I Don't Have To Keep My Heterosexuality A Secret
I never had to come out to my parents or my friends or acquaintances as straight. In fact, I don't talk about my sexuality much, although I will, in the course of conversation, sometimes mention my boyfriend. And gays and lesbians I know don't mention they're gay, or talk about it much, except in passing to people they know.
I find it weird and awful that gay people are expected to lie about and hide their sexuality -- running totally contrary to the military's honor code, directing them to be truthful.
We need to repeal the awful "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that Bill Clinton put in place during his time in the Oval Office. From the WSJ:
Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee he believed the "don't ask" restrictions--which require gay troops to keep their sexual orientation a secret--could be eliminated without harming military morale, recruitment or readiness."It is my personal and professional belief that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do," Adm. Mullen told the Senate panel. "No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."
This includes all those translators of Arab languages they drop-kicked because they happen to be attracted to people of the same sex.
More from Mullen:
Adm. Mullen expressed confidence that most members of the military would adjust to the change, citing his own experiences serving alongside closeted gay troops throughout his 42-year military career.The officer argued that forcing gay service members to live in fear of being outed and then discharged from the military was "inconsistent" with military values.
As for the argument somebody's going to make about attraction and the showers, here's one from commenter Lee Warren on the WSJ site:
Why don't you ask my father, Bob? 33 years in the Navy as a chaplain, retiring 30 years ago, and agreeing that it is the right thing to do. Why? Because he knew gay men who served back then and knew there was never the problem of "arousing gay peers." It is called professionalism. I'll guess that you're straight, at least outwardly. Tell me, do you ogle every woman with whom you work(ed) and have trouble containing your passions?I have had gay roommates and friends in the past and I never was troubled by the thought of sharing dorm showers with them or having to tinkle in a public bathroom. They knew I was straight and, therefore, it wasn't an issue.
I'll trust the professionalism of gay service members over the passionate pleas of pants-peeing moralists who make excuses for prejudice.
And here's one from limited governmenter Barry Goldwater:
"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."
Here's Goldwater's 1987 op-ed on the issue. And here's Israel's.
Just to get my response in before Crid takes over with his insane tirades, you've nailed it perfectly, regarding the situations. Gays are often criticized for being "in your face" about their sexuality, but heterosexuals have freedoms they take for granted. Amy, you can mention your boyfriend in casual conservation with reasonable expectation of not causing, at the least, tension, hostility or outright condemnation. Gays don't have that luxury.
I also agree with the subtle hint that the military's current policy is financially detrimental, consequently up for review. Losing linguists that you've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars training because of some archaic policy will likely be the motivation behind having "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" finally struck down. I would only remind those who would condemn Clinton for this, he was more or less forced into it with the threat that if he removed the policy, Congress would simply enact it into law, making the situation worse.
Had I been in Clinton's place, however, I would have simply struck the ban anyway and let Congress make its law. I don't believe it would have stood for long.
Patrick at February 4, 2010 2:45 AM
Sexual issues are already costing us, both in dollars and lives, and they are being fought by commanders in every theater.
Having served on submarines, I can tell you from personal experience that the crew knows who is gay and who is not - and that this is set aside on the observation of the work ethic they display. Any person who puts their private life first is lesser.
It's hard to understand, so I repeat myself: You don't apply for a job, you enlist or are commissioned. You have duty, an obligation so fundamental you just don't question it - it's your job, like that of millions of servicemen before you. You don't quit - you must be discharged. You don't call in sick - there is a medic on the boat or ship - you go in to work. You can die of a thousand different things, from being blown overboard by a fighter's engines, a seawater leak, or bombs or torpedoes, and you don't get a "do over" or "another day in court", or any of those other things that let you pretend you weren't there or weren't responsible.
You can see the effect and the value of this in the attitude of soldiers serving in Iraq, who carry on despite neglect and outright lying by the press. They are there, and go back, for their fellows.
On the other hand: today, you are paying for erstwhile single mothers, who decided that pregnancy is preferable to a tour overseas on a carrier. This isn't on-topic, though.
Short story: military duty isn't about sexuality. Although it is counter to the wishes of the typical military volunteer to have to deal - have to deal - with what is a new thing, it is NOT the job of the military to do anything but strive to be the absolute best there is at killing the enemy. Doing this is not a right.
If you've learned about the service while sitting in the dark with popcorn, I simply suggest you have more thinking to do.
Radwaste at February 4, 2010 2:50 AM
***
Tell me, do you ogle every woman with whom you work(ed) and have trouble containing your passions?
****
I would if I was taking showers with them and sleeping next to them. At least the hot ones.
This whole PC movement in the military is just amazing. It got us the Ft. Hood shooter and now this.
The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Period.
It's not a social program.
No one has a "right" to serve in the military. It exists to defend US interests.
sean at February 4, 2010 4:35 AM
@Sean: "This whole PC movement in the military is just amazing. It got us the Ft. Hood shooter and now this."
I was going to try and parse out what you wrote there, but I'll just have to leave it at: "WTF?"
I've served alongside plenty of cute gals over the last twenty-plus years of active and reserve duty. I've managed to control myself, too, difficult though that is. I reckon most other people, gay or not, will do the same thing.
old rpm daddy at February 4, 2010 4:52 AM
Old RPM Daddy,
Does your wife know that you were taking showers with an sleeping next to all those cute gals?
Oh, wait. You weren't. Never mind. Your analogy doesn't work.
sean at February 4, 2010 5:25 AM
Sexuality has nothing to do with the ability to protect our country. In fact, I don't really see what it has to do with anything. I say if a gay man or women wants to serve, assuming they are eligable and qualified, I say why not. After all, "you don't have to be straight to shoot, you just have to be able to shoot straight."
The argument that serving next to a gay person might decrease the "morale" of the unit is bullshit. Remember, they once said the same thing about blacks, and then women, and they got over it. Traditions change. The military changes. It has to be able to change and adapt to be efficiant. In times like we are in now, we don't really have the option to be picky anyway. Besides, the only people who really have a problem with gays in the military are people who have problems with gays in general. And those people don't need to be in the military either as far as I am concerned. I don't want my country being protected by ignorant bigoted people. Those people don't have the ability to act without prejudice and rationality. They act out of fear. And that is how we get into these messes in the first place.
Sabrina at February 4, 2010 5:40 AM
Oops... I meant they cant act rationally, not act without rationality.
Sabrina at February 4, 2010 5:42 AM
Sean, how do you know you weren't taking showers with gay guys when you were in the military?
old rpm daddy at February 4, 2010 5:49 AM
Sean: Does your wife know that you were taking showers with an sleeping next to all those cute gals?
Oh, wait. You weren't. Never mind. Your analogy doesn't work.
I am gay. I was in the military, and I managed to get by without ogling every hot guy I saw. I assume I'm not the exception to the human race. Communal showers are actually more uncommon than you might think.
And in college I was a theatre major. I assume not every male in the cast of every single play I was in was gay. And budgetary considerations required us to share places like dressing and makeup rooms. So, not only could the gay guys in the cast manage to keep their minds on the task at hand, but the straight guys did, too.
Further, I'm a massage therapist. I have my hands on naked guys every day.
I don't think it's unusual to be able to keep the context of the activity away from your libido.
Patrick at February 4, 2010 5:56 AM
The thing is that DADT is not about hiding and not about lying - it is about not politiking. You all said yourself, that gays were and are serving in the army, no one is stopping them from nlisting, DADT stops promoting special interests. Anyone who's been around the last 20 years knows that what is called "equal rights" is really "special rights" and they are prompted the loudest by those LGBT activists who have no intention to enlist, DADT notwithstanding, they only have political agenda to wave. On the othwer hands, those who are against the repeal are mostly men, who were serving, are serving now or are planning to enlist.
