While I understand that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with, it's been there since the dawn of time, and it's being solved. The mills grind slowly, but ever so fine (etc.).

When it comes to staffing armed forces, I'm worried about newer problems.

Cris is correct to be concerned. At SIMA - Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity, clearly the victim of Naming Disease but a real facility in Jacksonville - dozens of pregnant women magically appeared whenever carriers were scheduled for deployment, a duty clearly less pleasant than remaining on shore in the USA with feet up while some other sailors, usually male, get shorted their allotment of shore duty and sent to sea early.

The job of a sailor, soldier or Marine is to be ready for combat. Yes, there are non-combat jobs to be done. Yes, if a woman scheduled for that task or next in rotation in substitution due to time or casualties is pregnant, she gets a pass and someone else has to step up.

Hey, ladies - join the Army. Be a single mother on the taxpayer dime. Impress everybody with your maternity uniform, and you won't get called for any hard jobs.

Patton has to be over a thousand RPM.

The far more interesting question in my mind is "why do so many of our Arabic translators turn out to be gay?"

I mean, is there something inherently gay about Arabic? Or are homosexuals more interested in learning that language over other ones?

It just seems that we only hear about gay Arabic translators, never gay sub captains, or gay maintenance officers.

I'm w/ Crid. Attitude towards gays are changing, albeit slowly.

Like many stupid policies, this one springs from ignorance. There is this fear among people who aren't comfortable with gays that, in the shower/sleeping situation mentioned above, this guy will be raging with desire for each dude.

This isn't true, just as I am not raging with desire for each dude. Luckily for my fiance. It's like this gay man will rape you while you're sleeping or something. Ain't true.

So, instead of trying to change people's unfounded fears and biases they just implement a stupid policy, which only proliferates the B.S. Again, I think things are looking up for my homosexual amigos but it's wise to understand the series of events and attitudes that brought us to this point.

Yesterday I had this issue put in perspective when I read about the ongoing gay holocaust in Iraq.

Firing someone because they're gay is bad. Killing them in unspeakable ways and delighting in their suffering is evil. The administration turning a blind eye to that is, what? Politics as usual?

As a USAF Vet (83-88) I was a Maintenance Guy on F-15 aircraft in Okinawa, Japan.
I can tell you that sex, of any kind, was the greatest cause of disruption in the unit.
Please remember that unlike the civilian world, the military does not exist to solve social problems.
They are there to "Kill People & Break Things" as the saying goes.
So, leave 'em alone.

If you are gay, and you join, you knew all about "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" before you got there. Do your time, keep your mouth shut, and play by the rules. If you can't (or won't), don't join.
It's really that simple.
I am sick to death tired of "activists" who know the rules going in, but don't like them.
Look, if the rules are that bad, don't join.
That goes for gays, C.O.s and all manner of other mal-contents.
The Military is voluntary. If it offends you in some way, stay out.

I can tell you that sex, of any kind, was the greatest cause of disruption in the unit.

Point taken, Thomas; sex within a military unit is disruptive, and as you know, people get discharged for it from time to time. However, nothing in the Lieutenant Choi passage indicates that he was having sex with anybody.

By the way, I was at Kadena 88-90. We could probably trade a few saloon stories.

> By the way, I was at Kadena 88-90.

ORD, were those SR-71 years?

ORD, were those SR-71 years?

Crid, the planes did fly out of Kadena back then, although they were being phased out. I think I remember seeing the last SR-71 takeoff in 1990. You probably know that the plane was known locally as the Habu, after the deadly Okinawan snake.

They don't have "don't ask, don't tell" for heterosexuals in the military. Is sex only a great cause of disruption if you're gay?

There was a time when there were no women in the military. When they started to integrate women in the forces, there were strict anti-fraternization policies.

They should not have been done away with. Had those been kept and strictly enforced, then there would be significantly less concern with homosexuals serving.

The problem arises from emotion clouding reason in the heat of battle. Your job is to "kill people and break things", and you are going to be less effective at that if you have a single person in the unit as your emotional focus.

As far as "Don't ask, don't tell" goes, I can't think of a better solution. I know, it would be great if they could be openly homosexual, but I think that officials fear that would make the soldier's sexuality an issue. If they're all just soldiers, then there's not an issue. It's not ideal, but how else should it be handled? I know that society has become increasingly more accepting toward homosexuality, but I'm not sure that now's the time.

My cousin got knocked up while she was in the Air Force. I don't know if she did it on purpose or not, but she was scheduled for a second tour of duty in Afghanistan. She was allowed to chose between a discharge, or leave time followed by deployment. She chose a discharge. (She joined the USAF around 2004, so it wasn't exactly a suprise when she was deployed the first time.) After her discharge paperwork was complete (or however that all works- I don't know), she went in for an exam and there was no heartbeat. So, she was out of the military with an honorable discharge (after maybe 2 years), and no longer pregnant. Anyway, her boyfriend (now husband) was military, too- a different branch- for what it's worth. So, that's my story about women getting prenant in the military.

As a USAF Vet (83-88) I was a Maintenance Guy on F-15 aircraft in Okinawa, Japan.
I can tell you that sex, of any kind, was the greatest cause of disruption in the unit.
-----
I agree with Thomas wholeheartedly on this.
While Daniel in the article sounds like a stand up guy, I have been hit on by 4-homosexual men in my life, and all knew that I was straight. Had these passes been made in my time in the military it would have been a huge disruption. When a guy knows you are straight and they hit on you anyway, I would not be in a tent, a fox hole,barracks or ship with them.

Thomas hit the nail on the head it is too big of a disruption.

> So, she was out of the military
> with an honorable discharge
> (after maybe 2 years)

Why honorable discharge? Isn't this plainly a non-fulfillment of an obligation?

----

(My favorite Blackbird story.)

It just seems that we only hear about gay Arabic translators, never gay sub captains, or gay maintenance officers.

We hear about them because it's unthinkable that we should be firing these people when we have such a short supply of Arabic speakers in our military and intelligence services.

I don't know, Crid. Maybe it wasn't "honorable," but "under honorable conditions." And you know, thinking back,it was probably really a medical discharge. I apoligize; I get all of this second-or third-hand... and I have a bunch of liars in my family. Either way, she got herself out, easily.

It's simply amazing. Congress passed a law making this military policy. The military gets smeared for enforcing it. There's a problem here, but it's not with the military.

It's like the freak show with Walter Reed. Congress put the base on the BRAC list, so it's not exactly surprising that money wasn't spent on improving the facility. Then the military gets to take the hit for substandard living conditions that wounded vets had to cope with.

Somewhere, there may be a politician who actually is responsible for something. I've never heard of him.

It sure isn't "it's Bush's deficit."

"Why honorable discharge? Isn't this plainly a non-fulfillment of an obligation?"

In these days of legal abortion, when every pregnancy is a choice,yes it was. But this is where politics come into the picture. Although the military is probably within its authority to tell a member to get an abortion and then get their as on the plane - they can punish you for getting enough of a sunburn to keep you from work, FGS - the political blowback for outside and the morale ramifications from inside are considered ....not worth the trouble.

It's different with DADT though. The majority of the opposition comes from civilian pressure groups such as that one in Iowa headed by a woman, Elaine Donnelly, who has never served a day but who still feels competent to opine on the adverse impacts on discipline and morale of scrapping the law.

As for gay Arabic linguists vice gay maintenance oficers 1) gay maintenance oficers definitely exist and always have but as someone pointed out above, they are easy to replace and don't make news and 2) military intelligence, the medic, personnel and maybe one other branch of the Army seems to have morer than their share. Special Forces (Green Berets) are also known for being very open-minded on this point - "open and affirming" almost.

Most medical discharges are honerable, unless it was a pre existing condition I never was sure what those guys got.

I remember one night a couple of the guys getting discharged the next morning snuck out to the posts gas station, got some porn, smokes, and liquor.

The drill sergent on night duty caught their gaurd in the showers with a 2way radio. By the time they got back there were 4 MPs waiting in the showers. The morons tried to run, if you can belive it when they stepped in to the latrine and saw the DS with the MPs.

They were taken off that night, brought back the next morning, and the company commander had them shred their dischage papers in front of the whole company, and then read the charges agaisnt them.
Theft of miliary property - radios, and rain slickers
Miss use of military property
2 Counts Disobeying a commsioned officer - braking curfew, contraband
2 Counts Disobeying a Non commisioned offier - braking curfew, contraband
Destruction of military property - dropping the radio
Resisitng arrest - kept running after being told to stop

At which point they were handcuffed again and put in the back of the MPs car

They spent to months in jail, were sent back to the company afterwards and wound up reciving dishonerable discharges.

Sad thing was the van leaving the post dropped you off a a bus stop where they could have bought anything they wanted if they would have waited 12 hours - 10 of which were sleep, morning formation(all of 5min) and breakfast

Really sad thing is they lost their VA benifits and medical care for their injuries

Awesome Blackbird story, crid! Made my day!

> In these days of legal abortion,
> when every pregnancy is a choice,
> yes it was.

Well, I mean, the point is not the armed services can tell you to get an abortion... They can insist that you not get pregnant. Very specifically, they can tell you not to fuck. They have that authority... Or at least they should.

People don't understand the difference between feminism and femininity.

Most medical discharges are honerable, unless it was a pre existing condition I never was sure what those guys got.

There are 4 levels of discharges:

1. Honorable
   
2. General
   
3. Other than Honorable
   
4. Dishonorable

If the separation is for medical, convenience of the service, you completed terms, administrative non-compliance (weight, fitness for duty), etc. it will be an honorable. That covers about 90% of all discharges.

If it is for something along the lines of you had a major DUI or other activity on the civilian side that you are on strict probation, etc. that you can't comply with the it will be a general. They can usually appealed for upgrade to Honorable after 6 months.

Other than honorable and dishonorable will be for things like peculation, malfeasance, severe negligence and things that directly affect your duty. Most are accompanied by several years at a federal correction institute.

Senior commanders need to take another look at gays in the military. I didn't know any openly gay marines (this was back in the late 80s), but I knew some that sure seemed gay.

Senior commanders have argued that openly gay marines would threaten military order. It may have been true, but I don't think it is anymore. The DoD should review this issue again.

Crid's right. Any action that renders a service member unfit for duty is an offense. I knew some guys on my ship that were severely disciplined for getting sunburned so bad they couldn't report for full duty. It's no different for women getting pregnant. It's called "Personal Administration:" you are responsible for managing your own body to avoid becoming a casualty or otherwise unfit for duty. The Corps spends a lot of time and money in recruit training teaching marines how to care for primary transport equipment or the feet, how to properly bathe in a variety of difficult conditions, wash clothes, oral cleanliness, how to maintain strict hygienic living standards, properly care for minor injuries, inspect and replace defective personal equipment, how to inspect other people for minor injuries, how to enforce sleep and rest discipline --- and yes, how to properly employ and manage your dick and pussy too.

Women who become unfit for duty because of pregnancy, they burden a unit just as much as a casualty. It's one reason why no armed force has been able to deploy female combat units. You can't maintain them at 70% readiness, much less the 90% standard for US combat units.

Buy gays. Hell. They don't have that problem. And lots of them can shoot straight. Gays are fighting for their freedom too. Let 'em.

>> Gays are fighting for their freedom too. Let 'em.

Good line.

i have no objection to gays in the military or otherwise BUT...

i've asked women who frequent women only fitness centers why they do and the answer is invariably "because we're self-conscious when men are around"

so for men who have to cohabitate with other men there is an element of the same. who wants to shower with someone who may be checking out your goodies? btw, men's showers are usually communal & open in the military

i take any woman's opinion on this subject with a grain of salt as women's facilities usually afford more privacy...yes, even in the military

both my wife and i are ex-military and yes i have served with gay men (who also admit to it in private to people they trust)

Interesting that you bring up women's gyms. I belong to a mixed-sex gym with separate locker rooms, and I assume some of the women in there are lesbians. I'm not weirded out by it. I'd be flattered if another woman thought my ass was hot.

I realize the military is a completely different situation than my passing contact with women at the gym. But I find men's reactions to homsexuality fascinating. So much energy trying to convince other men and women that they're not gay.

Now why can we have a womens only gym, but you cant have men only club, or even a dining room within a club?

"Please remember that unlike the civilian world, the military does not exist to solve social problems.
They are there to "Kill People & Break Things" as the saying goes."

****

It's funny to hear people speak about being in the military like it's the same as working at the Post Office.

News Flash: It isn't.

Hiya RPM Daddy.
I too used to go out to "Habu Hill" and watch the SR-71's takeoff. Man, what a Show!

I was in the 44th AMU,(the Big Blue Crew) and left Kadena in March of '88.

I have been in the exact situation, of having a homosexual check me out in the showers. It is an un-nerving experience. This is a case where actually having been in the situation is requirement. Amy's question is a naive one posed by a person a trying to apply theory,to reality. It won't work.

There have always been gays in the Military.
There were gays in the Army in WWII. They served with distinction and caused little comment at thr time. But, now it is different.
American gays (both men and women) do not want to just serve their hitch, and do the best job they can. NO, they want to be celebrated for being gay in the "oppressive" military, and for being somehow courageous and triumphant over the "Mouth-breathing, Hetro's".
That is where the trouble comes from.
Just shut up and do your job!
That is all anybody asks.
The El Tee in question would have no troubles if he'd just shut up and stop writing letters about what a normal everyday "Hero" he is.

Besides, his letter has all the hallmarks of a suicide note. The whole,"Boy you'll be sorry when I'm gone" bit is a mite shopworn by now. Enough.

"The El Tee in question would have no troubles if he'd just shut up and stop writing letters about what a normal everyday "Hero" he is."

I spent a fair amount of time in the last 4 years at West Point and around West Point cadets. One thing those kids are not short on is Ego.

I know of several men's clubs. Several of the men in my family are part of a religious organization that only men can join. Their wives and daughters can participate in some of the activities, but they can't be members. I don't remember anyone bitching about it.

Notice the word religious

it's just my opinion but i don't think men really care one way or the other about having a single sex gym for men

there is a chain of male-only gyms called "Cuts" which corresponded to "Curves" for women and they aren't doing all that well

lujlp, there is a men-only spa/ bar in downtown Austin. Oh, and the Freemasons have been courting my husband for a while, which is both weird and funny. Men should be able to have their own clubs and organizations. I just don't see the issue with it.

I wouldn't care if another woman was checking me out at the gym, but only if she was hot. 'Cause I'm shallow like that. (From my experience, it's always the bigger, older ladies with too much pubic hair that prance arount the locker room naked. Why is that?)

One of my ex boyfriends went to West Point. He was really hot. What were we talking about?

i think it's because we get relatively much less attention from women then women get from men

i think, to us it's more of a compliment but it could be a nuisance for women who sometimes get way more attention than they want

having stated my empathy for women, i don't think either sexes situation is very good. being starved for attention/affection is just as bad as getting too much

Boy, must we feel secure as a nation. Otherwise, we would never attempt the silliness of imposing PC on the group of rough men who do violence to keep us all safe. The military has VERY strict rules regarding sexual conduct -- by anyone -- which might erode cohesiveness and discipline, and thus combat readiness. Whether male or female, you can't fight effectively as a unit when you have couples who are in love with each other.

Why should it be SO hard for a gay person, or ANY person for that matter, just to serve without their sexual orientation ever being made an issue?

Funny Story:

When I was in basic training, some of the women would sneak out to meet guys and screw behind the mess hall. My thought on the matter was that if I wanted to get laid, I certainly didn't want to do it while writhing around in the dumpster full of deep fat fried veal left over from chow (what is it about the Army and veal?) so I never participated. Because of this, I was accused of, and assumed to be gay. However, in my time there, I never had a problem getting along with anyone, sleeping in the bay, or doing anything that needed to be done. I was just the only one allowed to shower alone! :-D That is a bonus in basic. I am not a lesbian, and therefore never admitted or discussed it with the NCOs, so I was not discharged for it.

I don't understand why we are allowing bigotry. If a solider refused to work with a woman or a person of color, we would be all over it. We are punishing the wrong group of people. If a solider is thought to be gay, or turns out to actually be gay, he or she should be allowed to continue as they did before. Fraternization and sexual harassment rules should apply if the solider is hetero or homosexual. If a solider has a problem with a person being gay, the solider with the problem should be discharged or transferred, not the person who is just doing their job and fighting for our country.

In addition, we have to wonder why we are spending all of this money to train and educate these soldiers just to throw it all away. What a waist of our tax dollars.

-Julie

A little late to the party:

They don't have "don't ask, don't tell" for heterosexuals in the military. Is sex only a great cause of disruption if you're gay?

You're right. They don't. But I don't go around telling everyone if I'm hetero/homo whatever. Why is it anyone else's business? Why the need to make sure everyone else knows what sexual orientation you are?

Thomas/old rpm daddy....I was at Hanza (Naval Security Station) 90-92, and got to watch the last one take off.

Crid, gotta agree...good BB story.

As MarkD said, this is Congress' creation (10 USC 654), not a DoD internal policy, and the US Code leaves little room ("...shall be separated from the armed forces..." - shall, not may) for the DoD to "please not fire" him.

Congress can change the law anytime it wants, and it should do so post-haste.

But it's not going to, is it? Nobody's so much as introduced a bill to do it.

They don't have "don't ask, don't tell" for heterosexuals in the military. Is sex only a great cause of disruption if you're gay?

Well, yes.

Perhaps it would help to step back from this a step. We don't think it odd that girls are not allowed in the Boy Scouts, or vice versa.

Why? Because they are different genders, and that makes a difference.

Presuming homosexuality is inborn (FWIW, I think it goes without saying), then gays are, in effect, a separate gender, no matter their plumbing.

In the civilian world, that makes little difference because civilians are allowed freedom of association.

Extremely not so in the military.

When I was in the service, I would very much prefer not to share a latrine with the women in the unit.

Why? They are a different gender.

On that basis, there is no reason to demand that men be any more comfortable sharing a latrine with gays than with women. After all, I'll bet that demand is not made on civilians.

Outside of REMF specialties like, say, translators, unit cohesion is everything, and unit cohesion demands behavioral conformity.

Like it or not, men are pack animals, and that pack instinct is essential to the military. That same pack instinct is, by its very essence, ruthless to those who do not fit in.

Gays who cannot abide by DADT are unwilling to put conformity first. Self gratification ahead of unit cohesion is a recipe for failure.

I wish it wasn't that way, but it is.

Thomas/old rpm daddy....I was at Hanza (Naval Security Station) 90-92, and got to watch the last one take off.

The last launch must have been around 1990, then. I never did get to see a night launch. With lit afterburners, that must have really been a sight!

Sorry to go off-topic, but we seem to be having an old home moment here.

When I was in the service, I would very much prefer not to share a latrine with the women in the unit.

Just so that I am clear, are you saying that you didn't want to use the same bathroom that I woman previously used, or are you saying that you didn't want to be using the bathroom at the same time the woman was using it? I will wait for your response before I respond.

-Julie

"Like it or not, men are pack animals"

speak for yourself

Julie:

Contemporaneous use.

----

theOtherJim:

Actually, I am speaking neither for myself or for you, but rather men as a group.

Combat units rely upon cohesion, which itself relies upon behavioral uniformity.

Gays are, by definition, behaviorally distinct from straights.

Suspending DADT will come at the detriment of combat effectiveness. Apparently many people are willing to pay that price.

Hey Skipper,

I figured that was your meaning, because otherwise finding an opposite sex mate would be very difficult.

So Skipper, you are proposing that we now have 4 types of bathrooms? Women, Men, Lesbian, Gay? The goal of separate bathrooms is to give privacy and different needs to opposite genders. When a transgendered M2F person is partially through the surgery, she will go into a woman's bathroom because that is who she is and how she's dressed. The opposite is true for F2M transgendered men. Gay men need urinals mostly and stalls on occasion. And many colleges now have co-ed bathrooms where they all have stalls.

Suspending DADT will come at the detriment of combat effectiveness. Apparently many people are willing to pay that price.

This isn't a valid argument. That is what was said when WACs wanted to sign up and when blacks were brought into the ranks. Those horrible outcomes never happened.

What it comes down to, as a veteran and the sister of a green beret and a DLI graduated linguist, I would rather our soldiers die defending rights and living up to what the United States is supposed to be (free from bigotry and hatred with opportunity for all) than live as cowards because they wouldn't stand up for men and women who were willing to fight and die beside them, but might fuck the wrong person. It is better than the war we are fighting now, right?

-Julie

Hello all,

It has been discussed here that the only people who can overturn DADT are our legislators. To contact them directly the link is here:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

-Julie

So Skipper, you are proposing that we now have 4 types of bathrooms? Women, Men, Lesbian, Gay?

Well, what do you propose? Is gender about nothing more than plumbing, or is it something more?

If it is more than just plumbing, which it must be unless you want to cede the field to fundamentalist Christians, then you in effect are insisting on mixing genders in the same bathroom facilities.

This isn't a valid argument. That is what was said when WACs wanted to sign up and when blacks were brought into the ranks. Those horrible outcomes never happened.

Women in the military have come at the cost of unit cohesion and readiness. For the most part, that has been manageable because women generally perform rear echelon assignments. However, as noted above, selective pregnancy to avoid deployment is a real problem. Further, in deployed units, women are the source (notice, I did not say cause) of serious cohesion issues.

Your reference to blacks is inappropriate. I asserted that gays are behaviorally distinct from straights, just as women are behaviorally distinct from men. Black males are not behaviorally distinct from Caucasian males; skin color is truly trivial.

You cannot say the same for innate sexual orientation.

So, I maintain that eliminating DADT will have the effect of reducing unit cohesion.

But then I only have 20 years of first hand experience to go on.

Just out of curiousity, are you aware of any openly homosexual men on, say, an NFL team? How about in the NBA or pro-baseball?

DADT does not apply to them ...

Well, what do you propose? Is gender about nothing more than plumbing, or is it something more?

If it is more than just plumbing, which it must be unless you want to cede the field to fundamentalist Christians, then you in effect are insisting on mixing genders in the same bathroom facilities.

I am saying that public bathrooms are divided based upon sex not gender. Just so we are speaking the same language, here are the definitions of sex and gender from dictionary.com

sex: the sum of the structural and functional differences by which the male and female are distinguished.

gender: Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.

The point of this is to say that we sub-catagorize bathrooms based upon sex not gender. Women need stalls no matter who they want to have sex with. Men use urinals for the same reason, because of the plumbing and the needs therein. Why do you feel that someone who has the same physical needs for wast disposal as you should use a separate bathroom? It is segregationist.

Just out of curiousity, are you aware of any openly homosexual men on, say, an NFL team? How about in the NBA or pro-baseball?

DADT does not apply to them ...

Well, the first one that comes to mind is Dennis Rodman,but he is likely just a cross-dresser. :-)

I do know of several gay professional wrestlers. Those guys put their lives in each others hands to do stunts and they bleed all over each other on a regular basis. If you piss your partner off, they literally have the ability to kill you in the ring and make it look like an accident. They all use the same locker room. It is no big deal unless someone chooses to make it one. My husband is friends with someone who worked in the business for 20 years. No one cares, and these are some of the manliest men on the planet.

-Julie

Julie:

We categorize bathrooms as we do because in nearly all cases sex and gender match.

I should have thought again before using the word latrine. I meant all the facilities dedicated to taking care of personal needs, including showers. Certainly, there is no functional reason to segregate showers based upon sex: getting clean works the same for everyone.

Yet we segregate nonetheless. Why? Gender.

Note, I didn't say gays do not play professional sports, only that with extremely rare exceptions, none do so openly.

That is something those advocating an end to DADT should think about very seriously.

I have personal experience here, albeit no near the magnitude of being gay.

I am no admirer of religion.

In contrast, the vast majority of service members are religious.

Of course, I could have made a big deal about it, and offended a bunch of folks along the way, and corroded unit cohesion.

Alternatively, I could acknowledge their point of view, and give it a rest. So long as no one asked my religious beliefs, I wasn't going to tell.

There are no doubt gays in the military -- I served with one. It works because everyone gets to pretend they don't know (even though gaydar is amazingly accurate).

If the gays who serve care more about the military than themselves, they will keep a lid on it.

If they care more about themselves, they do not belong in the military.

Yet we segregate nonetheless. Why? Gender.

No, it is about privacy. The assumption is that people are more comfortable getting naked in front of people of the same sex. Is it always accurate? no. However, often familiarity breeds comfort.

Of course, I could have made a big deal about it, and offended a bunch of folks along the way, and corroded unit cohesion.

However, if you had admitted that you weren't religious, would you have been drummed out of the military? Forced to abandon your career with a negative mark on your record? Were you forced to never mention your romantic relationships and have to deny their existence in front of all of the people that you lived and might die with? If you had died at war, in the arms of one of your fellow soldiers, would you have been able to tell him/her to pass on a message to the one you loved most? This is about denying your most basic identity for the sake of a lie. It isn't about caring about themselves more than their unit, it is about creating a whole honest person. How is lying to everyone around you honorable? How is that the message that you want to send? In addition, how is a unit cohesive if one member is isolated, alone, and in fear of their ability for their career to go on? It isn't.

The assumption is that people are more comfortable getting naked in front of people of the same sex.

We make that assumption because of the near identity between gender and sex.

That identity does not hold here. The nettle you have not yet grasped is the disruptive effect of a significant gender based behavioral difference upon unit cohesion.

Further, you are in the ironic position of, in the name of civil rights, imposing by fiat upon those who do not have any civil rights at all. The irony is made self-evident by noting that where DADT does not apply, gays still do not tell.

However, if you had admitted that you weren't religious, would you have been drummed out of the military?

Note from my comment ... albeit no near the magnitude of being gay; in other words, similar in kind, but definitely not in degree.

(BTW, declining to broadcast a subject is not lying, it is silence.)

My point still holds: I could either put the interests of the unit first, or salve my own ego.

Oh, BTW, in my entire military experience, I can scarcely remember guys ever talking about their romantic relationships.

The military does not exist to create whole, honest persons, or about sending messages. The presence of women in other than rear echelon units has and continues to be, in fact, corrosive to cohesion and unit readiness. The imposition of open and avowed homosexuality will, in fact, be corrosive to cohesion and readiness.

Whether you or I like those facts is beside the point.

As I noted above, the vast majority of the military are Christians. They do not have freedom of association, yet you are apparently happy to impose upon them something they will find very objectionable, all to send a message and suit a very small minority.

As I noted above, the vast majority of the military are Christians. They do not have freedom of association, yet you are apparently happy to impose upon them something they will find very objectionable, all to send a message and suit a very small minority.

The message that I am attempting to send is simple: bigotry shouldn't be tolerated. A good soldier is a good solider. I am not saying that we should have a 'rainbow' platoon that does the parade circuit, however soldiers should be allowed to be themselves and disclose their sexuality as appropriate. There is no unit cohesion until everyone can be themselves and trust each other. The fact that some people have preconceived ideas and would be uncomfortable at first shouldn't stop us as a country from doing what is right.

This also isn't a 'very small minority'. The gay population is estimated to be 10% or higher:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003432940_gays16m.html

This also isn't a 'very small minority'. The gay population is estimated to be 10% or highe

Check here for the problems with measuring the prevalence of homosexuality. Constraining the definition for homosexuality just a little (i.e., excluding one-off experiences for which DADT is not an issue) and the number drops very quickly.

IIRC (can't find a link), reverse engineering from the number of AIDS cases and infection rates, the predominantly or exclusively male homosexuality is no more than 3%.

The message that I am attempting to send is simple: bigotry shouldn't be tolerated.

There are several problems with that.

First, being offended by behavior is not bigotry.

Second, you are taking as true that which you have not only have not demonstrated, but is patently false. There is no such thing as unit cohesion where "everybody can be themselves".

Third, you have also made the a priori assumption that it is simply "right" for the essentially egotistical wishes of a small minority to be imposed by fiat upon the vast majority, and, by extension you have no need to consider the costs involved.

Again I ask, why are there no open, avowed, homosexuals on athletic teams, police forces, or in fire departments?

All rely on cohesion, all undoubtedly have homosexuals as members. Yet none of those gays trumpet the fact.

Yet you wish to impose such a state of affairs on an organization which has no freedom of association.

Speaking of civil rights ...