota systems; and the fact that we are a much more litigious society than any of our allies. Pepole in the military can’t sue, so this translates in to trips to the IG, EO complaints, letters to Congress, only in this case both the majority and minority parties involved could file for discrimination any time looked sideways at them.
The outlook is the IDF is far different for two main reasons. 1) They are always close to home, not isolated with their units for long streches. 2) Most battles in their hiostory have been wars for the very survival of the country.
Yes, the U.S. Army could overcome these obstacles easily by changing its entire philosophy to be more like our allies. The question is, should we change the Army’s system to accomodate one particular group. You already said no to that question when the group was religious moralists, do you stand by that statement when that group is the homosexuals?
If a gay man simply wants to serve and prove themselves as individuals, that opportunity is given to them in the current system. Heck, gays served honorablu under the old system, they just had to lie once to a recruiter. Seeing as everyone’s heard the stories of how forthright recruiters can be, I don’t think many people would condemn someone for that.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
There are some who think it isn’t - mainly those who practice it or are afraid of being called immoral for other facets of their life - and the two views aren’t ever going to agree
Interesting observation. Is there not a 3rd class, heterosexual who mind their own business?
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
More wisdom of Jack Aubrey & Co., just because I can:
The Commodore by Patrick O’Brian
Read something, it’s good for you ;> Great books...and PoB is about as tolerant as you will find.

I should add that this was all happening in the midst of two tolerably important missions: first, suppressing the slave trade, an evil possibly greater than antigay discrimination; second, repelling a French invasion of Ireland.