It can easily happen that making gays a special interest group within the army will cause unintended effect like it happened in the family situation: after being openly mistreated lots of heterosexual men will stop being interested in enlisting. You can say that now 5-7-10 (whatever your fantasy)% of gays feel mistreated by 90% of heterosexual men and don't want to enlist, but the numbers can easily get reversed.
Me at February 4, 2010 6:08 AM
In addition to the above stated reasons for getting rid of it, DADT is a popular "get out of deployment free" card. Or at least it was; nowadays I don't think anybody enters the military expecting to not be deployed.
Sean is saying that the Ft. Hood shooter was able to commit his acts because political correctness prevented those who identified him as a potential threat from acting. Army officers who knew him knew that he was a likely candidate for personal jihad syndrome, but they were afraid to take action for fear of appearing to be biased.
That's not an outlandish or outrageous claim.
Pseudonym at February 4, 2010 6:59 AM
Patrick, your heart is full of hatred, and I think it's kind of a sad commentary.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 4, 2010 7:11 AM
There is an entire other aspect to this move that usually gets buried beneath the cries for social justice.
Gays are, in effect, a "third gender," and as such, bring with them unique considerations. Allowing gays to serve openly as gay, invokes the entire spectrum of non-discrimination rules.
There is a simple reason that we don't have Co-ed barracks rooms. It causes problems, either in execution or in perception. I think that many of the regs that apply to male-female fraternization/interaction could pretty easily be applied to homo & hetros. If it's a violation of the UCMJ, it's STILL a violation of the UCMJ.
But that's a vital and essential point: the rules HAVE TO APPLY EQUALLY. There can be NO "special rights" in the military. Gays cannot claim some sort of special dispensation. They cannot be discriminated against, but NEITHER should they expect special "kid glove" treatment. They are military first, gay second. The rules are the rules. Don't like it? Don't enlist.
Do you employ a "separate but equal" standard for gay service members, or do you force integration with hetrosexuals who may not feel comfortable living with a homosexual, to the point where it affects his or her work performance or morale? If we are going to desegrate barracks rooms between homosexuals, why not between genders across the board?
What if the servicemember has a domestic partner? What if they are "married" in one of the few states that allows it? Do they now get dependant benefits? Medical, dental?
These are some of the questions that need to be answered. Like this service chiefs are saying, this will take several years to phase in. you can't just flip a swith and say, "okay, gays are allowed...riiiiiight....NOW."
Steve B at February 4, 2010 7:16 AM
@Pseudonym: "Army officers who knew him knew that he was a likely candidate for personal jihad syndrome, but they were afraid to take action for fear of appearing to be biased."
Fair enough, but the idea that a G.I. who might be likely to run amok and start shooting is somehow equivalent to a G.I. who's gay is pretty outlandish. We're talking about two completely different things here.
old rpm daddy at February 4, 2010 7:17 AM
I would if I was taking showers with them and sleeping next to them. At least the hot ones.
ZOMFG! ¡If we repeal DADT, gay people might serve in the military, and take showers and sleep in barracks!!1!!1
Or worse, some straight guys might have to admit that's true. People who write stuff like this, I assume, don't actually know gay people. I'll let you in on a secret: gay people don't spend a lot of time fruitlessly pursing straight people. You're safe.
This whole PC movement in the military is just amazing
Yeah, totally PC, like those sissy Israelis.
The thing is that DADT is not about hiding and not about lying - it is about not politiking.
Nonsense. It tells gay people that they're good enough to fight and die for our country so long as they don't admit who they are. I don't know that isn't hiding. Lying is quite likely, too. "Sure guys, I'd love to hit a bar on leave and pick up girls..."
Whatever at February 4, 2010 7:19 AM
I think you hit it on the head Steve B. There is a lot of infrastructure that needs to be taken care of before DADT can be done away with. Policies regarding numerous issues (partner rights, harassment, politicking, medical benefits, etc) need to be established otherwise the whole thing is going to turn into a clusterfuck for several years. I have no problems with gays in the military, but sweeping the issue under the rug for a decade hasn't done anything to prepare the system for the inevitable issues it's going to face.
Elle at February 4, 2010 8:01 AM
ZOMFG?
Eric at February 4, 2010 8:05 AM
It's amusing when straight guys think gay men will be groping or ogling them in showers or in barracks. I always wonder if this is merely paranoia or fantasy.
There are lots (way more than you might realize) of bisexual women out there, but I never fear changing in a locker room or showering around other women. Yet, how do I know if they're straight, gay, or bi? None have ever groped me, and if they ogle me, I consider it a compliment.
Do you straight guys honestly believe you've never been in a public bathroom or locker room with a gay man? Do you think this only happens in the military?
You've been naked around gay men all your lives. You just probably never knew it, which proves that you're safe serving next to them.
lovelysoul at February 4, 2010 8:06 AM
I think it's very possible that just because people CAN serve openly as gays, doesn't mean everyone that is, will.
There is still a lot of "dude, that's totally gay" out there. It'll take time.
On a side note, if someone, unthinkingly, calls something "gay," could they now be charged with harassment because a gay person "might" have heard them?
Steve B at February 4, 2010 8:08 AM
Sean didn't equate them, and neither did I. He said that political correctness contributes to both situations.
Pseudonym at February 4, 2010 8:13 AM
Thing is, people are afraid of what they don't understand. That's why they get all angry about it. Lots of guys don't understand, cannot comprehend being gay. They react out of fear, more or less, even if they deny it. Getting people to understand what it is to be homosexual is the first step to getting rid of the fear. Once that's gone, then you can take the next steps. If straight guys could only get that while a gay guy can look at them and think they're hot, but know the guy isn't gonna hit on them, that might make it easier. (And sometimes, I think that there are some straight guys who are afraid that gay guys aren't attracted to them, and somehow that's a comment on their overall masculinity or something. Egads, I'm glad I'm straight. The whole mess is too complicated. I got no dog in this fight.)
Flynne at February 4, 2010 8:17 AM
In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a former Marine.
Honestly, part of the concern, I think, stems from a lot of the imagery we get of flamboyant affectation and craziness, from gay pride parades to the Folsom Street Fair. Then mentally compare and contrast that with traditional "the Few, The Proud" kind of imagery. Kind of a disconnect there. I think a lot of people, myself included, wonder if we are going to be expected to "accept" these other aspects of gay culture as part of the diveristy package? Or, are these men and women going to be held to the same standards of behavior...both on and off duty...as their hetro counterparts? And not demand that they be allowed to "express themselve" and cry discrimination if they aren't?
I have to say that I don't know any openly gay people. So I can't really relate. But I see what extremes activist go to in the civilian world, and I wonder. On the other hand, these are probably the slice of the gay population LEAST likely to enlist, so it may not be such an issue.
I know for a fact that there are homosexual men and women who serve, and who have served with great distinction. It's not a matter of competence by any stretch or measure. It's a matter of perception.
I think it will be the conduct and approach of those few early "pioneers" that will help determine how receptive the military is to their presence in the ranks.
I imagine there will be alot of surprises as long-serving members "come out." YOU?! Seriously?! Never would have guessed.
Steve B at February 4, 2010 8:33 AM
No pun intended...
Steve B at February 4, 2010 8:35 AM
It tells gay people that they're good enough to fight and die for our country so long as they don't admit who they are.
Actually, it tells them that they are good enough soldiers, that is _exactly_ why no one is interested in asking or telling.
It is you who tell gays they are not good enough untill they claim their sexuality openly, like its some kind of commendation.
Me at February 4, 2010 8:42 AM
@Steve B: "These are some of the questions that need to be answered. Like this service chiefs are saying, this will take several years to phase in." And other similiar points he's made.
You're right. It will take a while, and there are some details that need to be worked. It's going to take some leadership, too. You also mentioned that gay troops will have to adhere to the same rules as heterosexual troops. Absolutely. As you noted in your previous post, homosexual troops have served their country very well in the past. I expect the troops who really want to be there won't have a big problem with that.
old rpm daddy at February 4, 2010 8:49 AM
"Just to get my response in before Crid takes over with his insane tirades"
What do you get out of doing this? What's the payoff for you?
Feebie at February 4, 2010 9:00 AM
@Feebie: "What do you get out of doing this? What's the payoff for you?"
The Crid-Patrick flamewar? It's not a bug, it's a feature!
old rpm daddy at February 4, 2010 9:19 AM
Adultery and out-of-wedlock babies born to soldiers is far, far more detrimental to morale and the functioning of the military in general than any gay soldier could ever be.
Choika at February 4, 2010 9:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/02/04/i_dont_have_to.html#comment-1693274">comment from ChoikaHere's how it worked for a gay woman in the military:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/03/darrah.personal.history.gay.military.experience/?hpt=C1
Amy Alkon at February 4, 2010 9:44 AM
I think Sean is just worried that being gay is contagious. Maybe by taking a shower next to a gay guy will make him gay or something. DADT is ridiculous. Many soldiers have been to Iraq and Afghanistan more than once, many at least 3 times. Afghanistan is not winding down and enlistment into the armed services is down. So let's make it harder on these soldiers who are serving by kicking out people who are willing to go and serve this country all because you don't think its right where they stick their body parts.
Kristen at February 4, 2010 9:51 AM
Actually, it tells them that they are good enough soldiers, that is _exactly_ why no one is interested in asking or telling.
It is you who tell gays they are not good enough untill they claim their sexuality openly, like its some kind of commendation.
You are a dolt. Gays can be expelled from the military for mentioning their partners or spouses and straights cannot. You support this. I oppose it. And yet somehow it's me that tells gay people they are not good enough. Your grasp of "logic" boggles the mind.
Eric: ZOMFG or ZOMG are sarcastic versions of OMG or OMFG
Whatever at February 4, 2010 9:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/02/04/i_dont_have_to.html#comment-1693285">comment from WhateverGays can be expelled from the military for mentioning their partners or spouses and straights cannot. You support this. I oppose it.
As do I. I know many gay people, and those I know don't go around talking about their sexuality any more than hetero people I know. But, I can go out to dinner and sit next to my boyfriend, and go to the grocery store with him, and travel with him, and it doesn't endanger my job. It should be the same for gays and lesbians.
See that link to the CNN piece in my comment above. See how afraid that woman had to be to live what any of us would consider a normal life -- the stuff I can be so casual about -- and see what we're really talking about here.
The military is not a culture for flamboyant people -- the people going into it aren't going to be wearing fatigues with the butt circles cut out. They're people like the woman in the CNN piece or like my pal Dan Blatt, aka Gay Patriot. http://www.gaypatriot.net/
Amy Alkon at February 4, 2010 10:31 AM
I'm on the repealing side, myself. It's a silly law.
And Amy, you didn't have to come out as hetero because it's assumed-about 95% (changes a little depending on where you get your figures) of the population is straight.
momof4 at February 4, 2010 10:56 AM
Steve B, you are right. It isn't going to happen overnight. A lot of things would have to change. But it didn't happen overnight when the military allowed African Americans and women to serve openly either. It took a lot of tranining, money, and time to get it to work. But it did. And our military is thriving.
Is the system perfect? Hell no. Never has been. Never will be. But it is an honorable institution that I am extremely proud of. However, I can't, as a citizen with a long proud military history in my family, in good concious tell my friend that he isn't good enough to serve his country just because he is gay. With DADT, if he does serve, he must completely disregard his partner of 15 years (longer than 50% of the hetero couples I know with one of them in the military I feel I must point out) to do so. My friend is one of the best men I have ever known. He has more honor in his little pinky then most straight men have in thier entire body, but because he is in a committed relationship with another man, he is not allowed to serve his country that he loves. That, to me, is hypocritical and completely counterproductive to everything that we fight so hard for to begin with.
There is something else that you touched on too Steve B. There are standards of behaviour that military members must adhere too. They are supposed to represent the military in all things and always maintain thier honor as a soldier. You are a soldier first, and your personal life comes second. Gay men and women should also be held to those standards. I agree with that. However, the difference is, a hetereo soldier is allowed to have a social life, and allowed to "hook up" with random people or visit their spouses or girlfriends/boyfriends on leave. They can go to a strip club, or a straight bar and no one will question their motives. They can get love letters from home. They can have a picture of thier loved one in their bunk. They can even have smutty magazines under thier bunk. A homosexual person cannot go visit thier partner, "hook up" with random people, or go to a gay bar. They cannot have a picture of thier partner in thier bunk. They cannot get love letters because you never know who might come across it and heaven forbid they dare to have a gay smut magazine! They can't even talk about it, because then they would be outed. They would not be behaving any differently than their fellow soldiers and yet they would be discharged. They have to completely isolate themselves just to keep their jobs. That is hypocritical and wrong.
There is also the matter of military law. For instance: Extra marital affairs are actually considered illegal and a soldier caught having an affair either with another soldier, an officer, or another soldiers/officers spouse can be discharged. Last year, from what I can gather, 148 gay soldiers were discharged after they were outed. I would like to know how many hetero soldiers were discharged for cheating or for fratinization. After all, it is also illegal. Yet, how many of them actually are punished the way we punish homosexuals? Probably not that many.
I realize that 148 is not a high number but it is still 148 people that were discharged for no other reason than they were gay.
Plus, what kind of gay people are folks imagining will enlist? Are you imagining Big Gay Al putting on the USO show? Do they think they are going to come in and start redecorating the bunks with rainbow flags and rolling up their fatigues to show off thier tight torsos? Sorry to dissapoint but your stereotypical pride parade gay isn't the type that is likely to join the military.
Sabrina at February 4, 2010 11:00 AM
"Don't ask, don't tell" works well with my neighbors. It's neutral and trouble-free. For those who like peace.
Alan at February 4, 2010 11:27 AM
what kind of gay people are folks imagining will enlist? The problem lies not with those who will enlist, these people were enlisting, are enlisting now and always will be.
The problem lies with those who are not planning to enlist bat are campaining on the issue now and will be mounting their special interests later. Thousands and thousands of cases all over the country demonstrated that incompetent workers and unqualiified specialists when reproached about their incompetence are eager to pull out the sexuality card and convert any reasonable critique into a hate speach, and the LGBT community is well-known for their obnoxious support of such claims, however unreasonable they might be. Army is army, a Sgt has to discipline a Pvt without thinking what a Perez Hilton is going to publish in his blog. Especially that lately the brass does not stick with the troops but rather is siding with the arm-chair politics.
So the blame for strong opposition to DADT repeal lies not on those who served or serves, but on those who never did and never plans to, but managed to give the LGBT community some very obnoxious reputation and now, fighting against DADT of which they mostly are to blame, live up to the worst expectations.
Me at February 4, 2010 11:50 AM
"But it didn't happen overnight when the military allowed African Americans and women to serve openly either."
Does this make sense? It's kinda empirical.
Feebie at February 4, 2010 12:04 PM
Me,
I get that and in a way I can agree. But, the same thing could be said for any minority or minority group. Anyone can pull the race/gender/religion card for being disiplined. It happens all the time in govt and non govt organizations alike. I have no doubt that if a black man got disiplined for a legit reason by his Sgt, Rev Jesse Jackson would be on the forefront screaming about discrimination. Does that mean we should stop allowing black men into the military? Because we are scared that some big mouth with an agenda will say something unflattering and get people upset? Too bad. Those people that get upset aren't the ones that are likely to be the ones participating anyway so why in the hell do we care what they have to say?
There will always be special interest groups making noise about something. That is never going to change. (I also think that Affirmative Action is also outdated and obsolete now but no one is making a bunch of noise about that.) But even if they are obnoxious, and their motives are not exactly pure, they do have one small point. We ARE discriminating against an entire group of people with DADT.
Sabrina at February 4, 2010 12:14 PM
I would venture to guess that Obama is doing this for political purposes to appease his base and to make amends for his lack of support of re-appealing DOMA as he promised on the campaign trail. If he can do it by appearing to put our military in "check" than more points for his ego.
Personally, I think we should be more worried about having fanatical Muslims in our military than gays.
Gays have served in the military ever since militaries have been around. This is a non-issue for me. Gay men in the military have kept quiet (and will continue to do so regardless of how political correctness laws wish to frame it) because I get the sense that these men are there for a purpose, and one in which has nothing to do with their sexuality.
I have more concerns about women (for reasons noted above) serving in our military than gays.
And from personal experience with two gay marine neighbors of mine who saved my ass when a drunken and belligerent ex of mine showed up at my apartment door at three in the morning (they won, he lost) they aren't the type to hang banners and fret about the lack of style present in army fatigues.
Regardless of what the law states, they will continue to remain quiet. Not out of shame, but because the last thing they want is to start "identifying" themselves with 1) something that doesn't matter and 2) something which detracts from what they enlisted to do.
A successful military is very close knit. Where it is more important to identify with similarities between their brothers than differences. That should be the focal point. After all, things are unpredictable and soldiers die out there.
The law is pointless, either way.
So when is Obama going to focus on the real issue...Muslims in our military?
Feebie at February 4, 2010 12:25 PM
Crid: Patrick, your heart is full of hatred, and I think it's kind of a sad commentary.
Oh, hush, you big silly!
Amy, I liked the story about Lynne's partner in the Pentagon, but that's less an argument for the repealing of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" than it is an argument for gay marriage.
Patrick at February 4, 2010 12:25 PM
I also have to say that I find it ironic that Obama and the current administration is bringing DADT to the table for debate now. Don't get me wrong, I think DADT should be changed, but the irony of the timing of the debate didn't escape me. I dont remember him ever even mentioning it during his campaign and it wasn't even up for discussion until recently. I guess he decided that it was a good topic to use to divert attention away from the huge FAIL that is his presidency so far.
Sabrina at February 4, 2010 12:36 PM
Here's an argument I haven't seen yet.
Someone with a dearly held secret can be coerced. Gay service members are a security risk because of the secret they hold.
Let them serve openly and you remove the risk.
=========================
Keep in mind, the accommodation thing can get out of hand. Wiccans (and other "earth-centered" religions) will now have their own worship space at the Air Force Academy (in addition to the separate spaces provided for Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Buddhists).
http://blog.beliefnet.com/deaconsbench/2010/01/us-air-force-creates-wiccan-worship-space.html
I wasn't aware that Wiccans were drawn to join the Air Force in great numbers. Apparently they are.
I do think the blogger at this link has his numbers wrong. According to him "Wiccans form the largest non-Christian faith in the Air Force." That means Wiccans outnumber both Muslims and Buddhists in the USAF.
Conan the Grammarian at February 4, 2010 12:39 PM
Good point, Conan.
It's the divisive in nature. All these religious tolerance, "rape" and "sexual harassment", and homosexual policies that will do our military in.
And the lack of humility of being part of a CORPS. It use to be where common purpose, direction and ideals were held in high esteem. Now its gone from all about "us" to all about "me".
All these policies are pretty ironic if you ask me.
Feebie at February 4, 2010 12:51 PM
"Why? Because he knew gay men who served back then and knew there was never the problem of "arousing gay peers." It is called professionalism. I'll guess that you're straight, at least outwardly. Tell me, do you ogle every woman with whom you work(ed) and have trouble containing your passions?"
No Padre, I don't have trouble but some do in the working world and its gotten worse to where the smart man keeps his mouth shut and says nothing non work related. My guess is this will be less of an issue in the military, at least between men. Then again, there are lots of issues with sexual harrassment between men and women in the military.
Sio at February 4, 2010 1:16 PM
"But it didn't happen overnight when the military allowed African Americans and women to serve openly either."
Does this make sense? It's kinda empirical.
It's my wording. It didn't come out as eloquantly as I would have liked.
Sabrina at February 4, 2010 1:20 PM
ahhh, it happens. Now, in context, i understand whatcha meant.
:)
Feebie at February 4, 2010 1:22 PM
The last, ultimate bastion of meritocracy (military) - embittered by protracted attack from the Left - meets the uber-divas of left-wing identity-entitlement-PC-victimology theater (gay rights activists).
Buy the large popcorn. Gonna be one heckuva movie...
I must admit there are valid arguments on all sides of this.
One question for the how-dare-you-paranoid-straights-accuse-us-of-ogling folks:
Given the rampant promiscuity of your "community" - do you really expect us to believe that a young gay man has NO sexual *hopes* when deciding to deliberately put himself in intimate contact with other hunky young men?
Let's try it this way: a young hetero guy decides to join the male minority at Barnard/Bryn Mawr/another female-heavy college campus. Or opts for the coed dorm instead of the boys-only one. Wouldn't we snicker at the assertion that his motives are completely pure?
Ben-David at February 4, 2010 1:55 PM
Oh, hush, you big silly!
Patrick, sometimes you slay me!
-Julie
JulieW at February 4, 2010 2:12 PM
Old RPM Daddy wrote:
Sean, how do you know you weren't taking showers with gay guys when you were in the military?
***
I don't. Even though I'm sure I did. Kinda like DADT right now. Which I think is a reasonable compromise.
sean at February 4, 2010 2:17 PM
Whatever wrote:
Yeah, totally PC, like those sissy Israelis.
****
The Israeli Army is a joke. That last incursion into Lebanon was like a chinese fire drill. Oops sorry. didn't mean to offend the Chinese.
Their special forces may be fine and their Air Force is probably OK but the regular Army is pathetic. Very PC though.
sean at February 4, 2010 2:21 PM
lovelysoul wrote:
It's amusing when straight guys think gay men will be groping or ogling them in showers or in barracks. I always wonder if this is merely paranoia or fantasy.
***
This pretty much sums up the pampered soccer mom view of the issue.
Who do you think is in Iraq and afghanistan doing the heavy lifting right now? Hint, it's not the cute pony tailed guys you ogle behind the counter at starbucks.
It's largely 18-22 year old men. A lot of them from rural towns.
Not the "enlightened" crowd you're used to dealing with. It's an issue for them. You may not like that fact, but it's a fact.
Now, should the military force your "enlightened" ideals on them? Of course you would say yes. I'd say they should stick to the business of killing our enemy.
No one, even these young men would deny that there are gays in the military. But to go beyond the DADT policy will cause problems with unit cohesion. Especially in combat units deployed to remote locations. It just will.
No amount of your sanctemonious preaching will change that.
I want the military focused on killing our enemies. Not effecting social change.
sean at February 4, 2010 2:31 PM
Amy wrote:
Here's how it worked for a gay woman in the military:
****
Let's be honest. Straight Women have much easier time accepting Lesbians than Straight men do accepting Gay men.
And speaking of Women in the military, they are not allowed to serve in combat units. Where's the outrage over that?
I know, I know, some end up in combat situations at times but they are not allowed to serve like men.
Not good enough to serve their country because of who they are.
Where is the outrage?
sean at February 4, 2010 2:36 PM
Kristen wrote:
Afghanistan is not winding down and enlistment into the armed services is down.
****
Another soccer mom checks in.
30 seconds with google finds this:
All four branches of the military exceeded their recruiting goals in the fiscal 2009 year, according to Pentagon statistics. The Army signed up 70,045 recruits, 5,000 more than its goal.
sean at February 4, 2010 2:39 PM
Julie: Patrick, sometimes you slay me!
Crid and I have been engaged in mutual bickering for five years on this blog. If we stopped now, some of our fans might up and leave.
Patrick at February 4, 2010 2:39 PM
"Not good enough to serve their country because of who they are.
Where is the outrage?"
What outrage? Do you know why they don't? (hint: has nothing to do with "who they are" as people).
Feebie at February 4, 2010 2:40 PM
Upon further review, it would appear Sean was being sarcastic in that comment. My response did not account for this...
Feebie at February 4, 2010 2:54 PM
feebie wrote:
What outrage?
***
My point exactly. A man signs up for the military and there's no guarantee that he won't be stuck in a foxhole in afghanistan in 6 months. No matter what job his recruiter signed him up for.
Women? They get all the benefits of the military with almost none of the risk. (Yes, I know there are exceptions)
And I think that's just fine with the soccer mom crowd here.
Or prove me wrong and say that you'd be in favor of having your daughters drafted and assigned to a combat unit.
sean at February 4, 2010 2:54 PM
OK, feebie. But my last post still stands.
sean at February 4, 2010 2:56 PM
Nah, I am in agreement. I misinterpreted your tone.
Generally speaking, I am against women serving in combat units.
Feebie at February 4, 2010 2:57 PM
"This pretty much sums up the pampered soccer mom view of the issue.
Who do you think is in Iraq and afghanistan doing the heavy lifting right now?"
And who do you think are the ones saying goodbye to their sons and sometimes burying them? What is your issue with "soccer moms"? That is precisely the kind of stereotypical prejudice that is the problem.
As someone else mentioned, most servicemen already know, or at least suspect, who is gay in their units. This is just about allowing them to be honest. Allowing them the dignity to speak of their partners the same way a straight person can.
If that threatens you, and people like Ben-David, who seems to believe all gays are like wild animals looking to fuck anyone at any moment, that is really YOUR problem. It's ignorance. You know very little about gay people.
lovelysoul at February 4, 2010 3:02 PM
"It's largely 18-22 year old men. A lot of them from rural towns. Not the "enlightened" crowd you're used to dealing with. It's an issue for them."
Eh, they can handle it.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 4, 2010 3:08 PM
Allowing them the dignity to speak of their partners the same way a straight person can.
Respect can not be demanded. Right now the gay people do just fine, getting their job done and winning the respect, like some time ago the colored people did, like before them the emigrants' kids did, like long ago the poor people did. They all managed to win the respect of their brothers-in-arms, without the politiking loudmouths.
And how much dignity will gays have should they know that they were forced upon their comrades by the politiking crowd not on their merit, not because they deserve the appointment but because they were made "the token gay" for the diversity issues? When a good specialist will be replaced by not so good - but a "minority one" to make the unit rate good in the diversity reports? Some dignity it will be, especially if it causes casualties.
Once again - the problem is not with those who serve. The politicians crowd should change their ways and then there will be no issue at all.
Me at February 4, 2010 4:17 PM
"They all managed to win the respect of their brothers-in-arms, without the politiking loudmouths."
They couldn't win respect if they couldn't serve. The "politiking" crowd had something to do with that as well. But your analogy doesn't fit because a "colored" person couldn't be asked to hide the fact he/she was black.
Do you not realize that we are kicking qualified people out of the military solely for this issue? Highly-trained linguists, for instance, who are essential to protecting this country. There is no sane rationale for doing that.
Gays have been serving with distinction and winning respect all along. And they have not been groping, seducing, or raping other men. That fear is irrational. Allowing them to admit that they are gay is not going to suddenly turn all these fine soldiers into sexual predators. It's not going to change anything except finally bringing the truth out into the open, and not requiring decent people to lie, which, as the Adm Mullen stated, is in conflict with military values.
lovelysoul at February 4, 2010 4:47 PM
DADT is not about lying, it's about not asking and not telling.
I don't think that good specialists were ever discharged because of having some wrong sexuality - no commanding officer will want to lose a good soldier and reliable specialist because of this.
Troublemakers or bad soldiers were kicked out on this pretext? I can believe that - but should it not be their sexuality, they would have been discharged on other pretext and thousands are being kicked out every year with other reasons. Troublemakers say they were kicked out solely because they are gay? I can believe that they say so - I don't believe that was the reason they were kicked out.
Me at February 4, 2010 5:30 PM
"Women? They get all the benefits of the military with almost none of the risk. (Yes, I know there are exceptions)
And I think that's just fine with the soccer mom crowd here.
Or prove me wrong and say that you'd be in favor of having your daughters drafted and assigned to a combat unit."
I'm on record here and elsewhere saying I think women should be subject to the draft too-even myself. And I think anyone who can pass the necessary physical prowess tests should be allowed in infantry/combat. And I have 3 daughters.
You can argue all you want about sex assault. It happens. Happens to women in the military, I'm sure to men too, and also units are known to beat the crap out of members who fuck up. You can't legislate acceptance. All you can do is allow people in who qualify, and punish the wrongdoers when you find them. The rest will sort itself out in time, with some casualties, just like everything else in history has.
And no, I don't think these gay military people need gay marriage. Let the word go, people!
momof4 at February 4, 2010 5:38 PM
Quite frankly, I don't much care who is gay and who isn't.
Bottom line though, is that I haven't had to shower with any gay men over the last 10 years either.
I'm pretty sure, tolerant as I am regarding most things in life, that I'll find it irksome at best.
Now, people who think it is irrelevant, are also suggesting that unit cohesion is irrelevant, let me tell you that it isn't.
But you know what, I'll compromise.
Lets drop the male & female showers, and go strictly COED, same set of showers for everyone, that way straight men & women can look at other straight men & women naked and dripping every morning or evening depending upon their shift, and we can count on that same perfect professionalism during those work hours, and gay men & women can do the same, and we can count on THEIR professionalism in the same way.
We don't just work with the people around us, we live with them, share rooms with them, shower with them, eat with them, and yes, sleep right beside them day in and day out.
Its not a job we do, it is an entire way of life lived at war and in the field, and like it or not, sexuality is a HUGE part of the human condition, throwing a new dimension of that into the mix in the midst of wartime is not just stupid, its reckless and potentially destructive.
Robert at February 4, 2010 6:03 PM
Two stories about gay linguists being discharged. They weren't "troublemakers".
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/US/story?id=2274124&page=1
http://www.logcabin.org/lef/linguists_discharged.html?member_key=we3ge6i4a75kbm3
lovelysoul at February 4, 2010 6:11 PM
Without caring enough about the preceding to take part—
Calling Goldwater a "limited governmenter" is not appropriate.
Read (or watch) the whole thing, especially...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 4, 2010 6:24 PM
...the bit about his lawn furniture.
Giddyup!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 4, 2010 6:25 PM
Thanks Robert. Most of the people here think being in the military is like working at the post office.
The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.
It's not a social program and no one has a "right" to serve in it.
sean at February 4, 2010 6:37 PM
Quatromom wrote:
And I think anyone who can pass the necessary physical prowess tests should be allowed in infantry/combat.
***
Can we then kick them out if they don't pass the physical prowess tests like we do the men? Or do they get special treatment?
sean at February 4, 2010 6:39 PM
Speaking of government incompetence –and aren't we, always?– a sometime visitor to Amy's blog really stepped into some shit last night. While we all hope for a complete and speedy recovery, it's the kind of tale that could mushroom into a really, really handsome stink.... Kinduva "Bonfire of the Vanities" thing, only for real.
And the DC soil's already been fertilized by the guns-at-a-snowball-fight thing last month. Let's all watch Welch's tweets as well.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 4, 2010 6:41 PM
"like some time ago the colored people did"
The flesh-colored ones?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 4, 2010 7:09 PM
"It's largely 18-22 year old men. A lot of them from rural towns. Not the "enlightened" crowd you're used to dealing with. It's an issue for them."
Most of the gay people I know in 'urban' areas moved there from rural towns
lujlp at February 4, 2010 7:13 PM
Me writes: Respect can not be demanded.
False dilemma. No one's talking about respect. We're talking about the rights of gay people to serve openly and allow their partners the benefits afforded to military spouses. I couldn't care less if you "respect" our unions or not.
Patrick at February 4, 2010 7:22 PM
The last, ultimate bastion of meritocracy (military) - embittered by protracted attack from the Left - meets the uber-divas of left-wing identity-entitlement-PC-victimology theater (gay rights activists).
Ben-David, aren't you Israeli? If so, it's ironic as all hell to hear you complain about gays in the U.S. military when gays protect your ass. Go find some young men and women of the IDF and tell them if they're gay, the should go and let you die should you be attacked.
What a fucking cocksucker you are.
"It's largely 18-22 year old men. A lot of them from rural towns. Not the "enlightened" crowd you're used to dealing with. It's an issue for them."
I think you sell these men short. I have family in the South and in the military. They seem to do fine with people who live with decency and honor.
throwing a new dimension of that into the mix in the midst of wartime is not just stupid, its reckless and potentially destructive.
1. Your Sec Def and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are putting you in danger with this policy?
2. Everyone has admitted gays serve now; nothing new is being thrown into the mix.
It's not a social program and no one has a "right" to serve in it.
Fine. But if you don't want people in it, be honest about it. Say, "Gays not welcome!" Don't say, "you're welcome to be here, as long as if anyone asks about your sexuality you lie to them about it even though you're not supposed to lie to as part of your code of honor".
Who are with in prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military. Any other nations known for decency and human rights in there. Any?
All y'all t say it loud and proud: I don't hate gay men. But I don't want them fighting and dying for the U.S. if I might possibly have to contemplate gays doing so. Manly, self-assured sorts you all are.
Whatever at February 4, 2010 11:01 PM
Ben-David writes: "The last, ultimate bastion of meritocracy (military) - embittered by protracted attack from the Left - meets the uber-divas of left-wing identity-entitlement-PC-victimology theater..."
The is an important point. The military works very hard to promote based on competence, and competence alone. It doesn't always work. Women have been - and continue to be - a big challenge in this area. There seem to be lots of us ex-military types on the forum, and we all will have our stories to tell in this area.
The point is: this is an area where PC-ness has made inroads against the meritocracy. Women sometimes do receive special treatment. As always, this is to the detriment of the women who don't need special treatment, as they have to prove - over and over again - that they deserve the rank they wear.
The strength of DADT is that gays "do not exist" for purpose of evaluations. There is no question of discrimination or special treatment, because sexuality is irrelevant to evaluations.
If you eliminate DADT, you open the door to activists. They will search for - invent if necessary - cases of discrimination. They will push for special treatment. Eliminating DADT may make the personal lives of gay soldiers easier, but it risks making their professional lives much more difficult.
I think it instructive to Two examples:
bradley13 at February 4, 2010 11:03 PM
Oops...the "two examples" are half-finished text I did not mean to include. Individual anecdotes are irrelevant to the point I was trying to make...
bradley13 at February 4, 2010 11:06 PM
> Any other nations known for decency and human
> rights in there. Any?
The thing that's manipulative about your point is that you're pretending to have a broad perspective that's, like, all nobly international... But no culture has ever run a fighting force like the American armed services... Not for its decency towards soldiers, and certainly not with our (overall) decency of assignments. You're comparing the military to your dreamy-boy imagination, not to typical modern services of other nations. And I'm certain that almost any other force of friendly, mutually-nurturing, tofu-eating armies you describe would be from a nation living under the United States military umbrella anyway... Folks who know we're going to do the heavy lifting, but who like to run a day camp in the summertime to maintain the illusion of dignity.
Let's all take a minute to imagine what military service in Iran is like. Not just for gays, but anyone. Imagine. You're an illiterate kid from Bam, and you lost your family in the quake of '03, so you signed up (or were conscripted), hoping for at least a couple squares a day. What's your life like now?
Besides—
> What a fucking cocksucker you are.
Seriously... Dude. He gets on my nerves too, but anger like your is almost always about other things.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 4, 2010 11:43 PM
Crid: Seriously... Dude. He gets on my nerves too,
So does everyone.
Crid: but anger like your is almost always about other things.
Well, score one for Crid.
Patrick at February 5, 2010 1:26 AM
No one's talking about respect. Some people do.
couldn't care less if you "respect" our unions or not. They are not "your" people, they are army people first and _anything_ else later. That's what irks you, right?
Me at February 5, 2010 1:29 AM
you lying piece of shit Me, because if you truly belived what you just wrote you never would have written youe first comment
lujlp at February 5, 2010 2:23 AM
potty-mouthed Whatever:
it's ironic as all hell to hear you complain about gays in the U.S. military
- - - - - - - - - -
I'm not complaining about gays in the military.
I'm pointing out the implausibility of those who claim that heteros are only imagining sexual tensions when gay and straight soldiers live in intimate contact.
The claims of lily-white innocence are especially implausible - and ironic - considering the g-string-in-your-face tactics typical of these activists, and the fact that the gay subculture is full of guys dressing up in uniform and attending bathhouses with names like "The Barracks".
Ben-David at February 5, 2010 2:48 AM
Me writes: I don't think that good specialists were ever discharged because of having some wrong sexuality - no commanding officer will want to lose a good soldier and reliable specialist because of this.
You couldn't be more mistaken. A friend of mine who served for ten years, was a Green Beret and Ranger school graduate. When he came out to his CO, he was discharged.
Patrick at February 5, 2010 2:59 AM
luj wrote:
Most of the gay people I know in 'urban' areas moved there from rural towns
***
Gee, I can't imagine why they would move.
sean at February 5, 2010 4:15 AM
What about transgender soldiers?
When are they going to have the dignity of serving their country without hiding who they are?
Let's have the govt start making uniform skirts that will fit men too.
Come on people, let's show some more sanctemonious outrage!!!
sean at February 5, 2010 4:19 AM
From where I sit, you're the one mired in sanctimonious outrage...and "sanctimonious" doesn't have an "e" in it.
It's just another thing, like gay marriage, sean. It's going to happen. Get used to it.
Me: They are not "your" people, they are army people first and _anything_ else later. That's what irks you, right?
I never said they were "my" people. So, I cannot be irked over something I didn't say. I said that gay people (including myself) can do without your approval or your respect of our unions. All we need is legal sanction and you can hate, hate, hate it till hell freezes over for all I care.
And no, soldiers are not "army people" first. They had their status as sexual beings before they ever joined the service, they retained it while they were in the army and they will have it after they are discharged from the army.
The military obviously recognizes this, since soldiers are allowed to date, be married, etc. While it's not to the military's benefit to provide health care and benefits to spouses, the government recognized that it was impractical to separate a soldier from his sexual identity, thus they decided to extend the protection to spouses as an added incentive. It's a little ridiculous to expect soldiers to live as eunuchs for the duration of their enlistment.
Newsflash, you can't take gays without taking their sexual identity with it, either.
Patrick at February 5, 2010 5:17 AM
Ben-David: The claims of lily-white innocence are especially implausible - and ironic - considering the g-string-in-your-face tactics typical of these activists, and the fact that the gay subculture is full of guys dressing up in uniform and attending bathhouses with names like "The Barracks".
I've never heard of this place. Give me directions; I'll meet you there someday, and save me a dance.
Patrick at February 5, 2010 5:20 AM
I never said they were "my" people.
You talked about "your unions" - and you are not "they", they _are_ soldiers first and anything else later, that's why they are serving.
_You_ position _your_ sexuality first, that's the difference, that's why you will never serve and only wave your agenda.
Me at February 5, 2010 5:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/02/04/i_dont_have_to.html#comment-1693530">comment from seanWhat about transgender soldiers? When are they going to have the dignity of serving their country without hiding who they are? Let's have the govt start making uniform skirts that will fit men too.
Sean, in the army you have to blend in -- there's no individuality for anyone.
Also, transgendered people are born one sex and strongly feel they are another. I've got a lot of compassion for them. Pretty tough situation.
PS If you don't have a good argument, it's best you don't make a totally lame one just to say something.
Amy Alkon at February 5, 2010 7:41 AM
Me: You talked about "your unions" - and you are not "they", they _are_ soldiers first and anything else later, that's why they are serving.
_You_ position _your_ sexuality first, that's the difference, that's why you will never serve and only wave your agenda.
I already did serve. From 90-94. I was an interrogator/linguist and had a top secret with SCI.
And regardless of the priorities that the government (or you) wants to pretend are in place, human beings are sexual beings by virtue of their creation. Soldiers are soldiers by virtue of a human institution. The latter does not and cannot trump the former. That's why soldiers are allowed to date, marry and have relationships.
Patrick at February 5, 2010 8:19 AM
Amy wrote:
Sean, in the army you have to blend in -- there's no individuality for anyone.
***
Gee Amy, thanks for clearing that up. I was in the Army (Air Force too) but I guess I didn't pick up on that.
It's sad that you think it's OK to deny transgender people + cross dressers the chance to serve their country without hiding who they are.
Oh wait. I do too.
I'm glad we finally agree.
(Did I git all thar spelllins currect Pat?)
sean at February 5, 2010 8:39 AM
"Ben-David, aren't you Israeli? "
Ben-David sounds like those one of those side-locked orthodox parasites that get exempted from serving in the IDF.
Jim at February 5, 2010 8:41 AM
Since before then, even.
After witnessing the last stand of the Sacred Band of Thebes at Chaeronea, Phillip II of Macedon said of them, "Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly."
Conan the Grammarian at February 5, 2010 9:24 AM
Good god. I think some of you are seriously homo-phobic. That's the only thing I can think of.
Sean, do you think any soldier should be discharged for having a partner or going on a date or having sex? Just the gay ones? Okay, then.
I seriously doubt the military is going to start listing people's sexual preferences on their dog tags. The only thing I see changing with a repeal of DADT is that gay people will actually lead somewhat normal lives (normal as they can be for military in war time). I don't think they're going to be announcing to all and sundry "I'M GAY!! WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?!?!" I swear to god, I think some of you must never have known a gay person. They don't have signs on their foreheads, they don't act any differently than a straight person. Sure, there are exceptions - rebellious kids trying to make a stir, activists, etc., but guess what? you get that with straight folks, too.
No, most gay people don't announce that they're gay, just like straight folk don't announce their sexual preferences. The only thing repealing DADT will change is that they don't have to lie. They aren't going to be announcing their status from a building, but when John asks his buddy Paul on Monday what he did over the weekend, he can say "Mike and I went to see The Book of Eli. What did you and Sheila do?" Yeah. Unit cohesiveness is going to suffer because of that. Get a grip.
Anne at February 5, 2010 9:43 AM
Anne: I think some of you must never have known a gay person.
They might think so, but chances are, they have.
Patrick at February 5, 2010 9:59 AM
Anne wrote:
They aren't going to be announcing their status from a building, but when John asks his buddy Paul on Monday what he did over the weekend, he can say "Mike and I went to see The Book of Eli. What did you and Sheila do?"
***
Anne, thanks for proving my point that you soccer moms think serving in the military is the same as working at the post office.
sean at February 5, 2010 10:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/02/04/i_dont_have_to.html#comment-1693571">comment from seanSean, do you know anybody transgendered? I do. http://www.andreajames.com/
When I met Andrea, we talked about all manner of things for several hours (she's very interesting and smart), and she only mentioned she was trans when I mentioned how people had used that as a way to denigrate me (changing my wikipedia page to say I was a male-to-female post-op transsexual advice columnist, and posting here "Are you a tranny?" multiple time). In that context, I asked, "Who has a harder time than somebody born one sex who feels they're really another?" That's when she said, "Actually...!"
And just as with my gay friends, it's just part of who they are. They happen to be gay. They aren't, say, "gay writers" or "gay Ph.D. students." If you're in the military, you're a soldier first, and anything else next.
Amy Alkon at February 5, 2010 10:15 AM
Seriously... Dude. He gets on my nerves too, but anger like your is almost always about other things.
In this case, my contempt for Ben-David's thinking on this issue is absolute. He's apparently ignorant enough to think that people like Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen are somehow in thrall to leftists. His country - and many others - have shown that gays can serve openly and effectively. His loathing of gays is quite evident from these and many other posts, yet he's willing to have them fight and die on his behalf.
Fine, I'm a potty mouth, and perhaps my anger is misplaced. Ben-David is craven and parochial.
The thing that's manipulative about your point is that you're pretending to have a broad perspective that's, like, all nobly international.
My point is that gay soldiers serve openly and effectively in just about every country in the world except places like Cuba, China, Venezuela, and various places in the Middle East where stoning of gays is a common recreational activity. I know conservatives like to disregard internationalist arguments, but I'd really like to know what could possibly be so different about our military experience as to make DADT a preferable position.
Your comments about our projections of military power all over the globe are irrelevant to this discussion, though I'd be happy to discuss the folly and unsustainability of that approach at length some time.
Whatever at February 5, 2010 10:25 AM
Most of the gay people I know in 'urban' areas moved there from rural towns
***
Gee, I can't imagine why they would move. -sean
Probably because of the limited dating pool moron.
And sean when I was in the Army I did talk to the guys in my unit about what I did on leave or a weekend pass. Perhaps the guys you served with knew what a miserable bastard you are and didnt include you
lujlp at February 5, 2010 10:43 AM
Amy,
Some of my best friends are black. Therefore never call me a racist. (They don't have web sites though)
So you have a friend who is transgendered, which means you can't be ... I don't even know what you'd be ... if you were ... which we know you're not ... I mean you linked a web page after all.
So why can't your friend be in the Military? Seriously, I'd like to know. Women wear skirts in the military, there's nothing about being an individual about that. They blend in.
Why deny him/her the chance to serve his/her country because of who he/she is?
Really, I want to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel with that explanation.
sean at February 5, 2010 10:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/02/04/i_dont_have_to.html#comment-1693586">comment from seanAmy, Some of my best friends are black. Therefore never call me a racist. (They don't have web sites though) So you have a friend who is transgendered,
You're a wee bit light in the logic department. The point is, people I know who are gay (many, many) and trans (a few), do not generally lead with their sexuality any more than straight people, unless you happen to be at a gay pride rally. Andrea and I talked about a bunch of stuff and trans never came up until I mentioned it.
I have no problem with anybody deemed fit for military service serving in the military.
Amy Alkon at February 5, 2010 11:16 AM
No, Patrick - I chose that wording carefully. I started to say "have never met a gay person" but then I thought "Of course they probably have - they just weren't aware of it." That's why I chose the word "know" - because unless you're more than passing acquaintances with a gay person, you'll probably never realize that they're gay. Which, I'm sure you know, being gay. I'm also pretty sure that if I met you you wouldn't say (while shaking my hand) "Hi, Anne. I'm Patrick. I'm gay." You probably don't announce your age, place of birth, or religious beliefs, either. I know I don't ;-)
Anne at February 5, 2010 11:16 AM
LMAO
Sean, thanks for proving my point that you don't know half of what you think you do. Firstly, I'm not a mom, let alone a soccer mom. Secondly, I did 8 years in the military, plus ROTC while I was on military scholarship. I'm pretty sure I've got a handle on what being in the military is like. And guess what - people small talk, no matter what. Even when they're at war, but especially when they're stationed state-side. So, go ahead, show us again exactly how small-minded and ignorant you are.
Anne at February 5, 2010 11:21 AM
Lujlp said:
"And sean when I was in the Army I did talk to the guys in my unit about what I did on leave or a weekend pass. Perhaps the guys you served with knew what a miserable bastard you are and didnt include you"
Girl, that cracked me up. And absolute truth.
Anne at February 5, 2010 11:24 AM
re should simply be a general, gender-neutral clause about being ready for deployment. If you violate this, you you simply be discharged, and (b) the kid-glove in army/marine basic training, riding on trucks when they get tired, because it would not be PC to admit that most women cannot carry 40 kilo packs as far and as fast as most men.
I can tell you right now that this is bullshit. I was in basic training at Ft Jackson in the early 90s. The only women soldiers that didn't have to do field marches were the ones on doctor restriction (injured). No matter how tired you got, you were doing the same march the guys were.
I've always thought that the lack of opportunity and fairness in the military was bullshit. If you qualify for an MOS, you should get it, no matter whether you sit or stand to piss. If you get pregnant (or get someone else pregnant), you should be discharged under a general discharge (not honorable). Eliminating children in the military would certainly reduce 'care' costs and distractions. Gay soldiers should be allowed to be as open about their relationships as straight soldiers. Equality across the board, both with opportunity and responsibility.
-Julie
JulieW at February 5, 2010 11:44 AM
"And sean when I was in the Army I did talk to the guys in my unit about what I did on leave or a weekend pass. Perhaps the guys you served with knew what a miserable bastard you are and didnt include you"
I agree with Anne -that was a very, very funny comment, Lujlp.
Jody Tresidder at February 5, 2010 1:41 PM
Sean said "30 seconds with google finds this:
All four branches of the military exceeded their recruiting goals in the fiscal 2009 year, according to Pentagon statistics. The Army signed up 70,045 recruits, 5,000 more than its goal.
"
Actually it is because they lowered their goals so that they could make them. Real numbers are down. I read a peice on Slate about it a while back.
Careful what you take for fact.
maria at February 5, 2010 1:49 PM
Keep "Don't Ask"
Repeal "Don't Tell"
scott at February 5, 2010 2:44 PM
Bingo, Scott. Best comment of the thread.
"I can tell you right now that this is bullshit. I was in basic training at Ft Jackson in the early 90s. "
And for longer than that. back in the ealry 80's women were getting all kinds of foot problems from just staying step marching in formation, let alone road marches. And they wore the braces to heal up and whatnot, and if they still kept having problems, we put them out. We put a lot of preggers out, too, along with the people who couldn't keep from getting Article 15s.
Jim at February 5, 2010 3:23 PM
> craven and parochial.
Craven perhaps, but you are Amy's beribboned champion for parochialism. If there's any toughened worldliness –or thoughful acceptance of unpleasant nature, including your own– in your perspective, we've not seen evidence of it. At, like, all.
> my contempt for Ben-David's thinking
> on this issue is absolute.
Nightmare. For him. How will he sleep? Anyway, good to know we've found the bottom, and that you won't have such an outburst ever again.
> gay soldiers serve openly and
> effectively
Gonna need a cite, big fella....
> in just about every country in the world
> except places like Cuba...
1. On what evidence, beyond your daydreams of a world better than the monstrous America, which torments you so relentless?
2. And do you recognize the gaping, howling magnitude of your "exception"?
3. (Maybe most important.) Openly perhaps, but effectively? That was pretty silly... You can take it back if you want. Or even better, you can move to the modern, defended nation where your enraged pink buns will be protected by these forward-looking, sexually sophistimcated armed forces... Though there is no, ZERO, doubt in my mind that when you do, your first, second and third tiers of national security will still be presented by the United States military umbrella, no matter their policies re: gays.
> I'd really like to know what could
> possibly be so different about our
> military experience
It fucking WORKS, that's what. I'm still waiting for you to name a modern (or even second-world) country that doesn't count on us for primary defense of its borders but still has all of your imaginary, procedural* hospitality to gays. You're not comparing reality to anything but your Whatever-y, Disneyland-teacup fantasies....
Sing with me, now! Iiiit's a SMALL world, af-ter all, Iiiit's a....
__________________________________
* Checklists! Counseling! Fellowship! Like a chaplain, only his prayers apply solely to your Johnson!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 5, 2010 6:45 PM
Incedentally Anne, I'm a guy
lujlp at February 5, 2010 7:33 PM
Yikes! Soooo sorry, Lujlp. I'm not sure where or when I got the idea you weren't, honestly. My apologies!
Anne at February 5, 2010 9:50 PM
You should call yourself "Larry". It would be better.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 5, 2010 10:02 PM
Crid: Gonna need a cite, big fella....
Not to intrude upon your obvious man-crush on Whatever, but remind me to one day explain to you the marvel that is Google. For now, you may find what you want right here.
Patrick at February 6, 2010 1:18 AM
No intrusion at all. He said:
> gay soldiers serve openly and
> effectively in just about every country
> in the world except places like Cuba...
And I'm all like, oh yeah? Is there any reason to think so? Exactly how well are they doing in the world's most "effective" armies, and how does he know about it?
He hasn't answered yet. I don't think he will. For the third time: He's comparing reality to a daydream, and trying to mask it as (unspecified) international studies.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 6, 2010 1:26 AM
given my name is john why would I call myself Larry?
lujlp at February 6, 2010 4:05 AM
For the same reason you'd call yourself Lujlp, only it's easier to spell and pronounce. Go with John! Go with John!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 6, 2010 6:21 AM
Okay, they H in John doesn't make any more sense that the second L in Lujlp. But still...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 6, 2010 7:51 AM
Whatever:
In this case, my contempt for Ben-David's thinking on this issue is absolute.
- - - - - - - - -
... which is interesting since I didn't deliver an opinion one way or the other - I specifically said that there were strong arguments on both sides.
So you've proven yourself to be like most leftie "progressives" - not really interested in dialogue, just in hammering others into submission - even if you have to create a straw man to make the argument fit.
I only addressed one issue - the totally nonsensical attempt to dismiss concerns about sexual tensions in close quarters.
Neither you nor Patrick have addressed that angle cogently.
Oh, and Patrick - you're a little late, but there are plenty of similarly-themed clubs and bars:
Ben-David at February 6, 2010 10:53 AM
Umm... I don't get that last bit. Are you saying straights would never be so irresponsible as to start a fire?
Crid at February 6, 2010 12:06 PM
I read this thread, thought of replying, and then realized that the snow is excellent here in Tahoe, I've got good friends to feed, and the Superbowl is tomorrow. I'm sure we'll meet again on these issues.
Whatever at February 6, 2010 6:12 PM
> I'm sure we'll meet again on these issues.
Oh. You're busy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 6, 2010 9:54 PM
But Amy has stuff going back ten years... She's got lots of disk space. So if you ever want to get back to this, it'll be here. Shucks, you go enjoy the slopes, and I'll be sure to ask you what the Hell you were talking about next week.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 6, 2010 11:46 PM
lujlp: given my name is john why would I call myself Larry?
Why would you call yourself lujlp? Does that mean anything, or are those the keys you need to use to maneuver your space ship through the asteroids on some computer game you play?
Patrick at February 7, 2010 4:29 AM
'jlp' are my initials and 'lu' is both the first sylable of my middle name and a nickname I had my sophmore year of highschool when I first started chatting and bloging on the net
lujlp at February 7, 2010 7:11 PM
Thou art Lou to me evermore, perhaps to be spelled lu when time is tight.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 7, 2010 8:44 PM
"On a side note, if someone, unthinkingly, calls something "gay," could they now be charged with harassment because a gay person "might" have heard them?"
is it not harassment?
It is amazing how easily others can discount something simply because it does not affect them. What I believe far too many of us forget is, this world belongs to no one. This earth is much mine as it is yours. Regardless.
With that said, it is more about figuring out how to make it work, rather, I don't want to because.
furthermore
"I would if I was taking showers with them and sleeping next to them. At least the hot ones."
It is absurd to think that someone would take advantage of you in the shower while on duty. If you can honestly say you would do the same to a women if you shared showers, well then you first have no place in the military, and you are a disgrace to the human race and this nation. No means no, I can't believe this even has to be stated.
I hate to sound like a hypocrite but.. I wish..WISH that the rights and open lifestyle of the straight world would even for one hour be taken away. You cannot understand it, unless you live it.
peace
WOW! at February 8, 2010 2:38 PM
Leave a comment