December 18, 2010

Unfounded Fears

I got into a couple of arguments about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" earlier today on Twitter. Quite frankly, they weren't really much in the way of arguments, just what I thought were logical reactions to rather hysteric fears of several people that seemed to be of the opinion that if they gay folks currently serving in the military were now free to admit who they are, they it would lead to them compulsively attempting to shag every soldier they see every waking moment.

I wish I was kidding, but some people seem to think that way:

The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours.

They knew they could count on the strength, might, power, and cohesion of the U.S. military to intervene whenever and wherever necessary to pull their fannies out of the fire and squash the forces of tyranny wherever they raised their ugly heads around the world.

Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.

It’s past time for a litmus test for Republican candidates. This debacle shows what happens when party leaders are careless about the allegiance of candidates to the fundamental conservative principles expressed in the party’s own platform.

Character-driven officers and chaplains will eventually be forced out of the military en masse, potential recruits will stay away in droves, and re-enlistments will eventually drop like a rock.

The draft will return with a vengeance and out of necessity. What young man wants to voluntarily join an outfit that will force him to shower naked with males who have a sexual interest in him and just might molest him while he sleeps in his bunk?

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association wrote that, either fearing that the most combat-hardened military in world history is ripe for the picking, or perhaps, he's just guilty of a little fantasizing of his own.

His is an absurd position, one that portrays gay soldiers as uncontrollable rutting beasts, and our straight servicemen as docile sheep waiting to raped. Such a point of view is hysterical and illogical and shows that those holding such views think very little of the professionalism of all soldiers regardless of their sexual preference.

It also taps into a deep-seated phobia that some seem to have that homosexuality is a communicable disease, and that soldiers that serve with gay soldiers could be "turned gay."

I wish I was joking, but the folks who hold these views are dead serious. Some are borderline frantic, apparently unaware that tens of thousands of gays serve in the military right now. This kind of freakish paranoia brings out the worse in some people, and in some, it simply seems to be striking fears that their own sexuality isn't quite as black and white as they profess it to be.

I find a gay soldier willing to sacrifice his life for my family's safety to be on much firmer moral ground than a sputtering viper like Fischer the serves up division and fear.

Perhaps that is the greatest irony; a professed Christian, Fischer certainly seems to be batting for the other team.

MIKE'S UPDATE, 12/20: In the military, everyone knows who is and isn't gay, and there are regulations addressing public displays of affection and any kind of favoritism or misbehavior that might be likely to arise from this change in policy. Any additional regulations required should be relatively easy to identify and enact. Remember that the military has significant means of compelling proper behavior from its members that have no civilian analog. While I agree with Bob that the hoopla over this incident may well be overblown, it would be wise to keep a careful eye on things and not to allow this to become a camel's nose under the tent for additional "progressive" social engineering. Since the Progressives have had their noses whacked, and hard, in the civilian arena, they may well seek to implement on a captive audience--the military, members of which are not allowed to criticize Congress critters--what they can no longer easily do in the civilian world. And should this politically motivated change during wartime begin to clearly cost lives--no doubt there will be unintended consequences that cannot be easily foreseen; there always are--The Tea Party movement can perform another public service by running everyone who voted for this bit of political expediency during a lame duck session out of office once and for all. And while the "elite" colleges are now making noises about welcoming ROTC and recruiters, the depth and breadth of their understanding and implementation of honor remains to be conclusively demonstrated. Of course, the Obama Administration could simply enforce the law requiring fair treatment of the military at colleges that receive federal funds, but I haven't seen any flying pigs of late, nor is there snow in Hell's weather report when last I looked. There is much to watch out for in this situation.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at December 18, 2010 10:29 PM

The next time someone gives you that crap, just remind them that homosexuality was compulsory in ancient Sparta.

Posted by: Timmeehh at December 18, 2010 10:55 PM

The problem with this is that number one, it is totally unnecessary. Number two, it panders to the degenerate class. See number one.

We don't need females in combat arms. Period. Its not that they may or may not be capable. We will never know that, because females are never judged by the same standards.

The problem with this is that if we allow the alpha females - who are allowed under an attenuated standard - then we are compelled to force the normal females to take part.

We ain't there yet. We have a HUGE pool of so far untasked males at our disposal.

There is nothing glamorous about combat. We should visit that upon as few as possible.

Forcing it upon our females is retarded.

There simply is no reason to take one of our few remaining honorable professions and regress it to the most basest of human depravity.

Does it work for our congress? Absolutely. You simply cannot be too much of a degenerate, or murderer, or thief to hold that office.

Spartans? Right. Look at Greece today.

Fine bunch. If the raging queens took them there - why do we want that here?

Posted by: george at December 18, 2010 11:33 PM

George: "There is nothing glamorous about combat. We should visit that upon as few as possible."

George, one sentence later: "There simply is no reason to take one of our few remaining honorable professions and regress it to the most basest of human depravity."

Not that you're glamorizing it or anything.


Hey George? Re: Sparta, maybe you should check into a thing called the post hoc fallacy. Because hey, if seeing a red car drive down the street didn't cause me to fall ten minutes later then why did one happen after the other?

Posted by: fauxpopuli at December 19, 2010 12:51 AM

You guys. Do you remember what the policy was before don't ask don't tell? No homos period. With out don't ask don't tell, the military is to go back to no homos period.
Or is there a new policy I haven't heard of yet?

Homos are week willed.

How do they raise up thier children?...Oh yeah they can't have children.

Conservatives win again by God.

Posted by: ron at December 19, 2010 01:44 AM

Stop the presses, right-wingers are mostly intolerant homophobes what a huge big surpise to everyone.

Posted by: David at December 19, 2010 02:21 AM

Now there is one less reason to avoid the draft
... and one less way to get out of military service, once enlisted

Once we get women into combat, white straight males will finally have equality

Posted by: Neo at December 19, 2010 03:06 AM

The problem isn't with (most of) the current homosexual troops, who chose to serve despite the restrictions.
It's with the homosexuals who chose not to serve because they couldn't serve and still get their sex drive satisfied while in uniform.
I'm also extremely wary of homosexual officers demanding sexual services from their subordinates in exchange of lighter assignments (or using punishment as a stick to force such services), any complaint being classed as a "hate crime" because you're obviously homophobic if you complain about a homosexual.

I'm not in the military, will never be (medical), but if I were to think of signing up I'd no longer do so now.
And that's the problem, you're going to loose a large percentage of recruits for the sake of political correctness.

Posted by: JTW at December 19, 2010 07:53 AM

Pandering to a sexual minority at the expense of national security is down right stupid. The purpose of our militar should be to prepare for war and to prevail in war. Advancing dubious social causes dos not.

Brace yourself for females in combat arms next.

Posted by: DavidL at December 19, 2010 08:18 AM

Bob, this is the second post in less than a week of yours that makes sense, is logical, and asks the reader to be logical and non-bigoted (the other was on Bradley Manning).

This is also the second time that the commentariat has been about as puerile as one can imagine. Imagine what DavidL would have said in '48 when Truman integrated the Armed Forces ("pandering to an ethnic minority at the expense of national security, blah, blah) and that doesn't even get into the repressed fantasies of the earlier commenters.

Seems to me, that a certain group of conservatives worships the armed services, but knows absolutely nothing about the military (for instance, the Israeli military, who shoots people as frequently as we do, allows gays and has yet to collapse into some sort a feminized orgy of gay sex, which Ron and George apparently believe should happen (the again, George's knowledge of the ancient world is so encompassing that he thinks Sparta happened ten years ago!)

In short, Bob, I think you might be out-growing your commenters. Good job

Posted by: timb at December 19, 2010 11:25 AM

All Congress did with the repeal of DADT is let the commanders on the ground figure it out for themselves. If they feel that unit cohesion can be maintained with gays and women integrated into the forces, then let them deal with it.

Getting unwanted advances from a dude should be no different than getting unwanted advances from an ugly chick. As long as both of them respond like adults to "No", I don't see the problem.

And as far as those concerned about "raging queens", I doubt the "all drama all the time - loot at me I'm fabulous" types are going to be lining up outside the recruitment offices anyhow. They aren't big on loss of individuality.

Posted by: brian at December 19, 2010 01:49 PM

Thanks for your reasonable position on this issue.

Posted by: Green Eagle at December 19, 2010 09:09 PM

The first immediate result you'll see is a uptick in "other" reasons for people getting discharged. No more just saying "I'm gay" so you can get discharged before being deployed or getting stuck in a bad overseas assignment.

Posted by: chenders at December 19, 2010 10:22 PM

The restrictions against homosexuality in the military have always been flexible. I knew one LTC who was very gay--and no one cared at all. He did a great job, found his own dates, and was a great guy. I think most of the military could care less about who their teammates sleep with or find attractive as long as they could be trusted to get the job done.

Posted by: iconoclast at December 19, 2010 10:40 PM

Luckily the Pentagons approach to "fairness" and "Equal Opportunity" has never resulted in any unqualified pilots who crash their F-14 off the Abraham Lincoln or psycho officers being placed in command of the USS Cowpens. Or resulted in self proclaimed Jhadi's being promoted and retained until they shoot 30 some people at Ft. Hood.

No, the Pentagon is really good at dealing with these issues in a sane, rational and responsible manner, and I'm sure they will handle gays just as effectively.

Posted by: Kevin at December 20, 2010 01:29 AM

Notice that none of the congresscritters voting to repeal DADT has offered to berth with Barney Frank for the 9 months congress is in session...

Posted by: Adriane at December 20, 2010 01:51 AM

@Kevin - That wasn't the Pentagon, that was Congress.

@Adriane - But that's not because he's gay. It's because he smells like the underside of a dumpster.

Posted by: brian at December 20, 2010 01:55 AM

"Homos are week willed."

It's "weak", moron. And heteros are weak-willed, too, or didn't the Bible teach you anything.

Of course, disgusting bigots liks you and Fischer aren't worth defending, frankly.

Posted by: Bill at December 20, 2010 09:22 AM

I see Mike had to come in and trash up an otherwise reasonable post. Social engineering, Mike? Doesn't it concern you more that the federal government was a discriminatory employer--that it was, in effect, trying to stamp out a natural phenomenon by banning gays and lesbians from serving in the military?

Posted by: Adam at December 20, 2010 09:57 AM

Of course the ultimate reasons why Brian Fischer is so darn upset about this are:

1). after the army integrated in 1948, it was only 17 years until the Civil Rights Act was enacted, and he knows that civil rights for gays and lesbians is likely on the same trajectory,

2). Fischer basically makes his living demonizing homosexuals as evil people. What happens when an openly gay or lesbian soldier does something remarkable in combat and receives the Medal of Honor? His big paychecks are likely to disappear.

Posted by: Homer at December 20, 2010 11:05 AM

It is going to be interesting to see what the dems say when the number of courts-martial increase. Removal of DADT has no effect on the UCMJ. In fact, upon removal of DADT the option of a honorable discharge goes away and the only option left is a court martial. I wonder what the gay rights groups are going to say when they see the uptick of felony convictions.

Posted by: ParatrooperJJ at December 20, 2010 11:25 AM

I agree in that it seems to me that people who are afraid of homosexuality as a commutible disease are often closted themselves. Most people who are secure in their sexuality aren't concerned about suddenly becoming attracted to a different gender, nor are afraid of that happening to other people.

Posted by: Matt at December 20, 2010 12:14 PM

Off the coast of Vietnam, late in 1968, nearly a dozen guys who wanted to go home got up one night, stripped naked, sat in a circle, each holding the penis of the guy to one side of him, and waited for the CPO to come through on his midnight walk.

The rest of us lost a little sleep from this, but the guys who had planned this out were all on their way back to the States within two days. And, no, they weren't gay, just lonely and wanting to go home.

Posted by: SplendidOne at December 20, 2010 12:28 PM

"It's with the homosexuals who chose not to serve because they couldn't serve and still get their sex drive satisfied while in uniform."

Nio, JTW, the problem is with civilian concern trols like that have never spent a day in uniform, like that civilian waste of human flesh Elaine Donnelly in Iowa, who push their way into debates where they and their views have no place.

The idea that trivial pieces of filth like her would presume to say anything against people who actually serve ought to disgust anyone with a moral conscience.

Posted by: Jim at December 20, 2010 01:17 PM

Reading through the comments here it's clear to see why wisdom finally prevailed in this case.

I'm sure those in the military will do just fine and if anything, be strengthened.

Posted by: Parker at December 20, 2010 01:26 PM

You mean our military could get worse!


Posted by: l file at December 20, 2010 02:02 PM

To cautiously wade in among all the straw-men/emotional appeals and offer logic- We can’t get something as simple as an ammunition upgrade (5.56mm) because there’s not ENOUGH of an improvement to justify the cost- this result comes from years of studies and millions in acquisition time. Haven't seen a SINGLE study done on the improvements a homosexual declaring his sexuality would bring to the military. (don't fool yourself, that's all this is, we already have gays in the military) Just a lot of “it wouldn’t be that BAD” or “it shouldn’t matter” or “majority of soldiers are in favor of it.” Completely irrelevant. Where’s the logic-over-emotion that should prevail in the military? ROE changed to save your life (literally) takes forever, but the REMFs are tripping over themselves to implement this admin change.

Posted by: Ironsides at December 20, 2010 02:12 PM

Ron @ 1:44 am:

How do they raise up thier children?...Oh yeah they can't have children.

Where did you get that idea? My partner is definitely a gay man -- believe me, I know -- and two of his three grown daughters are coming to visit us tomorrow. Of course he didn't have them with me, but with his ex-wife. But they're still his children.

There are plenty of childless gay couples who are nevertheless raising children. They're raising your children, Mr. Straight Man. They're raising the children of straights who were thinking of nothing but lust in the moment, not of the predictable results, and who proved incompetent to raise the child they conceived. That's why we call you "breeders".

And don't overlook the recent study that shows that children raised by lesbian couples tend to excel.

Posted by: Steve T. at December 20, 2010 03:13 PM

The argument that there are regulations to prevent blatantly open homosexual behavior from interfering with discipline is foolish. There were regulations to prevent anti-American and anti-military behavior before MAJ Hasan committed his crimes, and the prevalent atmosphere of political correctness kept him from censure. Once gays are accorded this same protection, they will be able to get away witrh almost anything, which is the objective.
I have no doubt that gays will fight well. So will child molesters, pornographers, and sado-masochists. That doesn't meen we want them in the service.

Posted by: Mike in Texas at December 20, 2010 03:31 PM

"The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays."

Barry Goldwater, 1987

Posted by: mikeyes at December 20, 2010 04:04 PM

From the same Barry Goldwater article:

"It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crazy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it "a bit of an old chestnut"

When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable."

A lot of the comments here seem to be from people whose only military experience is with the 101st Chairborne Division, Keyboard Specialists. If you ever served in the military you will know that the sanctions for UCMJ violations are pretty severe including spending time in prison for showing disrespect for your boss, something that would never happen in civilian life.

As a military member you take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, an oath that is not taken lightly. Part of the Constitution allows Congress to set the rules and regulations of the Armed forces including Title 10 and the UCMJ.

MAJ Hasan did not murder his fellow soldiers because of lax enforcement of the UCMJ as implied above, he was a terrorist who will suffer the death penalty. In most states he would have just gotten life.

Any person in the military who sexually harasses another will suffer, the record is very clear on that in reference to heterosexual sexual harassment.

Any actions that are detrimental to good order and discipline will be punished. The UCMJ is not there to promote justice, it is there to make sure that the military is able to perform its job. To say otherwise is just ignorant and foolish.

Posted by: mikeyes at December 20, 2010 04:16 PM

You're making (actually, Goldwater is making) the precise invalid argument I'm talking about. "It's inevitable"? "There's no reason NOT to"?? Where'd all the thinking people go? No one has made the argument FOR it, just the usual "not NOT for it" arguments. Someone, preferably an authority, lay out the TANGIBLE, measurable, strategic and tactical payoff to allowing people to define themselves by their sexual proclivities?! Our business is life and death people, and this move got less analytical support than choosing the color of MRE wrappers?!

Posted by: Ironsides at December 20, 2010 05:22 PM


I think that Senator Goldwater's argument is that the government has no business imposing a limited view of morality on its citizen's private lives. In addition there was no proof that having gay soldiers in the military hurt the effectiveness of that body.

Remember, Barry Goldwater was the premier authority on the military when he wrote this article ( for the full text) and he abhorred the introduction of the religious right into politics.

Other than prejudice, what is the reason for banning gays? It makes no sense to refuse to allow someone to lay their life down for their fellow countrymen (especially those who won't do the same) due to prejudice.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by: mikeyes at December 20, 2010 06:24 PM

First, thanks for not launching into name-calling upon first contact with the opposing view. There are too many red faces and bulging eyeballs on both sides of this. Not ready to say there's hope for civil debate, but who knows! I read the Goldwater statement and agree with taking every opportunity to keep the government out of private citizens lives... However, we aren't private citizens. Sure, we're afforded full constitutional rights, but Taxpayers spend massive amounts of money to ensure we can execute violence in dangerous places in a focused manner. This doesn't allow for the luxury of what you and I are doing now. It does demand, however, that our bosses, i.e. the people, get quality assessments from the experts. The people got no such assessment in this case. What other reasons for denial? How about overweight? 30,000 patriotic, lay-down-your-life types were kicked OUT for not fitting the 1950's-inspired measurements for a soldier. Mental disorders? Felony convictions? I could give more examples, but it's irrelevant to the point: NO factual, measurable improvements FOR public announcement of sexuality have been offered. That's not how logical decisions are made, that's how emotional ones are.

Posted by: Ironsides at December 20, 2010 10:05 PM


A policy which dismisses otherwise qualified individuals because of their sexual orientation has an obvious cost to it: the loss of trained and otherwise qualified members of the armed forces. So the measurable effect you're looking for is that those individuals will not be dismissed.

This is a good thing UNLESS there is some detrimental impact of allowing these people to serve. Thus, the arguments that there will be no such effects are highly relevant.

Posted by: Internally Valid at December 20, 2010 11:37 PM

Mr. Ironsides--

I'm also not interested in name calling, as you have stated, and ask that you consider what is discussed here with a true, deliberate thought process, not an emotional reflex/response that keeps you in your comfort zone.

I have a few things I would like to ask to help me understand what your insistence on having "Someone, preferably an authority, lay out the TANGIBLE, measurable, strategic and tactical payoff to allowing people to define themselves by their sexual proclivities"

By your last post you stated "However, we aren't private citizens. Sure, we're afforded full constitutional rights, but Taxpayers spend massive amounts of money to ensure we can execute violence in dangerous places in a focused manner. "

This gives me the impression that you are a soldier in the armed forces. I would like to ask, if it is ok, whether you are in combat or in an administrative or logistics role.

Second, I want to ask, whether you understand why this is an important civil rights issue.

I understand if the following concept may be hard for you to accept, but what I see as the problematic in your argument is that YOU are allowing a person to be defined by their sexual proclivities, to the EXCLUSION of everything else that constitutes their being. How most people deal with their sexuality (not to mention how it is coupled with their religious upbringing) is a very sensitive issue. Many commit suicide over the anguish or guilt that comes with being homosexual. I don't know whether you can even identify with how it feels to not be right in your own skin.

Despite the fact that their actions are considered immoral by many, it is something that is part of their landscape in the same way it is for someone to say they have blue eyes, or ten toes and fingers. They understand there are societal rules for conduct, and most of them really do conduct themselves to fit within working within the larger community that they interact with.

If they want to lay down their lives, particularly in order to defend others that are NOT like them, but are also Americans, then they should be allowed to serve with honor just like anyone else.

As with any other civil rights issue, a person is more than their color, gender, age, religious creed, or sexual preference. Religious discrimination? Jews have been slammed for eons. Protestants and Catholics had long been at each others throats in Ireland and other places. Racial discrimination? Slaves-Africans involuntarily captured and utilized for indentured labor, being 2/3rds or 4/5ths of a person in the original draft of the Constitution? Women, not being allowed to vote or engage in the same activities because they were "hysterical"? I don't even want to get into how senior citizens are just left out to pasture and are not revered more for their experience and wisdom.

I have one last thing I must ask: Does the Pentagon's review regarding the issues surrounding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" NOT represent a quality assessment? And does the belief that a Secretary of Defense originally appointed by President George W. Bush, who explicitly stated that he supports repealing the law, NOT represent a valid endorsement?

Posted by: Jester Pensgoo at December 21, 2010 12:46 AM

Where to begin? So many assumptions to address and I have so few brain cells left!

Internally Valid: the military policy that "dismisses otherwise qualified individuals because of their sexual orientation" as you say, ended in 1993 with the institution of... wait for it... DADT+DP (+ "dont pursue", which most people forgot). Recruiters could no longer screen potential recruits with the infamous "are you a homosexual?" question BECAUSE of the potential loss of recruits. Add to this fact the military has no current problems with recruiting, and the argument that an UNrealized loss of qualified personnel justifies a major shift is... invalid (sorry, bad pun)

You have some good points, but telling you about my experiences in front of all these people is an Appeal to Authority fallacy and would do nothing to support my argument on its own grounds, so I wont waste your time. Without going down the rabbit-hole on your civil rights assumption, I'll refer you to my previous post, where I imply that serving in the military ISN'T a right, regardless of gender, race, creed, etc. It's ability-based and willingness-based. Ability speaks for itself I think, but willingness involves submitting personal desires to the accomplishment of the mission, usually in uncomfortable (and sometimes fatal) form. It's the military, NOT a cross-section of society. Did you know it's illegal to lie to an officer in the military? Not "bad" but get-your-pay-taken-ILLEGAL! So morality isn't "legislated" here, its life.

To re-phrase, too much emotion in this debate, not enough research. Still no studies done on improvements to the military. It's mildly bad in a corporation, it's freakin criminal when your sons and daughters lives are at stake.

Posted by: Ironsides at December 21, 2010 11:30 AM

Ironsides, you are right on the money. No one has ever articulated the benefit or positive gain to the military or the country at large for a repeal of DADT+DP. There is no RIGHT to serve in the military and anyone who says/thinks otherwise has an agenda. The military has always weeded out influences that undermined morale or unit cohesiveness because they were detrimental to the unit (micro) and the military (macro) as a whole. To keep such individuals regardless of what the issue was (drugs, crimes, UA, openly gay, etc.) was necesarry for the unit to maintain discipline and function as it was designed to do.

The military has alwasys been about ability first and willingness to serve second otherwise we'd have wheelchair brigades and blind battalions; not that those people aren't patriotic and wish to serve but there are abilities they don't possess and standards that they can't meet in order to do exactly what we are asked to do; kill people and break things. We aren't a social club.

We do give up certain rights when we swear an oath to the Constitution and yes, morality IS life. The UCMJ is specifically set up more stringently that civilian law because there ARE different standards due to the nature of our business. I have to be able to trust you completely and implicitly with my life as you have to with me, no distractions. Distractions mean death. Anyone who doesn't get that never will.

Posted by: Airgod at December 21, 2010 02:39 PM

One question, what does homosexuality have to do with morality?

If an outstanding soldier happens to be homosexual, does that effect his performance? Do you trust him less because he is in love with a man?

If there are no negative side effects, the United States government should always err on the side of liberty

Posted by: MAModerate at December 21, 2010 10:46 PM

The issue is not with homosexuals serving, but rather the possible detriment to unit cohesiveness that repealing DADT+DP will have. Politicians and such will muck with regulations until you have a situation that gets people people killed. Reference Maj. Hassan for a excellent example, PC got people killed. Now that soldiers can "express themselves" there will be issues, what exactly they will be I can't foresee.

Personally I don't care if you're not "straight", just that you can shoot straight.

Posted by: Real Deal at December 22, 2010 10:51 AM

No negative side-effects equals positive effects? Did you actually say that? Ooooo, here's a blast of the obviously obvious: establish data! Run a couple of test units to see how things go? All we have now is a bunch of pseudo-intelligentsia with social agendas cramming shit onto our plates while FIGHTING A F*CKING WAR! Naval gazing crap like "what does morality have to do with homosexuality?" Mount up men, we're outta here, dumb might catch and my ass is showing...

Posted by: Ironsides at December 22, 2010 12:15 PM

I'm really glad the Leftys got slapped in the face on this one. For years, they've been telling us that The Pentagon should get rid of DADT. (Not Congress) I've always condecendingly scolded them that we don't want the military to literally have more legislative power than the US Congress. That would border on Facism. I don't mean that as a crazy metaphor, either. A military coup is a bad idea. Libs are intrinsically wrong.

Liberals are on the wrong side of history on this one. Many of them are now creeping into the woodwork, pretending like they never claimed it. It's good to keep rubbing their faces in it, so they don't forget. I can help with that.

Also, I think there are too many people here wrongly diagnosing others with DSM-4 Homophobia. Lying is dishonorable. That exact type of phobia is pretty rare. If you've ever commited either of those 2 wrongs, you should think seriously about coming clean. All apologies can be sent to me.

Posted by: brando at December 22, 2010 12:50 PM

"the military policy that "dismisses otherwise qualified individuals because of their sexual orientation" as you say, ended in 1993 with the institution of... wait for it... DADT+DP (+ "dont pursue, which most people forgot)"

Wrong. The policy which has been rejected by congress and military leadership, still allowed for the dismissal of officers and enlisted men/women based on their sexual orientation. Changing the policy regarding questioning during recruitment etc. did not change the fact that individuals were dismissed by the thousands because their sexual orientation was discovered. There is no legitimate justification for incurring these very real and very obvious costs to retention.


The reasons I can imagine that "lefty's" wanted the Pentagon to repeal DADT were either a.) they did not know that DADT was a law passed by congress and not a policy created by DOD; I suspect many people, left and right are unaware of this OR b.) they just wanted DADT repealed and didn't care how it got done. These may be dumb reasons, but certainly not malicious.

You will note, however, that the Obama administration and military leaders, in contrast with people on internet message boards with whom you have a beef, sought to repeal the law in congress rather than through executive order or through the courts. I assume these are not the liberals you refer to when you say they are on the wrong side of history?

Posted by: Internally Valid at December 22, 2010 02:56 PM

"they did not know that DADT was a law passed by congress"

What? No way. Everyone knows that. Eveyone. Certainly all Liberals. They're smart. Liberals are never ignorant.

IV, The people I'm talking about are full blown Liberals; the monsters like this:

"I think the military should carefully consider changing the policy. We need the most talented people, we need the language skills, we need patriotic Americans who exist across the board in our population. We don’t need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs."
--- Nancy Pelosi

Nobody can reasonably say that Pelosi doesn't know that Congress passed DADT. She personally voted for it.

Maybe of the people that have been saying "repeal" in the last few weeks, have been the same people who have been saying that The Military, or even the USMC itself should change it. They've been saying it for over a decade. And I happily correct them each time. It's a horrific idea.

Either they're stupid or they're malicious, and Lefty's sure aren't stupid. That type of madness is just plain evil. If some non-Liberal made the mistake of not knowing that Congress passes laws, I suppose I could just dismiss it as dumb, but I've met a lot of hyper-smart Libs, many whom I've explained it to, and they insisted that it was the Pentagon's fault, even after I've given them a direct lesson on how bad it would be for the people who have all the big guns to be literally making Federal Law.

Heck, I've even heard it a half dozen times on NPR.

We don't even want police to be making local law that they are enforcing. That would be bad. Now imagine it on a scale of the most powerful military in the world. That's what Lefty's have openly stated they'd love for over the last decade. They were wrong, and I was right. Just because they pretend to be ignorant, doesn't make them correct.

How many times have you read an article that has the phrase detailing DADT as "The Military Ban", when everybody knows full well that it's Congress' Ban?

Posted by: brando at December 22, 2010 07:40 PM