It is historical fiction; do sing out anytime your capacity for the suspension of disbelief is overwhelmed. Personally the hardest things for me to believe are Jack’s typically low butcher’s bills (well, typically for him), and the quantity of food and drink he and his guests eat (I don’t think I could drink two bottles of wine and remain vertical let alone sober).
’That is Stately, the sixty-four,’ said Jack. ’She was inflicted upon us when they took the Terrible away, as shabby a piece of favouritism and jobbery as the service has ever known.’
’Her captain is clearly a man of taste, however,’ said Stephen.
’Well, I am no judge of taste: I am not a dilletanto. But if the Nelson checker was good enough for the great man himself, it is good enough for me.’ Jack paused. ’And I tell you what, Stephen: I do not like saying anything behind anyone’s back, but you are a medico, and that makes it different - you will understand. As you know, I hate the way sodomites are hanged or flogged round the fleet, and I like Duff: but you must not do it with the young foremast jacks, or discipline goes by the board. Duff is a pretty good seaman, and he does his best, but the Stately had taken all night to tow to her berth.
Mr Giffard and Stephen were fairly well acquainted - well enough, in any case, for Giffard’s initial embarrassment to persuade Stephen that this was not an ordinary visit nor a request for the loan of a carboy of Venice treacle or a hundredweight of portable soup and some lint. And indeed, after a tedious discussion of the trade wind, Giffard asked whether they might talk privately. Stephen led him hack to the orlop, to his little cabin, and there Giffard said, ’This may be considered a proper subject for two medical men, I trust: I think I betray no confidences or offend against professional discretion when I say that our captain is a paederast, that he calls young foremast hands into his cabin by night, and that the officers are much concerned, since these youths are much favoured, which in time will destroy discipline altogether. It is already much loosened, but they hesitate to take any official action, which must necessarily result in ignominious hanging and throw great discredit on the ship; and they hope that a private word to the Commodore would have the desired effect. A medical man, a friend, and an old shipmate . . .’ His voice died away.
’I will not pretend to misunderstand you,’ said Stephen, ’but I must tell you that I abhor an informer very much more than I abhor a sodomite: if indeed I can be said to abhor a sodomite qua sodomite at all: one has but to think of Achilles and hundreds more. It is true that in our society such connexions are out of place in a man-of-war. . . yet you adduce nothing but probabilities. Is a man’s reputation to be blasted on a mere statement of probabilities, and they at secondhand?’
’There is the good of the service,’ said Gifford.
’Very true. . .’ said Stephen, breaking off to call out ’Come In.’
It was in this elegant shirt, therefore, that Stephen stood on the Bellona’s quarterdeck to await the arrival of the guests, Thames, Aurora, Camilla, Laurel, as the captains were called,arrived in close order, to be piped aboard and welcomed; and they were all there when the Stately’s barge appeared, steered by Duff’s proud coxswain with a midshipman in a gold-laced hat beside him and pulled by ten young bargemen tricked out to the height. of nautical elegance and splendour - tight white trousers with ribbons down the seams, embroidered shirts, crimson neckerchiefs, broad-brimmed sennit hats, gleaming pigtails. With Giffard’s words in his mind, Stephen looked at them attentively: individually each sailor would have been very well, but since they were all uniformly decorated, he thought it overdone. He was not alone. Jack Aubrey glanced down into the barge after he had received Captain Duff, laughed very heartily and said ’Upon my word, Mr Duff, you will have to take care of those young ladies’ rig, or coarseminded people will be getting very comical ideas into their heads. They will say "Sod ’em tomorrow" and quote Article XXIX, oh ha, ha, ha, ha!’
The dinner itself went well, and even the Purple Emperor, conscious of his gaffe and devoted to his belly, laid himself out to be agreeable. Attentive trolling from the wardroom lights had provided a handsome young swordfish; the Commodore’s livestock three pair of fowls and a sheep, his cellar a considerable quantity of claret, unavoidably rather warm but of a quality to stand it; and the small Jersey cow a syllabub; while there was still some tolerable cheese, with almond cakes to go with the full tide of port.
Stephen enjoyed himself, sitting next to Howard, with whom he talked of Sappho and the delights of the diving-bell, on the one side, and on the other a Marine officer who knew a surprising number of people in the literary world of London and who, to his intense pleasure, told him about a novel by a Mr John Paulton that everyone was reading at present with great applause, a novel dedicated, curiously enough, to a gentleman of the same name as Dr Maturin, a relative, no doubt.
Captain Duff sat immediately opposite him and they exchanged a few amiable words; but the table was too wide and the sound of talk too powerful for more. Yet from time to time, when his neighbours were engaged elsewhere, Stephen
considered his face, demeanour, and conversation: Duff was an unusually good-looking, manly fellow of about thirty-five, rather larger than most, with no hint of those traits usually associated with unorthodox affections; he seemed to have been totally unmoved by the Commodore’s ribaldry and at times Stephen wondered whether the Stately’s officers were not mistaken. He was obviously a friendly man, as were so many sea-officers, willing to please and to be pleased: a good listener. And Stephen knew that he had fought one of his commands, a thirty-two-gun twelve-pounder frigate, with great distinction. Yet there were moments when a certain anxiety seemed to appear, a certain desire for approval.
’If his officers are right,’ reflected Stephen, when they had drunk the loyal toast, ’how I hope that Jack’s wholly candid and innocent remark will serve as warning enough.’
In time, with the absence of the captain and the presence of a newly-promoted first lieutenant with little natural authority, the talk grew louder and much more free. Stephen and his Marine had to raise their voices for their words to be heard at all - words still connected with such things as the formal dancing of the last age in France and with drill as applied to cavalry and whole fleets - and Stephen was disagreeably aware that his neighbour was drinking, had drunk, too much, and that his attention had wandered to the conversation at the purser’s end, where they were talking, often several at once, about sodomy.
’You may say what you like,’ said the tall, thin lieutenant, second of the Thames, ’but they are never really men. They may have pretty ways and read books and so on, but they will not toe the scratch in a fight. I had two in a gun-crew when I was a mid in Britannia, and when things grew rather hot they hid between the scuttle-butt and the capstan.’
Other views were heard, other convictions and experiences, some tolerant, even benign, but most more or less violently opposed to sodomites.
’In this atmosphere I scarcely think it would be worth mentioning Patroclus or the Theban Legion,’ murmured Stephen, but the Marine was too intent on the general medley of voices to pay attention: he filled another glass and drank it without taking his eyes from the group round the purser.
’You may say what you like,’ said the tall, thin lieutenant, ’but even if I had the same tastes I should be very sorry to have to go into action aboard a ship commanded by one of them, however stately.’
’If that is a fling against my ship, sir,’ cried the Marine, pushing his chair back and standing up, very pale, ’I must ask you to withdraw it at once. The Stately’s fighting qualities admit no sort of question.’
’I was not aware that you belonged to Stately, sir,’ said the lieutenant.
’I see that there are others who do not choose to toe the scratch,’ said the Marine; and now there was a general movement to separate the two men, general clamour, general extreme concern. Eventually both were put into their separate boats, the Stately’s most unhappily manned by some of her captain’s young ladies.
As most people in the squadron expected, the second lieutenant of the Thames and the young Marine officer from the Stately who had been Stephen’s neighbour at dinner took this opportunity, the first, to settle their disagreement. They and their seconds went more than a hundred paces from the shore, but not much, there being a convenient coconut grove at hand. Here the ground was measured out, and at the drop of a handkerchief each young man shot the other in the belly. Each was carried back to his boat, and the question of the Stately’s manliness and fighting qualities remained undecided.
’Did you know about this rencontre, Stephen?’ asked Jack that evening, when St Thomas was sinking on the southern rim of the sea and the Bellona making up for the loss of time with studdingsails aloft and alow, spread to the south-east trades.
’Faith, I was there when the provocation was given.’
’If you had told me, I might have prevented it.’
’Nonsense. There was a direct offence, and the Stately’s Marine was bound to resent it. No apology was offered, no withdrawal; and this was the necessaty result, as you know very well.’
Jack could not deny it. He shook his head: ’How I hope the young fellow don’t die. If he do, poor Duff is like to hang himself. Do you think he will recover? The Stately, I mean.’
’The Dear knows. I have not seen him. It was over before I had done with the apothecary, and all I saw was their blood on the strand. But an abdominal,wound very often has a fatal issue, if the viscera are injured.’
In the event both young men died, though not before the second lieutenant, at the urging of the Thames’s chaplain, had acknowledged that he was in the wrong and had sent a proper message to Willoughby, the Royal Marine, who returned his thanks and best wishes for a prompt recovery. This reconciliation, however, was confined to those who had fought. The hostility between the two ships increased, and it was made evident on all possible occasions by cries of ’What ho, the molly-ship’ if there was time, or ’The pouffes ahoy,’ and if there was not, on the part of the Thames, and of ’Slack in stays,’ or ’Make more sail, there,’ from the Stately. Not that there were many occasions for rudeness, for although the beautiful trade-wind varied in strength it never declined to anything near enough to one of those calms so usual in the dol
drums for ordinary ship-visiting among the hands to be possible, or for it to be easy for the officers of any one ship to invite those of another: nor did the Commodore ever create an artificial calm by lying-to, even on Sundays. He was haunted by the dread of being late; and although on days less blowy than usual he would summon the Ringle and run up the line to see how his captains were coming along, he consistently urged his maxim ’Lose not a minute: there is not a minute to be lost’, and obeyed it himself even to the point of forbidding the ships he visited to reduce sail to let him come aboard more easily.
He dined once in the Stately, and although he had shifted her first lieutenant, the most inveterate against Captain Duff and the man who had wished to arrest him, to the command of a brig, he was sorry to find a marked degree of tension at the captain’s table: the officers ill at ease, and Duff, though a good host, anxious and wanting in authority. ’He is a good, kind fellow, and he handles his ship like a prime seaman, but he seems incapable of taking a hint,’ said Jack on returning.
’Jack,’ said Stephen, when the ship’s pitching had obliged him to lay down his bow: he spoke rather diffidently, knowing bow Jack disliked any topic that might reflect discredit on the service, ’would it grieve you to tell me a little more about sodomy in the Navy? One often hears about it; and the per petual reiteration of the Articles of War with their "unnatural and detestable sin of buggery" makes it seem part of the nautical landscape. Yet apart from your very first command, the brig Sophie. . .’
’She was a sloop,’ said Jack, quite sharply.
’But she had two masts. I remember them perfectly: one in the front, and the other, if you follow me, behind: whereas a sloop, as you never cease pointing out, has but one, more or less in the middle.’
’If she has no masts at all, or fifty, she would still have been a sloop from the moment my commission had been read aboard her: for I was a commander, a master and commander; and anything a commander commands instantly becomes a sloop.’
’Well, in that vessel there was a sailor who could not cornmand his passion - for a goat, as I remember. But apart from that I scarcely remember any instance, and by now I am a very old and experienced salt dog.’
’I do not suppose you do. But when you consider what the lower deck is like - three or four hundred men packed tight
- the cloud of witnesses when hammocks are piped down - and the very public nature of the heads - it is difficult to imagine a more unsuitable place for such capers. Yet it does occasionally happen in what few holes and corners a man-of-war possesses, and in cabins. I remember a horrid case of Corsica in ’96. Blanche, Captain Sawyer, and Meleager, Captain Cockburn - George Cockburn - both twelve-pounder thirty-two-gun frigates, had been there in company the year before and something ugly of that kind, involving Sawyer, had taken place. You remember George Cockburn, Stephen?’
’Certainly: a very fine man indeed, the best kind of a sailor.’
’Summoned those men of both ships who knew about it and made them swear to keep the whole damn thing quiet. Yes. But the next year Sawyer began again, calling foremast jacks to his cabin and putting out the light. And of course he favoured these fellows and would not allow his officers to compel them to do their duty - and of course discipline began to go to the dogs. After a good deal of this his first lieutenant called for a court-martial, which was granted, and Sawyer fought back by bringing charges against almost the whole gunroom. Poor George Cockburn was in a horrible position. He had certain evidence of the man’s guilt in private letters he had written to him - that Sawyer had written to Cockburn. But they were private - as confidential as letters could be. Yet on the other hand, if Sawyer were acquitted, all his officers were ruined, and a man who should not be in command would remain in command. So for the good of the service he showed them, looking like death as he did so and for long after. The judges twisted the evidence round and round, like a kekkle on a cable, and found Sawyer not guilty of the act itself but only of gross indecency, so he was not hanged, but dismissed the service. D’Arcy Preston, a countryman of yours, I believe . .
’Of the Gormanston family. I must tell you about their manner of death one day. Pray go on.’
’D’Arcy Preston succeeded him for a short while, and then Nelson, commodore at the time, appointed Henry Hotham, a right taut disciplinarian, for the Blanche was still in wretched bad order. Indeed, the people were so far gone in disobedience and loving their ease that they would not receive him. They said he was a damned Tartar and would neither receive him nor hear his commission read: they pointed the forecastle guns aft and turned him out of the ship. Eventually Nelson himself came over, bringing Hotham with him: he told the Blanche’s people that they had the best name of any frigate’s crew in the Navy - they had taken two heavier frigates in fair fight - and were they now going to rebel? If Captain Hotham used them ill, they were to write him a letter and he would support them. On this they gave three cheers and returned to their duty, while he went back to his ship, leaving Hotham in command. But it did not last: as a crew they were beyond recall, the rot had gone so deep; and as soon as they reached Portsmouth they petitioned
to be given another captain or another ship.’
’Were they indulged in either?’
’Of course not. They would have been scattered among any number of short-handed ships.’


 
Written By: nichevo
URL: http://
Nichevo: John, is this policy recent?

Their own ban was quietly lifted in the early 1990s under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin I believe. You’ll note that his more conservative successors, Benjamin Netanyahu & Ariel Sharon, made no move to reinstate it. It was publicly acknowledged as being changed a few years ago. No evidence shows that it has been detrimental to the IDF.

And they don’t have a hundred million men of draft age to choose from.

Irrelevant. This never stopped the US military from quietly allowing gays to serve during wartime when more personnel were needed.

Also, though I would not say so, perhaps their small, cohesive population has a different outlook on homosexuality than the USA.

They are more liberal than us, yet let’s just say that Latin Americans aren’t also known for their ’machismo’. Just look at the ruckus being raised when a ’gay pride’ parade is attempted in Jerusalem.

If the Greek Army went to all-gay units, who would I be to say them nay? As for the rest of the NATO members, if their bunks in Afghanistan were a little colder, perhaps they wouldn’t be so slow to get up and fight the Taliban. (Britain honorably excepted, but then there is all that public school background...;>)

You are forgetting that these are our allies. If unit cohesion is such a concern, how than can we rely upon them let alone fight beside them?

What’s your dog in this fight?

Besides the obvious, it isn’t right to disqualify people from serving based solely on prejudice.

Do you really think that even without all the disadvantages, winning the war at this time

This has nothing to do with the current war. Allowing gays to serve or not will not change the outcome if we can fight it as we should. If it were fought with only white male draftees it could be won but none of this relevant. Besides, given that the military’s own behavior in quietly suspending discharges under DADT for many soldiers slated for service in Iraq this isn’t a factor. Some are still kicked out but as per their behavior since at least WWII, the numbers decrease as the needs of the military take precedence. Apparently even in such extreme conditions of combat, the "unit cohesion" argument is forgotten until the extra personnel are no longer needed.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Almost forgot this one...

Nichevo: Andrew Sullivan would get behind (no pun intended) the war again?

Who cares what Sullivan thinks? He’d still be the discredited St. Sully of the Perpetually Grieving Heart. His support would be nice, like that of everyone else, but believe me I truly don’t care one way or the other what he thinks about this or any other issue.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Timactual: They will at least try, and that is a problem.

And depending upon how it is done, it will be dealt with appropriately. That is not a justifiable reason to exclude gays from the military.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Ted: So far, you haven’t answered any of the concerns I raised.

I never claimed to be a one-man team of experts on the matter. I did say though that the concerns you raised have been dealt with by our NATO allies and the IDF. I see no reason why their example cannot be applied here, with appropriate modification where needed.

The situation for the U.S. Army would be more difficult than I described earlier because, as you mentioned, we end up having quota systems; and the fact that we are a much more litigious society than any of our allies.

That is always a concern, but not enough to continue DADT. I can only say that would not support a change in policy that allows for quotas or a difference in standards. That is antithetical to the whole argument anyways.

The outlook is the IDF is far different for two main reasons. 1) They are always close to home, not isolated with their units for long streches.

Yet they still share foxholes and sleeping quarters. As do the militaries of our NATO allies, which includes the UK. I do believe that the British have been at our side in every major conflict of the 20th century and since the lifting of their own ban on gays this has been a detriment.

Yes, the U.S. Army could overcome these obstacles easily by changing its entire philosophy to be more like our allies. The question is, should we change the Army’s system to accomodate one particular group.

We have done so in the past and I believe it is right to do so in this case as well.

You already said no to that question when the group was religious moralists, do you stand by that statement when that group is the homosexuals?

I’m not certain what you mean by "religious moralists". If you mean whether I think those who object to homosexuality should be removed from service? No. Not at all. As long as they perform their duties and treat everyone else as required, they are free to believe what they will on the subject.

If a gay man simply wants to serve and prove themselves as individuals, that opportunity is given to them in the current system.

In theory only. Yet the "Don’t Pursue" part is frequently ignored.

Heck, gays served honorablu under the old system, they just had to lie once to a recruiter.

Yes, I recall. You are asking though under either policy for me and women to base their careers on a lie which seems detrimental to what the honor the military tries to instill in its members.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
John ... I would jump in here, but you seem to be handling this marvelously well.

Carry on.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
You know, twenty or thirty years ago Pace’s comments would not have made much of a splash, most people would have just said "of course." The fact it creates such a stir of debate and reaction shows how society is changing. I suspect 20 years in the future we’ll have to explain to our grandchildren why it was that gays at one point weren’t allowed.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
McQ: John ... I would jump in here, but you seem to be handling this marvelously well. Carry on.

Thanks, Bruce. Even if you said otherwise I’ve grown to respect this blog from what I’ve read by mainly you and Dale. Btw, speaking of Dale, his apology for cutting you off during the last podcast sounded weak. I’d say he owes you a beer at least. Hehehe.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
John;
You already said no to that question when the group was religious moralists, do you stand by that statement when that group is the homosexuals?

I’m not certain what you mean by "religious moralists"
I was trying to identfy the group you were speaking of when you incorrectly assumed my argument was religious when you said:
You and your religious beliefs do not get to run ramshod over the rest of the country
I agree. Neither do yours.
Ted: So far, you haven’t answered any of the concerns I raised.

I never claimed to be a one-man team of experts on the matter. I did say though that the concerns you raised have been dealt with by our NATO allies and the IDF. I see no reason why their example cannot be applied here, with appropriate modification where needed.
I already mentioned that these concerns were dealt with by our allies because the have a fundamentally different command philosophy than the U.S. Army. If you do not have another way to solve these concerns, then the Army has to change its philosophy to use their solutions.
Yes, the U.S. Army could overcome these obstacles easily by changing its entire philosophy to be more like our allies. The question is, should we change the Army’s system to accomodate one particular group.

We have done so in the past and I believe it is right to do so in this case as well.
Completely False. The U.S. military has never changed its philosophy of command based on one group. If the principle method for addressing the concers that have been raised over gays serving openly is to change to be like our allies, the you are demanding that your beliefs run roughshod over the system the US military has in place.



 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
I wonder what Professor Erb is up to. He has made two completely reasonable comments in the last 24 hours, neither of which furthered the LN. Hmmmm...taking a holiday?
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
nor do I [sic] would I tolerate the stereotypical "gay pride" type of soldier. All I want is for gays to have the opportunity to serve and prove themselves as individuals. Some will do outstanding jobs, others will be average, and some will be miserable failures. That’s just like every other group of Americans.
Again, I agree. All I was saying is that this issue may be a sticking point for some policy makers and/or generals.

 
Written By: Jinnmabe
URL: http://
Ted: Before I respond, define what you mean here by "philosophy of command" and/or how you believe the US military perceives it.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
"That is not a justifiable reason to exclude gays from the military. "

It seems to be a justifiable reason to exclude women from situations where similar problems may arise.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
John;
Okay, back to the top;
One of these reasons for the success of the American military is the decentralized decision making. This places relatively young and inexperienced men and women in situations where they have to make ethical decisions. If the Army did not have any value structure, we could not expect reasonably consistent or ethically correct decisions. These decisions would have to be passed on to higher levels of authority, slowing response time (like the Soviet Army system).
In the UK Army, the average 100 soldier company is commanded by a Major. They promote to major at between eleven and 16 years of service. A similar unit in the U.S. is commanded by a Captain, who can reach that rank in 4 years. The UK is an example of an Army that has the same decision being made by a person with more rank and experience.
In the US Army, higher level leaders determine missions while execution decisions are pushed down the chain as far as possible. The Brits are closer to us in that regard than anyone, and there is still a huge difference.

 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Relevance of Command Philosophy:
The US Army has much younger and lower ranking personnel making decisions than in other militaries or the corporate world. This difference is why, when a lower ranking officer or NCO fails an ethical test (My Lai, Abu Graib), it is diffucult for outsiders to understand that senior people didn’t have prior knowledge of the event. For this system to work, you have to be fairly certain that those leaders will apply the Army’s desired set of ethical standards when faced with an unknown situation. The UK achieves this by having personnel in the same unit for a long time, so new personnel are surrounded by the same consistent group for a while before they reach a decision making level. Soldiers can be trained and evaluated by the same leadership for long enough to know how they will react.

The US Army doesn’t allow for this much time before gaining responsibility. To compensate for this lack of training time, they assume that new recruits already abide by a basic moral code.

Thus part of the reason we do background screening for crimes and ties to subversive organizations. The "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy was allowed to go through because if someone is willing to give up sex to be in the military, that’s a good indicator they’d be willing to adopt the Army’s moral code.
Part of the fallacy of saying homosexuals should be allowed in just like everyone else is the assumption that the only difference between homosexuals and the average population is who they choose to sleep with, with all other behaviors being equal. This is simply not the case.
Just in the case of sexuality; if it were true that homosexuals and heterosexuals engaged in equally risky amounts of sexual behavior, then the spread of AIDS would have followed a similar curve for both groups, at least until we finally figured out what AIDS was. (Unless you think both groups behaved the same and that God was favoring one side, but I don’t think any of us believe that.)
It’s not just sexual behavior:
From the Rainbow Network
What is the extent of the problem?
According to the Midwest AIDS Prevention Project in the US, alcohol and drug abuse affects an estimated 20-30% of gay and lesbian people - a rate that is two to three times higher than the general population.

[Sources: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Michigan Department of Community Health, Journal of Addictive Diseases, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, San Francisco Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Substance Abuse Planning Group]
None of this says that a homosexual can not be fully capable in decision making, or that some don’t already share most of the moral background the Army expects. All we now about a gay recruit is that they do reject at least part of the underlying moral code, and the Army wants soldiers to make a decision based on that code.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
None of this says that a homosexual can not be fully capable in decision making, or that some don’t already share most of the moral background the Army expects. All we now about a gay recruit is that they do reject at least part of the underlying moral code, and the Army wants soldiers to make a decision based on that code.


Perhaps that moral code should be changed. If the code says you can’t join because of your sexual orientation, then it need a reexamination. To make a person who want’s to serve, lie so they can serve, seems like a bad idea.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Ted: Ok, I wanted to be certain I didn’t misunderstand you. Apparently I have not. So...

This difference is why, when a lower ranking officer or NCO fails an ethical test (My Lai, Abu Graib), it is diffucult for outsiders to understand that senior people didn’t have prior knowledge of the event.

Too true. However, senior officers and NCOs usually create the environment that allow such to occur by not living up to that ethical code themselves and/or not doing their jobs as superiors.

The US Army doesn’t allow for this much time before gaining responsibility. To compensate for this lack of training time, they assume that new recruits already abide by a basic moral code.

Indeed. A code which was altered at least twice in the 20th century: first to allow blacks to serve fully and second to allow women in the ranks. This was contrary to the desires and wishes of arguably a majority of the rank-and-file. Racism and sexism cannot be solely blamed for their opposition, many had strong religious and moral objections to the change. Nevertheless it was made and our military hasn’t suffered because of it nor was the command structure significantly altered as a result.

None of this says that a homosexual can not be fully capable in decision making, or that some don’t already share most of the moral background the Army expects.

Then the argument about AIDS rates is immaterial.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Fish;
The policy was changed so they don’t have to lie. The ethical code that all soldiers are expected to live up to has not. I’m not referring to Army policy. I’m referring to the norms for acceptable behavior. If the only behavioral difference between homosexuals and hetrosexuals was the gender of the partner, then this part of the discussion is moot.

John;
Indeed. A code which was altered at least twice in the 20th century: first to allow blacks to serve fully and second to allow women in the ranks.
There was never evidence that blacks or women inherently reject any part of the established code of behavior due to their skin or gender. There is no moral argument that objections to black soldiers was anything but racism, some church parishes just happen to be racist.
Yes, many had objections. We have both always agreed that the Army should not make policy decisions based on the wishes or morals of its members.

The key point is that those servicemembers have to make ethical decisions based on the moral code of the Army.

Just like homosexuals, many people with religious convictions have to take actions (not merely accept the actions of others) that are different than their beliefs in order to serve in the military. Skipping church to shoot somebody isn’t found anywhere in the New Testament. There is a wide range of groups represented in the Army, but not an unlimited range.
There are a number of groups that are outright barred from the military because their beliefs are incompatible with Army ethics (such as satan worshipers and white supremecists). Servicemembers found to be participating in these groups are rightly subject to UCMJ and expulsion.

The argument about AIDS rates is just one piece of evidenvce that choice of partner is not the only behavioral difference between homosexuals and the bulk of the heterosexual community.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
John - I would say, look how long it took for blacks to be integrated into the service, from the civil war up through the 50’s and 60’s. Currently, gays are as integrated in the military as they are in society. Which is to say, that there is still discrimination and hostility from some quarters, while others are more tolerant.

Now, I don’t believe it will take that long, but one day I think all people will be able to serve equally in our armed forces. People of equal qualifications should be able to serve following equal standards.

If I, as a 43 yo diabetic, can make the grade on the entrance testing for service, I should be allowed to serve in whatever capacity I can.

I think, a big thing is that "gays" need to break the developed stereotypes of the group. I’ve met enough different types to know that, just like most other groups, while there are some that fit the stereotype, most do not.

As meagen said, "just what we need... more hyphenated Americanism"

We’re all in this together, and it’s well past time we all started acting like it.

If we want a military that reflects American values, then eventually gays will be openly integrated into it. And they ought to be held to the same standard any other soldier would.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
Just to clarify the religious piece, there is no Christian or Jewish religious basis for distrimination by color (though as I said there were and are individuals and parishes within those groups that are racist). There are branches of Islam that have racism as an inherent part of their beliefs and all their scriptures back that belief (and members of those branches should be excluded from service, just as anyone belonging to a racist group that claims to be Christian should be excluded), but of course Islam hasn’t been a big influence on Army values.

 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
"Now, I don’t believe it will take that long, but one day I think all people will be able to serve equally in our armed forces. People of equal qualifications should be able to serve following equal standards.

If I, as a 43 yo diabetic, can make the grade on the entrance testing for service, I should be allowed to serve in whatever capacity I can."

And that’s the point. As a 43 y/o diabetic, you are not qualified and can not meet the entrance requirements. Not being over a certain age and not having certain medical conditions are part of the requirements. Many of the things that qualify or disqualify a people from military service, are beyond their control. Certain people have fallen arches, or one eye, or the desire to have sex with other members of their unit, or any other of a multitude of characteristics which disqualify them for service. Many things which are not valid criteria for selecting civilian employees are relevant and valid regarding the military. It’s not fair. It doesn’t have to be.

Granted, there are certain jobs with in the military which can be done by people with these attributes, but the standard line of reasoning by people who place their political goals ahead of sound military policy tends to be: a person with X attribute can do job A without X being a factor, therefore a person with attribute X can also do job Z as well as a person without attribute X—completely ignoring the relevant difference between job A and job Z.

"If we want a military that reflects American values, then eventually gays will be openly integrated into it."

We want no such thing. We want an effective military. Following your logic we should also incorporate morbidly obese people.

The idea that gays should serve openly is beyond ridiculous. The claim that discipline can control the problems caused by fraternization, relationships among troops, and other problems caused by gender integration is just silly. Such a level of discipline does not exist in the current military, and is probably not even possible. You can’t put two 19 year olds who are mutually attracted together and tell them not to have sex, or pair off into a couple. All you’re doing is creating in which an order will be violated, thereby guaranteeing that time and energy will have to be spent disciplining a young person for following his or her most natural instinct. You will then need to shuffle the T.O. around in order to account for the resulting demotion, or messy breakup and resulting hissy fit, or pregnancy, or fist fight, or cross country-diaper-wearing-astronaut-trip to kill an object of jealousy.

If such a level of discipline did exist, it would have prevented the hundreds of rapes and thousands of pregnancies which occur in the military every year, as well as the multitude of other, just plain retarded, things that young Soldiers and Marines do in the barracks, often after having consumed an impressive quantity of alcohol. I’d be glad to make you a list. I’m in the military. I’ve been in both an all male unit and an integrated unit. It’s not the same. Nothing that even remotely resemble military discipline exists in integrated units. The idea that irresponsible sex doesn’t happen is incorrect. Claims that such sex doesn’t effect the unit, or force as a whole, are just plain ignorant.

I’m not claiming that there is no place for women—or homosexuals for that matter—in the military but claiming that the effectiveness of a combat arms unit will not be effected by silly high school style romantic turmoil is asinine. I’ve been there. I’ve seen it and been part of it. Gays and women are treated differently than men by the military because they are different in ways relevant to military service.
 
Written By: Vermin
URL: http://
Ah, but my point is, there are currently people over 43 serving in the military, and there are currently people who are diabetic serving in the military.

They only things that disqualify me are that I am 43 and diabetic, not that I can’t meet the physical standards. So, if I could meet the physical standards, why should I be discriminated against?
Following your logic we should also incorporate morbidly obese people.
If they had the same ability in a certain amount of time, to run a certain distance, do a certain number of push ups, pull ups and sit ups, why not?

Now, that’s not to say that if I or a morbidly obese person could pass the physical tests, that we would necessarily qualify for every position in the military. I’m not asking for that. Aren’t there non-combat roles that I or an obese person could serve in, taking the place of a fit 19 yo who’s saddled there because there’s a slot to fill?
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
"If they had the same ability in a certain amount of time, to run a certain distance, do a certain number of push ups, pull ups and sit ups, why not?"

Because they’re heavier, and having to carry them pisses me off. Seriously though, there’s more to it than that. When selecting someone for military service, you have to consider not just their present condition, but their ability to maintain it. Heavier people, or people with lighter bones relative to their weight and musculature get hurt more often and take much longer to heal. You also have to realize that any test you put a new recruit through is not going to be comprehensive. Just because someone is in good shape does not mean he/she has all the desirable physical attributes. A fat guy who can outrun me is still much more prone to heat stroke than I am, and that’s actually a more relevant concern in Iraq. Factor in that we’ve continuously lowered physical standard due to political pressure, and to avoid hurting recruits and you get our current multi-trillion dollar goatrope.

My position is actually that we need to take the majority of the jobs in the military—all of the ones that are not really military—and distinctly separate them from the actual combat arms jobs. The "military" part of the military could then be held to military standard, and live a military lifestyle and people who are not cut out for that kind of lifestyle would still have an opportunity to serve.
 
Written By: Vermin
URL: http://
It’s also necessary to point out that in order for the in shape fat guy analogy to be relevant to the issue of homosexuality, it would have to refer to a homosexual who, although he is homosexual, can definitively demonstrate that he is less likely to engage in sex with members of his unit than are the straight members. Obviously, no such test exists and we have already eliminated the "test" for homosexuality that we did have.
 
Written By: Vermin
URL: http://
I apologize for the triple post, I need to make a clarification. When I said that we would also have to incorporate morbidly obese people, I was not referring to in shape fat people. I was referring to regular old tubby-tubbies, the kind we kick out for being fat. I was saying that if our military is obligated to reflect the American value that gays should not be treated differently despite the fact that they are different, obese people would have to be accepted on the same grounds. The fact is, both the gay guy and the fat guy have attributes which are relevant to their suitability for military service. The fact that the average American does not understand that, or doesn’t like it is irrelevant. Although the American public will ultimately make the decision, the fact that they make a decision does not qualify it as a sound policy.
 
Written By: Vermin
URL: http://
if our military is obligated to reflect the American value that gays should not be treated differently despite the fact that they are different
But that isn’t the argument. I’m saying everyone should be held to the same standard, not quite the same thing as not being treated differently. The American value in question is that we should all be treated equally. Sex between 2 soldiers (not married) is against the code, whether they are straight or gay. Fighting between 2 soldiers is against the code, no matter what the reason. That is equal treatment under the law.
My position is actually that we need to take the majority of the jobs in the military—all of the ones that are not really military—and distinctly separate them from the actual combat arms jobs. The "military" part of the military could then be held to military standard, and live a military lifestyle and people who are not cut out for that kind of lifestyle would still have an opportunity to serve.
I whole-heartedly agree with this, though for reasons of continuity of command, the supporting arms of the military should still be part of the military. In wars past, a rear area camp could well be overrun or attacked, and all hands needed to repel the attack. Of course, when we outsource some services, say the mess hall, to contractors, that muddies up the picture.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
"But that isn’t the argument."

Yes it is. You are saying that a man who is sexually attracted to men should be treated the same way as a man who is not attracted to men. The difference is not meaningful in most aspects of modern life, but in the context of the military it is, and is therefor a valid part of the standard.

"I’m saying everyone should be held to the same standard, not quite the same thing as not being treated differently."

But you’re saying that the standard must be changed to accommodate a difference. Homosexuals have a desire that heterosexuals do not. The desire is part of the standard. The standard: "All people who desire to have sex with other members of the unit are not qualified to be part of the unit" treats everyone the same. Attempting to separate sexual desire from sexual action among young Marines is ridiculous.

"The American value in question is that we should all be treated equally."

Unfortunately that’s becoming the American way. On the other hand, logic and practicality (as well as military effectives) dictate that things which are equal be treated equally, and things that are not equal, be treated differently, in order to accommodate those difference which are relevant to the task at hand, and the problems they create. Equal treatment does not demand that the military treat people with one arm the same way it treats people with two arms, or taht it pretends that Jack Russels and German Shepards bite with equal force, or that it treats people who want to have sex with other members of their unit (and inevitably will) the same way it treats people who are not attracted to their platoon mates.

"Sex between 2 soldiers (not married) is against the code, whether they are straight or gay."

Actually it’s not, at least in any practical way. Such proscriptions are impossible to enforce, not to mention the fact that the one who should be doing the enforcing is often the one involved in the activity. (See Lyndsey Englund and Jessica Lynch). It happens on a daily basis. Everywhere.

"I whole-heartedly agree with this, though for reasons of continuity of command, the supporting arms of the military should still be part of the military. In wars past, a rear area camp could well be overrun or attacked, and all hands needed to repel the attack. Of course, when we outsource some services, say the mess hall, to contractors, that muddies up the picture."

The way this works in the perfect world in my cartoon bubble, the overwhelming majority of troops actually deployed to combat zones would be the military types. The support types would do a lot of the stuff we insist on wasting military types on state side. They would also do some of the stuff contractors do, though in my perfect world, there would be a lot less of that stuff to do, since our military wouldn’t be the most inefficient, bloated, top-heavy cluster f*ck ever conceived, and there would be more actual military types to do things like drive fuel around.






 
Written By: Vermin
URL: http://
The policy was changed so they don’t have to lie.


Again, in theory only. The "Don’t Pursue" part is frequently ignored. DADT also places gays in the difficult position of having to deceive others on a daily basis when innocent questions are asked: "So, what did you do this weekend?"
The ethical code that all soldiers are expected to live up to has not. I’m not referring to Army policy. I’m referring to the norms for acceptable behavior. If the only behavioral difference between homosexuals and hetrosexuals was the gender of the partner, then this part of the discussion is moot.
Sorry, not so fast. The fun thing about statistics is we can use them to talk ourselves into or out of just about anything. I can easily show behavioral differences between genders, races, economic and social origins, etc. Black males have a far higher statistical rate of criminal behavior than white males do, while males in general far outnumber females in this. White males have a statistical rate for serial killing that far surpasses other groups it’s not even a contest. Certain groups have higher rates of health problems stemming from behavioral choices whether we are speaking of STDs, cancer due to smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse, obesity, etc. All of these and many more I can name that are not in compliance with the moral code you speak of when we look at people only as part of whatever group we want to place them in for our analysis instead of examining them as individuals. On a more positive note, I can also show that members of the military have greater rates of higher education, lower incidents of criminal behavior, etc., when compared to the general population.

Being HIV+, along with other such illnesses, is already a disqualifying factor for enlistment and unless it has changed since I left the service, grounds for medical discharge. That is exactly as it should be.

The key point is that those servicemembers have to make ethical decisions based on the moral code of the Army.

Indeed. Nothing you have shown indicates that gays are incapable of making such ethical decisions.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
If I, as a 43 yo diabetic, can make the grade on the entrance testing for service, I should be allowed to serve in whatever capacity I can.
I hate to say this, Keith, but your age and medical condition are legitimate reasons to disqualify you for military service regardless of whether you can pass the PT test or not.
I think, a big thing is that "gays" need to break the developed stereotypes of the group. I’ve met enough different types to know that, just like most other groups, while there are some that fit the stereotype, most do not.
Rather difficult when the opportunity is denied to us. Those of us who are not part of the stereotype, I suspect far more than most are aware of, do the best we can with what we have.
If we want a military that reflects American values, then eventually gays will be openly integrated into it. And they ought to be held to the same standard any other soldier would.
Agreed.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Just to clarify the religious piece, there is no Christian or Jewish religious basis for distrimination by color (though as I said there were and are individuals and parishes within those groups that are racist).
As a Christian I obviously agree with you, yet it makes little difference what either religion teach. Such a view is a modern one which those before would dispute, having ample Scriptural references to show why race does matter. The needs of the military outweighed such beliefs, even before a majority of society at large and its own members had jettisoned them.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Certain people have fallen arches, or one eye, or the desire to have sex with other members of their unit, or any other of a multitude of characteristics which disqualify them for service. Many things which are not valid criteria for selecting civilian employees are relevant and valid regarding the military. It’s not fair. It doesn’t have to be.
That’s the whole point: sexual attraction and medical conditions are not the same. One may disqualify someone because they are physically incapable of performing to the standards the military requires, while the other does not. I can easily cite pre-Truman thinking that race is a legitimate disqualifying factor even though "it’s not fair" and is "beyond their control". That is nothing more than an empty assertion based upon nothing more than prejudice.
Following your logic we should also incorporate morbidly obese people.
Nope, because this too is a legitimate disqualifying reason related to or akin to any number of medical conditions that prevent the enlistee from performing their duties to the required standard. Being gay does not.
The claim that discipline can control the problems caused by fraternization, relationships among troops, and other problems caused by gender integration is just silly. Such a level of discipline does not exist in the current military, and is probably not even possible. You can’t put two 19 year olds who are mutually attracted together and tell them not to have sex, or pair off into a couple. All you’re doing is creating in which an order will be violated, thereby guaranteeing that time and energy will have to be spent disciplining a young person for following his or her most natural instinct. You will then need to shuffle the T.O. around in order to account for the resulting demotion, or messy breakup and resulting hissy fit, or pregnancy, or fist fight, or cross country-diaper-wearing-astronaut-trip to kill an object of jealousy.


And yet the IDF and our NATO allies have successfully managed. The same arguments were made on race and gender and while there were challenges they were overcome and the military is better off because of it. Oh and as for the two 19 year olds attracted to one another, whether they are male/female, male/male, or female/female they are free to have sex with one another all they please as long as they are not doing so in an inappropriate environment or one is not the superior of the other.
I’m not claiming that there is no place for women—or homosexuals for that matter—in the military but claiming that the effectiveness of a combat arms unit will not be effected by silly high school style romantic turmoil is asinine. I’ve been there. I’ve seen it and been part of it. Gays and women are treated differently than men by the military because they are different in ways relevant to military service.
Unless you are saying that gays may serve in the military, but only in non-combat roles like women in general, there is a noticeable flaw in your statement here...
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Unless you are saying that gays may serve in the military, but only in non-combat roles like women in general, there is a noticeable flaw in your statement here...
Actually that is exactly what I was claiming (Not that that’s how it is, that that is how it should be).
Nope, because this too is a legitimate disqualifying reason related to or akin to any number of medical conditions that prevent the enlistee from performing their duties to the required standard. Being gay does not."
Yes it does and yes it should. Being gay prevents a person from being in a unit without being attracted to other members. The military has legitimate reasons for not wanting its members to be attracted to each other. The fact that a person is gay is therefore relevant.
Oh and as for the two 19 year olds attracted to one another, whether they are male/female, male/male, or female/female they are free to have sex with one another all they please as long as they are not doing so in an inappropriate environment or one is not the superior of the other.
And by placing them in a unit together you are guaranteeing that they will have sex with each other all they please, in inappropriate environments, and even if they are superior/subordinate.
And yet the IDF and our NATO allies have successfully managed.


They have not. Rape, intermarriage, pregnancy and fraternization are huge problems for them as well. The difference between race and sexual preference is that the differences people attributed to race were made up. Black people are not actually different from white people. Homosexuals are. Gay people really are gay. They are actually attracted to each other. Arguing that the military is better off because of gender integration is just ignorant. The US military has "managed" despite all manner of asinine policies, that’s not an argument in favor of their adoption by other nations.
 
Written By: Vermin
URL: http://
If it were realistic to expect mutually attracted people of any sexual orientation to serve together without engaging in inappropriate sexual affairs I would support full integration of homosexuals. But, such an expectation is unbelievably naive. I’ve seen it happen both among gay people and straight people. Likewise, if such conduct did not actually damage the unit I would support the idea, but it does. I’ve also seen that happen. It’s ridiculous to claim that it doesn’t. That is why I don’t support the idea.
 
Written By: Vermin
URL: http://
I hate to say this, Keith, but your age and medical condition are legitimate reasons to disqualify you for military service regardless of whether you can pass the PT test or not.
Except, the military in recent years has redefined what maximum age they will allow. Out of need they’ve raised the age to 39, and now 41 I believe. So, they’ve proven that they are flexible with regards to age.

As far as diabetes is concerned, the American Diabetes Association is currently working towards getting that qualification, if not dropped, then not an automatic disqualification. I manage my condition through pills and diet. If I were to drop 40 pounds, I could well manage without the pills.

And, as I’ve said, there are currently serving soldiers who have diabetes. So, it’s obvious that some diabetics can serve.

I’m not saying I would make it through boot-camp, but I do believe I could, and would rather have had the opportunity to prove it.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Actually that is exactly what I was claiming (Not that that’s how it is, that that is how it should be).
Interesting. That’s the first time I’ve heard this suggested. I don’t agree with it, but it is interesting...
Yes it does and yes it should. Being gay prevents a person from being in a unit without being attracted to other members. The military has legitimate reasons for not wanting its members to be attracted to each other. The fact that a person is gay is therefore relevant.
The military is unable to control whom people are attracted to either as deep friends or more. The former is actually encouraged at least. Gays are just as capable at self-control and self-discipline even around people they may find attracted as straight people are. Heck if anything, we’ve had far more practice having to keep it very quiet. Trust me, I know. Gays are right now taking showers and sleeping next to heterosexual soldiers, some of whom they may find very attractive, but are not jumping their bones.
And by placing them in a unit together you are guaranteeing that they will have sex with each other all they please, in inappropriate environments, and even if they are superior/subordinate.
Not necessarily. They might have a sexual relationship but then again might not. There are reasons why some males and females attracted to one another refrain from having sex together and such is the same with gays. Just because you find someone very attractive does not mean you are going to sleep with them. As for those who do end up sleeping together, if they do so in inappropriate environments or if they superior/subordinate than I expect them to be treated exactly the same as a heterosexual couple caught in delicto flagrante and punished accordingly.
They have not. Rape, intermarriage, pregnancy and fraternization are huge problems for them as well.
Such is life. You will always have people who will break the rules. Yet somehow the IDF and our NATO allies have managed to cope without significant difficulties. As far as rape goes, that happens in certain situations even among heterosexual males by themselves and I don’t see this as much of a problem right now even though gays ARE serving in the military. Do you really think their being allowed to serve openly, if they decide to do so, gays raping straight men will just explode as a problem? That’s nonsensical. If DADT is abolished, as it should be, I predict only a small minority of gays in the military will actually come out. A majority will remain quiet about whom they love with most people and may only tell a select few when they find it necessary. The biggest change though will be that the ’hunt’ will be over.
The difference between race and sexual preference is that the differences people attributed to race were made up. Black people are not actually different from white people.
Since we are of the same species, indeed. In our abilities if we have the same opportunities (and blessings of nature), yes. Genetically, not 100%. Both races are more suceptible to certain diseases than the other for starters.
Homosexuals are. Gay people really are gay. They are actually attracted to each other.
Yes, they are. Hence why they are gay and not straight. I’m glad to see that you at least recognize this. Some people claim that being gay is actually a choice one makes, like preferring blondes over brunettes. Nevertheless, the copnclusion from this difference doesn’t hold water just as those once made against black didn’t.
Arguing that the military is better off because of gender integration is just ignorant. The US military has "managed" despite all manner of asinine policies, that’s not an argument in favor of their adoption by other nations.
Actually, no its not. You forget that I too served and saw such assinine policies resenting the hell out them. The fact that mistakes have most definitely been made in integrating females (as I know they were with blacks; remember the race riots?), does not change the fact that the military (and I’d argue society as a whole) IS better off with them being allowed to serve than if they were not. What these examples DO show us is how not to make the same mistakes again and hopefully to continue improving matters from the ones that have already been made.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Except, the military in recent years has redefined what maximum age they will allow. Out of need they’ve raised the age to 39, and now 41 I believe. So, they’ve proven that they are flexible with regards to age.
Yes, when the needs of the military require such. When they do not, it is perfectly understandable why the military prefers to take younger enlistees to fill their ranks.
As far as diabetes is concerned, the American Diabetes Association is currently working towards getting that qualification, if not dropped, then not an automatic disqualification. I manage my condition through pills and diet. If I were to drop 40 pounds, I could well manage without the pills.
I am not a doctor, so I will leave to those with far more knowledge than I to decide this. Yet for those who do require medicine, especially the daily injections (which I’m more familiar with), it does raise problems during wartime which is undoubtedly the biggest reason it is a disqualifying factor. Find a solution the military can live with that doesn’t jeopardize the mission and perhaps it will be removed.
And, as I’ve said, there are currently serving soldiers who have diabetes. So, it’s obvious that some diabetics can serve.
Yes, ones that the military has already made an investment in and that have proven themselves during their service. They also serve in a more limited capacity. A potential enlistee doesn’t have this advantage.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
The key point is that those servicemembers have to make ethical decisions based on the moral code of the Army.

Indeed. Nothing you have shown indicates that gays are incapable of making such ethical decisions


Nothing you have shown says they regularly do.


A) Homsexuality is a behavior, not a physical charachteristic.
B) When the crime statistics are matched with data on income and family status and neighborhood the racial and gender gaps close. The immoral choices for homosexuals apply across all race and economic factors.
C) Statistics that show a difference in homsexual decision making come from pro-homosexual sources.

From the Rainbow Network (UK)
Young Gays More Likely To Take Drugs
10 November 2003

(New York City) Two new studies suggest that the use of so-called party drugs is more prevalent among young gay men than their straight counterparts.
The research backs up suspicions that LGBT healthcare workers have had for a number of years. Previous research studies have shown a link between the use of party drugs and unsafe sex (story).
From the Netherlands (where homsexuality is fully accepted by society)
Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)
Results Psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared with heterosexually active people. Homosexual men had a higher 12-month prevalence of mood disorders (odds ratio [OR] = 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.54-5.57) and anxiety disorders (OR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.44-4.74) than heterosexual men.
Alcohol and drug abuse, unsafe sexual practices, mental disorders. These are not indicators of good decision making and are more prevelant among gay men according to groups that advocate for homosexuals. I said this is not proof that any individual homosexual incapable of making good decision.
It is also true that any one individual satan-worshiper or white supremecist might make the right decision. But people from those groups are excluded from the military as well.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Gays are just as capable at self-control and self-discipline even around people they may find attracted as straight people are.
And that’s my point. We (straight people) have failed miserably at this, and it has been detrimental to our readiness.
Do you really think their being allowed to serve openly, if they decide to do so, gays raping straight men will just explode as a problem?
No, I’m not the least bit concerned about that. Fraternization is going to be the biggest problem just as it is a huge problem now. The problem with allowing gays to serve openly is that it introduces the BS that support units have been dealing with to units which are now exclusively male.
The biggest change though will be that the ’hunt’ will be over.
There is no "hunt", the majority of homosexuals who are discharged are discharged after something happens which makes their sexuality an issue. Many are discharged voluntarily after realizing that the lifestyle and their sexuality are incompatible.
Not necessarily. They might have a sexual relationship but then again might not. There are reasons why some males and females attracted to one another refrain from having sex together and such is the same with gays. Just because you find someone very attractive does not mean you are going to sleep with them.
You’re right, but it does make it extremely likely that I will treat them differently even if I don’t sleep with them. It also doesn’t matter that relationships won’t always occur. The objective is to minimize the possibility to the greatest extent possible. What you fail to realize is that we aren’t speaking in hypotheticals here. This already happens. Both among heterosexuals and homosexuals. When it happens in shore commands its tolerable, but on board ships or in line units it is utterly catastrophic to moral and discipline. I don’t treat people I want to sleep with the same way I do other men. If I did, they wouldn’t sleep with me. I LIKE it when they sleep with me.
You forget that I too served and saw such assinine policies resenting the hell out them.
Do you really think you’re in a position to evaluate this one objectively?
 
Written By: Vermin
URL: http://
It is also true that any one individual satan-worshiper or white supremecist might make the right decision. But people from those groups are excluded from the military as well.
Actually, hate group members are now allowed in the military. The DOD decided it was a violation of the first amendment to exclude them.
 
Written By: Vermin
URL: http://
There is some evidence of a rise in hate groups activity in the military, but I haven’t seen anything saying that’s its allowed. There is still mandatory training to re-emphasize that hate groups are incompatible with being in the military. Military members have many restrictions placed on thier first amendment rights, it’s doubtful this would be the first area where they lift it.

If you have anything from the DOD that says otherwise I’d like to see it.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Nothing you have shown says they regularly do.


I don’t have to anymore than I have to disprove the old canards about blacks. Contrary to what you state later on, homosexuality is not a "behavior" but an orientation. A person who is homosexual may engage in sexual relations or may not which is when behavior is involved. Regardless of how they behave this says nothing about who and what they are, which is a homosexual. As Nichevo did with McQ’s post, you have missed the entire point. While black males have a statiscally higher rate of criminal behavior than do white males, BEING a black male isn’t the cause. Poor behavior and a lack of judgment are. Ditto for every other example I gave and those I did not for sake of brevity. Do some gays may bad choices and exhibit poor behavior? Absolutely. They would probably not make good enlistees, but not because of who or what they are but because of their lack of judgment and poor behavior. The same applies to anyone regardless of what group or subgroup we wish to examine. We take people in this country for who THEY are as individuals and don’t judge them based upon what we think of their group or subgroup. Well, at least that’s what America is supposed to be about and what conservatives and libertarians at least claim to cherish.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
And that’s my point. We (straight people) have failed miserably at this, and it has been detrimental to our readiness.
And guess what? No matter what you do, some will continue to do so and yet this is not a valid reason to keep straight people out of the military either. :)
No, I’m not the least bit concerned about that. Fraternization is going to be the biggest problem just as it is a huge problem now. The problem with allowing gays to serve openly is that it introduces the BS that support units have been dealing with to units which are now exclusively male.
Since there are gays already serving in the military, some even quietly open to a few in their units (which boggles my mind), those who are inclined to break the rules on fraternization are doing so regardless. So are straights. Those who are caught should be punished. The BS which concerns you apparently doesn’t bother the Pentagon so much at the moment as it is quietly allowing gays to serve in Afghanistan and Iraq and has sharply decreased the number of discharges under DADT. So much for the "unit cohesion" argument...
You’re right, but it does make it extremely likely that I will treat them differently even if I don’t sleep with them. It also doesn’t matter that relationships won’t always occur. The objective is to minimize the possibility to the greatest extent possible.


Agreed. Yet the solution you crave isn’t working when it comes to gays nor would Congress tolerate turning back the clock when it comes to females.
What you fail to realize is that we aren’t speaking in hypotheticals here. This already happens. Both among heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Oh I’m well aware of that. What you are ignoring though is that gays are already serving and whether they are out to their peers or not this does not remove sexual attraction from the equation. Self-control and self-discipline keeps it in check. Besides, unless the feeling is returned in the overwhelming majority of the cases it is an unrequited attraction.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Oops, forgot one...
Do you really think you’re in a position to evaluate this one objectively?
Nope. Can you honestly say that you are? I don’t believe so. What you and I, along with many others, can say though is that we have experience that may differ from our respective service in the military but is necessary when discussing the matter.

Here’s another: Bigotry That Hurts Our Military
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
John;
You have missed the entire point. The US Army allows relatively inexperienced soldiers to make decisions because it trusts those soldiers are grounded in the ethical code it has chosen.
We take people in this country for who THEY are as individuals and don’t judge them based upon what we think of their group or subgroup. Well, at least that’s what America is supposed to be about and what conservatives and libertarians at least claim to cherish.
True, but completely irrelevant. We are not talking about America. I certainly hope that no one has tried to say homosexuals should be banned from America. We’re talking about the military and the structure it uses. The Army judges people by the groups they belong to all the time. Satan-worshipping and white supremecy is an orientation as well. They may or may not burn crosses, but they are judged as a group. When a group feels that the ethical standards of the Army inherently do not apply to them, they are excluded from service.
The Army could allow people with moral standards that conflict with its values to enter the service, but then they would need much more training and immersion in Army culture before being allowed to make decisions. In the end, either way everyone does have to accept the Army’s position as to what is right and wrong to be a good leader in the Army (and that posistion just happens to be grounded in Judeo-Christian values). If they Army abandoned its moral principles, there would be a number of consequences because it would lose effectivess in all situations where local civilians are involved.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
"Gays are just as capable at self-control and self-discipline even around people they may find attracted as straight people are."

That is why it is a problem. There are restrictions on the service of females for that reason.

"The biggest change though will be that the ’hunt’ will be over."

There is no "hunt" that I have ever heard of. As you yourself stated, gays are even no showereing with straights, undetected. The only reason action is taken is if the behaviour is overt and noticeable. As I mentioned, I have known several gay soldiers, and if there had been a "hunt", they would have been easily found. during my time in the military I never saw or heard of any evidence of a "hunt", nor have I read or heard of any before or after.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
John;
Much of your argument is based on the assumption that allowing homosexuals is equivalent to adding blacks, and similar to adding women.
With DNA testing you can determine if someone is black, female, blue-eyed, any number of physical charachteristics. You cannot tell if if a person is homsexual, racist, conservative, libertarian, a pedophile or a member any of a number of groups that have different orientations. The only way we have to differentiate these groups is by their behavior (sometimes subgroups will organize that we can evaluate by their statements).
There are large number of ways people can be grouped (race, gender, orientation, first initial, education level). Judging groups by orientation is distinctly different from judging by race or education level.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Judging groups by orientation is distinctly different from judging by race or education level
.

Why? It is still based on your preceptions.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
"The only way we have to differentiate these groups is by their behavior"

And it is behavior, not any of the other things, that is the issue.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
James;
The difference lies in what conclusions can be reached with each type of judgement. If it clarifies it any, I could restate it as ’judgements based on orientation are different than judgements based on race and both are different than judgements based on education level’
Some valid conclusions can be drawn from each kind of judgement, but they each produce a different set of valid results. There is very little that can be told from race. If the evidence comes from DNA we might get a good idea of where a person’s ancestors are from, but it doesn’t tell us much else.
The military uses judgements on education level both for initial entry and throughout a career as part of determining whether a person is qualified for the certain duties or positions. Orientation judgements are also used by the military both in determining fitness for duty and as only one factor in determining what level of claerance a person gets to classified information.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
"And guess what? No matter what you do, some will continue to do so and yet this is not a valid reason to keep straight people out of the military either. :)"
But it is a valid reason to discontinue policies based on the ridiculous idea that young men and young women are the same, and that units will not be adversely affected by gender integration.
Agreed. Yet the solution you crave isn’t working when it comes to gays nor would Congress tolerate turning back the clock when it comes to females.
Like I said earlier, the fact that congress makes a policy does not make that policy correct. That’s the problem with our military today; it’s is based on fantasies and emotional rhetoric rather than sound policy. The outrageous thing about it is that same politicians who did everything in their power to f*ck the military up have the gall to act surprised when we loose wars to third world insurgencies.
 
Written By: Vermin
URL: http://
Sorry I couldn’t respond until now, the concerns of the real world intruded so to speak. After reading the last replies it would appear that we are at an impasse where further discussion seems rather pointless. There does come a time when such occurs that it’s best to say that I respectfully disagree, believe you are wrong, find the reasoning for your position flawed, and move on. However, I’ll wrap up my comments in this thread and then allow you all the last word.
You have missed the entire point. The US Army allows relatively inexperienced soldiers to make decisions because it trusts those soldiers are grounded in the ethical code it has chosen.
No, I understood that and in fact lived it at one time. I disagreed with the point you were trying to make since I do not believe homosexuality violates that code nor is it unprecedented for the military brass to step in and lay down the law. I believe that I gave two example which you dismissed. So be it.
The Army could allow people with moral standards that conflict with its values to enter the service, but then they would need much more training and immersion in Army culture before being allowed to make decisions.
The only way you could be consistent in your reasoning is to oppose even DADT and advocate a return to the old policy where gays were sought out and dishonorably booted out of this service. Gays are already serving, have been for years, and will continue to do so long after DADT is gone. You keep confusing sexual orientation with personal behavior which is no different than what was once said about blacks or women. Being gay doesn’t preclude one from living an honorable life or being an ethical person. It also isn’t a valid reason to exclude someone from the military. You obviously believe otherwise. So be it.
There is no "hunt" that I have ever heard of.

Then you haven’t been as attuned to the problem as you may think you have been. Do some digging online.
With DNA testing you can determine if someone is black, female, blue-eyed, any number of physical charachteristics. You cannot tell if if a person is homsexual, racist, conservative, libertarian, a pedophile or a member any of a number of groups that have different orientations.
Actually, that’s not accurate. It hasn’t been fully developed yet, but scientists are working on narrowing it down.
The only way we have to differentiate these groups is by their behavior (sometimes subgroups will organize that we can evaluate by their statements).
There are people who are gay and have never had sexual relations with anyone ever. Are they gay or not? How can you tell since they have exhibited no behavior towards such? Being gay or straight is more than who you sleep with whether you even do or not.
And it is behavior, not any of the other things, that is the issue.
No, it’s more than that. If one even admits they are gay it matters not if they are a virgin or not, they are still subject to being booted out under DADT. Essentially the policy encourages gays to lie, never speak with anyone about their problems, etc. If they do, they’re in danger of being kicked out.
Like I said earlier, the fact that congress makes a policy does not make that policy correct.
Absolutely.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
John;
No, it’s more than that. If one even admits they are gay it matters not if they are a virgin or not, they are still subject to being booted out under DADT. Essentially the policy encourages gays to lie, never speak with anyone about their problems, etc. If they do, they’re in danger of being kicked out
Actually, on this point I agree with you completely. We may have each assumed a bit much about each other’s initial points. A gay that is a virgin, or even one that isn’t but acknowledges that such behavior wouldn’t be tolerated while in the service, should be allowed to serve.

I was really making the same point that McQ did in his post about Muslims not assimilating in Britain. The Army depends on its members having an inherent respect for its culture. Currently it assumes this of its new members. If society changes to the point where that cannot be assumed, then it must spend longer indoctrinating people to its position.

Someone that professess to belong to a ’white culture’ that tolerates the notion that blacks are inferior and/or promotes alchohol abuse is currently banned. If someone identifies themselves as a member of a ’gay culture’ that rejects Army conventions because it accepts behaviors the Army doesn’t tolerate (i.e. drug use or multiple partners) should be banned as well.


 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider