State of the Union...no more don't ask, don't tell

[CWOJackson]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/25/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6140200.shtml

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/05/29/image5050068x.jpg

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023134251017648.html?m od=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

Pentagon Asks Senate Panel to Wait on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

[Willy]

In my experience, when a gay in the Navy comes out they have to get him off the ship asap before he "has an accident".

[CWOJackson]

In my experience, when a gay in the Navy comes out they have to get him off the ship asap before he "has an accident".

Yes, but that was when we gave our troops medals for killing the bad guys, not courts martial them for giving a known terrorist a "fat lip".

It's been confirmed...this will be in the state of the union.

[Cameljockey]

Faggots? Not in My Navy!

[CWOJackson]

Faggots? Not in My Navy!

Hi there sailor.

http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y297/PGZ/commentu/yuwie_comments/images/yuwie-sailors.gif

[Scratch]

If he does this it will be the worst tragedy ever inflicted on our military. It's hard enough for veterans to receive medical benefits they've earned and we don't need the additional burden of AIDS cases infecting the system. This is sick. I guess child molesters and other assorted perverts will be let in next.
Nothing good comes from homosexuality.

[Cameljockey]

and it seems that nothing good comes from the present administration.

[Zommoz]

Sorry... I let it slide before and can't, in good conscience, let it slide again.

Scratch, as a fan of disproportionate response (which, by the way I am too), you should appreciate this; Are you ****ing retarded? HIV/AIDS is not the "gay cancer" everyone called it in the seventies. It is not caused by homosexuality but it is often spread because of ignorance. Further, to compare homosexuality to child molestation is painfully offensive to me. I work with victims of child molestation and 99 percent of the cases I deal with are female victims of male family members. Child molestation, as all rape, is not about sex, it is about power. Being homosexual DOES NOT make you a child molestor. For you, or anyone, in this day and age to think that HIV/AIDS is caused by homosexuality and that homosexuals are child molesters is ridiculous, and to say so publicly is unforgivable. It only spreads ignorant, backwards, and WRONG information.

[Mikha'el Ephraim]

The change in policy Obama wants doesn't have squat in support. Empty rhetoric as usual. Let's see here, "Don't ask, don't tell". Fair enough. Since when is someones sexuality an issue in all this. Easy answer: Because openly gay people are not happy only coming out of the closet, they want everyone else to accept their ways and views even if other wish to have no part of it. It's a matter of a vast minority flaunting a alternate lifestyle openly and pushing it in the opposite direction against the vast majority forcing acceptance as the norm. A person's sexuality as far as I am concerned should be their own damn business but at the same time like most people, a "private and personal" matter others need not know about. But Liberals and gays don't see it that way. That is where they go wrong. I remember an incident in a family restaurant where 3 gay men(flaming gay) were in a booth seat between myself and a family of 4 which had 2 young kids(roughly 9 to 10 years old). These guys were running their mouths about their sexual exploits with their partners aloud until the man of the family sitting behind them finally had enough. He said he was tired of hearing their filth while he and his family were trying to eat their dinner and didn't appreciate hearing any of it in his or his family's earshot. he told them either cease or he would inform management.
The three gay men retreated until they started making snide comments against the man for his scolding of them. The man finally had enough and went to management. They responded by confronting the three gay men for their conduct and said if it happened again, they would be kicked out. From there a verbal ruckus started between management and the gay guys, there was a local Police Officer on duty there for security who intervened. He promptly informed the three gay men of their rights from a Miranda warning card and then informed them that they could be charged with Misdemeanor Disorderly and Lewd Conduct in public as well as Felony Distribution of Sexual Content to Minors for what they were saying within earshot of underage children. After that, they were released without charges and went on their merry way. No discrimination there as any straight adult can be charged with doing the same thing.

From a personal standpoint, I don't like homosexuality but I do not make it my business to give a **** who's buggering who. Keep such private matters to oneself and leave me the **** alone!

[Toastmaker]

Good post, Zommoz. Wake up, Scratch - join the 21st. century.

[Zommoz]

Mikha'el, I agree that ones sexuality is one's own business and the incident you describe is disturbing to me, but no more so than when I hear heterosexuals (usually males) describe their exploits. How many times have you heard guys talking about the women they've slept with and how? ...and how many of those incidents have ever led to police action?

It's not that they are not happy with just coming out of the closet, they are unhappy with the threats, the actual beatings and murders inflicted upon them because of who they are... the "accidents" that Willy alluded to earlier. These actions stem from an ignorant, and thus frightened and threatened, attitude.

Unless you are a liberal or a gay then how can you possibly know how they see it?


From a personal standpoint, I don't like homosexuality...

Are you familiar with the moral of Dr. Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham"? Are you saying that after trying it, you've decided it's not for you? ... and either you "give a **** whos buggering who" or you don't... you can't have it both ways.

[Snuffy]

What's even more fun Zommoz, is to get friendly with a woman and join a group of them for drinks one night and listen to their exploits.

Females can be just as bad if not worse than guys. Yes it does happen.

And believe me there are alot of them out there.

[CWOJackson]

I remember a aide to a Congressman who visited the Polar Sea once to discuss this very issue with the folks on board. SHE was canvasing military units and asking what the people thought were the pros and cons.

One of the ice pilots gave her a practical demonstration. He brought her to the cabin he and I shared. Given it was an ice breaker it was a very generous cabin...half again as big as a closet.

He took her in there, closed the door and told her, "You are now an officer on this ship. We're pulling away from the dock in five minutes and for the next nine months you and I will be sharing this space here...and by the way, I think you're sexy as Hell."

There in lies a real problem.

[Zommoz]

I don't understand Chief. Don't they teach discipline in the military? Or maybe they should go back to issuing salt peter.

... and yeah Snuff, some of my most memorable nights were ones like you describe... :D

[CWOJackson]

I don't understand Chief. Don't they teach discipline in the military? Or maybe they should go back to issuing salt peter.

... and yeah Snuff, some of my most memorable nights were ones like you describe... :D

Yes, the do teach discipline but trumping biology is difficult particularly for extended periods.

Bottom line is, there is absolute no reason to force people into uncomfortable situations either when they already have more then enough pressure in their lives. SO FAR, we would not force a man and woman to share a limited space for an extended period of time so now do we further segregate berthing to make considerations for open sexuality?

The infrastructure will not support that. There's no room on existing vessels to provide for open sexuality preferences; male-male berthing, female-female berthing, gay male-gay male berthing, gay female-gay female birthing.

The existing system, don't ask don't tell, worked fine.

[Trans_23]

I have to go along with CWO on this one for just the reasons he stated. If you think military spending is high now, what will it cost to desegregate the gays from the other men and women. I don't think this part of it has been thought out by the administration but you can bet it has by the joint chiefs. Get the checkbook out.

[CWOJackson]

I have to go along with CWO on this one for just the reasons he stated. If you think military spending is high now, what will it cost to desegregate the gays from the other men and women. I don't think this part of it has been thought out by the administration but you can bet it has by the joint chiefs. Get the checkbook out.

Thank you and let me say, I have known two members of the military that I had absolutely no problems serving with; they kept their lifestyle to themselves and my discovery of their choice was accidental in both cases. In neither case did it change my opinion of their professionalism or make working with them uncomfortable. I did indeed share a cabin with one of them and I was not uncomfortable...but MAYBE it was because I wasn't his type and he was in a strong relationship.

I have even shared a cabin with another officer who wanted to describe his heterosexual exploits to me in detail. I politely told him I really wasn't interested and, for the most part, it didn't regale me with his exploits for the rest of the cruise (except for an encounter in Christchurch which was interesting).

The problem WILL come when people want to overtly express themselves and don't have consideration for others.

That situation isn't "as bad" for traditional land forces where base side facilities can be more easily modified to accommodate genders and preferences, but that will be extremely difficult on naval units which are not easily modified. Just providing male-female quarters on most floating units was extremely difficult and expensive, and in some cases such as subs, prohibitive.

So what option does that leave? With the mass integration of women, they were restricted from serving on specific vessels until such a time as separate facilities could be fabricated...and are still barred from specific units. This in turn, created/creates a problem where males were having to take up the slack in the sea-shore rotation rate...forced to serve more time at sea then women of the same rank/rate had to simple because of their gender.

This is a great political move...and a poor military move.

[Willy]

The one thing that I did hate about gays in the Navy was that usually they'd pick the morning we were leaving port for a deployment to come out of the closet. My last Med cruise, we had two that morning decide they didn't want to deploy and decide to come out of the closet. That was two crewmen we lost for the deployment and we didn't see a replacement for until we got back six months later. The rest of us just had to carry their workload.

I can see a lot more sexual harassment charges being floated around if don't ask don't tell is gone.

[Mikha'el Ephraim]

Are you familiar with the moral of Dr. Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham"? Are you saying that after trying it, you've decided it's not for you? ... and either you "give a **** whos buggering who" or you don't... you can't have it both ways.


Actually it means I don't a rats ass who you're screwing or blowing being male or female so long as I don't have to hear about it. Understand now?

[Zommoz]

Actually it means I don't a rats ass who you're screwing or blowing being male or female so long as I don't have to hear about it. Understand now?

I hate to be obtuse (not really :D) Mikha'el, but no, I don't understand. For someone who doesn't give a rat's ass, you seem to feel pretty strongly about it.

As for the prohibitive costs of expansion, I don't buy that either. I worked for twelve years with an organization that took people into the wilderness and on other adventure trips. I've spent as long as ten months sharing a two person tent with several different individuals, of both genders and all sexual preferences. Some experiences were fine, others weren't and never because of sex. We were there to do a job and were disciplined enough to keep our personal relationships out of the tent (or off the pulling boat... try living on one of those for three months with ten adolescents and a co-instructor!). To everyone, regardless of their age, gender or sexual preference, the message was the same and couldn't be clearer; Keep your pants on! Sex is NOT one of the things we are here for. Now while I don't mean to say that job was like the military, it seems, on the surface, that they (the folks I worked for) have figured out a system that the great minds in Washington couldn't figure out... I find that hard to believe. I don't know the boneheads in DC but I am very familiar with the boneheads that ran that organization... not one genius in the group.

To spend money making room for people who want to serve because it may be offensive to those already serving is ridiculous to me. If there is an established procedure, then, as we used to say around the block, "that's how we livin'." What if I don't want to bunk with a Jew or a fat guy or a person who picks their nose and flicks it around the room?

... and by the way Chief, I am pretty sure that if you asked the folks you shared a cabin with, they wouldn't say their "lifestyle" was a "choice". I assume you are heterosexual. Is that really a choice you made? ...and if so, when did you decide to find members of the opposite sex attractive?

[Cameljockey]

What they ought to do is poll all of the members of the military and see how they feel about it. I would be willing to bet that the closet door would be locked and the key thrown into the sea.

[Scratch]

Sorry... I let it slide before and can't, in good conscience, let it slide again.

Scratch, as a fan of disproportionate response (which, by the way I am too), you should appreciate this; Are you ****ing retarded? HIV/AIDS is not the "gay cancer" everyone called it in the seventies. It is not caused by homosexuality but it is often spread because of ignorance. Further, to compare homosexuality to child molestation is painfully offensive to me. I work with victims of child molestation and 99 percent of the cases I deal with are female victims of male family members. Child molestation, as all rape, is not about sex, it is about power. Being homosexual DOES NOT make you a child molestor. For you, or anyone, in this day and age to think that HIV/AIDS is caused by homosexuality and that homosexuals are child molesters is ridiculous, and to say so publicly is unforgivable. It only spreads ignorant, backwards, and WRONG information.

Your response may not be disproportionate, but it is sadly delusional. I am not retarded. I never said AIDS is a gay cancer. I never said it is caused by homosexuality. It is spread mainly by homosexual sex. It is a disease spread not by ignorance, but by bad behavior period. This 'ignorance spreads disease' mantra is just that, a mantra repeated to avoid the truth.

Homosexuals can't claim victim status when it is their own selfish deviant behavior that spreads this plague like wildfire. I think a little self control is in order. If that control is lacking and the urge cannot be contained even with the threat of a disease that ends in death after years of horrible suffering, then that person has a serious emotional/psychological disorder. There is nothing normal.

I don't envy your job having to deal with child molesters. For 18 years a police officer I have had more than my fair share of dealing with these predators. The hardest part is interviewing the victims, listening to them describe in detail how their innocence was taken from them. I disagree that child molestation and rape is only about power over another. It is much more complicated than that. If that was the only motivation it would be much easier for the predator to simply beat the hell out of the victim. Sex plays an almost equal part in the victimization. It is a selfish sexual gratification that the predator is deluded into thinking that there is no one else that can love the victim like he does. He thinks his behavior is normal and displays no remorse.

This is where the similarity with homosexual behavior is. Both delude themselves into thinking that their behavior is normal when it clearly is not.
In the case of homosexuality this delusion of normality has permeated society worldwide. The homosexual can claim victim status and gain sympathy because the deviancy is only practiced with another homosexual. The disease they spread is 'not their fault because they are just doing what comes natural' 'It's the ignorance and intolerance that spreads the disease'. The child molester cannot make this claim. Not until NAMBLA has their way. They just don't have the P.R. that gays do.

Not all homosexuals are child molesters, but being homosexual increases the chance that one will be one. Selfish disordered sexual urges combined with delusion of normality is at the heart of the matter. One only need to look at the clergy abuse scandal to see this is true. These predators had the same motivations as lay people and suffered from the same delusion.

Ignorance does not spread anything. Bad behavior does. Nothing good comes from homosexuality.

[Scratch]

Good post, Zommoz. Wake up, Scratch - join the 21st. century.

Sorry Toast, I am very awake and I don't like what I see. Truth doesn't belong to any century and doesn't evolve over time. It is what it is. Some things are just black and white. There is no room for relativism or situational ethics here.

[CWOJackson]

As for the prohibitive costs of expansion, I don't buy that either.



While I'm sure arranging a few tents took careful consideration, the job of naval architects to create two additional independents berthing arrangements in a vessel of fixed size is a wee bit more complicated.

Now, add to that the already existing four levels of division in berthing; non-rates, petty officers (and in some cases separate berthing for senior petty officers), chief petty officers and officers...we now have sixteen independent berthing requirements instead of the original four (for all male crews) that was later expanded to eight (to facilitate female crew members).

Now, to give an example of what we're looking at. When the Polar Class Ice Breakers had their on board incinerators replaced to provide a system that would not present air pollutants into the polar landscape the naval architecture planning took four months. It's not like changing out the garbage disposal in a house. Then the physical work required the cutting away of a lot of superstructure so the the new incinerator unit could be put in place, which also required the modification of six other compartments arranged through three deck levels.

This took ten days of work, in a shipyard and cost $650,000 per vessel.

So I guess we can just raise the debt ceiling a couple hundred billion more for political pandering.

[RickN]

Dropping Don't Ask, Don't tell is a very, very bad idea for all the reasons given.
Yes I do know a lot about gays, I have two family members that are gay, I worked as a bouncer in gay bars for years, have several friends that are gay, and I was molested by a gay man for several years when I was a kid.

Zommoz, you do not really know what you are talking about and that is all I am going to say on the matter.

[CWOJackson]

What they ought to do is poll all of the members of the military and see how they feel about it. I would be willing to bet that the closet door would be locked and the key thrown into the sea.

In truth, I believe you would find that most gay members of the military are no more happy with this then anyone else.

[Zommoz]

Good googly moogly... what have I gotten myself into?

Mikha'el - When I say the spread of HIV is often caused by ignorance, I am thinking of the folks who use latex condoms and an oil based lubricant. Not knowing the lubricant will cause the latex to deteriorate and break down causing the condom to be ineffective is ignorance. Not knowing your partner (or yourself for that matter) are +HIV is also ignorance - i.e. the lack of knowledge. While men who have sex with men are still the predominant part of the HIV infected population, that margin is shrinking (http://www.hivaidssearch.com/hiv-aids-links.asp?id=547).

I agree that child molestation and rape aren't only about power, it is much more complicated than that. There is obviously a sexual component to these behaviors but I believe it is far less a factor than the thrill of domination over another. Many of the victimizers I have encountered do feel remorse and recognize that their behavior isn't acceptable and want to change. There have been homosexuals (and child molesters) as long as there have been humans. Normal? What's that? Who decides? I'll tell you who - society at large... that's you and me. We decide, based on many variables, what is "normal". That which is deemed "abnormal" gets shunned, tabooed. If, as a society, we would accept that who you are attracted to is primarily not within your power (think of the folks you really don't like... could you just change your mind and love them tomorrow? ...next week? ...after a year of intensive "therapy"?) then we would be less likely to kill people because they are gay. If the majority of people truly believe being homosexual increases the chance that one will be a child molester, I don't hold much hope out for my Utopia.

Finally, what ignorance spreads is more ignorance and ignorance breeds all manner of ills.

Chief - I'll repeat "I don't mean to say that job was like the military" or like naval architecture. I am positive that the job of a naval architect is MUCH more complicated than setting up camp. My problem is in having the redesign at all! A ship is a ship. Your berth is your berth. Why should we have to redesign and rebuild because of who is serving? Yes, I am advocating coed arrangements and if you volunteer, you know the deal going in. Rebuilding or redesigning to make way for a new weapon or system is one thing, but "'cause I don't like my bunkmate"?... c'mon! I find it disturbing that, in essence, we are saying to the servicemen and women that they cannot be trusted to use their own genitalia responsibly but we put them in command of multi-million dollar weapons systems. What kind of craziness is that? I believe that upholding the value of discipline is honest in the service not some sort of hypocritical doublespeak.

For our youth wilderness courses we used separate sleeping quarters for boys and girls but on adult courses, people decided together what the arrangements were and when an agreement couldn't be made, the instructors made the decision and if you didn't like it you slept outside. That is what I thought the military was like as well. You follow orders (within reason, of course). If you were ordered to bunk with someone you didn't want to, tough canollis, suck it up! (almost no pun intended!) The same goes for polling the people serving. Where would that end? Were they polled before they were deployed? Was the declaration of war decided by consensus?

... and by the way, you'd be surprised at the consideration taken in arranging a few tents. There are laws in NJ (and I believe in NY as well) that dictate certain distances between tents, the specific placement of individual tents in a group and their orientation, that is which way the door flaps face.

[CWOJackson]

A ship is a ship. Your berth is your berth.



How much time have you spent living on a ship?

When you were wearing the uniform were you happy when you made a level of rank that got you into the next level of berthing with that extra bit of personal privacy that comes with professionally advancing?

[Zommoz]

Zommoz, you do not really know what you are talking about and that is all I am going to say on the matter.

I'm sorry, I do know what I'm talking about, but fear some may think I am talking about something else.

[Zommoz]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Back up there Sparky! While I know it will likely diminish my already low standing (sitting?... squatting?... prostrating?) in this august body, I must admit I have never served in any branch of the military. While I never "wore the uniform" I am sure that being promoted brings privileges. Are you then allowed to sleep wherever you like or are you ordered to a specific bunk?

As for my time on board sailing vessels, I spent about a year and a half all together on the Lettie G. Howard, a 125 ft wooden hulled schooner built in 1893 and now used as an educational vessel. My average voyage was four and a half months with a few weeks on land in between. I also lived on thirty foot pulling boats with eleven other individuals for just over a year in total with those voyages lasting between two and four months, again with a few weeks on land in between.

[Mikha'el Ephraim]

Mikha'el - When I say the spread of HIV is often caused by ignorance, I am thinking of the folks who use latex condoms and an oil based lubricant. Not knowing the lubricant will cause the latex to deteriorate and break down causing the condom to be ineffective is ignorance. Not knowing your partner (or yourself for that matter) are +HIV is also ignorance - i.e. the lack of knowledge. While men who have sex with men are still the predominant part of the HIV infected population, that margin is shrinking.

Errr, wait a minute, how did I get dragged into that part of this discussion? LOL. Okay, here's there deal. I have had the benefit of formal Emergency Medical Training from Basic, Intermediate, and Paramedic. One thing covered often in Infection Control. The thing above HIV is that the virus has a very low rate of infection in Health Care/Emergency Medical Personnel from needle sticks or fluid exposures compared to Hep C. The two largest percentages of people infected with HIV are homosexual men and intravenous drug users. Bad part is that there are a lot of both homosexual and heterosexual people who have contracted the virus because of sexual contact with people who led high risk lifestyles in drug use and/or unprotected sex with multiple partners. Lot of foolish behaviors lead to different STD's.
Only two things can prevent it, using condoms(which is by no means 100% safe with an infected person) and abstinence. When it comes to infections, Hep C, Tuberculosis scared hell out of me. Can't immunize against Hep C, only A & B. I was exposed to active Tuberculosis a few times. Luckily I tested negative in all subsequent skin tests.

Back on topic, this whole thing with gays in the Military was dealt with already. But as I stated before, it is the "Far Left" liberal mindset and the "Openly Serving Out of the Closet" mentality that are causing friction in this matter. The rule as it currently stands, "keep it to yourself" and stay in the Military isn't enough. They have to make the Military a place of Social Experimentation and Reform. It isn't going to work out for them. In fact, it will most likely cause the most severe backlash ever seen in our society. Right now these people have very specific rights. The recruiters and command staff don't ask. Likewise, gays don't volunteer either. No bubbles, no troubles. Fair enough.

[Toastmaker]

. . . They have to make the Military a place of Social Experimentation and Reform. It isn't going to work out for them. In fact, it will most likely cause the most severe backlash ever seen in our society. Right now these people have very specific rights. The recruiters and command staff don't ask. Likewise, gays don't volunteer either. No bubbles, no troubles. Fair enough.




Exactly correct. The military, as a necessarily rigid and controlled entity, is no place for "experimentation". "Don't ask-Don't tell" works. It should be left alone.


And Scratch - there is absolutly no way you (or anyone) can prove that homosexuality implies a greater chance of becomming a child-molester. It's ludicrous. You're clearly homophobic, and that's fine for you but your phobia is not based on any facts about homosexuality. And if you ever say "God says it's evil", you're done right there. Most phobias are based on deep fears. What is it about homosexuality that scares you?

[Trans_23]

IF the President wants open gays in the military, isn't all that has to be done is to proclaim it so? He is the commander in chief. I don't believe he needs anyone's approval. If he really wanted it he would have declared it so already. I think it was just another statement to keep that voting block happy.

[Zommoz]

Errr, wait a minute, how did I get dragged into that part of this discussion?

YIKES!!! I'm very sorry, Mikha'el... I mistakenly pasted the wrong name there as I was responding to a post by Scratch, and then compounded my error by not noticing it. I will certainly be more careful in future. Further, thank you for your graceful addition to a part of the conversation you were so unceremoniously dragged into.

[Scratch]

Exactly correct. The military, as a necessarily rigid and controlled entity, is no place for "experimentation". "Don't ask-Don't tell" works. It should be left alone.


And Scratch - there is absolutly no way you (or anyone) can prove that homosexuality implies a greater chance of becomming a child-molester. It's ludicrous. You're clearly homophobic, and that's fine for you but your phobia is not based on any facts about homosexuality. And if you ever say "God says it's evil", you're done right there. Most phobias are based on deep fears. What is it about homosexuality that scares you?

I used to have a problem with the don't ask don't tell policy, but I changed my mind. It allows those who can exercise control over their inclinations to serve honorably.

As far as being homophobic, I am not. There is nothing much that scares me these days. I am concerned though for my family in this sex obsessed culture that is so permissive that almost anything is justified and celebrated as long as it ends in satisfying a sexual urge. There is no need to bring religion into the discussion as it is not needed to prove that homosexuality is abnormal.

Homosexuality does not scare me. I have friends that are homosexual and have worked with many in the past. I have only discussed this in detail with one of my gay friends because he asked. I told him in advance that he probably would not want to know how I felt, but he insisted and I basically told him what I posted here. He made his case and in the end we decided to disagree and are still good friends and even make jokes about our differing opinions. I treat him no differently than any of my other friends.

[Toastmaker]

. . . He made his case and in the end we decided to disagree and are still good friends and even make jokes about our differing opinions. I treat him no differently than any of my other friends.


I understand your concern about the trivialization of sex in our society. Perhaps we can do the same as above.

[Zommoz]

Okay... once more into the breach (or perhaps in this case the breech!:biglol:)

Scratch - Firstly, I am with you (and Toast) about how sad and terrible our culture's obsession with sex has become but that certainly cannot be served by people being perceived as "abnormal", regardless of whether they are making a choice or following a biological imperative.

... but this cuts closer to my point;

It allows those who can exercise control over their inclinations to serve honorably.

Forcing sex upon anyone, I call dishonorable. Beating or otherwise assaulting someone for appearing different, I call dishonorable. Not allowing someone to be whoever they are as long as it doesn't prevent them from doing their duty, I call dishonorable. Expressing revulsion or any other negativity towards someone because of how you perceive them I call dishonorable. To not "exercise control over their inclinations" and treat someone bigotedly, I call dishonorable. So why would the most disciplined group of individuals, arguably in the world, need a rule for this? I thought it was expected that every person serving in our armed forces would "exercise control over their inclinations" and "serve honorably." That's what I think is wrong with don't ask don't tell, it smacks of hypocrisy.

[Scratch]

Don't ask don't tell is not hypocrisy, it is tolerance. There are many homosexuals that are capable of controlling themselves to a degree to function as valuable members in the military. They conform just like everyone else to the standards demanded of them. The problem with removing this policy is that those that cannot or will not control their sexuality will demand that they be accepted as they are which would be a disaster for the military if they get their way. The short way of saying this is that they screw up everything they touch.
They live a lie and demand that others think the same as they do or else.

They are unfit for duty precisely because they refuse to conform to any standards other than the warped ones they live by.

[Zommoz]

Ok... one last try...

Scratch - Let's start with "tolerate". I believe that is defined as allowing something without prohibition/opposition or to put up with something or endure it. Now, as a minority, I have always been fascinated by the use of this word in relation to a human being because I don't want to be "tolerated", I want to be accepted and have my contributions appreciated and embraced, but I have had to "tolerate" being "tolerated". But that is neither here nor there. Using the definition I use above, DA/DT is not tolerance, it is quite the opposite. So perhaps you're right and it's not hypocrisy, exactly, but that was the closest word I could come up with for what I think it is. It is a denial of the deeprooted xenophobia present in our society that is thus reflected in our military. It is saying that as an institution, the military understands that bigotry is part of the human condition and that said bigotry would endanger the well being of the homosexuals in question and threaten unit cohesion thus weakening our fighting force. That's a great argument, but rather than confront the bigotry for what it is, we'll just make up a rule that says we won't talk about it, essentially sweeping the real issue under the rug and forcing those that wish to serve openly to truly live a lie (which, by the way, seems to contradict the value of honesty that I thought the military espoused). It seems to me that what is in order is better training. ...and I don't mean that lame sensitivity training we are all familiar with, but a true regimen of behavior modification that teaches individual volunteers how to not act on their prejudiced feelings in a way that is harmful to others.

Next, your second sentence sounds like you are referring to "the few good ones" the way we used to refer to slaves that were domestic servants. "It's ok to have that one in the house... he's one of the good ones." When you say that (about gays, not slaves) you prove your homophobia and the rest of your post just reinforces that fact. What makes you think a homosexual is less apt to control their sexuality than a heterosexual? Shall I quote from the book of Clinton? ...Tiger Woods? ...the Tailhook scandal? ...or more recently the Officer that Jackson posted about who got caught soliciting a prostitute? I hear a great deal more about heterosexuals that can't seem to contrrol themselves than I hear about homosexuals. Bigotry, pure and simple and that is what needs to be addressed in the armed forces and throughout our society. Not whether or not to let this or that group in but a true examination of why we are considering excluding them. That is one of the fears that plague all xenophobes, the fear of honest and genuine introspection... you may find something you don't like. Everyone in the service should conform to the standards demanded of them or they should get out. I believe that one of those standards should be to accept individuality (as long as it can be put aside to serve the greater community - the definiton of conforming in my eyes) irrespective of gender and/or sexual identity. ...or religious affiliation... or skin color... ethnicity... etc.

It's seems obvious that you think homosexuality is a choice. Firstly, ask yourself why someone would choose to be ostracized, villainized, rejected, and abused to the point of murder. Doesn't make sense, does it?... or, I suppose, you would attribute that choice to the individuals otherwise inherent psycho/social instability. But again, neither here nor there. I want you to try an experiment: CHOOSE to no longer be heterosexual. Just pretend, but put all the weight of your imagination behind it. Can you truly just decide to no longer find women attractive? Can you just decide to no longer love your spouse (assuming you have one) and find her repugnantly unattractive? Can you look at a man and say "I would love to get with that!"? I bet you couldn't for the simple reason that you are straight. The homosexual can likewise not just turn it off. All of us are attracted to whoever we attracted to. Period. Right or wrong, I don't know, but I do know that deciding someone is somehow less a person because of who they are attracted to is vehemently bigoted.

Lastly, Dr. Josef Mengele considered the Jews to be abnormal and we all know how that turned out.

[Mikha'el Ephraim]

Well and good points but, yes- "but", first of all, you cannot force the majority who aren't homosexual to accept the minority who are as being part of the norm. The issue is being forced upon people who really want no part of it by left wing politicos and activists. Their beating a dead horse and pushing the situation in exactly the opposite direction they desire which is sure to cause a severe backlash at some point. As far as the Military is concerned, I said it before, it is no place for Social Experimentation or Political Activism. Let's be perfectly clear here, Scratch hit the nail on the head by saying there are plenty of Gay people in the Military who keep it to themselves and hence, no issues. They serve like anyone else. But there are those both inside the Services and outside who wish to see those who are openly gay wear their sexuality on their sleeves in plain view. If this happens, the envelope will get pushed further and further until discipline and moral in the ranks start to break down. Once that happens, only bad will come of it. The policy as it is needs to be left alone and that's that. Bear in mind, there are many codes of regulations in UCMJ that forbid lewd, sexual, explicit conduct from Military personnel while on duty, on installations or in other settings.

[Toastmaker]

Scratch, If the characteristic that drives the divisive wedge between gay and straight had nothing to do with sex - would the issue be controversial at all ?? For example, if blue-eyed people are in the minority, why are they not ostracized and denigrated by the brown-hazel eyed majority ?

If it is to be argued that blue-eyed can't choose their eyecolor - neither can homosexuals choose their orientation. If it is argued that blue eyes are not particularly personally offensive - neither is homosexuality, until you make it so for yourself, by choice !Based on what? Why would anyone care how another conducts their sex life ? What business is it of yours and why, again do you care to the point of considering them "warped", "twisted" or "perverted".

What about those damn odd-ball blue-eyed people - aren't they a bit perverted and weird ?

It's religion, isn't it. Somewhere in your life, someone convinced you that "God" does not approve and that the whole gay thing is "bad" and must be persecuted and ostracized as a really big "sin".

If you're willing to think deeply about it, you'll see that that makes absolutely no logical sense at all and you have fallen for a serious load of bull**** and this is what's driving you to your mindless homophobia.

Get around this, unconcern yourself with someone's sex life and you will have no problem working next to them in an office or in a foxhole.

[CybrSlydr]

I was going to stay out of this discussion as I knew I couldn't articulate my thoughts on the matter in a constructive manner.

As a blue-eyed person, I fully applaud Toast for that last post. I agree with everything he just said.

Well done, sir!!! Toast for Emperor!!!

[Scratch]

Scratch, If the characteristic that drives the divisive wedge between gay and straight had nothing to do with sex - would the issue be controversial at all ?? For example, if blue-eyed people are in the minority, why are they not ostracized and denigrated by the brown-hazel eyed majority ?

If it is to be argued that blue-eyed can't choose their eyecolor - neither can homosexuals choose their orientation. If it is argued that blue eyes are not particularly personally offensive - neither is homosexuality, until you make it so for yourself, by choice !Based on what? Why would anyone care how another conducts their sex life ? What business is it of yours and why, again do you care to the point of considering them "warped", "twisted" or "perverted".

What about those damn odd-ball blue-eyed people - aren't they a bit perverted and weird ?

It's religion, isn't it. Somewhere in your life, someone convinced you that "God" does not approve and that the whole gay thing is "bad" and must be persecuted and ostracized as a really big "sin".

If you're willing to think deeply about it, you'll see that that makes absolutely no logical sense at all and you have fallen for a serious load of bull**** and this is what's driving you to your mindless homophobia.

Get around this, unconcern yourself with someone's sex life and you will have no problem working next to them in an office or in a foxhole.

Wrong again Toast. I never said homosexuality was a choice. I never called anyone here names, but I am called a homophobe and being compared to nazis. And again I say that the wrongness of homosexuality does not need religious proofs to establish that is is wrong and abnormal.

I don't care what two people do behind closed doors. What I care about is someone telling me that my thinking is warped for believing that homosexuality is abnormal and the relentless assault on our culture down to the kindergarten level to be indoctrinated and forced to accept something that is self evidently wrong.

No parent wants a child to grow up homosexual and it is sad to see parents deluded into accepting a homosexual childs lifestyle just because they are afraid of losing that childs love. It is not bigoted to say someone with any mental disorder is ill, but try to say the same thing about homosexuals is like beating a sacred cow.

If homosexuality is so good what good does it do? The homosexual lifestyle is a lie. That's why some of them push so hard to force others to accept what they clearly know is wrong or not normal. Those that do not accept this are persecuted and called names. It is difficult to have a rational discussion with these people because they redefine what they cannot accept and always end up with name calling when they have no rational argument left.

Wrapping the argument up in a civil rights issue also does not work. The color of ones skin or eyes is not abnormal and doesn't result in destructive behavior. Homosexual behavior is almost always destructive. That is why so many people do not accept that lifestyle. There is a reason why homosexual activity has been condemned over thousands of years. It is because nothing good comes of it and it is ultimately destructive to a society just as it would be to the military if the current policy were abolished.

[Zommoz]

Well and good points but, yes- "but", first of all, you cannot force the majority who aren't homosexual to accept the minority who are as being part of the norm. 1 The issue is being forced upon people who really want no part of it by left wing politicos and activists. Their beating a dead horse and pushing the situation in exactly the opposite direction they desire which is sure to cause a severe backlash at some point. 2 As far as the Military is concerned, I said it before, it is no place for Social Experimentation or Political Activism. 3 Let's be perfectly clear here, Scratch hit the nail on the head by saying there are plenty of Gay people in the Military who keep it to themselves and hence, no issues. 4 They serve like anyone else. But there are those both inside the Services and outside who wish to see those who are openly gay wear their sexuality on their sleeves in plain view. 5 If this happens, the envelope will get pushed further and further until discipline and moral in the ranks start to break down. Once that happens, only bad will come of it. 6The policy as it is needs to be left alone and that's that. 7Bear in mind, there are many codes of regulations in UCMJ that forbid lewd, sexual, explicit conduct from Military personnel while on duty, on installations or in other settings.


1 Why not? They are part of the norm and that is central to my argument.

2 Agreed

3 Again, agreed... let's not experiment with society, let's fix it. ... and getting rid of political activism of every stripe would go a long way towards that goal.

4 I and many others have an issue (but I understand perfectly that our voices matter not) with asking people to deny who they are because they want to serve their country.

5 Once again, agreed. No one should wear their sexuality on their sleeve.

6 Now we're talking. I believe that dissent and a breakdown of discipline, in this case, are caused by bigotry and a bigot with a gun is a dangerous thing.

7 This sounds a lot like "that's just the way things are" and that lazy attitude scares me because things don't have to be the way they are. We can make the world a better place and I think that's what the military are trying to do. Also, I want my children to work towards a better world and that's hard to help them with, when my answer has to always be "Well, that's the way it is."

[Zommoz]

Now I'm starting to understand all this Toastie for Emperor stuff! :thumbs up:


For example, if blue-eyed people are in the minority, why are they not ostracized and denigrated by the brown-hazel eyed majority ?

This brought to mind a fascinating and controversial experiment (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/) a teacher tried with her students after the assassination of MLK. Her premise was that racism was a learned behavior.

[Toastmaker]

Now I'm starting to understand all this Toastie for Emperor stuff! :thumbs up:


This brought to mind a fascinating and controversial experiment (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/) a teacher tried with her students after the assassination of MLK. Her premise was that racism was a learned behavior.




Glad to see you're comming around. . .! :D

I'm glad you brought this experiment up, Zommoz, as it was in my mind when I wrote the blue vs. brown eye analogy.

I've often suspected that people confuse "racism" with "bigotry" in general discussions. To me, racism has it's roots in human nature and bigotry is a learned, human construct to be used as a weapon when convienient.

For example; If your only choices were to live in an all black or all white community - blacks and whites would choose their own color by a large percentage simply from a natural desire for "commonality" as opposed to being odd-man-out in a community. This is natural and not at all necessarily based on any animosity towards the other color.

But, that choice, regardless of the reasoning behind it would be often called "racist", in a derogatory manner. Bigotry, on the other hand, is almost instantly identifiable as a tool to deny others something based on race (and often other characteristics) and is clearly man-made, ie; a learned behavior, as Zommoz pointed out.

I am technically a racist, as are the rest of us because as a white man, I would choose the white community precisely for the reason stated above. But, I am satisfied in my own heart and mind that I am not a bigot - as I would not mistreat someone based on their race.

Society often fails to make this distinction, and by society - I include even our courts, governments and educational systems. This casual error has created many of it's own problems in the past.

[Toastmaker]

Scratch, in all seriousness, I enjoy debating with an intelligent man like you and I'm not trying to insult, bait or fight you. I don't at all think of you as a "Nazi" and am trying to get a grip on your observations.

That being said, and to try to keep us from debating this for the next seven years - let's get to the fundamental points.

Can you explain to me why you consider homosexuality to be "wrong" ? Yes, it's different from the majority and doesn't lend itself to procreation (which is not obligatory anyway), but in what way do you see the fact of it's existance dangerous or improper in society ?

[Snuffy]

Can you explain to me why ... when we got our start it was Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve?

That in itself, EVEN if you consider evolution, the fact that human life started on this planet as 1 male and 1 female ... and not any other combinations of sexes, should be suffcient for the deduced reasoning that homosexuality is not normal and it is wrong.

[Toastmaker]

Snuffy, are only the religious believers to decide what is "normal" and what is "wrong" ?

If we agree that homosexuality exists, and I think we do - and if we agree that homosexuals do not actually choose to be so (and I think we do), then how are homosexuals any more wrong or abnormal that, let's say - an oak tree ? Oaks exist and do not choose to be so. They are also, like homosexuals, a minority in their genus and species. Why aren't these Oak trees wrong - to use your logic ?

And, can you answer the same question I posed to Scratch ?

[Scratch]

Scratch, in all seriousness, I enjoy debating with an intelligent man like you and I'm not trying to insult, bait or fight you. I don't at all think of you as a "Nazi" and am trying to get a grip on your observations.

That being said, and to try to keep us from debating this for the next seven years - let's get to the fundamental points.

Can you explain to me why you consider homosexuality to be "wrong" ? Yes, it's different from the majority and doesn't lend itself to procreation (which is not obligatory anyway), but in what way do you see the fact of it's existance dangerous or improper in society ?

I hope my response clarifies my position. I do not consider homosexuality to be 'wrong'. It is a condition that is abnormal. I consider homosexual sex to be wrong as it is intrinsically disordered and is destructive behavior in the same way that indiscriminate casual sex between heterosexuals is. The person becomes an object primarily for pleasure and thus a thing to be used. It results from the inability of one to control abnormal behavior that is destructive. It makes us less human as does succumbing to any other destructive impulses.

The dangerousness of it comes from the hyper sexual aspect of militant homosexuality that demands others to conform to their warped way of thinking and to condone public behavior that supports that. They want everyone to participate in the delusion that their condition is normal when clearly it is not. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is not my concern. It is not for me to try and prohibit them from anything. When it is dragged into the public arena is a different matter.

[Toastmaker]

I hope my response clarifies my position. I do not consider homosexuality to be 'wrong'. It is a condition that is abnormal. I consider homosexual sex to be wrong

So being homosexual is ok, as long as there's no sex life. . . ?

as it is intrinsically disordered and is destructive behavior in the same way that indiscriminate casual sex between heterosexuals is. The person becomes an object primarily for pleasure and thus a thing to be used.

Destructive to whom ? The participants ? What about two willing people (gay or not) who share an act of sex as an intimate gift to each other ? Are they being used ?
It results from the inability of one to control abnormal behavior that is destructive. It makes us less human as does succumbing to any other destructive impulses.

The homosexual act between consenting adults makes them less human ?



It is not for me to try and prohibit them from anything.


But you would prohibit them from serving in the military, among, I suspect, a few other things.

[CWOJackson]

Under current policy homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military. The military is not the place to arbitrate further advances or restrictions of gay rights, that issue belongs in the courts. Striking down the don't ask, don't tell policy will only make the military institution a battleground from which to circumvent the courts and attempt to establish social order out of laws enacted for military members and their families. Secretary Gates has himself said that the issue just isn't physical incorporation of openly gay individuals into the force (yes, separate berthing and sanitation) but also the soon to follow arguments involving spousal benefits and protections under the Soldiers and Sailors Act.

The United States Military, for the most part, existings to defend this nation and to destroy our enemies. It is not a jobs program nor should it be used as a means to circumvent the courts to enact social change...and spare me any comparisons to racial integration because those arguments are pure bull****.

When dealing with the military as an institution, we need to ask whether the proposed changes will:

- enhance the combat effectiveness of the forces

- improve the operational abilities of the forces

- improve the discipline and efficiencies of the forces

To lift don't ask, don't tell does NOT enhance or improve any of those elements, it would in fact harm all three.

Secretary Gates has said that the military needs time to research this because of the additional requirements dealing with berthing and sanitation but also to consider such matters as how to insure that openly gay members are not held back from advancement because of their need to openly display their sexuality. Some senior officers have warned that this will also take a toll on retention of officers and senior NCO's if done haphazardly; they know it will take a toll regardless but what remains is how bad that impact will be.

To force this on the military in a time of war, when the number of combat deployments are at a record setting pace, is nothing but ludicrous.

[Zommoz]

Scratch - I agree that hyper sexuality of any kind is dangerous and that "indiscriminate casual sex" can be destructive to the psyche, but that is irrespective of the participants genders. I don't see how homosexual sex is "intrinsically disordered and destructive". There have been plenty of studies that show there is homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom. One biologist (Bruce Bagemihl, and yes, he's gay), was even cited in a Supreme Court case - Lawrence v. Texas - that ruled a sodomy law unconstitutional. My real issue here, though, is with the term "abnormal" (so perhaps we are just arguing semantics). I consider myself, among many other things, a behaviorist. From that standpoint, there is no such thing as abnormal. There is common or customary behavior, there are majority/minority relationships, there are societal norms, etc. but we all know that human behavior runs the gamut from the benign to the extreme. To label something someone does as "abnormal", carries all kinds of negative connotations and vilifies the target and I just don't think a loving sexual relationship is in any way negative, again, regardless of who the participants are. Lastly, I did not mean to imply that you are a Nazi by saying that Mengele used the term abnormal in reference to Jews, I was just trying to point out the dangers of using terms like that in relation to humans. I truly and sincerely apologize if I've offended you.

Chief - At first glance, I think the only thing I agree with in your last post is the final sentence. Yeah, perhaps this isn't the best time to shake things up (...but then I am left with "If not now, then when? If not us, then who?). The rest of your post, though, sounds like the empty rhetoric of the threatened majority attempting to maintain the status quo and thus reaching for any argument to defend an indefensible position. For starters, homosexuals are NOT (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html) allowed to serve in the military, and besides, how would you know if you aren't allowed to ask or tell? (Ridiculous circular logic that I believe is pandemic in the military.) But after further examination, I guess I agree that
The military is not the place to arbitrate further advances or restrictions of gay rights, that issue belongs in the courts. but
Striking down the don't ask, don't tell policy will only make the military institution a battleground from which to circumvent the courts and attempt to establish social order out of laws enacted for military members and their families. doesn't sound like a military issue to me... it sounds like a societal/governmental issue. The whole "Then why can he do it?" argument my sons used to have, which doesn't hold water here either. Why should the military care if the rest of the government isn't as forward thinking as they are? Regardless of what SoD Gates says, spousal rights should extend to spouses everywhere of every stripe! ...again not a military issue. It seems as if he doesn't want to be responsible for "homos" everywhere collecting life insurance because he let them in the military. (Perhaps he's just afraid to take a stand and make change?) I like that he says more research is needed though, because that sounds like he is willing to admit that gay members of the military may be discriminated against and that's a start, but... why is ANYBODY openly displaying their sexuality? And why are those heterosexuals that may be "openly displaying their sexuality" separate from the homosexuals? Is it a fighting force or a porn movie set? Perhaps the rule should be something like "you are not allowed to openly display your sexuality". That, to me, is similar to the whole refitting issue... if you want to serve, this is what's expected and you know it going in.

So OF COURSE repealing DA/DT will enhance combat effectiveness... More people can serve! ...and OF COURSE it will improve operational abilities...(see previous) and OF COURSE more human resources should improve efficiency. While the discipline issue can only be addressed by eliminating the homophobia in the ranks, that is relatively easy through the rigorous training I mentioned earlier.

...bear with me, almost done...

Please tell me how the "comparison to racial integration" is "bull****"? I see many parallels...

Finally, I know this all sounds like I live in a fantasy world, but rest assured my feet are secure on terra firma with my head only a little less than six feet above that. I know the scenario I envision here requires some drastic and dramatic changes to the fundamental structure of our society and could require ages to attain, but I feel that the sooner we get started, the sooner we'll all be better off.

[CWOJackson]

Finally, I know this all sounds like I live in a fantasy world, but rest assured my feet are secure on terra firma with my head only a little less than six feet above that. I know the scenario I envision here requires some drastic and dramatic changes to the fundamental structure of our society and could require ages to attain, but I feel that the sooner we get started, the sooner we'll all be better off.



Play that kind of stuff anywhere but the military.

Our military folks are already over burdened and under supported while trying to fight a very intense war. They do not need the added burden of social warfare interfering in their lives and their mission. They have enough to do keeping each other alive.

[Zommoz]

Play that kind of stuff anywhere but the military.

No... The only way to make real change is to "play that stuff" everywhere simultaneously.

[CWOJackson]

No... The only way to make real change is to "play that stuff" everywhere simultaneously.

You are showing an almost casual lack of the understand of the realities that the prolonged war and constant high op tempo is already having on our men and women in uniform.

This is the last thing they need now.

[Zommoz]

Chief - Firstly, I in no way mean to be disrespectful of those currently serving, nor do I mean to belittle or make light of the work ahead of them. I am thankful for the work our military does... and I won't even get into the whole "they shouldn't even be there in the first place" bit that painfully feels appropriate here.

... because, B, my understanding of the effects of this prolonged war on our volunteers is perhaps greater than you believe as I have several family members who serve, including a nephew who has been to Iraq FOUR times now (not counting his Desert Storm tour) and a 24 year old son who is currently seriously considering enlisting (with my blessing).

... and three I have already conceded that

perhaps this isn't the best time to shake things up but how many other issues have been put aside because there were more pressing matters to attend to?

... and delta, your addressing of my desire for a Utopian society conveniently sidesteps the rest of my argument for which you seem to be showing a casual dismissal of.

[CWOJackson]

... and three I have already conceded that
but how many other issues have been put aside because there were more pressing matters to attend to?



There is NO MORE PRESSING MATTER then the welfare of our troops right now. Our troops are currently undergoing a high op tempo and combat deployment ratio unparalleled in our history; WWII didn't even last this long. They are already stressed and strained to the limit, to burden them with this issue now is ludicrous.

This is their world: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.197adb6626132964b024fb64a9a6b39 6.111&show_article=1

Whenever one of the services does something as seemingly simple as make major uniform changes, it's unbelievable how much turmoil it can cause the troops...and how much upper management time it takes that right now would be better served in other areas regarding the war.

Adjusting the berthing and sanitation facilities for vessels and for troops in the field is in itself a monumental task...and all the other incidentals that will accompany the issue also very management level intensive at the expense of already lacking support services to our troops and their families.

You seem to think that our troops can go coed in berthing and sanitation facilities, this again is an unrealistic idea. For instance, our sailors who are doing two tours at sea for each on in port, their berthing area is the one place they have that is even remotely their own. Senior personnel don't invade their berthing facilities except on necessary business; that is done out of respect for their already limited privacy. Making those facilities co-ed is not an option and it will be very expensive.

At this point in time we do not have the resources to distract from a military with changing missions and budgets, and forces that are already being asked to do too much.

Our troops have proven they will eat **** sandwiches for us, but when we try to tell them it's steak they know the difference.

[Scratch]

But you would prohibit them from serving in the military, among, I suspect, a few other things.

I don't have the power to prohibit them from doing anything, but the answer to your question is yes.

[Scratch]

Scratch - I agree that hyper sexuality of any kind is dangerous and that "indiscriminate casual sex" can be destructive to the psyche, but that is irrespective of the participants genders. I don't see how homosexual sex is "intrinsically disordered and destructive". There have been plenty of studies that show there is homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom. One biologist (Bruce Bagemihl, and yes, he's gay), was even cited in a Supreme Court case - Lawrence v. Texas - that ruled a sodomy law unconstitutional. My real issue here, though, is with the term "abnormal" (so perhaps we are just arguing semantics). I consider myself, among many other things, a behaviorist. From that standpoint, there is no such thing as abnormal. There is common or customary behavior, there are majority/minority relationships, there are societal norms, etc. but we all know that human behavior runs the gamut from the benign to the extreme. To label something someone does as "abnormal", carries all kinds of negative connotations and vilifies the target and I just don't think a loving sexual relationship is in any way negative, again, regardless of who the participants are. Lastly, I did not mean to imply that you are a Nazi by saying that Mengele used the term abnormal in reference to Jews, I was just trying to point out the dangers of using terms like that in relation to humans. I truly and sincerely apologize if I've offended you.



The argument from nature is not really valid as some animals also eat their young and that would also be considered abnormal for humans to do. Even from a behaviorist standpoint there has to be normal and abnormal behavior. Different shades of gray or variations on certain behaviors are established by individual societies and cultures. Cultures that see homosexual relations as normal don't last long. It is reasonable to believe that the delusion of normality that many are affected by has nothing to do with respect of persons rights, but with the free unfettered pursuit of sex of any kind period.

I read an interesting report on a science blog recently referring to a genetic study of gay men that concluded that there may be a 'homosexual' gene that exists for the purpose of eliminating the particular haplotype or individual genetic profile of that person for some unknown reason. The purpose for this gene seems to be to prevent the individual from reproducing.
There are no concrete results from the study as it is only preliminary and raises more questions.

I wasn't offended at the nazi stuff. It really takes alot to tick me off. No worries:)

[Zommoz]

Chief -
This is their world: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.197adb6626132964b024fb64a9a6b39 6.111&show_article=1

This brings up all kinds of bad **** for me, starting with my agreeing with scratch about disproportionate response. I know that we can't just ignore the Geneva convention and other treaties (unless of course said treaties are with the natives we took this land from) without more than severe backlash from the international community, but did those serving not know this going in? Yeah, I know my arguments of "tough noogies" are rather heartless, but there is more than just a grain of truth to them... and again, I feel terrible about what they have to face and the extreme frustration they must feel at essentially having their hands tied. Not to mention a lot more than a little guilty that it is in my name and with my money that they suffer so.


You seem to think that our troops can go coed in berthing and sanitation facilities, this again is an unrealistic idea. For instance, our sailors who are doing two tours at sea for each on in port, their berthing area is the one place they have that is even remotely their own. Senior personnel don't invade their berthing facilities except on necessary business; that is done out of respect for their already limited privacy. Making those facilities co-ed is not an option and it will be very expensive.

At this point in time we do not have the resources to distract from a military with changing missions and budgets, and forces that are already being asked to do too much. Yes it is an unrealistic idea but only because of our societies twisted and hypocritical prurient victorian attitudes about sex and gender (not to mention race/ethnicity/skin color...). As far as I'm concerned, a person in uniform is a person in uniform. If our government instituted mandatory service, perhaps I could see how they should provide for individual comforts, but as we have a volunteer force it would be simple enough to lay out whats expected. Are our troops not big enough boys and girls to share space with someone of the opposite sex? This argument falls on deaf ears here as it shouldn't be this way in the first place... but I digress. I see the meat of your argument (and admittedly, there is A LOT more meat than my words seem to give credit to) as the fact that this would be an unforgivably thoughtless extra stress to present to people in charge of extremely mission critical stuff. But as a service man with the experience I presume you have should know, as far back as we have had a military, there have been "more pressing matters" to attend to. So what's the minimum amount of deployed troops we can have before we start to address the issue? Again, if not now, when?... if not us, who? It seems that sometime between 1931 and 1933 was the last time we were not involved in other "more (http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html) pressing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172) matters (http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm)".


Our troops have proven they will eat **** sandwiches for us, but when we try to tell them it's steak they know the difference.

... and we should be grateful and provide for them for the rest of their lives as that is, in my view, the least we can do to thank them for their service.


Scratch - Yes other animals often eat their young as a response to lack of resources. And while it's not common ("normal"?), humans have been know to leave our young in a dumpster or a toilet or someone else's doorstep, again often as a response to a fear they may not be able to be provided for. While there have been instances of homosexuality in just about every known culture, your right, never as a majority. Perhaps this "gay gene" I to remember reading about somewhere, is a sign that we are reaching our limits in resources? Perhaps that is evolutions response to them dwindling? ...or overpopulation? Wasn't there another thread about that?

[Toastmaker]

[QUOTE=Zommoz;32792]. . . It seems that sometime between 1931 and 1933 was the last time we were not involved in other "more (http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html) pressing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172) matters (http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm)"./QUOTE]






Yes, quite right. It was July 19, 1932, that for five straight hours, the United States had no "pressing matters" pending.



:thumbs up:

[CWOJackson]

Again, if not now, when?... if not us, who? It seems that sometime between 1931 and 1933 was the last time we were not involved in other "more pressing matters".





There are no more pressing matters then keeping as many of our men and women alive, and not distracting from that for some social crusade...and fortunately, it seems that members of Congress agree.

[Scratch]

Scratch - Perhaps this "gay gene" I to remember reading about somewhere, is a sign that we are reaching our limits in resources? Perhaps that is evolutions response to them dwindling? ...or overpopulation? Wasn't there another thread about that?

If it is a 'gay' gene. It is a fascinating study that can go anywhere at this point. I don't think it has anything to do with overpopulation or dwindling resources. It is probably something deeper in their genome. If I would have to guess I would say maybe something disease related that could be devastating to humanity down the road if that particular person passed on their genes. I'm not talking about AIDS. Something even more devastating.

A self regulating human genome that promotes and demotes? Maybe, maybe not. To me, as much as I like space exploration, exploring the human genome is infinitely more fascinating.

[Snuffy]

I'd venture to guess its something entirely different. But who am I to say.

[Snuffy]

Seems the majority favor not changing it.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/02/decide-time-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/

[Zommoz]

Seems the majority favor not changing it.
Can't... resist... dig....!!! The majority?... of who? ...Fox News readers? ...and since when did the word "majority" carry any weight?

(...sorry, I tried to fight it... but, you know... us "whackos" have no discipline.)

Now that that's out of my system, here's another opinion (http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-obama-dont-ask-dont-tell.artfeb03,0,2197424.story) regarding a policy "that makes second-class citizens out of homosexuals and has resulted in more than 13,000 gays and lesbians being discharged." It also notes that while congress is "less eager to repeal the discriminatory policy", SoD Gates and CotJC Adm. Mullin "say it's time to let gays serve openly" to the point where "already the military has pledged not to take disciplinary action against soldiers 'outed' by third parties". It's a start.

And another (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01pentagon.html) that "won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition."

Just for good measure (http://www.newser.com/article/d9dkcjf81/time-to-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-ban-on-gays-in-military-defense-officials-tell-senate.html), though this one is more clear; "Repealing the ban would take an act of Congress, something that does not appear close to happening."


And yeah, Snuffy, it probably is something entirely different, but as you no doubt can tell by now, I have a tendency to speculate out loud.

[Zommoz]

While I'm sure I'll be accused of oversimplifying, here's an easy solution to
no more pressing matters then keeping as many of our men and women alive; Bring 'em all home!

[Snuffy]

... And yeah, Snuffy, it probably is something entirely different, but as you no doubt can tell by now, I have a tendency to speculate out loud.

I've noticed that you have a tendancy to be a little dysfunctional. :faintthud:

[CWOJackson]

While I'm sure I'll be accused of oversimplifying, here's an easy solution to; Bring 'em all home!

And those they are fighting will follow.

I'm beginning to realize you don't have a very clear understanding of just what our Armed Forces exist for.

[Zommoz]

Snuffy - Just a little dysfunctional!? Thanks for the compliment! :thumbs up:

Chief - I thought our Armed Forces existed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and through this, protect it's citizenry from those that would do us harm. If that's not the case, please elucidate. If it is, then how can gays serving openly make that problematic?

You've said several times that there is no more pressing matter than keeping our men and women alive, but it seems you don't believe that as it sounds like you are willing to leave them in harms way. I don't mean to put words in your mouth but, perhaps what you meant was "there is no more pressing matter than keeping our men and women alive while they fight" or some-such. That's a different statement, the first being a simple imperative with an equally simple solution the second making clear that the object is the fight and not the surviving.

[CWOJackson]

Snuffy - Just a little dysfunctional!? Thanks for the compliment! :thumbs up:

Chief - I thought our Armed Forces existed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and through this, protect it's citizenry from those that would do us harm. If that's not the case, please elucidate. If it is, then how can gays serving openly make that problematic?

You've said several times that there is no more pressing matter than keeping our men and women alive, but it seems you don't believe that as it sounds like you are willing to leave them in harms way. I don't mean to put words in your mouth but, perhaps what you meant was "there is no more pressing matter than keeping our men and women alive while they fight" or some-such. That's a different statement, the first being a simple imperative with an equally simple solution the second making clear that the object is the fight and not the surviving.

I was right, your concept of the Armed Forces is so seriously flawed as to make attempts at rationale discussion with you about them meaningless.

[Zommoz]

If my "concept of the Armed Forces is so seriously flawed", then you're right. As long as I'm ignorant, I can't have a rational discussion on the subject, so I'll repeat... Please elucidate. ... or is that part of the tactic... maintain ignorance so all arguments then have no value?

It's tiresome to hear from those who know that "you couldn't possibly understand so I won't bother explaining". It's tedious, self-serving and ultimately patronizing. It's also a method that conveniently blocks any real progress.

[Scratch]

I think he's done an excellent job of explaining the situation. No matter how much discipline is enforced you cannot make someone who is revolted by homosexual behavior live in close quarters with one and expect there not to be huge problems. The situation cannot be overcome by sensitivity training or any indoctrination period. No one wants to be stared at like a piece of meat 24/7.

The problem is not with the heterosexual, but with the homosexual. There are very good reasons why they have been banned from military service and it has nothing to do with discrimination, hate, or insensitivity. It is just plain old common sense.

[Snuffy]

xk3-4dAlOjs

[Zommoz]

I think he's done an excellent job of explaining the situation.He has done an excellent job of explaining the situation, needlessly, I might add, as I am well aware of what the situation is. What I am asking for here is elucidation on where I am wrong in my understanding of what our armed forces are for.
No matter how much discipline is enforced you cannot make someone who is revolted by homosexual behavior live in close quarters with one and expect there not to be huge problems. The situation cannot be overcome by sensitivity training or any indoctrination period. No one wants to be stared at like a piece of meat 24/7.
One can "force" individuals to put up with all kinds of seeming impossibilities, (and our military has arguably the best trainers in the world for that very kind of work) but you're right, NOT through sensitivity training. Sensitivity training, as we know it today, wouldn't be very effective here as it is near impossible to change someones "feelings" because, as a good friend of mine used to say, "Feelings aren't facts." In other words, feelings are nothing in relationships when compared to actions. There are methods of behavior modification that make the participant stop acting on their insensitivity, which is where the rubber meets the road - in daily, face to face interaction. While actions MUST cause feelings, feelings do not necessarily cause actions. How I behave is a choice, how I feel is not. Allow everyone to feel however they feel, and teach them how to control their reactions to those feelings. Train folks to not behave in ways that make other people uncomfortable. It can be done, it has been done and people pay me their hard earned money to help them get it done. My work would be a lot easier if I had at my disposal some of the tools used by military trainers, i.e., the effects of sleep deprivation, physical stress, actual and perceived danger. Things like that go a long way in behavior modification and that's why they're used to train military recruits. Now Jackson might call this Social Experimentation, but I call it Social Change, (so again, are we arguing semantics?) while the DA/DT Policy is the experimentation.
The problem is not with the heterosexual, but with the homosexual. There are very good reasons why they have been banned from military service and it has nothing to do with discrimination, hate, or insensitivity. It is just plain old common sense.My mom used to say "Common sense ain't near as common as we like to think it is."

[Toastmaker]

This reminds me of the same, tired arguments used to protest racial integration in our services. "We ain't gonna eat with no darkies" and "No way is a negro gonna bunk in our barracks!"

What a load of horse**** - pure and simple. The American military is a reflection of our greater society, whether they like it or not. If Society gradually evolves into one where gays or Druids or Voodoo worshipers become commonly accepted - so be it. The military can either "adapt and overcome" or get the **** out.

1971-73 I served in Viet Nam with the 121st Inf. in Nha Trang on the central coast. Lull periods allowed a fair amount of black/white racial flare-ups but when in the **** - all that silly crap got forgotten instantly and we fought as a unit - a team - a machine, with no regard for a skin color or sexual interest or anything else.

Our military has greater challenges before it than whether there's a queer in the barracks. Get over it and get moving. Your arguments are some weak **** if I've ever seen them!

[CWOJackson]

Our military exists to rain death and destruction on our enemies.

It is not en employment agency. It is not an equal opportunity jobs corps. It is not a college campus nor does it exist for social-political experiments. Most importantly, serving in the military is not a right.

It is not a democracy either, however, their own internal polling has show that a majority of Active Duty members DO NOT want this. and when temporary Active Duty members (National Guard - Reserve) that majority goes up even higher. As I said, the Armed Forces aren't a democracy, but it is AN ALL VOLUNTEER force who can and does vote with it's participation.

To debate whether it's a social choice, gender preference or biological imperative or even to claim it is somehow akin to racial equality should be decided in the courts, not in the Armed Forces. Racial equality wasn't determined by re-integration of the military, it had been long determined before that by the Constitution and by law. Until the issue of so-called gay rights becomes determined by law it has no legal standing.

What does have legal standing is don't ask, don't tell. One of the better things about don't ask, don't tell is it placed it into U.S. Code, making it immune from executive order or even by the Pentagon itself; it can only be overturned by a majority of Congress.

The Pentagon is insisting that it will take a year to properly determine HOW they will have to restructure the Armed Forces when this is over turned, in the mean time the real struggle will be going on with members of Congress who are not ready to repeal it. Will that will change given the voter shift back to center-right, in the face of a continuing war, a struggling economy and record unemployment?

The pResident knew this before he even proposed it...one year later. He was under heightened criticism by that core constituency group and he threw them a bone.

[Zommoz]

Chief - Have you ever had a one-on-one fight with a homosexual? If "raining death" is what you want, then letting gays serve is also what you want. As the old Queer joke goes "There are two things I know how to do well, baby; **** and fight, so take your pick!"

Gay rights is a constitutional issue and of course the majority of people in uniform would vote no just as they would have in the forties when the military population, as now, reflected the population at large and racial integration was being considered.

From a link I posted earlier "TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 ...(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made..." Sounds like the SoD can reject any and every case that comes across his desk.

If you are afraid of record numbers of homophobes fleeing the service if and when this is overturned, don't worry as we can just reinstate the 13000 or so gays that have already been separated. That would help bring the numbers back up.

[CWOJackson]

Chief - Have you ever had a one-on-one fight with a homosexual? If "raining death" is what you want, then letting gays serve is also what you want. As the old Queer joke goes "There are two things I know how to do well, baby; **** and fight, so take your pick!"

Gay rights is a constitutional issue and of course the majority of people in uniform would vote no just as they would have in the forties when the military population, as now, reflected the population at large and racial integration was being considered.

From a link I posted earlier "TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 ...(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made..." Sounds like the SoD can reject any and every case that comes across his desk.

If you are afraid of record numbers of homophobes fleeing the service if and when this is overturned, don't worry as we can just reinstate the 13000 or so gays that have already been separated. That would help bring the numbers back up.

I'm sorry to have to point this out but the SecDef cannot over rule U.S. Code; he/she can only act at their discretion within the laws made by the civilian government.

I also find your description of record numbers of homophobes fleeing the service interesting. In a day and age when the military leadership is placing our troops on trial for giving a murdering terrorist a fat lip your idea is to tell the troops "**** you" again.

People like you, who take our military personnel for granted, should start making plans on reinstating the draft. Our troops aren't fools...even if many of the people they work for are.

[Zommoz]

I'm sorry to have to point this out but the SecDef cannot over rule U.S. Code; he/she can only act at their discretion within the laws made by the civilian government.

Then I guess I misunderstand the term "under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense" which is part of the code in question.

My
description of record numbers of homophobes fleeing the service was inferred from your
the Armed Forces aren't a democracy, but it is AN ALL VOLUNTEER force who can and does vote with it's participation. ...Perhaps I misunderstand again. Legal jargon can be hard for me to follow sometimes but your rhetoric is pretty clear to me, so I doubt it.


People like you, who take our military personnel for granted, should start making plans on reinstating the draft. Our troops aren't fools...even if many of the people they work for are.
While I can't speak for people like me (whatever that means..?) I don't take our military for granted. On the contrary, I am tired of their being abused and misused and want them ALL to be treated justly and trained properly to treat others justly.

[CWOJackson]

Spare me the theatrics, your concern for the troops is only in support of a social agenda.

As I said, if the unthinkable happens, get ready to reinstate the draft. About the only thing our troops have asked of us is to have their backs...and not in the way you suggest.

Somewhere in Pakistan a bearded man is laughing because of people like you...who would defeat our own military when he can't.

[Toastmaker]

Spare me the theatrics, your concern for the troops is only in support of a social agenda.

As I said, if the unthinkable happens, get ready to reinstate the draft. About the only thing our troops have asked of us is to have their backs...and not in the way you suggest.

Somewhere in Pakistan a bearded man is laughing because of people like you...who would defeat our own military when he can't.




This is a bit harsh, Chief. Your insinuation is that we (who would not object to gays in the military (since there have been for centuries) would willingly put our troops at a disadvantage for nothing more than a "social experiment".

By the way - it's not an experiment, it's a social fact that gays exist and function in all segments of society. I'm as much a miilitary-supporting hawk as you'll ever meet and I'm not gay, but I can recognize a wrong thing when I see it.

I suppose I'm not trying to change your opinion on this issue as much as expressing mine. I also was a bit offensive in a previous post here and I appologize if any were offended - just having a frustrating day.

Homosexuality, as you may have noticed, has become more and more accepted in our society - with little negative consequences. Our military members are drawn directly from that very society and I don't see any change to the "don't ask - don't tell" policy as being able to destroy a rather resiliant military force.

Returning to the draft ? Over this controversy ? That's a tad knee-jerk, don't you think ? When hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops pour over the So/Cal beaches - then we'll need the draft !!

[Snuffy]

... I'm as much a miilitary-supporting hawk as you'll ever meet and I'm not gay, but ....

I play one on TV ... :emot-angel:


Sorry Toastie, the first thing that popped into my mind as soon as I read it.

:faintthud: :prop:

[Toastmaker]

You sir, are a reprobate and a flabsnapper !


Keep up the good work !

:laugh:

[Snuffy]

You sir, are a reprobate and a flabsnapper !


Keep up the good work !

:laugh:

Reprobate? Not quite gone that far ... I've always got a hand on the life line ...

Flabsnapper? I've often thought about this of late ... any snapper is better than none I suppose eh?

:o

[CWOJackson]

This is a bit harsh, Chief. Your insinuation is that we (who would not object to gays in the military (since there have been for centuries) would willingly put our troops at a disadvantage for nothing more than a "social experiment".

By the way - it's not an experiment, it's a social fact that gays exist and function in all segments of society. I'm as much a miilitary-supporting hawk as you'll ever meet and I'm not gay, but I can recognize a wrong thing when I see it.

I suppose I'm not trying to change your opinion on this issue as much as expressing mine. I also was a bit offensive in a previous post here and I appologize if any were offended - just having a frustrating day.

Homosexuality, as you may have noticed, has become more and more accepted in our society - with little negative consequences. Our military members are drawn directly from that very society and I don't see any change to the "don't ask - don't tell" policy as being able to destroy a rather resiliant military force.

Returning to the draft ? Over this controversy ? That's a tad knee-jerk, don't you think ? When hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops pour over the So/Cal beaches - then we'll need the draft !!

You'd better get comfortable with the idea of bringing the draft back.

A clear majority of the troops are opposed to this pure and simple...and that does include many serving gays. No one is denying that there are gays serving honorably in the military, and in many cases they are well known to their units but that is because those people became known to their comrades long before their sexual preference became known...that is a fine distinction.

Our resilient military is already taking it in the shorts every day, no pun intended. While retention is "holding" that's only because of the accelerated use of reserve and guard units on the front lines as well. Morale in the military, particularly in combat arms, is deteriorating and forcing them into something like this will break a lot of camel backs. Thanks to the wonders of modern communications, the troops are paying attention.

[Scratch]

The skin color/homosexual example doesn't quite fit. Discrimination for race is just that, plain discrimination based on bigotry and stereotypes. Discrimination against homosexuals is rational in some circumstances because of their behavior which the majority of people find repugnant.

This faulty comparison leads to the false conclusion that this is a civil rights issue which it is not.

[Snuffy]

The skin color/homosexual example doesn't quite fit. Discrimination for race is just that, plain discrimination based on bigotry and stereotypes. Discrimination against homosexuals is rational in some circumstances because of their behavior which the majority of people find repugnant.

This faulty comparison leads to the false conclusion that this is a civil rights issue which it is not.

I find the race issue repugnant as well ... its all bull****. Not maning up for themselves so they use a crutch ...

:shark:

[Zommoz]

While it's a lot more complicated than "using a crutch", I think I agree with you Snuffy... I find Affirmative Action pretty offensive... but perhaps we should save that for another thread.

[CWOJackson]

Careful there guys or you'll be called racists next.

[Scratch]

The Washington Times
Originally published 08:19 p.m., February 1, 2010, updated 08:31 p.m., February 1, 2010
BLACK: Danger to discipline

Richard H. Black

President Obama's promise to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military has caused tension among those responsible for military discipline. Former Marine Commandant Gen. Carl E. Mundy and 1,160 retired admirals and generals strongly oppose the change.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was tasked by Mr. Obama with implementing the change. But that task has proved difficult. On Jan. 15, The Washington Times reported, "Adm. Mullen was unable to get the full backing of other senior leaders during an unusual meeting of the top officers from each branch of the military." There are good reasons why top officers, including current Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, oppose the change.

From 1992 to 1994, I served as chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. During that time, President Clinton ignited a firestorm when he tried to force the Department of Defense to admit known homosexuals into the military. Key obstacles were the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ ) and department regulations stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." The uniform code prohibits indecent assaults, indecent acts, indecent liberties with children and sodomy. Each of those rules makes good sense in the unique military environment.

Even as Congress was wrestling with Mr. Clinton's proposal on homosexuals, officials were dealing with a major homosexual scandal at Fort Hood, Texas. Homosexuals had advertised a Fort Hood restroom as a gathering spot for casual sex. In just seven days, criminal investigators observed 60 men publicly committing serious acts on post. Officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and enlisted personnel participated. Many wore uniforms displaying their insignia of rank.

The Army dealt with the matter discreetly, and the chief of public affairs referred to it as a "potentially explosive issue." It was "explosive" because it contradicted the administration's campaign to portray gay GIs as "perfect gentlemen - a boon to the force."

At the Criminal Law Division, facts contradicted that party line. Worldwide criminal reports documented serious offenses being committed frequently by homosexual GIs. To be certain, homosexuals weren't the only soldiers committing crimes, but the administration's proposals would have placed homosexuals in situations of forced intimacy, where same-sex attractions invite serious trouble.

Activists claim the risk of crimes from same-sex offenders is no greater than it is between servicemen and women. They are wrong. Women are not required to sleep and shower under the watchful eyes of men.

Homosexuals dismiss concerns regarding privacy in showers and in the barracks. But the risk is high. At Fort Sill, Okla., in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care.

Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits had to physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army base to keep him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to escape out a second-story window. At Marine boot camp, an aggressive female recruit was discharged for sexually touching and soliciting fellow Marines. Her intimidating manner caused fear and distrust throughout her platoon. At Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., a company gunnery sergeant sexually attacked a young officer candidate who had stayed back at the barracks while his platoon was out training.

Rep. Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke firmly against dropping the ban on homosexuals, stating that it would cause "disruption" and "serious problems." Mr. Skelton is correct.

Assaults aren't the only problem. Few things threaten unit cohesion more than consensual sex between homosexuals while others are present. The Fort Hood incident demonstrates how public sex among homosexual officers, NCOs and enlisted men destroys respect for rank. How would men respond to such officers and noncoms in battle?

If widespread misconduct of that severity could happen with the prohibitions now in effect, how much worse would it become if consensual homosexuality were lawfully sanctioned - and made the subject of sensitivity training?

Discipline will suffer if gays are permitted to serve. I learned the importance of discipline on the Marine drill fields of Parris Island. S.C., and during fierce fighting with the 1st Marine Regiment. Later, in the disciplinary collapse following the Vietnam War, I spent many years helping rebuild discipline in the Army. Experience shows that highly disciplined units are important in garrison - and vital in battle.

Mr. Clinton practically brought down his presidency trying to lift the ban. After an exhaustive national debate, the House of Representatives determined that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Congress then enacted Title 10 U.S. Code Section 654, which states that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. That ban is an essential element of military discipline. It must be retained.

Richard H. Black, retired from the U.S. Army, was chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division. As a Marine pilot, he flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam and he served four terms in the Virginia General Assembly.

[Zommoz]

If we're going to share editorials, here go some more:

From the New York Times' politics and government blog http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/powell-favors-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/
Some cogent thoughts from the Anchorage Daily News http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/1127853.html
Here's an article that says the first American wounded in Operation: Iraqi Freedom was gay http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2010/01/dont_stick_with_dont_ask_dont.html
FromScripps http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/51139
and here's a bit about the Washington Times history with the "gay agenda" http://mediamatters.org/research/201002050045
Finally one about as "fair and balanced" as anything you can find on Foxnews http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/columnists/criminals-yes-but-gays-no-214302.html

[Scratch]

If we're going to share editorials, here go some more:

From the New York Times' politics and government blog http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/powell-favors-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/
Some cogent thoughts from the Anchorage Daily News http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/1127853.html
Here's an article that says the first American wounded in Operation: Iraqi Freedom was gay http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2010/01/dont_stick_with_dont_ask_dont.html
FromScripps http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/51139
and here's a bit about the Washington Times history with the "gay agenda" http://mediamatters.org/research/201002050045
Finally one about as "fair and balanced" as anything you can find on Foxnews http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/columnists/criminals-yes-but-gays-no-214302.html

Colin Powell is a political whore, his opinion is worthless.
The rest of the articles are equally worthless as truth is sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. To even debate the matter is a waste of time as common sense should prevail, the answer is self evident and a resounding no to changing the policy.

[Zommoz]

Got it... another shining example of "my book is righter than yours".

"Common sense" tells me that I should not grant one human being the rights I deny another (understanding that every right bears with it a responsibility), yet that happens all around me, all the time. "Common sense" has failed on enough occasions for me to not make my decisions based solely on it. The answer is not self evident, hence the debate.

[Scratch]

It is self evident. I'm talking about abnormal behavior and you just don't get it.

[Scratch]

http://flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/FGOM%20Issue%20Overview%20033109.pdf

I think these folks opinion carry some weight.

[Scratch]

More clarification.

http://www.frcblog.com/2010/02/everything-youve-heard-about-dont-ask-dont-tell-is-wrong/

[Zommoz]

It is not self evident, except to those who have already made up their minds that homosexuality is "abnormal". I have here and elsewhere asked for the clarification of what you (and others) mean by "normal". In the absence of clarity, I will assume your definition of normal is "what is socially average or socially acceptable". By that definition, yes... homosexuality is not "normal", but as I've tried to point out before, using that term in relation to human behavior just doesn't fit. By that definition, it is not "normal" to chew your toenails, but I know at least one soldier who does... it is not "normal" to flick your boogers all over the room, but again, same soldier. It is not "normal" to kill people, yet we ask it of our troops regularly. Please, define normal for me.

As for the articles you posted, firstly I wonder how many members of the "Flag & General Officers for the Military Project" are gay. While I'm sure their opinion carries weight within the military, I think that weight is overinflated if their numbers do not reflect the populace at large. (Further, I wonder how many flag and general officers are gay, considering the bias in today's US military.) From their "About Us" section: "The Flag & General Officers for the Military project was organized for the purpose of showing support for the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.)...” so their agenda is quite clear. ...and of course their opposite numbers could never form a project as that would jeopardize their place in the military.
Now,... the FRC? REALLY!?? PLEASE! When they include same sex couples in their definition of "family", I'll have a lot more respect for their opinion... in other words, their agenda is quite clear as well. What's that you ask?... my agenda? My agenda in all this is that of equality and human rights. Simply, whats good for the goose, is good for the other geese as well. When my friend is forced, by law, to keep his toenail chewing a secret, then I will accept that people have to keep their sexuality a secret too.

[Scratch]

Nothing good comes from homosexuality.

[CWOJackson]

While I'm sure their opinion carries weight within the military, I think that weight is overinflated if their numbers do not reflect the populace at large.



There is very little about the military, it's mission and it's people that reflects the populace at large...which is why it is so effective.

[Snuffy]

I can think of at least one other opinion, non militarily that seems to be overinflated as well.

Don't you think its time to give it up? :horse1: