Opening the military to gays

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, following the lead of his Commander-in-Chief, has come out against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and is saying gays should serve openly:

The nation’s top military officer said Tuesday that he supported allowing gays to openly serve — adding a powerful voice to the deeply controversial issue as the Pentagon announced steps to prepare for possibly ending its 17-year ban on homosexuality.

Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the military would follow the 1993 law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Nonetheless, he said, his personal views were firm.

“Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” Mullen said.

via Joint Chiefs chair says gays and lesbians should serve military openly – latimes.com.

This follows Defense Secretary Gates’ similar declaration. Other top Pentagon brass are saying the same thing. The issue is under review. A change in policy, though, would require Congressional action. See this. What effect do you think this policy shift would have on our military, if any?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • fws

    It would quite obviously have exactly the same effect it had on the militaries of our nato allies. The effect, studied after many years was the same as when we integrated blacks into the military. That is to say, there was no effect on military rediness or cohesion.

    But of course you should not take my word for this. Read the article at the end of this post and argue against the points it raises.

    It is notable that the architect of the current law, Colin Powell, is now urging full repeal of the law.

    We are in two wars and this policy has meant the expulsion of over 100 men and women fluent in arabic and how many bogus discharges by men saying “I am gay” to escape doing time in iraq-istan. A law requiring people to lie can only produce such immoral results.

    Futher, the admiral is admirably correct. I applaud the basis for his position irregardless of whether having gays serve openly in the military is a wise decision or not. Dishonesty is dishonorable. Required lying, is not the mark of a God-pleasing law.

    The official armed forces magazine had this as it´s cover story. Since it was published as a cover story in our nation´s military magazine and won the secretary of defense award, it would seem to carry gravitas way beyond what any of us could bloviate here:

    http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i55/14.pdf

  • fws

    It would quite obviously have exactly the same effect it had on the militaries of our nato allies. The effect, studied after many years was the same as when we integrated blacks into the military. That is to say, there was no effect on military rediness or cohesion.

    But of course you should not take my word for this. Read the article at the end of this post and argue against the points it raises.

    It is notable that the architect of the current law, Colin Powell, is now urging full repeal of the law.

    We are in two wars and this policy has meant the expulsion of over 100 men and women fluent in arabic and how many bogus discharges by men saying “I am gay” to escape doing time in iraq-istan. A law requiring people to lie can only produce such immoral results.

    Futher, the admiral is admirably correct. I applaud the basis for his position irregardless of whether having gays serve openly in the military is a wise decision or not. Dishonesty is dishonorable. Required lying, is not the mark of a God-pleasing law.

    The official armed forces magazine had this as it´s cover story. Since it was published as a cover story in our nation´s military magazine and won the secretary of defense award, it would seem to carry gravitas way beyond what any of us could bloviate here:

    http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i55/14.pdf

  • fws

    fortunately lutherans don´t have a moral dog in this fight. this is a purely practical matter.

  • fws

    fortunately lutherans don´t have a moral dog in this fight. this is a purely practical matter.

  • fws

    “The reason why I supported the policy to start with is because General Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one that strongly recommended we adopt this policy in the Clinton administration. I have not heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position,” – McCain, yesterday.

    “In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen,” Colin Powell, today.

  • fws

    “The reason why I supported the policy to start with is because General Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one that strongly recommended we adopt this policy in the Clinton administration. I have not heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position,” – McCain, yesterday.

    “In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen,” Colin Powell, today.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in 21st Century

    I wonder how do moral and practical differ? And if they do does that mean we are approaching morality and practicality in an amoral mindset?

    For to long have we tolerated immorality in our military forces. In times past, officers were expected to be held to higher standards of morality and honor. Now we just lower the bar because a few are immoral enough to lie.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in 21st Century

    I wonder how do moral and practical differ? And if they do does that mean we are approaching morality and practicality in an amoral mindset?

    For to long have we tolerated immorality in our military forces. In times past, officers were expected to be held to higher standards of morality and honor. Now we just lower the bar because a few are immoral enough to lie.

  • fws

    Dr Luther @4 : “I wonder how do moral and practical differ? And if they do does that mean we are approaching morality and practicality in an amoral mindset?”

    Great Question! Wonder no more.

    “Moral” and “practical” differ in no visible way here on earth. God´s Word says so. We can know and be quite certain from God´s Word what we personally should do to act visibly in ways that truly please God: 1) All visible God-pleasing morality is completely horizontal. It excludes a need for true faith. 2) To be God-pleasing morality then, our actions are only about SELF-discipline/restraint + Love. 3) Love here is strictly defined as self-disciplined actions that make the earthly life of others better. Nothing at all could better claim the title of “practical” eh?

    These truths are intrinsically identical, both morally and practically and visibly, for the old adams of both pagans and christians alike. This is called mortification of the flesh. Visible works have nothing at all to do with christian sanctification. (cf. FC article VI).

    This true morality is abosolutely necessary. It is necessary only for practical reasons, not religious ones: life on earth would be impossible without the 1st article/4th petition gifts God, the Holy Spirit provides us through this visible morality called Good Works.

    Any “morality” that is aimed vertically attempts to please God and to present one´s self as a christian based on something in addition to, or in place of the invisible Righteousness that is ALONE faith in Christ as savior.

    This sort of attempt at combining vertical with visible righteousness is an insult to Christ´s alone atoning work and is therefore the most heinous of sinful immorality.

  • fws

    Dr Luther @4 : “I wonder how do moral and practical differ? And if they do does that mean we are approaching morality and practicality in an amoral mindset?”

    Great Question! Wonder no more.

    “Moral” and “practical” differ in no visible way here on earth. God´s Word says so. We can know and be quite certain from God´s Word what we personally should do to act visibly in ways that truly please God: 1) All visible God-pleasing morality is completely horizontal. It excludes a need for true faith. 2) To be God-pleasing morality then, our actions are only about SELF-discipline/restraint + Love. 3) Love here is strictly defined as self-disciplined actions that make the earthly life of others better. Nothing at all could better claim the title of “practical” eh?

    These truths are intrinsically identical, both morally and practically and visibly, for the old adams of both pagans and christians alike. This is called mortification of the flesh. Visible works have nothing at all to do with christian sanctification. (cf. FC article VI).

    This true morality is abosolutely necessary. It is necessary only for practical reasons, not religious ones: life on earth would be impossible without the 1st article/4th petition gifts God, the Holy Spirit provides us through this visible morality called Good Works.

    Any “morality” that is aimed vertically attempts to please God and to present one´s self as a christian based on something in addition to, or in place of the invisible Righteousness that is ALONE faith in Christ as savior.

    This sort of attempt at combining vertical with visible righteousness is an insult to Christ´s alone atoning work and is therefore the most heinous of sinful immorality.

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    another betrayal of our BEST by the Brass….
    C-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    another betrayal of our BEST by the Brass….
    C-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    BTW-Powell is a representation of the ultimate -two faced- CYA betrayer…
    and McCain-is one too!
    C-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    BTW-Powell is a representation of the ultimate -two faced- CYA betrayer…
    and McCain-is one too!
    C-CS

  • fws

    6 C-Christian Soldier February 4, 2010 at 11:38 am
    “another betrayal of our BEST by the Brass….”

    Yeah. integrating blacks into the military by Truman over military objections comes to mind here with your comment…..

  • fws

    6 C-Christian Soldier February 4, 2010 at 11:38 am
    “another betrayal of our BEST by the Brass….”

    Yeah. integrating blacks into the military by Truman over military objections comes to mind here with your comment…..

  • CRB

    Here is a website with a variety of articles on the military. For the most part, these are thought-provoking articles that tend to look
    at the bigger picture of several aspects of the liberal mind-set on
    the readiness of our military and the ramifications of adopting
    such mind-sets.

    http://cmrlink.org/

  • CRB

    Here is a website with a variety of articles on the military. For the most part, these are thought-provoking articles that tend to look
    at the bigger picture of several aspects of the liberal mind-set on
    the readiness of our military and the ramifications of adopting
    such mind-sets.

    http://cmrlink.org/

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS, Actually, serious Christians have a moral dog in this fight. Missouri Synod and other orthodox Christians view homosexual behavior as gravely sinful. Many young men and their parents would not respect a military that condoned homosexual behavior.

    At a practical level appealing to the roughly 2% gay population would help recruitment of gays, though many other young men, especially from the South, would be reluctant to join an openly gay military.

    The more serious issue is military unit cohesion. The most important part of unit cohesion is the philia or brotherly love of warriors that in combat is strong enough for men to sacrifice their lives. Most warriors, who haven’t fallen for a politically correct view, are well aware that homosexual eros, contra to philia, has the potential to egregiously affect unit cohesion. Mackubin Thomas Owens
    writes incisively on this subject in a WSJ article The Case Against Gays in the Military: Open homosexuality would threaten unit cohesion and military effectiveness..

    My guess is that Obama, having won over Sec’y Gates and Admiral Mullen, will punch this through. Too bad; it will have a disastrous effect on military morale.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS, Actually, serious Christians have a moral dog in this fight. Missouri Synod and other orthodox Christians view homosexual behavior as gravely sinful. Many young men and their parents would not respect a military that condoned homosexual behavior.

    At a practical level appealing to the roughly 2% gay population would help recruitment of gays, though many other young men, especially from the South, would be reluctant to join an openly gay military.

    The more serious issue is military unit cohesion. The most important part of unit cohesion is the philia or brotherly love of warriors that in combat is strong enough for men to sacrifice their lives. Most warriors, who haven’t fallen for a politically correct view, are well aware that homosexual eros, contra to philia, has the potential to egregiously affect unit cohesion. Mackubin Thomas Owens
    writes incisively on this subject in a WSJ article The Case Against Gays in the Military: Open homosexuality would threaten unit cohesion and military effectiveness..

    My guess is that Obama, having won over Sec’y Gates and Admiral Mullen, will punch this through. Too bad; it will have a disastrous effect on military morale.

  • Jonathan

    This is from the same super-PC mindset of commanders that brought you the likes of Major Hassan the Islamist terrorist within the ranks. This adventure is nothing but a symptom of a dangerous infection of PC that is hurting the effectiveness of Armed Forces.

  • Jonathan

    This is from the same super-PC mindset of commanders that brought you the likes of Major Hassan the Islamist terrorist within the ranks. This adventure is nothing but a symptom of a dangerous infection of PC that is hurting the effectiveness of Armed Forces.

  • fws

    Peter @10:
    “The most important part of unit cohesion is the philia or brotherly love of warriors .Most warriors,…are well aware that homosexual eros, .. has the potential to egregiously affect unit cohesion. ”

    “All eros hetero and hetero has no place being acted out in the military. the military code forbids and punishes all infractions of this.”

    People are able to restrain themselves. I am pretty sure you do not act out all eros you feel stir within you for every woman you meet. And you are not attracted to all women you meet. And I am absolutely certain no gay man would feel any eros or attraction at all for you. Just for example.

    Sexual behavior in the military is a zero tolerance situation. Just law restrains and punishes behavior only. It cannot police hidden thoughts. You must be one of those who support thought crimes, like the so-called “hate crimes” legislation. I say this because how is this situation any different? It is not.

    Just because I honestly declare I am gay or attracted to women does not mean I am going to break the military code. If I do, I should be punished in the exact same way, irregardless of my declared sexual orientation.

    To underestimate the fact that military are professionals and can know these things and separate them out, is an insult to soldiers both gay and straight. Personal example: My pastor has brotherly love for me as a gay man and I for him. To suggest that this relationship is in any danger of being compromised by immoral behavior based on eros is itself immoral and insulting. For me not to inform my pastor that I am gay would also be very immoral on my part. I confess to him privately every week. non disclosure would make my confessions pure lie and deceit.

  • fws

    Peter @10:
    “The most important part of unit cohesion is the philia or brotherly love of warriors .Most warriors,…are well aware that homosexual eros, .. has the potential to egregiously affect unit cohesion. ”

    “All eros hetero and hetero has no place being acted out in the military. the military code forbids and punishes all infractions of this.”

    People are able to restrain themselves. I am pretty sure you do not act out all eros you feel stir within you for every woman you meet. And you are not attracted to all women you meet. And I am absolutely certain no gay man would feel any eros or attraction at all for you. Just for example.

    Sexual behavior in the military is a zero tolerance situation. Just law restrains and punishes behavior only. It cannot police hidden thoughts. You must be one of those who support thought crimes, like the so-called “hate crimes” legislation. I say this because how is this situation any different? It is not.

    Just because I honestly declare I am gay or attracted to women does not mean I am going to break the military code. If I do, I should be punished in the exact same way, irregardless of my declared sexual orientation.

    To underestimate the fact that military are professionals and can know these things and separate them out, is an insult to soldiers both gay and straight. Personal example: My pastor has brotherly love for me as a gay man and I for him. To suggest that this relationship is in any danger of being compromised by immoral behavior based on eros is itself immoral and insulting. For me not to inform my pastor that I am gay would also be very immoral on my part. I confess to him privately every week. non disclosure would make my confessions pure lie and deceit.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    @fws, have you considered the logical impossibility of comparing blacks to gays? Just a thought.

    Leavitt has framed the issue well above.

    As Churchill once said, the military is basically a set of standard manners designed to allow a lot of very tense young men to coexist and direct their killing at the enemy instead of each other (or something like that).

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    @fws, have you considered the logical impossibility of comparing blacks to gays? Just a thought.

    Leavitt has framed the issue well above.

    As Churchill once said, the military is basically a set of standard manners designed to allow a lot of very tense young men to coexist and direct their killing at the enemy instead of each other (or something like that).

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    #8 “Yeah. integrating blacks into the military by Truman over military objections comes to mind here with your comment…..”

    Good deflection!-did you learn that technique via your training w/ the followers of Alinsky (who gave honor to Lucifer in his book _R for R_)-Ayers–Dewey->>>>>?!!!!
    C-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    #8 “Yeah. integrating blacks into the military by Truman over military objections comes to mind here with your comment…..”

    Good deflection!-did you learn that technique via your training w/ the followers of Alinsky (who gave honor to Lucifer in his book _R for R_)-Ayers–Dewey->>>>>?!!!!
    C-CS

  • fws

    13 John February 4, 2010 at 12:35 pm
    “@fws, have you considered the logical impossibility of comparing blacks to gays? Just a thought.”

    The thought is an excellent one. Do not be so modest! Yes. It is quite striking that exactly the same arguments against gay self-disclosure (not service in the military, that is fully allowed!) were used against racial integration at the time of Truman.

    John, I am so glad you see the obvious absurdity of this fact.

    This is made only more absurd by the fact that we are not debating whether or not gays can serve, and can shower with and live in close quarters with non-gays are we? We are debating whether or not gays can continue to do these things AND be honest and say ” I am gay”. This is the only point of debate isn´t it really? Now isn´t that just a little illogical doncha think?

    It is a known fact that gay men are daily showering and in close quarters with other non-gay men now all the time in the military.

    No one is asserting that military cohesion or preparedness is now being compromised and that gays should be actively ferreted out of the military. no. one. Give me one (serious) link.

    It is also certain to say that any sexual behavior resulting from this daily fact of gay men being in intimate contact with others is routinely disciplined and punished. Further, no one challenges that this is absolutely necessary to be done. Not “gay activists”. Not “liberals”. No. One.

    Therefore the ONLY point of dispute is as admiral mullins says: Gay men and women should not need to compromise their integrity to risk their lives and serve their country. Period.

  • fws

    13 John February 4, 2010 at 12:35 pm
    “@fws, have you considered the logical impossibility of comparing blacks to gays? Just a thought.”

    The thought is an excellent one. Do not be so modest! Yes. It is quite striking that exactly the same arguments against gay self-disclosure (not service in the military, that is fully allowed!) were used against racial integration at the time of Truman.

    John, I am so glad you see the obvious absurdity of this fact.

    This is made only more absurd by the fact that we are not debating whether or not gays can serve, and can shower with and live in close quarters with non-gays are we? We are debating whether or not gays can continue to do these things AND be honest and say ” I am gay”. This is the only point of debate isn´t it really? Now isn´t that just a little illogical doncha think?

    It is a known fact that gay men are daily showering and in close quarters with other non-gay men now all the time in the military.

    No one is asserting that military cohesion or preparedness is now being compromised and that gays should be actively ferreted out of the military. no. one. Give me one (serious) link.

    It is also certain to say that any sexual behavior resulting from this daily fact of gay men being in intimate contact with others is routinely disciplined and punished. Further, no one challenges that this is absolutely necessary to be done. Not “gay activists”. Not “liberals”. No. One.

    Therefore the ONLY point of dispute is as admiral mullins says: Gay men and women should not need to compromise their integrity to risk their lives and serve their country. Period.

  • fws

    Jonathan @11

    this is not about being politically correct.

    facts:

    1)gays can and do legally serve in the military now..
    2) gays daily shower and share intimate quarters with non-gays now.
    3) no one is arguing that these are the facts or that this should stop.
    4) sexual acting our of any variety has zero tolerance in the military and no one is disagreeing this is necessary.
    5) I am hearing zero debate on these 4 points by anyone conservative or liberal. are you?

    fact

    the only point of dispute is whether or not gays and lesbians can continue to do all these things and also be honest and say “I am gay” rather than be required to lie and dissemble.

    Peter´s post does not reflect these facts. It talks as if the point of debate is whether or not to allow gays to serve in the military. The fact that gays do serve,and daily share intimate living conditions with non-gays is a fact accepted and condoned by even those supporting “don´t ask, don´t tell.”

    That is not a point in current debate.

    You and others need to argue the point at issue and not some other point.

  • fws

    Jonathan @11

    this is not about being politically correct.

    facts:

    1)gays can and do legally serve in the military now..
    2) gays daily shower and share intimate quarters with non-gays now.
    3) no one is arguing that these are the facts or that this should stop.
    4) sexual acting our of any variety has zero tolerance in the military and no one is disagreeing this is necessary.
    5) I am hearing zero debate on these 4 points by anyone conservative or liberal. are you?

    fact

    the only point of dispute is whether or not gays and lesbians can continue to do all these things and also be honest and say “I am gay” rather than be required to lie and dissemble.

    Peter´s post does not reflect these facts. It talks as if the point of debate is whether or not to allow gays to serve in the military. The fact that gays do serve,and daily share intimate living conditions with non-gays is a fact accepted and condoned by even those supporting “don´t ask, don´t tell.”

    That is not a point in current debate.

    You and others need to argue the point at issue and not some other point.

  • Jonathan

    As part of the year long study the military will undertake before making recommendations, it said it will include a look at whether separate quarters will be required for members of that persuation. Apparently, that is only being done SO THAT it can be dismissed as ridiculous. How PC is that? If I am sharing a hootch with Jonesy and Smitty, whom I know to be of that persuasion, it’s gonna have an effect on my morale. If Jonesy and Smitty get their own special hootch together or apart, how’s that for building unit cohesion?

  • Jonathan

    As part of the year long study the military will undertake before making recommendations, it said it will include a look at whether separate quarters will be required for members of that persuation. Apparently, that is only being done SO THAT it can be dismissed as ridiculous. How PC is that? If I am sharing a hootch with Jonesy and Smitty, whom I know to be of that persuasion, it’s gonna have an effect on my morale. If Jonesy and Smitty get their own special hootch together or apart, how’s that for building unit cohesion?

  • Jonathan

    So what’s wrong with don’t ask/don’t tell? That is the basis of your 1-4 FWS, you can be any preference/orientation you want, just as long as you keep it to yourself. Nobody is being asked to lie. In the military, your sexual preference is nobody’s business, straight or not straight. But, when you put it out there into issue, then it becomes a problem. It is a form of harassment and indecoram in any instance. I don’t want to know from anyone about it–period. Why does it have to be “out there” at all for anyone? Why always the need to identify self in sexual terms?

  • Jonathan

    So what’s wrong with don’t ask/don’t tell? That is the basis of your 1-4 FWS, you can be any preference/orientation you want, just as long as you keep it to yourself. Nobody is being asked to lie. In the military, your sexual preference is nobody’s business, straight or not straight. But, when you put it out there into issue, then it becomes a problem. It is a form of harassment and indecoram in any instance. I don’t want to know from anyone about it–period. Why does it have to be “out there” at all for anyone? Why always the need to identify self in sexual terms?

  • fws

    Jonathan February 4, 2010 at 1:17 pm @17

    Ok Jonathan. I bite on your theoretical: I jonathan am serving in the military with jonesy and smitty for 2 years. I am rountinely showering with them and sharing a small tent with them. No problem has occurred. Today I find out that Jonesy is gay. “don´t ask, don´t tell” has been repealed. Smitey is not gay and has no problem with that fact. I . jonathan, am deeply troubled and experiencing a lack of the feeling of troop coheciveness.

    You are saying you, as a rational person would react how? Would you request separate living quarters? based on what fear? That jonesy would do what to you?

    What if you confronted Jonesy and he confessed ( the likeliest scenario here) that he would actually be repulsed at the idea of doing anything sexual with you and that he found you to be the opposite of sexually attractive? Would you feel what? relieved?

    further, what if during that two ýear period when jonesy was gay without your knowing that, jonesy had proven to visibly appear to have higher moral standards than your own? or had been commended more than you were for his professionalism? what then?

  • fws

    Jonathan February 4, 2010 at 1:17 pm @17

    Ok Jonathan. I bite on your theoretical: I jonathan am serving in the military with jonesy and smitty for 2 years. I am rountinely showering with them and sharing a small tent with them. No problem has occurred. Today I find out that Jonesy is gay. “don´t ask, don´t tell” has been repealed. Smitey is not gay and has no problem with that fact. I . jonathan, am deeply troubled and experiencing a lack of the feeling of troop coheciveness.

    You are saying you, as a rational person would react how? Would you request separate living quarters? based on what fear? That jonesy would do what to you?

    What if you confronted Jonesy and he confessed ( the likeliest scenario here) that he would actually be repulsed at the idea of doing anything sexual with you and that he found you to be the opposite of sexually attractive? Would you feel what? relieved?

    further, what if during that two ýear period when jonesy was gay without your knowing that, jonesy had proven to visibly appear to have higher moral standards than your own? or had been commended more than you were for his professionalism? what then?

  • fws

    Jonathan @ 18

    “Why always the need to identify self in sexual terms?”

    When someone asks you what you did for the weekend and you reply that you spent the weekend with your girlfriend or wife is your response “identifying yourself in sexual terms”?

    Why would that be such a sensitive issue for you to deal with? Would you be offended if someone said: “cool that you spent the weekend with a girl. Could you please keep your sexuality to yourself and not insist on pushing the details of your sex life on me?!!!”.

    would it be better to be evasive so as not to offend someone? As a christian, wouldn´t I welcome someone sharing their life with me, as an eventual opening to sharing the good news of Jesus with them?

    This position seems just a tad extreme to me Jonathan.

  • fws

    Jonathan @ 18

    “Why always the need to identify self in sexual terms?”

    When someone asks you what you did for the weekend and you reply that you spent the weekend with your girlfriend or wife is your response “identifying yourself in sexual terms”?

    Why would that be such a sensitive issue for you to deal with? Would you be offended if someone said: “cool that you spent the weekend with a girl. Could you please keep your sexuality to yourself and not insist on pushing the details of your sex life on me?!!!”.

    would it be better to be evasive so as not to offend someone? As a christian, wouldn´t I welcome someone sharing their life with me, as an eventual opening to sharing the good news of Jesus with them?

    This position seems just a tad extreme to me Jonathan.

  • Joe

    “Just because I honestly declare I am gay or attracted to women does not mean I am going to break the military code. If I do, I should be punished in the exact same way, irregardless of my declared sexual orientation.”

    This is interesting. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice sodomy is a crime. When I was in, we were isntructed that anything other than standard opposite sex sexual intercourse violates this section. Men lawfully married to their wives were instructed not to engage in oral sex. Unless this is changed it would seem that a gay person would have to remain celibate.

    § 925. Art. 125. Sodomy

    (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

  • Joe

    “Just because I honestly declare I am gay or attracted to women does not mean I am going to break the military code. If I do, I should be punished in the exact same way, irregardless of my declared sexual orientation.”

    This is interesting. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice sodomy is a crime. When I was in, we were isntructed that anything other than standard opposite sex sexual intercourse violates this section. Men lawfully married to their wives were instructed not to engage in oral sex. Unless this is changed it would seem that a gay person would have to remain celibate.

    § 925. Art. 125. Sodomy

    (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

  • Joe

    As someone who served for 8 years (Sgt. USAR) I really didn’t care about the soldier next to me’s sexual interests All I cared about is if he could do his job. If not, we had a problem whether (s)he was gay, hetero or a female.

    Given the physical demands of soldiering I have a much bigger issue with the fact that women are held to a lower standard for physical fitness then men.

    I think the unit cohession issue is a legitimate question, but we can look to other nations to see how it has worked there.

  • Joe

    As someone who served for 8 years (Sgt. USAR) I really didn’t care about the soldier next to me’s sexual interests All I cared about is if he could do his job. If not, we had a problem whether (s)he was gay, hetero or a female.

    Given the physical demands of soldiering I have a much bigger issue with the fact that women are held to a lower standard for physical fitness then men.

    I think the unit cohession issue is a legitimate question, but we can look to other nations to see how it has worked there.

  • fws

    Joe @ 21

    Great point Joe! The military code makes no difference between gay or straight. sodomy is not defined as gay sex. You should have been informed that anal sex with your wife also would result in court marshall. It appears that gays would need to be celebate to exactly the same extent as non-married heterosexuals. Am I right here?

    So , in your legal opinion, why was “don´t ask, don´t tell every necessary if the military code covers sexual misconduct?

    again, no one is disputing that the military as a zero tolerance policy regarding sexual behaviors. and no one is arguing that this policy should be changed are they?

  • fws

    Joe @ 21

    Great point Joe! The military code makes no difference between gay or straight. sodomy is not defined as gay sex. You should have been informed that anal sex with your wife also would result in court marshall. It appears that gays would need to be celebate to exactly the same extent as non-married heterosexuals. Am I right here?

    So , in your legal opinion, why was “don´t ask, don´t tell every necessary if the military code covers sexual misconduct?

    again, no one is disputing that the military as a zero tolerance policy regarding sexual behaviors. and no one is arguing that this policy should be changed are they?

  • DonS

    I, too, like the way that Peter framed the issue. I also think the lifestyle of living in close quarters with other personnel of the same sex is a big issue, regardless of Frank’s willingness to dismiss it out of hand. It’s one thing to shower with other guys knowing, theoretically, it is likely that one of you might be gay, statistically. It’s quite another to KNOW that one of the guys you are showering with is openly gay, whether or not they’re sexually attracted to you. It’s bad for unit morale, and probably bad, in that kind of young all-male culture, for that particular individual. If Frank’s view is right (we’ll just discipline anyone who steps over the sexual line), then why not just go co-ed as well? Women and men can sleep and shower together. It would make things a lot easier logistically.

    The fact of the matter is, the military isn’t about the individuals. It’s about the nation, and putting the best possible, most cohesive fighting force on the field. Whether or not there is a disciplinary system in place, it shouldn’t be a military objective to create situations where you know you will be greatly increasing the need for it. If you’re gay, fine, be gay. You just can’t serve in the military. Big deal. Those who are disabled in any one of countless ways (poor vision, hearing, certain diseases, orthopedically, etc.) can’t serve either. It’s not about YOU. It’s about the safety and protection of all of us.

  • DonS

    I, too, like the way that Peter framed the issue. I also think the lifestyle of living in close quarters with other personnel of the same sex is a big issue, regardless of Frank’s willingness to dismiss it out of hand. It’s one thing to shower with other guys knowing, theoretically, it is likely that one of you might be gay, statistically. It’s quite another to KNOW that one of the guys you are showering with is openly gay, whether or not they’re sexually attracted to you. It’s bad for unit morale, and probably bad, in that kind of young all-male culture, for that particular individual. If Frank’s view is right (we’ll just discipline anyone who steps over the sexual line), then why not just go co-ed as well? Women and men can sleep and shower together. It would make things a lot easier logistically.

    The fact of the matter is, the military isn’t about the individuals. It’s about the nation, and putting the best possible, most cohesive fighting force on the field. Whether or not there is a disciplinary system in place, it shouldn’t be a military objective to create situations where you know you will be greatly increasing the need for it. If you’re gay, fine, be gay. You just can’t serve in the military. Big deal. Those who are disabled in any one of countless ways (poor vision, hearing, certain diseases, orthopedically, etc.) can’t serve either. It’s not about YOU. It’s about the safety and protection of all of us.

  • Joe

    “So, in your legal opinion, why was “don´t ask, don´t tell” every necessary if the military code covers sexual misconduct?“

    In addition to the UCMJ provisions, there was a specific ban on gays in the military back then. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was Clinton’s way of trying to fulfill a campaign promise to open the military to gays. He thought he could simply issue an executive order ending the ban, but congress stepped in (lead largely by Southern Democrats) and passed a law stating that since Congress has the authority under Article I to raise an army it has the authority to say who is allowed to serve in it. So Clinton issued an executive order re: the enforcement of the ban – you can’t serve if you’re gay, but no one is allowed to ask you if you’re gay. They have to have some sort of documentation regarding you having engaged in homosexual activity, etc. before they can inquire.

    I have never verified this, but I have been told that more gays have been kicked out for being gay in the period after Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell than in the entire history of the US Military before it. Anyone know if this is true?

  • Joe

    “So, in your legal opinion, why was “don´t ask, don´t tell” every necessary if the military code covers sexual misconduct?“

    In addition to the UCMJ provisions, there was a specific ban on gays in the military back then. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was Clinton’s way of trying to fulfill a campaign promise to open the military to gays. He thought he could simply issue an executive order ending the ban, but congress stepped in (lead largely by Southern Democrats) and passed a law stating that since Congress has the authority under Article I to raise an army it has the authority to say who is allowed to serve in it. So Clinton issued an executive order re: the enforcement of the ban – you can’t serve if you’re gay, but no one is allowed to ask you if you’re gay. They have to have some sort of documentation regarding you having engaged in homosexual activity, etc. before they can inquire.

    I have never verified this, but I have been told that more gays have been kicked out for being gay in the period after Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell than in the entire history of the US Military before it. Anyone know if this is true?

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS Give me one (serious) link. Try this one from an IBD article including the followng:

    • Readiness. With more gays serving openly, the cases of HIV/AIDS in the military would likely climb. In 2008, the Navy — whose HIV rate was already higher than any other branch — made 36 HIV diagnoses per 100,000 sailors tested. This was more than double the Navy’s 1999 rate, according to the Norfolk Virginia-Pilot.

    Right now, the Navy alone has 560 sailors in HIV care, costing upward of $20 million a year. The rise in HIV infections in the military was blamed on unprotected sex. One study linked the use of alcohol by servicemen and the loss of inhibitions about risk.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says gay men remain the top risk group for AIDS. Blood on the battlefield — dressings, transfusions — will be an issue, since HIV is a blood-borne pathogen.

    Defense experts agree that a policy allowing openly gay soldiers would kill recruiting in the South, the military’s strongest region for sign-ups. Southern recruits account for two-fifths of the Army enlistees since 9/11.

    You have no clue as to the harm that will be done to military combat unit cohesion and recruiting.

    This whole issue has been forced by the militant gays including Barney Frank who have persuaded Obama to support it. Secretary Gates and some high-level military men have caved to the political pressure on the issue.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS Give me one (serious) link. Try this one from an IBD article including the followng:

    • Readiness. With more gays serving openly, the cases of HIV/AIDS in the military would likely climb. In 2008, the Navy — whose HIV rate was already higher than any other branch — made 36 HIV diagnoses per 100,000 sailors tested. This was more than double the Navy’s 1999 rate, according to the Norfolk Virginia-Pilot.

    Right now, the Navy alone has 560 sailors in HIV care, costing upward of $20 million a year. The rise in HIV infections in the military was blamed on unprotected sex. One study linked the use of alcohol by servicemen and the loss of inhibitions about risk.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says gay men remain the top risk group for AIDS. Blood on the battlefield — dressings, transfusions — will be an issue, since HIV is a blood-borne pathogen.

    Defense experts agree that a policy allowing openly gay soldiers would kill recruiting in the South, the military’s strongest region for sign-ups. Southern recruits account for two-fifths of the Army enlistees since 9/11.

    You have no clue as to the harm that will be done to military combat unit cohesion and recruiting.

    This whole issue has been forced by the militant gays including Barney Frank who have persuaded Obama to support it. Secretary Gates and some high-level military men have caved to the political pressure on the issue.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Sorry, the link above is here.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Sorry, the link above is here.

  • fws

    Joe @ 21

    As an attorney, I am sure you can see that my point is the obvious one: laws to be just must pertain strictly to behavior , and applied equally without respect to who the person is. Your last post made this point well. thanks!

    “Don´t ask don´t tell” violates any known theory of justice law is based upon.

  • fws

    Joe @ 21

    As an attorney, I am sure you can see that my point is the obvious one: laws to be just must pertain strictly to behavior , and applied equally without respect to who the person is. Your last post made this point well. thanks!

    “Don´t ask don´t tell” violates any known theory of justice law is based upon.

  • Peter Leavitt

    At #10 the link to the Mackubin Thomas Owens article, The Case Against Gays in the Military Open homosexuality would threaten unit cohesion and military effectiveness. required a subscription. The above link gives the whole article that is a must read on this subject.

    Mr. Owens is the editor of Orbis, the quarterly journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is a Marine infantry veteran of Vietnam.

  • Peter Leavitt

    At #10 the link to the Mackubin Thomas Owens article, The Case Against Gays in the Military Open homosexuality would threaten unit cohesion and military effectiveness. required a subscription. The above link gives the whole article that is a must read on this subject.

    Mr. Owens is the editor of Orbis, the quarterly journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is a Marine infantry veteran of Vietnam.

  • fws

    peter @ 26.

    Again you are arguing as though the point of debate is whether or not gays should serve in the military.

    No one is debating this as a point of law. Argue to the point please.

  • fws

    peter @ 26.

    Again you are arguing as though the point of debate is whether or not gays should serve in the military.

    No one is debating this as a point of law. Argue to the point please.

  • fws

    Dr Vieth: the title of this blog post is “opening the military to gays”. it is mistitled isn´t it?

    the military is already fully open to gays. Legally so.

    The issue is not even whether or not gays should share showers and intimate living conditions with non-gays. This is happening routinely even as we speak.

    The issue is not even whether or not the strict military code regarding sexual behavior should be relaxed. no one is saying it should be.

    The SOLE issue being currently debated is whether or not to retain a law that requires individuals to lie about who they are if they wish to patriotically risk their lives and serve their country.

  • fws

    Dr Vieth: the title of this blog post is “opening the military to gays”. it is mistitled isn´t it?

    the military is already fully open to gays. Legally so.

    The issue is not even whether or not gays should share showers and intimate living conditions with non-gays. This is happening routinely even as we speak.

    The issue is not even whether or not the strict military code regarding sexual behavior should be relaxed. no one is saying it should be.

    The SOLE issue being currently debated is whether or not to retain a law that requires individuals to lie about who they are if they wish to patriotically risk their lives and serve their country.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    You know, if we let the gays in, then we’ll also have to let in the adulterers, the pornography-viewers, the drug users, the masturbaters … and I know Peter wouldn’t stand for any of that (@10), either, because that would be immoral.

    “Other young men, especially from the South, would be reluctant to join an openly gay military”. I guess their love for their country is pretty shallow, then, isn’t it, if the slight (2%, according to Peter) chance they would even encounter a gay person would preclude them from serving?

    Hey, remember when Republicans told us we should listen to our military leaders? Yeah, that was, like, soooo back in the mid-00′s. They don’t want us to listen to the brass anymore.

    And I strongly agree with FWS’s rebuttal (@12) to Peter.

    Joe (@21), your points are valid (concluding “it would seem that a gay person would have to remain celibate”), but you seemed to miss that adultery is also covered by the UCMJ (well, more or less; it can be prosecuted, though it is difficult).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    You know, if we let the gays in, then we’ll also have to let in the adulterers, the pornography-viewers, the drug users, the masturbaters … and I know Peter wouldn’t stand for any of that (@10), either, because that would be immoral.

    “Other young men, especially from the South, would be reluctant to join an openly gay military”. I guess their love for their country is pretty shallow, then, isn’t it, if the slight (2%, according to Peter) chance they would even encounter a gay person would preclude them from serving?

    Hey, remember when Republicans told us we should listen to our military leaders? Yeah, that was, like, soooo back in the mid-00′s. They don’t want us to listen to the brass anymore.

    And I strongly agree with FWS’s rebuttal (@12) to Peter.

    Joe (@21), your points are valid (concluding “it would seem that a gay person would have to remain celibate”), but you seemed to miss that adultery is also covered by the UCMJ (well, more or less; it can be prosecuted, though it is difficult).

  • fws

    joe @ 25
    “I have never verified this, but I have been told that more gays have been kicked out for being gay in the period after Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell than in the entire history of the US Military before it. Anyone know if this is true?”

    I have read in several places that this is a fact. I can´t verify that what the websites say is true. Interesting eh?

    But why would you assume that those kicked out for being gay were actually gay? It looks like a very convenient way to avoid hazardous duty!

    If one wanted to avoid military service in iraq-istan and secure an honorable discharge, then one could declare oneself to be gay, videotape oneself kissing another man and… bingo. discharge. You can imagine the chagrin of many when this strategy does not work for them because the military needs their service!

    To peter: there are thousands of men and women being actively treated for HIV and hepatitis C in the military and are still on active duty there. Fact. This point, affecting military preparedness, also is not under debate within the military. Those men and women are not allowed to serve extended duty out of the country.

  • fws

    joe @ 25
    “I have never verified this, but I have been told that more gays have been kicked out for being gay in the period after Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell than in the entire history of the US Military before it. Anyone know if this is true?”

    I have read in several places that this is a fact. I can´t verify that what the websites say is true. Interesting eh?

    But why would you assume that those kicked out for being gay were actually gay? It looks like a very convenient way to avoid hazardous duty!

    If one wanted to avoid military service in iraq-istan and secure an honorable discharge, then one could declare oneself to be gay, videotape oneself kissing another man and… bingo. discharge. You can imagine the chagrin of many when this strategy does not work for them because the military needs their service!

    To peter: there are thousands of men and women being actively treated for HIV and hepatitis C in the military and are still on active duty there. Fact. This point, affecting military preparedness, also is not under debate within the military. Those men and women are not allowed to serve extended duty out of the country.

  • fws

    don @24

    ” If you’re gay, fine, be gay. You just can’t serve in the military. ”

    again, argue the point at issue. Your point is not factually the case and is not the point being argued is it?

    Your point no longer a point of legal debate in the government or the military.

    Gays now serve in the military. no one disputes this as fact. They routinely live in close quarters with non gays even as we speak. Noone is arguing that this has damaged unit cohesion.

    no one is arguing to actively ferret these men and women out and boot them out of the military.

  • fws

    don @24

    ” If you’re gay, fine, be gay. You just can’t serve in the military. ”

    again, argue the point at issue. Your point is not factually the case and is not the point being argued is it?

    Your point no longer a point of legal debate in the government or the military.

    Gays now serve in the military. no one disputes this as fact. They routinely live in close quarters with non gays even as we speak. Noone is arguing that this has damaged unit cohesion.

    no one is arguing to actively ferret these men and women out and boot them out of the military.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS, as a point of law at present, the law, known informally as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell requires that that gay military people who make their sexuality known are discharged from service. I read that some seven-hundred gays a year have been so discharged.
    The reason that Sec’ y Gates and Admiral Mullen testified recently before Congress is that the law is up for reconsideration.

    Your argument that the military is already fully open at present to gays doesn’t make sense, though admittedly the presently law is at best awkward.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS, as a point of law at present, the law, known informally as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell requires that that gay military people who make their sexuality known are discharged from service. I read that some seven-hundred gays a year have been so discharged.
    The reason that Sec’ y Gates and Admiral Mullen testified recently before Congress is that the law is up for reconsideration.

    Your argument that the military is already fully open at present to gays doesn’t make sense, though admittedly the presently law is at best awkward.

  • Jonathan

    I wonder how in touch (so to speak) the military brass, as you call them, are with their troops. When was the last time the admiral showered or slept anywhere but his private state room on board ship. How many generals get their own facilities. Yet they can all have their “own personal opinions.” The issue is, morale and unit cohesion. It will have an effect on morale and unit cohesion. But, if you can’t be homophobic and be a good soldier in the PC military, then it shouldn’t really matter when those folks stop re-enlisting.

  • Jonathan

    I wonder how in touch (so to speak) the military brass, as you call them, are with their troops. When was the last time the admiral showered or slept anywhere but his private state room on board ship. How many generals get their own facilities. Yet they can all have their “own personal opinions.” The issue is, morale and unit cohesion. It will have an effect on morale and unit cohesion. But, if you can’t be homophobic and be a good soldier in the PC military, then it shouldn’t really matter when those folks stop re-enlisting.

  • DonS

    Frank @ 34:

    As I understand it, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was an executive order only changing enforcement of the laws prohibiting gays from serving in the military. In other words, it remains illegal for gays to serve. But, as long as you don’t openly identify you as gay, no one will ask you if you are.

    So, to answer your question, I AM arguing the point.

  • DonS

    Frank @ 34:

    As I understand it, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was an executive order only changing enforcement of the laws prohibiting gays from serving in the military. In other words, it remains illegal for gays to serve. But, as long as you don’t openly identify you as gay, no one will ask you if you are.

    So, to answer your question, I AM arguing the point.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS, main point at #12 People are able to restrain themselves. I am pretty sure you do not act out all eros you feel stir within you for every woman you meet. And you are not attracted to all women you meet. And I am absolutely certain no gay man would feel any eros or attraction at all for you. Just for example.

    Military men, especially in combat share close quarters. Anyone who argues that eros wouldn’t interfere with unit morale and cohesion is naive.

    Mackubin Thomas Owens, the most cogent writer on this point, writes as follows:

    Philia [brotherly love] depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena—cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.

    The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.

    As Sen. James Webb (D., Va.), who was awarded the Navy Cross for valor as a Marine officer in Vietnam, wrote in the Weekly Standard in 1997, “There is no greater or more natural bias than that of an individual toward a beloved. And few emotions are more powerful, or more distracting, than those surrounding the pursuit of, competition for, or the breaking off of amorous relationships.”

    The destructive impact of such relationships on unit cohesion can be denied only by ideologues. Does a superior order his or her beloved into danger? If he or she demonstrates favoritism, what is the consequence for unit morale and discipline? What happens when jealousy rears its head? These are questions of life and death, and they help to explain why open homosexuality and homosexual behavior traditionally have been considered incompatible with military service.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS, main point at #12 People are able to restrain themselves. I am pretty sure you do not act out all eros you feel stir within you for every woman you meet. And you are not attracted to all women you meet. And I am absolutely certain no gay man would feel any eros or attraction at all for you. Just for example.

    Military men, especially in combat share close quarters. Anyone who argues that eros wouldn’t interfere with unit morale and cohesion is naive.

    Mackubin Thomas Owens, the most cogent writer on this point, writes as follows:

    Philia [brotherly love] depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena—cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.

    The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.

    As Sen. James Webb (D., Va.), who was awarded the Navy Cross for valor as a Marine officer in Vietnam, wrote in the Weekly Standard in 1997, “There is no greater or more natural bias than that of an individual toward a beloved. And few emotions are more powerful, or more distracting, than those surrounding the pursuit of, competition for, or the breaking off of amorous relationships.”

    The destructive impact of such relationships on unit cohesion can be denied only by ideologues. Does a superior order his or her beloved into danger? If he or she demonstrates favoritism, what is the consequence for unit morale and discipline? What happens when jealousy rears its head? These are questions of life and death, and they help to explain why open homosexuality and homosexual behavior traditionally have been considered incompatible with military service.

  • Joe

    tODD @ 32 “but you seemed to miss that adultery is also covered by the UCMJ (well, more or less; it can be prosecuted, though it is difficult).”

    I don’t think that adultery is covered. I looked for it and could not find it. The Rape and Carnal Knowledge section criminalizes two things:

    1. non-consensual sex acts and
    2. sex with someone who is:
    a. not your spouse AND
    b. under 16

    Under this section it would seem that a hetero person can have extramarital sex (as long as its not “unnatural” i.e. annal or oral) as long as the other person is 16 or older. I always thought that adultery was criminalized but I cannot find a specific section of the UCMJ that covers it.

    Frank @ “As an attorney, I am sure you can see that my point is the obvious one: laws to be just must pertain strictly to behavior …”

    I completely agree with this.

  • Joe

    tODD @ 32 “but you seemed to miss that adultery is also covered by the UCMJ (well, more or less; it can be prosecuted, though it is difficult).”

    I don’t think that adultery is covered. I looked for it and could not find it. The Rape and Carnal Knowledge section criminalizes two things:

    1. non-consensual sex acts and
    2. sex with someone who is:
    a. not your spouse AND
    b. under 16

    Under this section it would seem that a hetero person can have extramarital sex (as long as its not “unnatural” i.e. annal or oral) as long as the other person is 16 or older. I always thought that adultery was criminalized but I cannot find a specific section of the UCMJ that covers it.

    Frank @ “As an attorney, I am sure you can see that my point is the obvious one: laws to be just must pertain strictly to behavior …”

    I completely agree with this.

  • Joe

    Franks asked me “But why would you assume that those kicked out for being gay were actually gay?”

    I didn’t. I am sure there are plenty of modern day Klingers.

  • Joe

    Franks asked me “But why would you assume that those kicked out for being gay were actually gay?”

    I didn’t. I am sure there are plenty of modern day Klingers.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@39), you probably know more than I do about the UCMJ, but an article I found put it this way:

    Adultery in the military is actually prosecuted under Article 134, which is also known as the “General Article.” Article 134 simply prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.

    The UCMJ allows the President of the United States to administer the UCMJ by writing an Executive Order, known as the Manual for Court Martial (MCM). The MCM includes the UCMJ, and also supplements the UCMJ by establishing “Elements of Proof,” (exactly what the government must *prove* to prosecute an offense), an explanation of offenses, and maximum permissible punishments for each offense (among other things). While the MCM is an Executive Order, enacted by the President, in reality much of the contents are a result of military and federal appeals court decisions.

    One of the things that the MCM does is to expand article 134 into various “sub-articles.” One of these “sub-articles” covers the offense of adultery (Article 134, paragraph 62).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@39), you probably know more than I do about the UCMJ, but an article I found put it this way:

    Adultery in the military is actually prosecuted under Article 134, which is also known as the “General Article.” Article 134 simply prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.

    The UCMJ allows the President of the United States to administer the UCMJ by writing an Executive Order, known as the Manual for Court Martial (MCM). The MCM includes the UCMJ, and also supplements the UCMJ by establishing “Elements of Proof,” (exactly what the government must *prove* to prosecute an offense), an explanation of offenses, and maximum permissible punishments for each offense (among other things). While the MCM is an Executive Order, enacted by the President, in reality much of the contents are a result of military and federal appeals court decisions.

    One of the things that the MCM does is to expand article 134 into various “sub-articles.” One of these “sub-articles” covers the offense of adultery (Article 134, paragraph 62).

  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall

    I think there may be an argument that can be made that the military should embrace whichever policies that can be shown to support the military’s being the most effective it can be at protecting America’s people and interests. Some such policies might not provide for the maximum amount of “justice” to all individuals who make up the military (or who would like to serve in the military), but providing equal-opportunity employment to American citizens isn’t really the reason the military exists, is it?

    So, if it can be shown satisfactorily that allowing homosexuals to serve will have no adverse effect on the effectiveness of our military forces, then I’m OK with allowing it. But if we do allow it, and it can be shown that the policy has resulted in decreased effectiveness of our military, then we should make a hasty retreat from such a policy, in my opinion.

  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall

    I think there may be an argument that can be made that the military should embrace whichever policies that can be shown to support the military’s being the most effective it can be at protecting America’s people and interests. Some such policies might not provide for the maximum amount of “justice” to all individuals who make up the military (or who would like to serve in the military), but providing equal-opportunity employment to American citizens isn’t really the reason the military exists, is it?

    So, if it can be shown satisfactorily that allowing homosexuals to serve will have no adverse effect on the effectiveness of our military forces, then I’m OK with allowing it. But if we do allow it, and it can be shown that the policy has resulted in decreased effectiveness of our military, then we should make a hasty retreat from such a policy, in my opinion.

  • Joe

    Thanks tODD. I knew that Article 134 was a catch-all but I didn’t realize it caught that much. It looks like MCM defines elements of the crime of adultery as:

    (1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

    (2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and

    (3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.htm

    So adultery is given its narrow meaning (i.e. only applies if one of the persons is/was married).

  • Joe

    Thanks tODD. I knew that Article 134 was a catch-all but I didn’t realize it caught that much. It looks like MCM defines elements of the crime of adultery as:

    (1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

    (2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and

    (3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.htm

    So adultery is given its narrow meaning (i.e. only applies if one of the persons is/was married).

  • fws

    don s at 34

    c´mon don. you really are trying to tell me that the frame of the debate is now “should we or should we not allow gay men and women to serve in the military?”

    “Don´t ask, don´t tell” was meant as a compromise legislation to allow gay men and women to serve upon condition of silence.

    Do you disagree really and truly with my take on this?

  • fws

    don s at 34

    c´mon don. you really are trying to tell me that the frame of the debate is now “should we or should we not allow gay men and women to serve in the military?”

    “Don´t ask, don´t tell” was meant as a compromise legislation to allow gay men and women to serve upon condition of silence.

    Do you disagree really and truly with my take on this?

  • fws

    joe at 39

    The Rape and Carnal Knowledge section criminalizes two things:

    1. non-consensual sex acts and
    2. sex with someone who is:
    a. NOT YOUR SPOUSE, AND
    b. under 16

    Under this section it would seem that a hetero person can have extramarital sex (as long as its not “unnatural” i.e. annal or oral) as long as the other person is 16 or older.

    The simple read of this would be unmarried personal must all be celebate. Arent there also rules about fraternization? that different ranks are not supposed to , ahem, socialize?

  • fws

    joe at 39

    The Rape and Carnal Knowledge section criminalizes two things:

    1. non-consensual sex acts and
    2. sex with someone who is:
    a. NOT YOUR SPOUSE, AND
    b. under 16

    Under this section it would seem that a hetero person can have extramarital sex (as long as its not “unnatural” i.e. annal or oral) as long as the other person is 16 or older.

    The simple read of this would be unmarried personal must all be celebate. Arent there also rules about fraternization? that different ranks are not supposed to , ahem, socialize?

  • Peter Leavitt

    Don, on the legal issue of “don’t ask don’t tell, the following from a 2007 Time article helps to clarify it:

    Prior to Clinton taking office, the rule barring gays from serving was set solely by the President — and could be lifted by him, or her, as well. But once Clinton came in pledging to lift the ban, the opposition of his chairman of the Joint Chiefs — Colin Powell — and the hapless efforts by his first defense secretary, the late Les Aspin — ignited a firestorm on Capitol Hill. As the “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise was hammered out, Congress took the extraordinary step of removing the policy from the President’s hands and writing it into law.

    In the same article Peter Pace, Chair of the Joint Chiefs remarked as follows on this issue:

    I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we [the military] should not condone immoral acts.

    Would that Admiral Mullen had the backbone to be as honest. Of course, Pace is a Marine and Mullen is mere Navy.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Don, on the legal issue of “don’t ask don’t tell, the following from a 2007 Time article helps to clarify it:

    Prior to Clinton taking office, the rule barring gays from serving was set solely by the President — and could be lifted by him, or her, as well. But once Clinton came in pledging to lift the ban, the opposition of his chairman of the Joint Chiefs — Colin Powell — and the hapless efforts by his first defense secretary, the late Les Aspin — ignited a firestorm on Capitol Hill. As the “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise was hammered out, Congress took the extraordinary step of removing the policy from the President’s hands and writing it into law.

    In the same article Peter Pace, Chair of the Joint Chiefs remarked as follows on this issue:

    I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we [the military] should not condone immoral acts.

    Would that Admiral Mullen had the backbone to be as honest. Of course, Pace is a Marine and Mullen is mere Navy.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@42), your exact argument could just as easily have been used before women or blacks were allowed to fully serve in the military.

    So do you think that women and blacks should never have been allowed to serve fully in the military? Because doubtless someone back in the day could have made an argument that allowing blacks into regular service would have hindered the military’s “effectiveness”, something along the lines of “I don’t want to serve with those kind of people.” But such arguments hold no sway today. Why is that, and at what point did such complaints cease to be valid, if they did, or if they ever were?

    Also, why is nobody talking about the effects that the military’s policy of allowing jerks to serve alongside well-mannered people has on unit cohesiveness? Surely our military would perform better if it didn’t allow in knuckleheads, slackers, social outcasts, and jerks?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@42), your exact argument could just as easily have been used before women or blacks were allowed to fully serve in the military.

    So do you think that women and blacks should never have been allowed to serve fully in the military? Because doubtless someone back in the day could have made an argument that allowing blacks into regular service would have hindered the military’s “effectiveness”, something along the lines of “I don’t want to serve with those kind of people.” But such arguments hold no sway today. Why is that, and at what point did such complaints cease to be valid, if they did, or if they ever were?

    Also, why is nobody talking about the effects that the military’s policy of allowing jerks to serve alongside well-mannered people has on unit cohesiveness? Surely our military would perform better if it didn’t allow in knuckleheads, slackers, social outcasts, and jerks?

  • fws

    mike @ 42

    “Some such policies might not provide for the maximum amount of “justice” to all individuals who make up the military”

    I used the word “justice” narrowly. justice requires all law to be enforced equally for all , based soley upon behavior, regardless of who the person is. violation of this would wreck havoc in any society including the military. can you see anywhere where an exception to this would be a good thing? I cannot.

  • fws

    mike @ 42

    “Some such policies might not provide for the maximum amount of “justice” to all individuals who make up the military”

    I used the word “justice” narrowly. justice requires all law to be enforced equally for all , based soley upon behavior, regardless of who the person is. violation of this would wreck havoc in any society including the military. can you see anywhere where an exception to this would be a good thing? I cannot.

  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall

    > Mike (@42), your exact argument could just as easily have been
    > used before women or blacks were allowed to fully serve in the
    > military.

    Yes, but so what? Is the military better or worse off now? I don’t think that allowing women and blacks to serve has had an adverse effect on the effectiveness of our military, though it may have been thought that it would. That thinking was wrong.

    That doesn’t mean the current thinking by those opposed to allowing open homosexuals to serve is also wrong. I say we try allowing it and see what, if any, effect it has.

    > justice requires all law to be enforced equally for all , based soley
    > upon behavior, regardless of who the person is.
    Yes, but so what? Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is.

    > violation of this would wreck havoc in any society including the
    > military.
    That remains to be proven, I think. But I agree that whatever policy wreaks havoc on society (and specifically the military’s effectiveness, in our current context) ought not be allowed.

  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall

    > Mike (@42), your exact argument could just as easily have been
    > used before women or blacks were allowed to fully serve in the
    > military.

    Yes, but so what? Is the military better or worse off now? I don’t think that allowing women and blacks to serve has had an adverse effect on the effectiveness of our military, though it may have been thought that it would. That thinking was wrong.

    That doesn’t mean the current thinking by those opposed to allowing open homosexuals to serve is also wrong. I say we try allowing it and see what, if any, effect it has.

    > justice requires all law to be enforced equally for all , based soley
    > upon behavior, regardless of who the person is.
    Yes, but so what? Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is.

    > violation of this would wreck havoc in any society including the
    > military.
    That remains to be proven, I think. But I agree that whatever policy wreaks havoc on society (and specifically the military’s effectiveness, in our current context) ought not be allowed.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, as a matter of logic, one can distinguish between an ordinary jerk and an ordinary sodomite. The former is at worst easily dealt with; the latter, being often bright as well as homosexually oriented, can be a rather serious problem, to say nothing of Owen’s example of a sodomite officer faced with sending men into death-dealing situations.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, as a matter of logic, one can distinguish between an ordinary jerk and an ordinary sodomite. The former is at worst easily dealt with; the latter, being often bright as well as homosexually oriented, can be a rather serious problem, to say nothing of Owen’s example of a sodomite officer faced with sending men into death-dealing situations.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@49), you said, “Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is.” Well, yes and no. You cannot argue that the discharging of Arabic and Farsi linguists — at a time when there is a clear need for such specialists, and also more demand than supply — merely because they are gay in any way furthers the military’s ability to protect us. In that case, a misguided sense of “justice” overrode our security interest.

    And Peter (@46), you do understand, I hope, that Pace’s statement, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we [the military] should not condone immoral acts,” does not, of itself, preclude gays from openly serving in the military. It would merely prevent them from engaging in sexual relations with each other. It is one thing to discuss whether homosexual sex should be allowed under the UCMJ, and quite another to discuss whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military, openly or not.

    After all, the military does not condone rape, drug use, adultery, and the like, but it does allow people who could potentially engage in such behaviors into the military.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@49), you said, “Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is.” Well, yes and no. You cannot argue that the discharging of Arabic and Farsi linguists — at a time when there is a clear need for such specialists, and also more demand than supply — merely because they are gay in any way furthers the military’s ability to protect us. In that case, a misguided sense of “justice” overrode our security interest.

    And Peter (@46), you do understand, I hope, that Pace’s statement, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we [the military] should not condone immoral acts,” does not, of itself, preclude gays from openly serving in the military. It would merely prevent them from engaging in sexual relations with each other. It is one thing to discuss whether homosexual sex should be allowed under the UCMJ, and quite another to discuss whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military, openly or not.

    After all, the military does not condone rape, drug use, adultery, and the like, but it does allow people who could potentially engage in such behaviors into the military.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@49), you said, “Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is.” Well, yes and no. You cannot argue that the discharging of Arabic and Farsi linguists — at a time when there is a clear need for such specialists, and also more demand than supply — merely because they are gay in any way furthers the military’s ability to protect us. In that case, a misguided sense of “justice” overrode our security interest.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@49), you said, “Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is.” Well, yes and no. You cannot argue that the discharging of Arabic and Farsi linguists — at a time when there is a clear need for such specialists, and also more demand than supply — merely because they are gay in any way furthers the military’s ability to protect us. In that case, a misguided sense of “justice” overrode our security interest.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@46), you do understand, I hope, that Pace’s statement, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we [the military] should not condone immoral acts,” does not, of itself, preclude gays from openly serving in the military. It would merely prevent them from engaging in sexual relations with each other. It is one thing to discuss whether homosexual sex should be allowed under the UCMJ, and quite another to discuss whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military, openly or not.

    After all, the military does not condone rape, drug use, adultery, and the like, but it does allow people who could potentially engage in such behaviors into the military.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@46), you do understand, I hope, that Pace’s statement, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we [the military] should not condone immoral acts,” does not, of itself, preclude gays from openly serving in the military. It would merely prevent them from engaging in sexual relations with each other. It is one thing to discuss whether homosexual sex should be allowed under the UCMJ, and quite another to discuss whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military, openly or not.

    After all, the military does not condone rape, drug use, adultery, and the like, but it does allow people who could potentially engage in such behaviors into the military.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@49), you said, “Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is.” Well, yes and no. You cannot argue that the discharging of Ar*bic and F*rsi linguists — at a time when there is a clear need for such specialists, and also more demand than supply — merely because they are g*y in any way furthers the military’s ability to protect us. In that case, a misguided sense of “justice” overrode our security interest.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@49), you said, “Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is.” Well, yes and no. You cannot argue that the discharging of Ar*bic and F*rsi linguists — at a time when there is a clear need for such specialists, and also more demand than supply — merely because they are g*y in any way furthers the military’s ability to protect us. In that case, a misguided sense of “justice” overrode our security interest.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@49), you said, “Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is.” Well, yes and no. You cannot argue that the discharging of linguists specializing in Middle-Eastern languages — at a time when there is a clear need for such specialists, and also more demand than supply — merely because they are gay in any way furthers the military’s ability to protect us. In that case, a misguided sense of “justice” overrode our security interest.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@49), you said, “Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is.” Well, yes and no. You cannot argue that the discharging of linguists specializing in Middle-Eastern languages — at a time when there is a clear need for such specialists, and also more demand than supply — merely because they are gay in any way furthers the military’s ability to protect us. In that case, a misguided sense of “justice” overrode our security interest.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Okay, I can’t post my reply to Mike for some reason. It’s getting caught in the spam filter. Pooh.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Okay, I can’t post my reply to Mike for some reason. It’s getting caught in the spam filter. Pooh.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike, “Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is” (@49).
    Well, yes and no. You cannot argue that discharging linguists that specialize in Middle-Eastern languages — at a time when there is a clear need for them, and also more demand than supply — merely because of their sexual identification in any way furthers the military’s ability to protect us. In that case, a misguided sense of “justice” overrode our security interest.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike, “Justice isn’t really the military’s main concern. Protection of America’s people and interests is” (@49).
    Well, yes and no. You cannot argue that discharging linguists that specialize in Middle-Eastern languages — at a time when there is a clear need for them, and also more demand than supply — merely because of their sexual identification in any way furthers the military’s ability to protect us. In that case, a misguided sense of “justice” overrode our security interest.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@50), waving your hands vaguely and saying that jerks are “at worst easily dealt with” hardly constitutes a response. Seriously, by anyone’s calculations, there are more jerks in the military than gays. What effect do they have on “unit cohesion” and “military effectiveness”? Why aren’t we talking about that? Is it because we don’t really care so much about “cohesion” and “effectiveness” as, say, homos wearing camo?

    And “Owen’s example of a sodomite officer faced with sending men into death-dealing situations”, summarized by this quote:

    Does a superior order his or her beloved into danger? If he or she demonstrates favoritism, what is the consequence for unit morale and discipline? What happens when jealousy rears its head?

    is lacking for several reasons, the most obvious of which is that, hello, there are women in the military, did you know? This scenario already has the ability to be played out! Are you and Owens also arguing that there should be no women in the military?

    Are you both also further arguing that our military officers are incompetent, incapable of serving their country honorably because they can’t think beyond their genitals? You’d have to argue that for that statement to work. I happen to believe that those in the military are capable of thoughts more noble than who they’re having sex with when it comes to operating in “death-dealing situations”. I guess you don’t.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@50), waving your hands vaguely and saying that jerks are “at worst easily dealt with” hardly constitutes a response. Seriously, by anyone’s calculations, there are more jerks in the military than gays. What effect do they have on “unit cohesion” and “military effectiveness”? Why aren’t we talking about that? Is it because we don’t really care so much about “cohesion” and “effectiveness” as, say, homos wearing camo?

    And “Owen’s example of a sodomite officer faced with sending men into death-dealing situations”, summarized by this quote:

    Does a superior order his or her beloved into danger? If he or she demonstrates favoritism, what is the consequence for unit morale and discipline? What happens when jealousy rears its head?

    is lacking for several reasons, the most obvious of which is that, hello, there are women in the military, did you know? This scenario already has the ability to be played out! Are you and Owens also arguing that there should be no women in the military?

    Are you both also further arguing that our military officers are incompetent, incapable of serving their country honorably because they can’t think beyond their genitals? You’d have to argue that for that statement to work. I happen to believe that those in the military are capable of thoughts more noble than who they’re having sex with when it comes to operating in “death-dealing situations”. I guess you don’t.

  • DonS

    tODD, knuckleheads, slackers, social outcasts, and jerks aren’t guaranteed the right to serve in the military, any more than gays are. The military has almost limitless authority to discharge people for any behavior they deem disruptive to the service. One of those behaviors happens to be insisting on yapping about your sexual orientation.

  • DonS

    tODD, knuckleheads, slackers, social outcasts, and jerks aren’t guaranteed the right to serve in the military, any more than gays are. The military has almost limitless authority to discharge people for any behavior they deem disruptive to the service. One of those behaviors happens to be insisting on yapping about your sexual orientation.

  • M Vesey

    Note: this is a long post.

    I write this from the prospective of being a former chaplain in the Army and the Air Force. lifting the ban against homosexuals is a mistake. Ultimately, will the lifting of the ban keep a unit from deploying? No. Once in theatre, will it keep the bullets, bombs and shells from going down range accurately? No. It may not do either of these things, but it sure will make doing them a lot more difficult for those responsible for these tasks, along with their families.

    To be sure, lifting the ban has nothing to do with equality, justice, or civil rights under the Constitution. These are merely the angels of light the devil masquerades as. It has everything to do with the spread of immorality and it’s further chaos against our society. One more step in calling wrong right and right wrong. It’s also designed to damage and weaken the military.

    The decision to lift the ban will be made on the macro level. It’s all an academic, ivory tower exercise. From that perspective it can easily be declared that having homosexuals openly in the armed forces will not harm military effectiveness, preparedness, unit cohesion or the morale of the individual soldier, sailor, airman or marine. This is utter nonsense and pure politics. But what’s decided on at the macro level has to be carried out at the micro level. As a former chaplain, it was at the micro level (the boots on the ground level) where I did my job, so I know it’s there where all the chaos will ensue. Because this chaos will be at the micro level it can be largely hidden in the madness of government political correctness, multiculturalism and diversity. (Hey, it worked for Nidal Malik Hasan at Ft. Hood didn’t it)?

    In all of the discussions, papers and fact finding arguments there is one thing that is missing. It’s not so much the homosexual service member that will have the greatest impact on the military. It’s the effect that the gay, lesbian and transgendered (GL&TG) community groups will have, this along with the politicians. Make no mistake, once the ban is lifted this bunch will follow the service members right through the gates.

    On every base, post and camp there is an equal opportunity office that deals with discrimination. The current set up will not be good enough. Look for a special GL&TG office to appear. Once the ban is lifted, GL&TG community will not do things by half measure. Look for millions and millions of dollars to be diverted for new and improved sensitivity and awareness training. Add another week to basic training and more days at every branch training and leadership course to cover the subject. Add one more training day once or twice a year, one more Power Point lecture our service members will have to endure.

    At every base, post and camp their are various minority heritage celebration months. There’s Black History Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Asian-Pacific Heritage Month and Women’s History Month. At these times installations are open to outside speakers and have banquets, seminars and get-togethers. The NEX/BX/PX and commissaries are decked out in bunting, posters, signs and banners. Will the GL&TG community be any different? No. There will eventually be a Gay Pride day, week or month. Yes. You can bet there will be rallies and gatherings in the NEX/BX/PX parking lot or parade ground. Will those invited attend without tutu, fairy wand or S&M gear? How can a base, post or camp commander say “yes” to a military gay pride day and “no” to the way the participants will be dressed with powers that be breathng down their necks? The GL&TG crowd doesn’t respond very well to the word, “No.” (Note to all gate guards, MPs/SPs and Security Forces: “Dikes on Bikes” is coming your way. Try not to stare).

    How long will it be before the demand is made to place a GL&TG curriculum in Department of Defense Schools at all levels of education?

    As far as expenses go, what if Pvt. Gary decides he really should be Pvt. Sherri? At first, such a thing would be considered elective and probably not covered. Eventually, though, it will be established that because the military accepted Pvt. Gary, it will be responsible for his medical care and needs. The Department of Defense will eventually have to pay for the hormone therapy and sex change operations. There goes the TRICARE budget.

    But, it’s at the smaller unit level where most of the trouble will really occur. Not that heterosexuals will be the cause, with all the political correctness in the military, no sane heterosexual will dare open their mouths if they want to keep their careers intact. There will be few, but those cavemen can be dealt with quickly. Rather, it will be the homosexual service members and their advocates that will be the problem.

    A thread in this post mentioned that people can control themselves. Yes, they can. But no, many don’t (and all it takes is a few). At my first Air Force base we had a female Airman on the chapel staff who had an out of control social life. We would cringe when she came in all bubbly and happy and talking about her new boy friend. We knew that in a few weeks, or a month at most, the NCOIC of the chapel and the staff duty chaplain would be at the door of her dorm room trying to talk her out of hurting herself. It happened three times. Due to her social life she wasn’t able to handle her duties. It was nearly impossible to remove her from the Air Force. Now, add to these regular male-female problems the problems of homosexual relationships. How do you get a substandard gay soldier, sailor, airman or marine out of the service and a yet avoid a discrimination charge? Will the GL&TG equal opportunity office just stand by and watch it happen?

    Then, what about promotions and leadership position assignments? How does a promotion board or a unit commander prove that the gay service member was passed over because of failures in performance rather then discrimination? We’d be stupid to think that the sexual orientation of a candidate wouldn’t be taken into account. In order to avoid all the problems with not promoting a homosexual or giving them a leadership position, unqualified, or weak candidates, will be pushed forward. Stronger ones will be passed over. It’s here where and when unit cohesion and individual morale will be most adversely affected. It here where readiness, and unit effectiveness will be degraded.

    Now, to deal with all of these problems takes time. It takes personnel. It takes man hours. The more time that’s taken up in dealing with these problems the less time leadership has to be in the field, to train their troops and prepare them for war. It can be argued that people are people and that problems are problems and it doesn’t really matter if the individual is gay or straight. It does matter. Right now, officers and NCOs don’t have to deal with problems that will come with the lifting of the ban. After it’s lifted; they will. Ask anyone of them if they would like more problems to deal with? Talk about a drop in morale.

    It’s also a very weak argument to use the data of foreign militaries as support for lifting the ban. What seems to work out in one place does not mean that it will work out in every place. The simple fact is, Americans are not Europeans, Aussies or Israelis. The core of our armed forces comes from the South. This is especially true of the Army and Marine Corps. When I was in the Army chaplaincy there was a saying: “It’s a Baptist Army.” The lifting of the ban will have a far more different effect on a military full of Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Calvinists then it would on a military full of marginal Anglicans as in Great Britain.

    There can be any number of rationalizations, permutations, anecdotal evidence and complex naval gazing arguments on morality and law to dismiss or outright ignore what I have presented here. But know this, all that the US military is, is a microcosm of our larger society. This includes the GL&TG community. What occurs within that community in the civilian world will spill over into our armed forces. What happens outside, will happen inside. To say that somehow this won’t happen is wishful thinking. To say that somehow homosexual military personnel and their advocates will not misbehave or not work to change even more of the military’s order, organization, legal structure and traditions would be like saying they are somehow not human beings. It would be a fiction. To say that these politically driven and forced changes will not have a degrading effect on our armed forces is another.

  • M Vesey

    Note: this is a long post.

    I write this from the prospective of being a former chaplain in the Army and the Air Force. lifting the ban against homosexuals is a mistake. Ultimately, will the lifting of the ban keep a unit from deploying? No. Once in theatre, will it keep the bullets, bombs and shells from going down range accurately? No. It may not do either of these things, but it sure will make doing them a lot more difficult for those responsible for these tasks, along with their families.

    To be sure, lifting the ban has nothing to do with equality, justice, or civil rights under the Constitution. These are merely the angels of light the devil masquerades as. It has everything to do with the spread of immorality and it’s further chaos against our society. One more step in calling wrong right and right wrong. It’s also designed to damage and weaken the military.

    The decision to lift the ban will be made on the macro level. It’s all an academic, ivory tower exercise. From that perspective it can easily be declared that having homosexuals openly in the armed forces will not harm military effectiveness, preparedness, unit cohesion or the morale of the individual soldier, sailor, airman or marine. This is utter nonsense and pure politics. But what’s decided on at the macro level has to be carried out at the micro level. As a former chaplain, it was at the micro level (the boots on the ground level) where I did my job, so I know it’s there where all the chaos will ensue. Because this chaos will be at the micro level it can be largely hidden in the madness of government political correctness, multiculturalism and diversity. (Hey, it worked for Nidal Malik Hasan at Ft. Hood didn’t it)?

    In all of the discussions, papers and fact finding arguments there is one thing that is missing. It’s not so much the homosexual service member that will have the greatest impact on the military. It’s the effect that the gay, lesbian and transgendered (GL&TG) community groups will have, this along with the politicians. Make no mistake, once the ban is lifted this bunch will follow the service members right through the gates.

    On every base, post and camp there is an equal opportunity office that deals with discrimination. The current set up will not be good enough. Look for a special GL&TG office to appear. Once the ban is lifted, GL&TG community will not do things by half measure. Look for millions and millions of dollars to be diverted for new and improved sensitivity and awareness training. Add another week to basic training and more days at every branch training and leadership course to cover the subject. Add one more training day once or twice a year, one more Power Point lecture our service members will have to endure.

    At every base, post and camp their are various minority heritage celebration months. There’s Black History Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Asian-Pacific Heritage Month and Women’s History Month. At these times installations are open to outside speakers and have banquets, seminars and get-togethers. The NEX/BX/PX and commissaries are decked out in bunting, posters, signs and banners. Will the GL&TG community be any different? No. There will eventually be a Gay Pride day, week or month. Yes. You can bet there will be rallies and gatherings in the NEX/BX/PX parking lot or parade ground. Will those invited attend without tutu, fairy wand or S&M gear? How can a base, post or camp commander say “yes” to a military gay pride day and “no” to the way the participants will be dressed with powers that be breathng down their necks? The GL&TG crowd doesn’t respond very well to the word, “No.” (Note to all gate guards, MPs/SPs and Security Forces: “Dikes on Bikes” is coming your way. Try not to stare).

    How long will it be before the demand is made to place a GL&TG curriculum in Department of Defense Schools at all levels of education?

    As far as expenses go, what if Pvt. Gary decides he really should be Pvt. Sherri? At first, such a thing would be considered elective and probably not covered. Eventually, though, it will be established that because the military accepted Pvt. Gary, it will be responsible for his medical care and needs. The Department of Defense will eventually have to pay for the hormone therapy and sex change operations. There goes the TRICARE budget.

    But, it’s at the smaller unit level where most of the trouble will really occur. Not that heterosexuals will be the cause, with all the political correctness in the military, no sane heterosexual will dare open their mouths if they want to keep their careers intact. There will be few, but those cavemen can be dealt with quickly. Rather, it will be the homosexual service members and their advocates that will be the problem.

    A thread in this post mentioned that people can control themselves. Yes, they can. But no, many don’t (and all it takes is a few). At my first Air Force base we had a female Airman on the chapel staff who had an out of control social life. We would cringe when she came in all bubbly and happy and talking about her new boy friend. We knew that in a few weeks, or a month at most, the NCOIC of the chapel and the staff duty chaplain would be at the door of her dorm room trying to talk her out of hurting herself. It happened three times. Due to her social life she wasn’t able to handle her duties. It was nearly impossible to remove her from the Air Force. Now, add to these regular male-female problems the problems of homosexual relationships. How do you get a substandard gay soldier, sailor, airman or marine out of the service and a yet avoid a discrimination charge? Will the GL&TG equal opportunity office just stand by and watch it happen?

    Then, what about promotions and leadership position assignments? How does a promotion board or a unit commander prove that the gay service member was passed over because of failures in performance rather then discrimination? We’d be stupid to think that the sexual orientation of a candidate wouldn’t be taken into account. In order to avoid all the problems with not promoting a homosexual or giving them a leadership position, unqualified, or weak candidates, will be pushed forward. Stronger ones will be passed over. It’s here where and when unit cohesion and individual morale will be most adversely affected. It here where readiness, and unit effectiveness will be degraded.

    Now, to deal with all of these problems takes time. It takes personnel. It takes man hours. The more time that’s taken up in dealing with these problems the less time leadership has to be in the field, to train their troops and prepare them for war. It can be argued that people are people and that problems are problems and it doesn’t really matter if the individual is gay or straight. It does matter. Right now, officers and NCOs don’t have to deal with problems that will come with the lifting of the ban. After it’s lifted; they will. Ask anyone of them if they would like more problems to deal with? Talk about a drop in morale.

    It’s also a very weak argument to use the data of foreign militaries as support for lifting the ban. What seems to work out in one place does not mean that it will work out in every place. The simple fact is, Americans are not Europeans, Aussies or Israelis. The core of our armed forces comes from the South. This is especially true of the Army and Marine Corps. When I was in the Army chaplaincy there was a saying: “It’s a Baptist Army.” The lifting of the ban will have a far more different effect on a military full of Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Calvinists then it would on a military full of marginal Anglicans as in Great Britain.

    There can be any number of rationalizations, permutations, anecdotal evidence and complex naval gazing arguments on morality and law to dismiss or outright ignore what I have presented here. But know this, all that the US military is, is a microcosm of our larger society. This includes the GL&TG community. What occurs within that community in the civilian world will spill over into our armed forces. What happens outside, will happen inside. To say that somehow this won’t happen is wishful thinking. To say that somehow homosexual military personnel and their advocates will not misbehave or not work to change even more of the military’s order, organization, legal structure and traditions would be like saying they are somehow not human beings. It would be a fiction. To say that these politically driven and forced changes will not have a degrading effect on our armed forces is another.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@55), “The military has almost limitless authority to discharge people for any behavior they deem disruptive to the service.” Indeed. If we were just talking about the military discharging people for engaging in homosexual sex, then I wouldn’t be arguing as I am.

    “One of those behaviors happens to be insisting on yapping about your sexual orientation.” Well, that’s just a wee bit overstated on your part, don’t you think? Merely mentioning once, in passing, that you are gay is actually all that’s necessary. It might be convenient for your argument to imagine a bunch of gay men, just going on and on and ON about how very, very GAY they are, but please.

    Besides, does the military kick people out for talking about being a jerk? For talking about being a slacker? For mentioning, in passing, that they are a social outcast, even if their work and behavior exceeds expectations? Can you point to examples of people getting kicked out for those reasons? Or does the military only kick people out when their behavior is damaging?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@55), “The military has almost limitless authority to discharge people for any behavior they deem disruptive to the service.” Indeed. If we were just talking about the military discharging people for engaging in homosexual sex, then I wouldn’t be arguing as I am.

    “One of those behaviors happens to be insisting on yapping about your sexual orientation.” Well, that’s just a wee bit overstated on your part, don’t you think? Merely mentioning once, in passing, that you are gay is actually all that’s necessary. It might be convenient for your argument to imagine a bunch of gay men, just going on and on and ON about how very, very GAY they are, but please.

    Besides, does the military kick people out for talking about being a jerk? For talking about being a slacker? For mentioning, in passing, that they are a social outcast, even if their work and behavior exceeds expectations? Can you point to examples of people getting kicked out for those reasons? Or does the military only kick people out when their behavior is damaging?

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, you and FWS ignore Owen’s hard truth that combat-unit warriors must not let eros interfere with philia. That BTW is one of the reasons that women are not allowed in front-line combat. My Navy buddies tell me that the problem of young lusty men and women aboard ships has become a rather serious problem. I should say that most officers and men have grave reservations about the effect that sodomites would have on unit morale and cohesion, despite the politically-correct effusions of those who among them argue otherwiswe.

    On the issue of the similarity between former military discrimination against blacks and current “discrimination” against sodomites, Colin Powell remarked as follows:

    I am well aware of the attempts to draw parallels between this position and positions used years ago to deny opportunities to African-Americans. I know you are a history major, but I can assure you I need no reminders concerning the history of African-Americans in the defense of their Nation and the tribulations they faced. I am a part of that history. * * * Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. I believe the privacy rights of all Americans in uniform have to be considered, especially since those rights are often infringed upon by the conditions of military service.

    Sodomites would prefer that we supposedly homophobe bigots accept the pious illusion that their issue is of a piece with that of oppressed blacks and women; of course this is a quite dubious proposition, as Powell affirms above.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, you and FWS ignore Owen’s hard truth that combat-unit warriors must not let eros interfere with philia. That BTW is one of the reasons that women are not allowed in front-line combat. My Navy buddies tell me that the problem of young lusty men and women aboard ships has become a rather serious problem. I should say that most officers and men have grave reservations about the effect that sodomites would have on unit morale and cohesion, despite the politically-correct effusions of those who among them argue otherwiswe.

    On the issue of the similarity between former military discrimination against blacks and current “discrimination” against sodomites, Colin Powell remarked as follows:

    I am well aware of the attempts to draw parallels between this position and positions used years ago to deny opportunities to African-Americans. I know you are a history major, but I can assure you I need no reminders concerning the history of African-Americans in the defense of their Nation and the tribulations they faced. I am a part of that history. * * * Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. I believe the privacy rights of all Americans in uniform have to be considered, especially since those rights are often infringed upon by the conditions of military service.

    Sodomites would prefer that we supposedly homophobe bigots accept the pious illusion that their issue is of a piece with that of oppressed blacks and women; of course this is a quite dubious proposition, as Powell affirms above.

  • fws

    again peter, you are tediously arguing a point that is not at issue.

    The debate is not whether or not to allow gays to serve in the military or not or whether even if we should stop the current practice of allowing them to use the same showers.

    It is about whether or not to repeal “don´t ask, don´t tell”. should gays be allowed to self-identify as being gay or not in the military.

    that is the narrow yes/no issue currently under debate.

  • fws

    again peter, you are tediously arguing a point that is not at issue.

    The debate is not whether or not to allow gays to serve in the military or not or whether even if we should stop the current practice of allowing them to use the same showers.

    It is about whether or not to repeal “don´t ask, don´t tell”. should gays be allowed to self-identify as being gay or not in the military.

    that is the narrow yes/no issue currently under debate.

  • fws

    i am not ignoring any point peter. I am ignoring you because you cant seem to discipline yourself enough to stop addressing issues that are not currently the narrow focus of public debate.

  • fws

    i am not ignoring any point peter. I am ignoring you because you cant seem to discipline yourself enough to stop addressing issues that are not currently the narrow focus of public debate.

  • fws

    peter @38

    great that you quote colin powell. he is the author of “don´t ask, don´t ell. He went on record requesting it´s full repeal. thanks!

    “The reason why I supported the policy to start with is because General Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one that strongly recommended we adopt this policy in the Clinton administration. I have not heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position,” – McCain, yesterday.

    “In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen,” Colin Powell, today.

  • fws

    peter @38

    great that you quote colin powell. he is the author of “don´t ask, don´t ell. He went on record requesting it´s full repeal. thanks!

    “The reason why I supported the policy to start with is because General Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one that strongly recommended we adopt this policy in the Clinton administration. I have not heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position,” – McCain, yesterday.

    “In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen,” Colin Powell, today.

  • DonS

    M. Vesey @ 56:

    Thank you for taking the time to share your informed thoughts on this issue, as one who served and who can speak with a lot more authority on this subject than many of the rest of us. Your comment: “The core of our armed forces comes from the South. This is especially true of the Army and Marine Corps. When I was in the Army chaplaincy there was a saying: “It’s a Baptist Army.” The lifting of the ban will have a far more different effect on a military full of Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Calvinists then it would on a military full of marginal Anglicans as in Great Britain.” is, in my opinion, key to the issue.

    tODD @ 57: No, I don’t think quietly disclosing your sexual orientation to someone once, in passing, should or would get someone dismissed from the service. That is why I used the word “yapping”. There are a number of service members who have, and do, go “on and on and ON about how very, very GAY they are”. They are gay activists, and they do so for the very intention of trying to overthrow the policy at issue. Lt. Dan Choi (http://www.ltdanchoi.com/) is one such “yapper” who was rightly discharged.

    As for your last question, the military discharges service members not for what they say, but for how what they say impacts their unit. Talking about being a jerk, whatever that means (“I’m a jerk”?), probably doesn’t impact others in their unit all that much. Engaging in verbal abuse, repeated racial or sexist slurs, and other talk like that might. Other disruptive behaviors will get you discharged as well. Countless service members have been discharged because their behavior, whatever it was, was disruptive to their unit. Identifying yourself as gay, in a “I’m gay and I’m proud” kind of way, would likely be disruptive to the cohesion and performance of your unit — this is why you are likely to be dismissed if you are persistent and insistent in your declaration of sexual orientation.

  • DonS

    M. Vesey @ 56:

    Thank you for taking the time to share your informed thoughts on this issue, as one who served and who can speak with a lot more authority on this subject than many of the rest of us. Your comment: “The core of our armed forces comes from the South. This is especially true of the Army and Marine Corps. When I was in the Army chaplaincy there was a saying: “It’s a Baptist Army.” The lifting of the ban will have a far more different effect on a military full of Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Calvinists then it would on a military full of marginal Anglicans as in Great Britain.” is, in my opinion, key to the issue.

    tODD @ 57: No, I don’t think quietly disclosing your sexual orientation to someone once, in passing, should or would get someone dismissed from the service. That is why I used the word “yapping”. There are a number of service members who have, and do, go “on and on and ON about how very, very GAY they are”. They are gay activists, and they do so for the very intention of trying to overthrow the policy at issue. Lt. Dan Choi (http://www.ltdanchoi.com/) is one such “yapper” who was rightly discharged.

    As for your last question, the military discharges service members not for what they say, but for how what they say impacts their unit. Talking about being a jerk, whatever that means (“I’m a jerk”?), probably doesn’t impact others in their unit all that much. Engaging in verbal abuse, repeated racial or sexist slurs, and other talk like that might. Other disruptive behaviors will get you discharged as well. Countless service members have been discharged because their behavior, whatever it was, was disruptive to their unit. Identifying yourself as gay, in a “I’m gay and I’m proud” kind of way, would likely be disruptive to the cohesion and performance of your unit — this is why you are likely to be dismissed if you are persistent and insistent in your declaration of sexual orientation.

  • DonS

    tODD, I guess the bottom line is, if the armed services were largely made up of liberals from San Francisco, then it would be reasonable to rescind “don’t ask, don’t tell”. But, for the most part, liberals from San Francisco won’t serve in the military. Hence, the problem.

  • DonS

    tODD, I guess the bottom line is, if the armed services were largely made up of liberals from San Francisco, then it would be reasonable to rescind “don’t ask, don’t tell”. But, for the most part, liberals from San Francisco won’t serve in the military. Hence, the problem.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@58), you’d do well to actually read FWS’s main point here, which you appear not to have grasped yet.

    But if we are to get dragged off into the weeds, then let’s examine your point about “Owen’s hard truth that combat-unit warriors must not let eros interfere with philia”. Again, in order for your point to be valid, you must assert that the people serving in the military right now — both straight and gay — are incapable of letting their “eros” interfere with their duty. This, frankly, is a slander against those who serve in the military. I don’t know about your own experience in the military, but I believe those in our armed forces are better than that.

    And, again, women are allowed to serve. Perhaps not on the “front line” — not that that’s stopped many from dying while deployed in Iraq, anyhow — but they are allowed to serve. But gays are not allowed to openly serve, whether on the front line or not. Of course, gays do serve currently on the front line, but they cannot admit that they are gay. All the same, their current existence in the military shows that they and their fellow military members are capable of rising above their base sexual desires, contra your claim.

    And, as FWS noted, if you seriously respect Colin Powell, then you would do well to listen to him now, and not just in 1992 (the date of your quote). But you don’t appear to respect Colin Powell except insasmuch as he happens to agree with you.

    Finally, if you insist on using the term “sodomite”, then at least use it correctly. It is not, as you seem to think, a synonym for “gay person”. It refers to someone engaged in sodomy (surprise!), which person can be either gay or straight. I am certain that there are sodomites in the military — more straight ones than gay! Should they be caught engaging in sodomy, of course, they could face court martial. It’s only the gay ones who can also face court martial for merely admitting that they’re a potential sodomite. Straight people who might engage in sodomy are allowed to freely and openly participate in the military.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@58), you’d do well to actually read FWS’s main point here, which you appear not to have grasped yet.

    But if we are to get dragged off into the weeds, then let’s examine your point about “Owen’s hard truth that combat-unit warriors must not let eros interfere with philia”. Again, in order for your point to be valid, you must assert that the people serving in the military right now — both straight and gay — are incapable of letting their “eros” interfere with their duty. This, frankly, is a slander against those who serve in the military. I don’t know about your own experience in the military, but I believe those in our armed forces are better than that.

    And, again, women are allowed to serve. Perhaps not on the “front line” — not that that’s stopped many from dying while deployed in Iraq, anyhow — but they are allowed to serve. But gays are not allowed to openly serve, whether on the front line or not. Of course, gays do serve currently on the front line, but they cannot admit that they are gay. All the same, their current existence in the military shows that they and their fellow military members are capable of rising above their base sexual desires, contra your claim.

    And, as FWS noted, if you seriously respect Colin Powell, then you would do well to listen to him now, and not just in 1992 (the date of your quote). But you don’t appear to respect Colin Powell except insasmuch as he happens to agree with you.

    Finally, if you insist on using the term “sodomite”, then at least use it correctly. It is not, as you seem to think, a synonym for “gay person”. It refers to someone engaged in sodomy (surprise!), which person can be either gay or straight. I am certain that there are sodomites in the military — more straight ones than gay! Should they be caught engaging in sodomy, of course, they could face court martial. It’s only the gay ones who can also face court martial for merely admitting that they’re a potential sodomite. Straight people who might engage in sodomy are allowed to freely and openly participate in the military.

  • Peter Leavitt

    T odd, Seriously, by anyone’s calculations, there are more jerks in the military than gays. having served in the military

    Todd, having served as a Marine officer, I should say that a lot of young men arrive as “jerks” at boot camp; by far most of them with suitable stern discipline shape up. The few jerks that survive boot camp are indeed easily dealt with. As to the proportionate quantum of jerks and gays in the military, neither you , nor anyone else, has a clue.

    How ironic that you, a supposedly orthodox WELS Lutheran, are arguing the predominantly left and right coast position on sodomites in the military.

  • Peter Leavitt

    T odd, Seriously, by anyone’s calculations, there are more jerks in the military than gays. having served in the military

    Todd, having served as a Marine officer, I should say that a lot of young men arrive as “jerks” at boot camp; by far most of them with suitable stern discipline shape up. The few jerks that survive boot camp are indeed easily dealt with. As to the proportionate quantum of jerks and gays in the military, neither you , nor anyone else, has a clue.

    How ironic that you, a supposedly orthodox WELS Lutheran, are arguing the predominantly left and right coast position on sodomites in the military.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@62), again, it might assuage your conscience to imagine that every single person discharged from the military is a “gay activist”, but I see no reason to believe it’s actually so.

    For every Lt. Dan Choi you can cite, I can cite you at least as many like Lt. Col. Steve Loomis:

    A highly decorated soldier who was awarded a Purple Heart, two Bronze Stars and four meritorious service medals, Loomis saw his nearly 20-year career end in 1997 in a bitter conflagration of sex, fire and videotape. Loomis always had kept his homosexuality a private matter. But his privacy — and his military career — burned down with his home outside Fort Hood in August 1996. Firefighters investigating the blaze thought a loaded videocamera discovered in the rubble might provide a clue to the identity of the arsonist suspected in the blaze. But the tape included images of Loomis engaged in sexual acts with three other enlisted men, as well as nude shots of an Army private who later would be convicted of the arson. Loomis was “outed,” and the Army drummed him out of the service on July 14, 1997, for violating the military’s ban on open homosexuality.

    Was Loomis a “gay activist”, by your judgment, as well? Do I need to find other examples of people whose only crime was being outed by external circumstances, not by “yapping” on and on about how supremely gay they were?

    And I suppose it’s too much to ask if you have any actual, factual basis for your blase assertion that “for the most part, liberals from San Francisco won’t serve in the military”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@62), again, it might assuage your conscience to imagine that every single person discharged from the military is a “gay activist”, but I see no reason to believe it’s actually so.

    For every Lt. Dan Choi you can cite, I can cite you at least as many like Lt. Col. Steve Loomis:

    A highly decorated soldier who was awarded a Purple Heart, two Bronze Stars and four meritorious service medals, Loomis saw his nearly 20-year career end in 1997 in a bitter conflagration of sex, fire and videotape. Loomis always had kept his homosexuality a private matter. But his privacy — and his military career — burned down with his home outside Fort Hood in August 1996. Firefighters investigating the blaze thought a loaded videocamera discovered in the rubble might provide a clue to the identity of the arsonist suspected in the blaze. But the tape included images of Loomis engaged in sexual acts with three other enlisted men, as well as nude shots of an Army private who later would be convicted of the arson. Loomis was “outed,” and the Army drummed him out of the service on July 14, 1997, for violating the military’s ban on open homosexuality.

    Was Loomis a “gay activist”, by your judgment, as well? Do I need to find other examples of people whose only crime was being outed by external circumstances, not by “yapping” on and on about how supremely gay they were?

    And I suppose it’s too much to ask if you have any actual, factual basis for your blase assertion that “for the most part, liberals from San Francisco won’t serve in the military”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@65), “As to the proportionate quantum of jerks and gays in the military, neither you, nor anyone else, has a clue.” Well, anecdotally, I think we’d all agree there are more jerks than gays commenting here on Cranach. And in my life, as well, I encounter more jerks than gay people — yes, even in Portland! Given that gays are actively discouraged from entering the military, but jerks are not, how would you argue that there are more gays than jerks in the military?

    “How ironic that you, a supposedly orthodox WELS Lutheran, are arguing the predominantly left and right coast position on sodomites in the military.” Peter, it’s only “ironic” because you don’t actually understand Lutheran theology, most notably the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. When I joined the WELS, I was not asked about — nor did my introductory Bible study cover — my commitment to the Right-Wing Culture War.

    And you still don’t know what the definition of “sodomite” is, I can see.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@65), “As to the proportionate quantum of jerks and gays in the military, neither you, nor anyone else, has a clue.” Well, anecdotally, I think we’d all agree there are more jerks than gays commenting here on Cranach. And in my life, as well, I encounter more jerks than gay people — yes, even in Portland! Given that gays are actively discouraged from entering the military, but jerks are not, how would you argue that there are more gays than jerks in the military?

    “How ironic that you, a supposedly orthodox WELS Lutheran, are arguing the predominantly left and right coast position on sodomites in the military.” Peter, it’s only “ironic” because you don’t actually understand Lutheran theology, most notably the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. When I joined the WELS, I was not asked about — nor did my introductory Bible study cover — my commitment to the Right-Wing Culture War.

    And you still don’t know what the definition of “sodomite” is, I can see.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 66: “But the tape included images of Loomis engaged in sexual acts with three other enlisted men, as well as nude shots of an Army private who later would be convicted of the arson. Loomis was “outed,” and the Army drummed him out of the service on July 14, 1997, for violating the military’s ban on open homosexuality.”

    tODD, a better question would be “and you don’t think Loomis should have been drummed out of the service for that behavior?” Are you kidding me? Not only was he engaging in homosexual relations with multiple partners, all of whom were enlisted (he was a lieutenant colonel!!!!!), he was videotaping the acts and retaining nude photos of enlisted personnel, as well. Let me count the ways that this was not only disruptive to the service, but also likely a military crime that should have been prosecuted.

    Peter, @ 26 above, cited an IBD article stating that 40% of enlistees since 9/11 have come from the south. Are you seriously challenging my assertion that a substantially insignificant portion of our armed services personnel hail from the Bay area? If you are, the burden’s on you, as such a notion would strain credulity. And no, the fact that Nancy Pelosi and her family apparently frequently fly military aircraft doesn’t count as military service.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 66: “But the tape included images of Loomis engaged in sexual acts with three other enlisted men, as well as nude shots of an Army private who later would be convicted of the arson. Loomis was “outed,” and the Army drummed him out of the service on July 14, 1997, for violating the military’s ban on open homosexuality.”

    tODD, a better question would be “and you don’t think Loomis should have been drummed out of the service for that behavior?” Are you kidding me? Not only was he engaging in homosexual relations with multiple partners, all of whom were enlisted (he was a lieutenant colonel!!!!!), he was videotaping the acts and retaining nude photos of enlisted personnel, as well. Let me count the ways that this was not only disruptive to the service, but also likely a military crime that should have been prosecuted.

    Peter, @ 26 above, cited an IBD article stating that 40% of enlistees since 9/11 have come from the south. Are you seriously challenging my assertion that a substantially insignificant portion of our armed services personnel hail from the Bay area? If you are, the burden’s on you, as such a notion would strain credulity. And no, the fact that Nancy Pelosi and her family apparently frequently fly military aircraft doesn’t count as military service.

  • Joe

    Frank @ 45 “The simple read of this would be unmarried personal must all be celebate.”

    You are misreading it.

    In order for someone to violate the Rape and Carnal Knowledge section (aside from rape) is to have sex with someone who is BOTH:
    a. not your spouse AND (the and means you need both)
    b. under 16.

    So unmarried guy has sex with 15 year old – violates Rape and Carnal Knowledge section

    Unmarried guy has sex with 16 year old – does not violate Rape and Carnal Knowledge section.

    ” Arent there also rules about fraternization? that different ranks are not supposed to , ahem, socialize?”

    Yes, there are but they are routinely not enforced becuase it is often the officers who go fishing in the company pond, so to speak.

  • Joe

    Frank @ 45 “The simple read of this would be unmarried personal must all be celebate.”

    You are misreading it.

    In order for someone to violate the Rape and Carnal Knowledge section (aside from rape) is to have sex with someone who is BOTH:
    a. not your spouse AND (the and means you need both)
    b. under 16.

    So unmarried guy has sex with 15 year old – violates Rape and Carnal Knowledge section

    Unmarried guy has sex with 16 year old – does not violate Rape and Carnal Knowledge section.

    ” Arent there also rules about fraternization? that different ranks are not supposed to , ahem, socialize?”

    Yes, there are but they are routinely not enforced becuase it is often the officers who go fishing in the company pond, so to speak.

  • The Jungle Cat

    I don’t think this issue should concern Christians. Someone’s orientation has no apparent effect on his or her ability to serve the nation; in the words of the late Senator Goldwater, you shouldn’t have to be straight to serve in the military, so long as you can shoot straight.

  • The Jungle Cat

    I don’t think this issue should concern Christians. Someone’s orientation has no apparent effect on his or her ability to serve the nation; in the words of the late Senator Goldwater, you shouldn’t have to be straight to serve in the military, so long as you can shoot straight.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, re # 67, a sodomite is one who practices sodomy, defined by the OED as sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation. Have you another definition for this classic English word.

    Further, while your obviously introductory WELS Bible study course wouldn’t be Right Wing, the Bible in several places itself is clear that homosexuality is a grave sin.

    As to Luther’s two kingdoms, that is separate from his no uncertain view of homosexuality including his following writing:

    the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 255)

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, re # 67, a sodomite is one who practices sodomy, defined by the OED as sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation. Have you another definition for this classic English word.

    Further, while your obviously introductory WELS Bible study course wouldn’t be Right Wing, the Bible in several places itself is clear that homosexuality is a grave sin.

    As to Luther’s two kingdoms, that is separate from his no uncertain view of homosexuality including his following writing:

    the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 255)

  • fws

    joe @ 69. got it!

    so then it looks like things would have been better resolved by tweaking the military code rather than the political solution of the legislative “don´t ask, don´t tell.”

    The goal would have been to enforce a code that could be equally applied to the misbehaviors of everyone regardless of whether they are gay or straight. Gays would need to limit having sex to doing it consentually with boys or girls over 16 years old. sodomy and oral sex would need to be seen to be prosecuted in a fashion that would not be skewed by who was commiting the act or maybe, as a practical matter, repealed as a prosecutable offense if it was consentual and not adulterous.

    I would be personally in favor of criminalizing all sex outside of marriage in the military. along with divorce.

    For all the talk of morality wrapped around this, the selective nature of that talk would probably not give my personal preference much traction eh?

  • fws

    joe @ 69. got it!

    so then it looks like things would have been better resolved by tweaking the military code rather than the political solution of the legislative “don´t ask, don´t tell.”

    The goal would have been to enforce a code that could be equally applied to the misbehaviors of everyone regardless of whether they are gay or straight. Gays would need to limit having sex to doing it consentually with boys or girls over 16 years old. sodomy and oral sex would need to be seen to be prosecuted in a fashion that would not be skewed by who was commiting the act or maybe, as a practical matter, repealed as a prosecutable offense if it was consentual and not adulterous.

    I would be personally in favor of criminalizing all sex outside of marriage in the military. along with divorce.

    For all the talk of morality wrapped around this, the selective nature of that talk would probably not give my personal preference much traction eh?

  • fws

    the jungle cat @70

    what he and barry goldwater said. that´s it.

  • fws

    the jungle cat @70

    what he and barry goldwater said. that´s it.

  • fws

    peter @ 71.

    Luther believed as well that it was not possible that the earth revolved around the sun. He would probably have a different view if he knew what we know now.

    I agree with Luther. In other places he notes the same perversity of men lusting after women rather than honoring them. He calls it also as it truly is: unnatural perversity from satan. You can know this is so by imagining someone lusting or leering at your dear mother. All forms of lust come from satan. none is more “natural” than the other. They are all perversions of the natural order and lead to death both temporal and eternal.

    Peter, no lust you have ever had in your entire life is anything less than a damnable perversion of God´s intended order and creation. it was unnatural and disgusting to God.

    So your point in trotting out that quote is?

  • fws

    peter @ 71.

    Luther believed as well that it was not possible that the earth revolved around the sun. He would probably have a different view if he knew what we know now.

    I agree with Luther. In other places he notes the same perversity of men lusting after women rather than honoring them. He calls it also as it truly is: unnatural perversity from satan. You can know this is so by imagining someone lusting or leering at your dear mother. All forms of lust come from satan. none is more “natural” than the other. They are all perversions of the natural order and lead to death both temporal and eternal.

    Peter, no lust you have ever had in your entire life is anything less than a damnable perversion of God´s intended order and creation. it was unnatural and disgusting to God.

    So your point in trotting out that quote is?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@68), you asked, “a better question would be ‘and you don’t think Loomis should have been drummed out of the service for that behavior?’” To which I would reply: Focus, Don.

    Of course Loomis should be kicked out for that: it’s a behavior. I cited that not as an example of exemplary behavior, but just one of many stories of people who were kicked out the military even though they were not at all open or vocal about their homosexuality. It took investigators looking through his house to discover the evidence, Don! Now compare that to your assertion that “I don’t think quietly disclosing your sexual orientation to someone once, in passing, should or would get someone dismissed from the service.” You seem to think that everyone discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a “gay activist”, because then it would be easier to understand why they were discharged. But, contra your assertion, you can, in fact, be discharged for merely acknowledging that you are gay.

    But even if you should be the one coming up with proof for your assertion that “disclosing your sexual orientation to someone once, in passing, should [not] or would [not] get someone dismissed from the service”, I’ll do some research for you:

    figures released by the Pentagon Friday show 1,212 servicemen and women were discharged for homosexual conduct last year, a 17 percent increase — the highest number since the “don’t ask ,don’t tell” policy began in 1993, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. Of last year’s total, all but 106 of the discharges were cases in which military members stated their homosexuality. The others were discharged for homosexual acts.[1]

    As to “Are you seriously challenging my assertion that a substantially insignificant portion of our armed services personnel hail from the Bay area?” Is that your (admittedly odd) way of admitting that you have no clue, you just made up that assertion on the spot? Oh, but if I challenge your claim, the burden of proof is on me. Right. Aren’t you a lawyer?

    Anyhow, you didn’t say that “a substantially insignificant portion of our armed services personnel hail from the Bay area” — that’s a rather more favorable rewording of what you actually said, which is that “for the most part, liberals from San Francisco won’t serve in the military.” Sounds kinda like you’re trying to back down from your earlier claim, Don. I’d like to think you would. Perhaps you can even say so plainly.

    [1] cbsnews.com/stories/2001/06/01/national/main294358.shtml

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@68), you asked, “a better question would be ‘and you don’t think Loomis should have been drummed out of the service for that behavior?’” To which I would reply: Focus, Don.

    Of course Loomis should be kicked out for that: it’s a behavior. I cited that not as an example of exemplary behavior, but just one of many stories of people who were kicked out the military even though they were not at all open or vocal about their homosexuality. It took investigators looking through his house to discover the evidence, Don! Now compare that to your assertion that “I don’t think quietly disclosing your sexual orientation to someone once, in passing, should or would get someone dismissed from the service.” You seem to think that everyone discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a “gay activist”, because then it would be easier to understand why they were discharged. But, contra your assertion, you can, in fact, be discharged for merely acknowledging that you are gay.

    But even if you should be the one coming up with proof for your assertion that “disclosing your sexual orientation to someone once, in passing, should [not] or would [not] get someone dismissed from the service”, I’ll do some research for you:

    figures released by the Pentagon Friday show 1,212 servicemen and women were discharged for homosexual conduct last year, a 17 percent increase — the highest number since the “don’t ask ,don’t tell” policy began in 1993, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. Of last year’s total, all but 106 of the discharges were cases in which military members stated their homosexuality. The others were discharged for homosexual acts.[1]

    As to “Are you seriously challenging my assertion that a substantially insignificant portion of our armed services personnel hail from the Bay area?” Is that your (admittedly odd) way of admitting that you have no clue, you just made up that assertion on the spot? Oh, but if I challenge your claim, the burden of proof is on me. Right. Aren’t you a lawyer?

    Anyhow, you didn’t say that “a substantially insignificant portion of our armed services personnel hail from the Bay area” — that’s a rather more favorable rewording of what you actually said, which is that “for the most part, liberals from San Francisco won’t serve in the military.” Sounds kinda like you’re trying to back down from your earlier claim, Don. I’d like to think you would. Perhaps you can even say so plainly.

    [1] cbsnews.com/stories/2001/06/01/national/main294358.shtml

  • fws

    peter at 71

    “Further, while your obviously introductory WELS Bible study course wouldn’t be Right Wing, the Bible in several places itself is clear that homosexuality is a grave sin.”

    name just one place where the bible in the original greek or hebrew singles out homosexuality as a grave sin. There is none.

  • fws

    peter at 71

    “Further, while your obviously introductory WELS Bible study course wouldn’t be Right Wing, the Bible in several places itself is clear that homosexuality is a grave sin.”

    name just one place where the bible in the original greek or hebrew singles out homosexuality as a grave sin. There is none.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@71), think this through. Can straight people take part in “sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation”? Yes, yes they can. And yet you clearly use the word to refer only to gay people. Let me spell this out: there are both sodomites and those inclined towards sodomy in the military. Those who commit sodomy are subject to court martial, period. Those who are merely inclined to sodomy are subject to being discharged, but only if they’re gay. If they’re straight, they can stay. They can even talk about oral sex, as long as their stories involve members of the opposite sex.

    And the mere fact that you have chosen to state the blindingly obvious, that the Bible proscribes same-sex sexual activity, only goes to show that you do not understand the topic at hand. The fact that the Bible declares something a sin does not tell us how we should structure our country, its laws, and its military.

    I will not be schooled in Lutheran theology (much less the WELS take on it) by a Congregationalist syncretistic cheerleader who, by his own admission has not read much of Luther’s writings (as if it weren’t plain enough from what you write). I’m glad you found that quote, but you might realize there’s more that Luther wrote beyond the one passage you flog to justify any Culture War opinion you have about homosexuals. You would do well to read and understand the rest of it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@71), think this through. Can straight people take part in “sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation”? Yes, yes they can. And yet you clearly use the word to refer only to gay people. Let me spell this out: there are both sodomites and those inclined towards sodomy in the military. Those who commit sodomy are subject to court martial, period. Those who are merely inclined to sodomy are subject to being discharged, but only if they’re gay. If they’re straight, they can stay. They can even talk about oral sex, as long as their stories involve members of the opposite sex.

    And the mere fact that you have chosen to state the blindingly obvious, that the Bible proscribes same-sex sexual activity, only goes to show that you do not understand the topic at hand. The fact that the Bible declares something a sin does not tell us how we should structure our country, its laws, and its military.

    I will not be schooled in Lutheran theology (much less the WELS take on it) by a Congregationalist syncretistic cheerleader who, by his own admission has not read much of Luther’s writings (as if it weren’t plain enough from what you write). I’m glad you found that quote, but you might realize there’s more that Luther wrote beyond the one passage you flog to justify any Culture War opinion you have about homosexuals. You would do well to read and understand the rest of it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@76), even if I know where you’re going with that argument, I don’t think you’re explaining it in a way that is going to be understood, especially by Peter.

    More to the point, remember when you said (@60) to Peter, “I am ignoring you because you can’t seem to discipline yourself enough to stop addressing issues that are not currently the narrow focus of public debate”? Um, yeah.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@76), even if I know where you’re going with that argument, I don’t think you’re explaining it in a way that is going to be understood, especially by Peter.

    More to the point, remember when you said (@60) to Peter, “I am ignoring you because you can’t seem to discipline yourself enough to stop addressing issues that are not currently the narrow focus of public debate”? Um, yeah.

  • kerner

    I have never served in the military, but my father and 2 of my children have, and a third is about to be deployed to Afghanistan. So, while I have never been subject ot military discipline, I probably have a good understanding, albeit second hand. From that perspective, Peter @10, and the article he cites, are giving the best reason to continue this policy, or something similar.

    We have to realize that this is a life and death issue. This is not something to theorize about. You have to remember what the military in combat is doing. It is trying to maintain discipline among a bunch ao 18-21 year olds who are required to kill or be killed. They have to do their jobs and work as a team in the face of death. They have to go forward when every instinct tells them to run away. This requires that they maintain a relationship among themselves that Peter called “phileo”, but I call “comrades in arms”.

    The relationship between comrades in arms is absolutely and utterly incompatable with the relationship between sweethearts. Comrades in arms must be willing to think of the mission and the unit before considering the welfare of any individual in the unit. Officers and NCO’s have to order their subordinates to face death without individual favoritism. If it appears that Capt. X is keeping Pvt. Y out of harms way because X has romantic feelings for Y, Capt. X will be essentially risking the lives of the other soldiers to protect Y. Discipline and morale will immediately break down. The other soldiers will refuse to follow orders and, in extreme cases or under extreme stress, they will mutiny and seek to harm Capt. X or Pvt. Y or both of them. This might not only destroy the effectiveness of the unit, but might cause the failure of a mission that endangers entire campaigns and armies.

    It is important, again, to forget about theorizing. Don’t argue that the military are supposed to be trained professionals. The vast majority of them are 18-21 year olds, which is to say that they are all horny. The males among them at least are at the peak of their sexual assertiveness, and it is the epitome of naivte to argue that you can train that out of them, especially while training them to break down any inhibitions they may have concerning violence. When you require a group of people of this demographic, trained as they are, in the close quarters necessary for a combat unit, they WILL pair off if they are sexually/romantically attracted to each other. And it does no good to say they can be punished after the fact. You don’t deal with something like this AFTER the mission fails, the battle is lost, and everybody is dead. You deal with it ahead of time.

    “Don’t ask don’t tell” is a compromise which attempts to allow people with a homosexual “orientation” (a term I am willing to accept for the purpose of this argument) to serve in the military upon the strict condition that they utterly suppress that orientation among their comrades in arms. What they do in private away from the unit remains their own business. Like all compromises, this one is imperfect. I don’t feel qualified to say whether it works better than an outright ban on gays in the military.

    But, forgetting the reality of the circumstances of military life is not acceptable. No amount of wishful thinking will change it.

  • kerner

    I have never served in the military, but my father and 2 of my children have, and a third is about to be deployed to Afghanistan. So, while I have never been subject ot military discipline, I probably have a good understanding, albeit second hand. From that perspective, Peter @10, and the article he cites, are giving the best reason to continue this policy, or something similar.

    We have to realize that this is a life and death issue. This is not something to theorize about. You have to remember what the military in combat is doing. It is trying to maintain discipline among a bunch ao 18-21 year olds who are required to kill or be killed. They have to do their jobs and work as a team in the face of death. They have to go forward when every instinct tells them to run away. This requires that they maintain a relationship among themselves that Peter called “phileo”, but I call “comrades in arms”.

    The relationship between comrades in arms is absolutely and utterly incompatable with the relationship between sweethearts. Comrades in arms must be willing to think of the mission and the unit before considering the welfare of any individual in the unit. Officers and NCO’s have to order their subordinates to face death without individual favoritism. If it appears that Capt. X is keeping Pvt. Y out of harms way because X has romantic feelings for Y, Capt. X will be essentially risking the lives of the other soldiers to protect Y. Discipline and morale will immediately break down. The other soldiers will refuse to follow orders and, in extreme cases or under extreme stress, they will mutiny and seek to harm Capt. X or Pvt. Y or both of them. This might not only destroy the effectiveness of the unit, but might cause the failure of a mission that endangers entire campaigns and armies.

    It is important, again, to forget about theorizing. Don’t argue that the military are supposed to be trained professionals. The vast majority of them are 18-21 year olds, which is to say that they are all horny. The males among them at least are at the peak of their sexual assertiveness, and it is the epitome of naivte to argue that you can train that out of them, especially while training them to break down any inhibitions they may have concerning violence. When you require a group of people of this demographic, trained as they are, in the close quarters necessary for a combat unit, they WILL pair off if they are sexually/romantically attracted to each other. And it does no good to say they can be punished after the fact. You don’t deal with something like this AFTER the mission fails, the battle is lost, and everybody is dead. You deal with it ahead of time.

    “Don’t ask don’t tell” is a compromise which attempts to allow people with a homosexual “orientation” (a term I am willing to accept for the purpose of this argument) to serve in the military upon the strict condition that they utterly suppress that orientation among their comrades in arms. What they do in private away from the unit remains their own business. Like all compromises, this one is imperfect. I don’t feel qualified to say whether it works better than an outright ban on gays in the military.

    But, forgetting the reality of the circumstances of military life is not acceptable. No amount of wishful thinking will change it.

  • Dan Kempin

    So why are there so many references to the WELS when people are responding to tODD? I don’t recall him bringing that up.

    And just for fun, regarding the rhetorical question that has bounced around to the effect of, “Should women, then, be banned from military service?”

    Yes. Absolutely. Seven days a week I would answer: Yes!

  • Dan Kempin

    So why are there so many references to the WELS when people are responding to tODD? I don’t recall him bringing that up.

    And just for fun, regarding the rhetorical question that has bounced around to the effect of, “Should women, then, be banned from military service?”

    Yes. Absolutely. Seven days a week I would answer: Yes!

  • Dan Kempin

    Well, things are just happening too quickly on this thread!

  • Dan Kempin

    Well, things are just happening too quickly on this thread!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@79), you didn’t say so, but you necessarily also have to believe it is, by your justification, wrong for women to be in the military (a la Dan @80). Is that correct?

    That said, let’s examine your scenario:

    Officers and NCO’s have to order their subordinates to face death without individual favoritism. If it appears that Capt. X is keeping Pvt. Y out of harm’s way because X has romantic feelings for Y, Capt. X will be essentially risking the lives of the other soldiers to protect Y. Discipline and morale will immediately break down. The other soldiers will refuse to follow orders and, in extreme cases or under extreme stress, they will mutiny and seek to harm Capt. X or Pvt. Y or both of them. This might not only destroy the effectiveness of the unit, but might cause the failure of a mission that endangers entire campaigns and armies.

    Now, replace your word “romantic” with “preferential”, removing it from the context of sexuality into merely one of a non-sexual relationship: “If it appears that Capt. X is keeping Pvt. Y out of harms way because X has preferential feelings for Y, Capt. X will be essentially risking the lives of the other soldiers …” Here’s my question: Do you think it’s possible for Capt. X to favor Pvt. Y even if neither is gay? If so, isn’t that just as much a problem? How would you get rid of that scenario? Or are we interested in getting rid of that scenario? Indeed, I’m pretty certain that the military does frown on favoritism like that — but whether the people involved are gay or not.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@79), you didn’t say so, but you necessarily also have to believe it is, by your justification, wrong for women to be in the military (a la Dan @80). Is that correct?

    That said, let’s examine your scenario:

    Officers and NCO’s have to order their subordinates to face death without individual favoritism. If it appears that Capt. X is keeping Pvt. Y out of harm’s way because X has romantic feelings for Y, Capt. X will be essentially risking the lives of the other soldiers to protect Y. Discipline and morale will immediately break down. The other soldiers will refuse to follow orders and, in extreme cases or under extreme stress, they will mutiny and seek to harm Capt. X or Pvt. Y or both of them. This might not only destroy the effectiveness of the unit, but might cause the failure of a mission that endangers entire campaigns and armies.

    Now, replace your word “romantic” with “preferential”, removing it from the context of sexuality into merely one of a non-sexual relationship: “If it appears that Capt. X is keeping Pvt. Y out of harms way because X has preferential feelings for Y, Capt. X will be essentially risking the lives of the other soldiers …” Here’s my question: Do you think it’s possible for Capt. X to favor Pvt. Y even if neither is gay? If so, isn’t that just as much a problem? How would you get rid of that scenario? Or are we interested in getting rid of that scenario? Indeed, I’m pretty certain that the military does frown on favoritism like that — but whether the people involved are gay or not.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@80), I think you were absent that day, but I have outed myself: I am a WELS Lutheran. Are you, as well? Care to challenge my assertion that the membership class doesn’t require one to sign on to the right-wing Culture War? Think my belief that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military goes against the Lutheran Confessions?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@80), I think you were absent that day, but I have outed myself: I am a WELS Lutheran. Are you, as well? Care to challenge my assertion that the membership class doesn’t require one to sign on to the right-wing Culture War? Think my belief that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military goes against the Lutheran Confessions?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 75: I would love to “focus”, but I did not follow that post.

    So, we agree that Loomis should have been kicked out. That’s a relief. But I don’t know what that has to do with this thread, I guess. It wasn’t the fact that Loomis “merely acknowledged” he was gay that got him discharged. Rather, it was the fact that he, an officer, was videotaping himself having relations with numerous subordinate personnel, and also keeping nude photos of subordinate personnel, that got him booted. Clearly, I suspect that we both agree that this type of behavior, particularly by officers, cannot be tolerated, and is highly likely to be seriously injurious to the corps. In other words, it wasn’t his mere “acknowledgment” that got him booted, it was his BEHAVIOR. It proves MY point, not your’s.

    “figures released by the Pentagon Friday show 1,212 servicemen and women were discharged for homosexual conduct last year, a 17 percent increase — the highest number since the “don’t ask ,don’t tell” policy began in 1993, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. Of last year’s total, all but 106 of the discharges were cases in which military members stated their homosexuality. The others were discharged for homosexual acts.[1]”

    So, what does this passage prove, absent review of each case? Did the 1,106 servicemen and women who were discharged for stating their homosexuality merely quietly tell one person, at one time, discreetly, of their preference? Or were they open and notorious about their sexual orientation, to the point that their superiors considered their conduct to be detrimental to the unit? I favor dismissals for the latter behavior, and I suspect that is likely the case, at least for the vast majority of dismissals.

    “Anyhow, you didn’t say that “a substantially insignificant portion of our armed services personnel hail from the Bay area” — that’s a rather more favorable rewording of what you actually said, which is that “for the most part, liberals from San Francisco won’t serve in the military.” Sounds kinda like you’re trying to back down from your earlier claim, Don.” Huh??? My re-statement broadened my original claim. I didn’t back down from anything. Re-read please. My original statement was that there are very few liberals from San Francisco serving in the armed forces. Of course, I meant that relative to the total size of the force. I didn’t expect to have to prove such an obvious point. However, you challenged it, so I cited evidence that 40% of the armed forces are from the south. When I re-stated my prior claim, I actually BROADENED it, but applying it to the entire bay area, and not just S.F. Statistically, compared to the 40% of recruits from the south, it is certain that only a small fraction hail from the bay area. And the subset of liberals is even smaller. So, my point of course, is that we have to consider the impact of open homosexuality on the morale of a decidedly conservative force. I don’t think this is a controversial point, despite your efforts to make it so.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 75: I would love to “focus”, but I did not follow that post.

    So, we agree that Loomis should have been kicked out. That’s a relief. But I don’t know what that has to do with this thread, I guess. It wasn’t the fact that Loomis “merely acknowledged” he was gay that got him discharged. Rather, it was the fact that he, an officer, was videotaping himself having relations with numerous subordinate personnel, and also keeping nude photos of subordinate personnel, that got him booted. Clearly, I suspect that we both agree that this type of behavior, particularly by officers, cannot be tolerated, and is highly likely to be seriously injurious to the corps. In other words, it wasn’t his mere “acknowledgment” that got him booted, it was his BEHAVIOR. It proves MY point, not your’s.

    “figures released by the Pentagon Friday show 1,212 servicemen and women were discharged for homosexual conduct last year, a 17 percent increase — the highest number since the “don’t ask ,don’t tell” policy began in 1993, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. Of last year’s total, all but 106 of the discharges were cases in which military members stated their homosexuality. The others were discharged for homosexual acts.[1]”

    So, what does this passage prove, absent review of each case? Did the 1,106 servicemen and women who were discharged for stating their homosexuality merely quietly tell one person, at one time, discreetly, of their preference? Or were they open and notorious about their sexual orientation, to the point that their superiors considered their conduct to be detrimental to the unit? I favor dismissals for the latter behavior, and I suspect that is likely the case, at least for the vast majority of dismissals.

    “Anyhow, you didn’t say that “a substantially insignificant portion of our armed services personnel hail from the Bay area” — that’s a rather more favorable rewording of what you actually said, which is that “for the most part, liberals from San Francisco won’t serve in the military.” Sounds kinda like you’re trying to back down from your earlier claim, Don.” Huh??? My re-statement broadened my original claim. I didn’t back down from anything. Re-read please. My original statement was that there are very few liberals from San Francisco serving in the armed forces. Of course, I meant that relative to the total size of the force. I didn’t expect to have to prove such an obvious point. However, you challenged it, so I cited evidence that 40% of the armed forces are from the south. When I re-stated my prior claim, I actually BROADENED it, but applying it to the entire bay area, and not just S.F. Statistically, compared to the 40% of recruits from the south, it is certain that only a small fraction hail from the bay area. And the subset of liberals is even smaller. So, my point of course, is that we have to consider the impact of open homosexuality on the morale of a decidedly conservative force. I don’t think this is a controversial point, despite your efforts to make it so.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #83,

    You always manage to get a chuckle out of me. (I would say that you “tickle my funny bone,” but then, considering the thread, I would have to clarify that it was not a gay reference, to which someone would undoubtedly reply that I protest too much. Sometimes you just can’t win.)

    I knew that you were WELS from previous discussions. I just didn’t see how it was pertinent to the debate. I am a lutheran of the Missouri variety, even though I was raised in Wisconsin. Go figure.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #83,

    You always manage to get a chuckle out of me. (I would say that you “tickle my funny bone,” but then, considering the thread, I would have to clarify that it was not a gay reference, to which someone would undoubtedly reply that I protest too much. Sometimes you just can’t win.)

    I knew that you were WELS from previous discussions. I just didn’t see how it was pertinent to the debate. I am a lutheran of the Missouri variety, even though I was raised in Wisconsin. Go figure.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@84), “My original statement was that there are very few liberals from San Francisco serving in the armed forces.” No, no it wasn’t. Here is what you actually said: “for the most part, liberals from San Francisco won’t serve in the military.” Pay attention to this part: “Won’t”. Will not.

    You made a statement about whether a particular demographic will or will not serve in the military. You did not make a statement about the relative number of (liberal) soldiers that “hail from the Bay Area”, though you may wish that you had written that. But what you wrote is that liberals from San Francisco will not serve. Do you understand why that’s offensive, Don? And you won’t even back up your assertion, as it reads. I guess the nicest thing I can do is assume you did not mean what you initially wrote, but rather what you have stated in subsequent posts, which is basically to note that the population of San Francisco is significantly smaller than the population of the United States.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@84), “My original statement was that there are very few liberals from San Francisco serving in the armed forces.” No, no it wasn’t. Here is what you actually said: “for the most part, liberals from San Francisco won’t serve in the military.” Pay attention to this part: “Won’t”. Will not.

    You made a statement about whether a particular demographic will or will not serve in the military. You did not make a statement about the relative number of (liberal) soldiers that “hail from the Bay Area”, though you may wish that you had written that. But what you wrote is that liberals from San Francisco will not serve. Do you understand why that’s offensive, Don? And you won’t even back up your assertion, as it reads. I guess the nicest thing I can do is assume you did not mean what you initially wrote, but rather what you have stated in subsequent posts, which is basically to note that the population of San Francisco is significantly smaller than the population of the United States.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Kerner, undersands the essence of this issue with this:

    We have to realize that this is a life and death issue. This is not something to theorize about. You have to remember what the military in combat is doing. It is trying to maintain discipline among a bunch ao 18-21 year olds who are required to kill or be killed. They have to do their jobs and work as a team in the face of death. They have to go forward when every instinct tells them to run away. This requires that they maintain a relationship among themselves that Peter called “phileo”, but I call “comrades in arms”.

    FWS and Todd basically are promoting the gay agenda that with the issues of both gay marriage and gays in the military desperately try to achieve social equality at the expense of the well founded Western traditions of marriage between man and a woman and manly warriors, uncorrupted by effeminate sodomites.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Kerner, undersands the essence of this issue with this:

    We have to realize that this is a life and death issue. This is not something to theorize about. You have to remember what the military in combat is doing. It is trying to maintain discipline among a bunch ao 18-21 year olds who are required to kill or be killed. They have to do their jobs and work as a team in the face of death. They have to go forward when every instinct tells them to run away. This requires that they maintain a relationship among themselves that Peter called “phileo”, but I call “comrades in arms”.

    FWS and Todd basically are promoting the gay agenda that with the issues of both gay marriage and gays in the military desperately try to achieve social equality at the expense of the well founded Western traditions of marriage between man and a woman and manly warriors, uncorrupted by effeminate sodomites.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@95), ah, now I understand your question.

    Peter brings it up, apparently, because he thinks that my beliefs are inconsistent with WELS/orthodox Lutheran teachings. Of course, he thinks that because he is more interested in (and knowledgeable of) the Culture War than he is in the Lutheran explanation of what the Bible clearly teaches, most especially about the Two Kingdoms, as I have observed.

    Perhaps Peter, tittering with glee, thinks he will somehow get me in trouble, getting my WELS license revoked or something.

    But then, Peter also thinks (@87), (if indeed it can be called “thinking”) that I’m “promoting the gay agenda” merely because I disagree with him on this. Oh no! Not the gay agenda! I thought we had hidden it so well! I certainly hope you all can’t see it, or else you’d note what’s next up on the agenda (“Feb. 4, 2010 6:00pm SFT* Recruit Peter Leavitt to become a sodomite.” *San Francisco Time, natch). Wait, I’ve said too much!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@95), ah, now I understand your question.

    Peter brings it up, apparently, because he thinks that my beliefs are inconsistent with WELS/orthodox Lutheran teachings. Of course, he thinks that because he is more interested in (and knowledgeable of) the Culture War than he is in the Lutheran explanation of what the Bible clearly teaches, most especially about the Two Kingdoms, as I have observed.

    Perhaps Peter, tittering with glee, thinks he will somehow get me in trouble, getting my WELS license revoked or something.

    But then, Peter also thinks (@87), (if indeed it can be called “thinking”) that I’m “promoting the gay agenda” merely because I disagree with him on this. Oh no! Not the gay agenda! I thought we had hidden it so well! I certainly hope you all can’t see it, or else you’d note what’s next up on the agenda (“Feb. 4, 2010 6:00pm SFT* Recruit Peter Leavitt to become a sodomite.” *San Francisco Time, natch). Wait, I’ve said too much!

  • DonS

    tODD @ 86: Ahhh, so that’s it. It’s not what I said, it’s the way that I worded it. OK.

    So, are you a liberal from San Francisco? I assume that you are, since you took offense. I thought you were from Texas, and now hail from Portland. My mistake.

    I didn’t really mean my statement in an offensive way, but just as a statement of fact. Most liberals in San Francisco do not desire to serve in the military, and are quite open about it. My point was that we are not dealing with a San Francisco population when determining what behaviors will degrade morale in the military. We are dealing with a largely conservative, traditional population, with a substantial percentage of personnel hailing from the socially conservative south. You may rue this, but it’s a fact. It is also a fact, as Kerner, Peter, and myself have pointed out, that we are dealing with matters of life and death, and the defense of our nation. It is not about individual rights or making a statement that we as a society have now become “advanced” (rebellious?) enough to tolerate the homosexual lifestyle. It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 86: Ahhh, so that’s it. It’s not what I said, it’s the way that I worded it. OK.

    So, are you a liberal from San Francisco? I assume that you are, since you took offense. I thought you were from Texas, and now hail from Portland. My mistake.

    I didn’t really mean my statement in an offensive way, but just as a statement of fact. Most liberals in San Francisco do not desire to serve in the military, and are quite open about it. My point was that we are not dealing with a San Francisco population when determining what behaviors will degrade morale in the military. We are dealing with a largely conservative, traditional population, with a substantial percentage of personnel hailing from the socially conservative south. You may rue this, but it’s a fact. It is also a fact, as Kerner, Peter, and myself have pointed out, that we are dealing with matters of life and death, and the defense of our nation. It is not about individual rights or making a statement that we as a society have now become “advanced” (rebellious?) enough to tolerate the homosexual lifestyle. It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS, Peter, no lust you have ever had in your entire life is anything less than a damnable perversion of God´s intended order and creation. it was unnatural and disgusting to God.

    There is nothing at all wrong with a man having strong desire for a woman and acting on this with his lawful wife. God’s intended order was made clear with Genesis and Christ, namely that a man and a woman leave in the fullness of time leave their parents, joiin together in holy matrimony for the purpose, if possible, of bearing and properly nurturing children. Involved in this is passionate and delightful desire for one another, scarely in your terms, however ironic, somenting unnatural and disgusting to God.

    Get a gr ip, dude.

    We’re talking on this thread about the wisdom of allowing homosexual sodomites to serve in the military.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS, Peter, no lust you have ever had in your entire life is anything less than a damnable perversion of God´s intended order and creation. it was unnatural and disgusting to God.

    There is nothing at all wrong with a man having strong desire for a woman and acting on this with his lawful wife. God’s intended order was made clear with Genesis and Christ, namely that a man and a woman leave in the fullness of time leave their parents, joiin together in holy matrimony for the purpose, if possible, of bearing and properly nurturing children. Involved in this is passionate and delightful desire for one another, scarely in your terms, however ironic, somenting unnatural and disgusting to God.

    Get a gr ip, dude.

    We’re talking on this thread about the wisdom of allowing homosexual sodomites to serve in the military.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    Re Dan’s position about women serving in the military, I have a daughter who served in Iraq. I don’t believe women should serve in combat units for the same reasons I support “don’t ask don’t tell”. It’s not that they, individually, can’t do a particular job. My daughter was the company high scoring shooter in her basic training unit at Paris Island. It’s that they can’t effectively serve in combat situations with men as part of a combat team. I also don’t believe that mixed (by gender) units are a very good idea. My daughter was in extreme conditions when she was in Iraq, and I believe she served honorable and capably. But she went through extra hardships by virtue of being female, and sometims her femininity required her comrades to accommodate her. This is a complicated issue, and to go into it in detail would be to go way off the topic. Also, my daughter hasn’t told me everything, nor do I have her permission to share everthing she has told me.

    That said, I understand that military life includes a lot of non-combat military specialties. I can see how a total ban on women and/or gays can seem unfair. I do not see the wisdom in every decision that the military has made concerning women, but I am concerned that, as a civilian, my opinion carries less weight than that of a military person.

    On the issue of gays in the military, however, I think that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is an attempt to give gays access to all opportunities to serve in the military, and to “be who they are” (again, I’m not questioning that for the purposes of this discussion) as long as they keep their private life private. As I said, I’m not sure whether this works better than an outright ban. But I can’t see a rule keeping gays out of combat working very well. Nor does maintaining segregated gay units sound so hot (remember, the idea is to keep soldiers AWAY from others they are attracted to).

    So, I guess my answer is that, while I acknowledge that women in the military presents similar, and more (or at least differently) complicated, concerns, the problems presented by gays in the military are real and cannot be ignored. “Don’t ask don’t tell” is at least an attempt to address those problems and be fair to gays.

    But sheesh, look at this Lt. Col. Loomis you brought up. His lovebuddy burned his house down for goodness’ sake. Does that sound like a situation condusive to good discipline to you?

    Oh, on your question about “preferential” treatment. Sure. Any kind of preferential treatment is a problem. But a sexual/romantic attraction is one obvious and really strong motivation for preferential treatment. It is also pretty easy to predict in advance and avoid. And I think the military should avoid it. Hence the rule.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    Re Dan’s position about women serving in the military, I have a daughter who served in Iraq. I don’t believe women should serve in combat units for the same reasons I support “don’t ask don’t tell”. It’s not that they, individually, can’t do a particular job. My daughter was the company high scoring shooter in her basic training unit at Paris Island. It’s that they can’t effectively serve in combat situations with men as part of a combat team. I also don’t believe that mixed (by gender) units are a very good idea. My daughter was in extreme conditions when she was in Iraq, and I believe she served honorable and capably. But she went through extra hardships by virtue of being female, and sometims her femininity required her comrades to accommodate her. This is a complicated issue, and to go into it in detail would be to go way off the topic. Also, my daughter hasn’t told me everything, nor do I have her permission to share everthing she has told me.

    That said, I understand that military life includes a lot of non-combat military specialties. I can see how a total ban on women and/or gays can seem unfair. I do not see the wisdom in every decision that the military has made concerning women, but I am concerned that, as a civilian, my opinion carries less weight than that of a military person.

    On the issue of gays in the military, however, I think that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is an attempt to give gays access to all opportunities to serve in the military, and to “be who they are” (again, I’m not questioning that for the purposes of this discussion) as long as they keep their private life private. As I said, I’m not sure whether this works better than an outright ban. But I can’t see a rule keeping gays out of combat working very well. Nor does maintaining segregated gay units sound so hot (remember, the idea is to keep soldiers AWAY from others they are attracted to).

    So, I guess my answer is that, while I acknowledge that women in the military presents similar, and more (or at least differently) complicated, concerns, the problems presented by gays in the military are real and cannot be ignored. “Don’t ask don’t tell” is at least an attempt to address those problems and be fair to gays.

    But sheesh, look at this Lt. Col. Loomis you brought up. His lovebuddy burned his house down for goodness’ sake. Does that sound like a situation condusive to good discipline to you?

    Oh, on your question about “preferential” treatment. Sure. Any kind of preferential treatment is a problem. But a sexual/romantic attraction is one obvious and really strong motivation for preferential treatment. It is also pretty easy to predict in advance and avoid. And I think the military should avoid it. Hence the rule.

  • Joe

    Don S @ 89: ” It is not about individual rights or making a statement that we as a society have now become “advanced” (rebellious?) enough to tolerate the homosexual lifestyle. It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.”

    I agree with this, but I am not convinced that allowing gays to openly serve will cause the military to become ineffective. A lot of people addressing this topic from a theoretical standpoint, which is fine and often necessary. But we have the experience of other armies that allow gays to serve openly. It does not seem to me that any other army has experienced any sort of systemic problems that would justify an all out ban. If they had, I would support a ban. I am not interested in using the military for social experiments. I am simply interested in fielding a strong and effective fighting force. So far, I have not seen anything that convinces me that allowing gays to serve would actually undercut this goal.

  • Joe

    Don S @ 89: ” It is not about individual rights or making a statement that we as a society have now become “advanced” (rebellious?) enough to tolerate the homosexual lifestyle. It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.”

    I agree with this, but I am not convinced that allowing gays to openly serve will cause the military to become ineffective. A lot of people addressing this topic from a theoretical standpoint, which is fine and often necessary. But we have the experience of other armies that allow gays to serve openly. It does not seem to me that any other army has experienced any sort of systemic problems that would justify an all out ban. If they had, I would support a ban. I am not interested in using the military for social experiments. I am simply interested in fielding a strong and effective fighting force. So far, I have not seen anything that convinces me that allowing gays to serve would actually undercut this goal.

  • kerner

    Joe @ 92
    “So far, I have not seen anything that convinces me that allowing gays to serve would actually undercut (fielding a strong and effective fighting force)”.

    I repeat, Lt. Col Loomis’ lovebuddy burned his house down. This rendered him, the Pvt. lovebuddy, and Loomis’ whole unit (at least for awhile) ineffective. The military is simply better off without such complications.

  • kerner

    Joe @ 92
    “So far, I have not seen anything that convinces me that allowing gays to serve would actually undercut (fielding a strong and effective fighting force)”.

    I repeat, Lt. Col Loomis’ lovebuddy burned his house down. This rendered him, the Pvt. lovebuddy, and Loomis’ whole unit (at least for awhile) ineffective. The military is simply better off without such complications.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@89), what Clintonian parsing is this?! “It’s not what I said, it’s the way that I worded it.” How, pray tell, do you distinguish between what you “said” and the way you “worded it”? Is there another way to perceive your thoughts on this blog that I am not aware of than to read your words?

    And what does it matter where I’m from? You get offended whenever I say anything about conservatives that you think doesn’t apply to you, even if we’re talking about conservatives from Colorado. Am I only allowed to speak up if you defame people from Portland? Or do I have your permission to say something if it appears to defame people from the Bay Area (where I have friends, and where my wife once lived)?

    “Most liberals in San Francisco do not desire to serve in the military, and are quite open about it.” Again, not that you’re going to back this assertion up in any way. Fine. But given that the military consists of only a small fraction of the population (even if we only consider those fit for service), this statement will also be true, at some level, of any population you care to consider. That is to say: most conservatives in Texas also do not desire to serve in the military. But you probably don’t believe that about them, because they’re your people.

    “My point was that we are not dealing with a San Francisco population when determining what behaviors will degrade morale in the military. We are dealing with a largely conservative, traditional population, with a substantial percentage of personnel hailing from the socially conservative south.” Again, an argument equally tailor-made for why blacks should not have joined the military fully back in the day: why, the largely white, largely southern population in the military would have complained! And yet, somehow, they managed to adapt, didn’t they?

    “It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.” Except when it’s not. Cf. Middle-Eastern-language specialists. Who needs ‘em? We do, unless they’re gay.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@89), what Clintonian parsing is this?! “It’s not what I said, it’s the way that I worded it.” How, pray tell, do you distinguish between what you “said” and the way you “worded it”? Is there another way to perceive your thoughts on this blog that I am not aware of than to read your words?

    And what does it matter where I’m from? You get offended whenever I say anything about conservatives that you think doesn’t apply to you, even if we’re talking about conservatives from Colorado. Am I only allowed to speak up if you defame people from Portland? Or do I have your permission to say something if it appears to defame people from the Bay Area (where I have friends, and where my wife once lived)?

    “Most liberals in San Francisco do not desire to serve in the military, and are quite open about it.” Again, not that you’re going to back this assertion up in any way. Fine. But given that the military consists of only a small fraction of the population (even if we only consider those fit for service), this statement will also be true, at some level, of any population you care to consider. That is to say: most conservatives in Texas also do not desire to serve in the military. But you probably don’t believe that about them, because they’re your people.

    “My point was that we are not dealing with a San Francisco population when determining what behaviors will degrade morale in the military. We are dealing with a largely conservative, traditional population, with a substantial percentage of personnel hailing from the socially conservative south.” Again, an argument equally tailor-made for why blacks should not have joined the military fully back in the day: why, the largely white, largely southern population in the military would have complained! And yet, somehow, they managed to adapt, didn’t they?

    “It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.” Except when it’s not. Cf. Middle-Eastern-language specialists. Who needs ‘em? We do, unless they’re gay.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@91), well, I’ll grant your consistency on the matter. Thanks for that.

    That said, given that the combination of women and gays is a significant percentage of the active-duty military (I estimate 20% from numbers I found online), I wonder if your consistency also extends to favoring a draft, since a 20% reduction in active-duty volunteer military would put a strain on our current operations. I understand that your position is not based so much on actual numbers as principle, and yet there are consequences to a military with fewer or no women and gays.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@91), well, I’ll grant your consistency on the matter. Thanks for that.

    That said, given that the combination of women and gays is a significant percentage of the active-duty military (I estimate 20% from numbers I found online), I wonder if your consistency also extends to favoring a draft, since a 20% reduction in active-duty volunteer military would put a strain on our current operations. I understand that your position is not based so much on actual numbers as principle, and yet there are consequences to a military with fewer or no women and gays.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    What Clintonian parsing is this?! “It’s not what I said, it’s the way that I worded it” (@89). How, exactly, do you distinguish between what you “said” and the way you “worded it”? Is there another way to perceive your thoughts on this blog that I am not aware of than to read your words?

    And what does it matter where I’m from? You get offended whenever I say anything about conservatives that you think doesn’t apply to you, even if we’re talking about conservatives from Colorado. Am I only allowed to speak up if you defame people from Portland? Or do I have your permission to say something if it appears to defame people from the Bay Area (where I have friends, and where my wife once lived)?

    “Most liberals in San Francisco do not desire to serve in the military, and are quite open about it.” Again, not that you’re going to back this assertion up in any way. Fine. But given that the military consists of only a small fraction of the population (even if we only consider those fit for service), this statement will also be true, at some level, of any population you care to consider. That is to say: most conservatives in Texas also do not desire to serve in the military. But you probably don’t believe that about them, because they’re your people.

    “My point was that we are not dealing with a San Francisco population when determining what behaviors will degrade morale in the military. We are dealing with a largely conservative, traditional population, with a substantial percentage of personnel hailing from the socially conservative south.” Again, an argument equally tailor-made for why blacks should not have joined the military fully back in the day: why, the largely white, largely southern population in the military would have complained! And yet, somehow, they managed to adapt, didn’t they?

    “It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.” Except when it’s not. Cf. the aforementioned language specialists. Who needs ‘em? We do, unless they’re homosexuals.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    What Clintonian parsing is this?! “It’s not what I said, it’s the way that I worded it” (@89). How, exactly, do you distinguish between what you “said” and the way you “worded it”? Is there another way to perceive your thoughts on this blog that I am not aware of than to read your words?

    And what does it matter where I’m from? You get offended whenever I say anything about conservatives that you think doesn’t apply to you, even if we’re talking about conservatives from Colorado. Am I only allowed to speak up if you defame people from Portland? Or do I have your permission to say something if it appears to defame people from the Bay Area (where I have friends, and where my wife once lived)?

    “Most liberals in San Francisco do not desire to serve in the military, and are quite open about it.” Again, not that you’re going to back this assertion up in any way. Fine. But given that the military consists of only a small fraction of the population (even if we only consider those fit for service), this statement will also be true, at some level, of any population you care to consider. That is to say: most conservatives in Texas also do not desire to serve in the military. But you probably don’t believe that about them, because they’re your people.

    “My point was that we are not dealing with a San Francisco population when determining what behaviors will degrade morale in the military. We are dealing with a largely conservative, traditional population, with a substantial percentage of personnel hailing from the socially conservative south.” Again, an argument equally tailor-made for why blacks should not have joined the military fully back in the day: why, the largely white, largely southern population in the military would have complained! And yet, somehow, they managed to adapt, didn’t they?

    “It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.” Except when it’s not. Cf. the aforementioned language specialists. Who needs ‘em? We do, unless they’re homosexuals.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@93), really, you’re going to use one anecdote against Joe’s larger point (@92) using empirical evidence from other countries? I suppose that’s your right, but I’m not sure why you think that’s a good rebuttal.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@93), really, you’re going to use one anecdote against Joe’s larger point (@92) using empirical evidence from other countries? I suppose that’s your right, but I’m not sure why you think that’s a good rebuttal.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “It’s not what I said, it’s the way that I worded it” (@89). What Clintonian parsing is this?! How, exactly, do you distinguish between what you “said” and the way you “worded it”? Is there another way to perceive your thoughts on this blog that I am not aware of than to read your words?

    And what does it matter where I’m from? You get offended whenever I say anything about conservatives that you think doesn’t apply to you, even if we’re talking about conservatives from Colorado. Am I only allowed to speak up if you defame people from Portland? Or do I have your permission to say something if it appears to defame people from the Bay Area (where I have friends, and where my wife once lived)?

    “Most liberals in San Francisco do not desire to serve in the military, and are quite open about it.” Again, not that you’re going to back this assertion up in any way. Fine. But given that the military consists of only a small fraction of the population (even if we only consider those fit for service), this statement will also be true, at some level, of any population you care to consider. That is to say: most conservatives in Texas also do not desire to serve in the military. But you probably don’t believe that about them, because they’re your people.

    “My point was that we are not dealing with a San Francisco population when determining what behaviors will degrade morale in the military. We are dealing with a largely conservative, traditional population, with a substantial percentage of personnel hailing from the socially conservative south.” Again, an argument equally tailor-made for why blacks should not have joined the military fully back in the day: why, the largely white, largely southern population in the military would have complained! And yet, somehow, they managed to adapt, didn’t they?

    “It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.” Except when it’s not. Cf. the aforementioned language specialists.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “It’s not what I said, it’s the way that I worded it” (@89). What Clintonian parsing is this?! How, exactly, do you distinguish between what you “said” and the way you “worded it”? Is there another way to perceive your thoughts on this blog that I am not aware of than to read your words?

    And what does it matter where I’m from? You get offended whenever I say anything about conservatives that you think doesn’t apply to you, even if we’re talking about conservatives from Colorado. Am I only allowed to speak up if you defame people from Portland? Or do I have your permission to say something if it appears to defame people from the Bay Area (where I have friends, and where my wife once lived)?

    “Most liberals in San Francisco do not desire to serve in the military, and are quite open about it.” Again, not that you’re going to back this assertion up in any way. Fine. But given that the military consists of only a small fraction of the population (even if we only consider those fit for service), this statement will also be true, at some level, of any population you care to consider. That is to say: most conservatives in Texas also do not desire to serve in the military. But you probably don’t believe that about them, because they’re your people.

    “My point was that we are not dealing with a San Francisco population when determining what behaviors will degrade morale in the military. We are dealing with a largely conservative, traditional population, with a substantial percentage of personnel hailing from the socially conservative south.” Again, an argument equally tailor-made for why blacks should not have joined the military fully back in the day: why, the largely white, largely southern population in the military would have complained! And yet, somehow, they managed to adapt, didn’t they?

    “It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.” Except when it’s not. Cf. the aforementioned language specialists.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I wish I knew what words were diverting my posts into the spam filter. Is it all the talk about “gays”? Is it the phrase “I support the gay agenda” that I attempt to append to every post? (Peter: that is a joke.) My replies to Don are not showing up.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I wish I knew what words were diverting my posts into the spam filter. Is it all the talk about “gays”? Is it the phrase “I support the gay agenda” that I attempt to append to every post? (Peter: that is a joke.) My replies to Don are not showing up.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@89), “It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.” Except when it’s not. Cf. the aforementioned language specialists.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@89), “It’s about fielding an effective fighting force.” Except when it’s not. Cf. the aforementioned language specialists.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “It’s not what I said, it’s the way that I worded it” (@89). What Clintonian parsing is this?! How, exactly, do you distinguish between what you “said” and the way you “worded it”? Is there another way to perceive your thoughts on this blog that I am not aware of than to read your words?

    And what does it matter where I’m from? You get offended whenever I say anything about conservatives that you think doesn’t apply to you, even if we’re talking about conservatives from Colorado. Am I only allowed to speak up if you defame people from Portland? Or do I have your permission to say something if it appears to defame people from the Bay Area (where I have friends, and where my wife once lived)?

    “Most liberals in San Francisco do not desire to serve in the military, and are quite open about it.” Again, not that you’re going to back this assertion up in any way. Fine. But given that the military consists of only a small fraction of the population (even if we only consider those fit for service), this statement will also be true, at some level, of any population you care to consider. That is to say: most conservatives in Texas also do not desire to serve in the military. But you probably don’t believe that about them, because they’re your people.

    “My point was that we are not dealing with a San Francisco population when determining what behaviors will degrade morale in the military. We are dealing with a largely conservative, traditional population, with a substantial percentage of personnel hailing from the socially conservative south.” Again, an argument equally tailor-made for why blacks should not have joined the military fully back in the day: why, the largely white, largely southern population in the military would have complained! And yet, somehow, they managed to adapt, didn’t they?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “It’s not what I said, it’s the way that I worded it” (@89). What Clintonian parsing is this?! How, exactly, do you distinguish between what you “said” and the way you “worded it”? Is there another way to perceive your thoughts on this blog that I am not aware of than to read your words?

    And what does it matter where I’m from? You get offended whenever I say anything about conservatives that you think doesn’t apply to you, even if we’re talking about conservatives from Colorado. Am I only allowed to speak up if you defame people from Portland? Or do I have your permission to say something if it appears to defame people from the Bay Area (where I have friends, and where my wife once lived)?

    “Most liberals in San Francisco do not desire to serve in the military, and are quite open about it.” Again, not that you’re going to back this assertion up in any way. Fine. But given that the military consists of only a small fraction of the population (even if we only consider those fit for service), this statement will also be true, at some level, of any population you care to consider. That is to say: most conservatives in Texas also do not desire to serve in the military. But you probably don’t believe that about them, because they’re your people.

    “My point was that we are not dealing with a San Francisco population when determining what behaviors will degrade morale in the military. We are dealing with a largely conservative, traditional population, with a substantial percentage of personnel hailing from the socially conservative south.” Again, an argument equally tailor-made for why blacks should not have joined the military fully back in the day: why, the largely white, largely southern population in the military would have complained! And yet, somehow, they managed to adapt, didn’t they?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Never mind, there it goes. Though I had to take off a paragraph responding to Don’s quote (@89) about this all being about “fielding an effective fighting force.” To which my reply is that it often isn’t, and the best example of this is the 100 or so (at least?) linguists that were discharged, even though the military very much needs more specialists just like them. But, oh no, someone translating Arabic documents might be gay! We’re better off not translating those documents!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Never mind, there it goes. Though I had to take off a paragraph responding to Don’s quote (@89) about this all being about “fielding an effective fighting force.” To which my reply is that it often isn’t, and the best example of this is the 100 or so (at least?) linguists that were discharged, even though the military very much needs more specialists just like them. But, oh no, someone translating Arabic documents might be gay! We’re better off not translating those documents!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Odd, there goes most of my reply to Don.

    I did have to take off a paragraph responding to Don’s quote (@89) about this all being about “fielding an effective fighting force.” To which my reply is that it often isn’t, and the best example of this is the 100 or so (at least?) linguists that were kicked out, even though the military very much needs more specialists just like them. But, oh no, those men translating Arabic documents like other men! We’re better off having fewer men translating those documents!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Odd, there goes most of my reply to Don.

    I did have to take off a paragraph responding to Don’s quote (@89) about this all being about “fielding an effective fighting force.” To which my reply is that it often isn’t, and the best example of this is the 100 or so (at least?) linguists that were kicked out, even though the military very much needs more specialists just like them. But, oh no, those men translating Arabic documents like other men! We’re better off having fewer men translating those documents!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As for this all being about “an effective fighting force,” it often isn’t, and the best example of this is the 100 or so (at least?) linguists that were kicked out, even though the military very much needs more specialists just like them. But, oh no, those men translating Arabic documents like other men! We’re better off having fewer men translating those documents!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As for this all being about “an effective fighting force,” it often isn’t, and the best example of this is the 100 or so (at least?) linguists that were kicked out, even though the military very much needs more specialists just like them. But, oh no, those men translating Arabic documents like other men! We’re better off having fewer men translating those documents!

  • DonS

    Joe @ 92: I think M. Vesey @ 56 spoke eloquently concerning the issue of comparing the U.S. military to the military forces of nations which permit gays to serve without restriction. As you know, the U.S. is socially much more conservative than European nations, and this is particularly true when you consider that the U.S. military is decidedly more conservative than the general U.S. population.

  • DonS

    Joe @ 92: I think M. Vesey @ 56 spoke eloquently concerning the issue of comparing the U.S. military to the military forces of nations which permit gays to serve without restriction. As you know, the U.S. is socially much more conservative than European nations, and this is particularly true when you consider that the U.S. military is decidedly more conservative than the general U.S. population.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Okay, so in my haste earlier, I pointed to a story about Lt. Col. Loomis that, in an attempt to note that not every person discharged was, as Don seemed to think, a “gay activist”. Indeed, Loomis was not in any way “out” to the military — knowledge of his homosexuality was only made known to his superiors because of an arson investigation. And yet, the story has now been seized upon as somehow exemplary of all gay men in the military, what with its depicting male-male fraternization and whatnot. Fine.

    So here’s another story about a major who was not in any way “out”, yet was discharged from the military once an incidental investigation revealed he was gay. Was he a “gay activist”? No. Was he discharged for same-sex sexual activity? Not that I can tell.

    But here is a quote from him:

    Everyone in the military today serves with someone that they are uncomfortable with for one reason or another. And the fact of the matter is they all have to be professionals. They all have to do their job and perform the mission and that’s what makes them a professional military force, the greatest military in the world today. They get beyond those uncomfortable situations.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Okay, so in my haste earlier, I pointed to a story about Lt. Col. Loomis that, in an attempt to note that not every person discharged was, as Don seemed to think, a “gay activist”. Indeed, Loomis was not in any way “out” to the military — knowledge of his homosexuality was only made known to his superiors because of an arson investigation. And yet, the story has now been seized upon as somehow exemplary of all gay men in the military, what with its depicting male-male fraternization and whatnot. Fine.

    So here’s another story about a major who was not in any way “out”, yet was discharged from the military once an incidental investigation revealed he was gay. Was he a “gay activist”? No. Was he discharged for same-sex sexual activity? Not that I can tell.

    But here is a quote from him:

    Everyone in the military today serves with someone that they are uncomfortable with for one reason or another. And the fact of the matter is they all have to be professionals. They all have to do their job and perform the mission and that’s what makes them a professional military force, the greatest military in the world today. They get beyond those uncomfortable situations.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 97: I’m not surprised that it was your comments to me that got caught in the spam filter :-)

    We are totally sidetracked over a passing comment I made that our military is most decidedly NOT made up of liberals from San Francisco. We have reached an impasse on the issue as to whether my remark was insulting. I don’t believe most liberals from San Francisco would disagree with the notion that they do not want to serve in the U.S. military, nor would they disagree with the notion that a much higher percentage of liberals from San Francisco would decline the opportunity to serve as compared with a similar-sized population of conservatives from Texas. Demographic studies of our military clearly bear this out. However, for the record, let me clarify that I consider liberals presently living in Portland who were raised in Texas to be patriots of the highest-order. :-)

    I don’t think an analogy to past racism in the military is at all apropos. Peter has stated well the difference. Save for skin color and other like differences in physical features, minority citizens are equally suited for service as whites. In fact, it is the racist behavior of the prejudiced serviceman which would warrant his discharge for disrupting the corps. Similarly, those who happen to have a sexual attraction toward those of the same sex, but keep their sexual interests private and serve with distinction, are welcome under present policy to stay in the armed forces. In all cases, whatever the root cause, it is behavior, not status, which is the issue.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 97: I’m not surprised that it was your comments to me that got caught in the spam filter :-)

    We are totally sidetracked over a passing comment I made that our military is most decidedly NOT made up of liberals from San Francisco. We have reached an impasse on the issue as to whether my remark was insulting. I don’t believe most liberals from San Francisco would disagree with the notion that they do not want to serve in the U.S. military, nor would they disagree with the notion that a much higher percentage of liberals from San Francisco would decline the opportunity to serve as compared with a similar-sized population of conservatives from Texas. Demographic studies of our military clearly bear this out. However, for the record, let me clarify that I consider liberals presently living in Portland who were raised in Texas to be patriots of the highest-order. :-)

    I don’t think an analogy to past racism in the military is at all apropos. Peter has stated well the difference. Save for skin color and other like differences in physical features, minority citizens are equally suited for service as whites. In fact, it is the racist behavior of the prejudiced serviceman which would warrant his discharge for disrupting the corps. Similarly, those who happen to have a sexual attraction toward those of the same sex, but keep their sexual interests private and serve with distinction, are welcome under present policy to stay in the armed forces. In all cases, whatever the root cause, it is behavior, not status, which is the issue.

  • justme

    Might as well face it and accept it, the Military will soon allow gays to serve openly. We may or may not support it, but will feel very sorry for the gay soldiers unfortunately taken POW by any fundamentalist religious types who happen to not look very kindly on their life style :(

  • justme

    Might as well face it and accept it, the Military will soon allow gays to serve openly. We may or may not support it, but will feel very sorry for the gay soldiers unfortunately taken POW by any fundamentalist religious types who happen to not look very kindly on their life style :(

  • DonS

    tODD @ 99: I read the link you posted on Major Mike Almy. We only know his side of the story, but if the facts are as he stated them, it seems to be a case of misapplication of the DADT policy. He admits this in the NPR interview. Essentially, as he tells it, the army rooted through his private emails without a legitimate purpose, leading to his discharge for being gay, based on private emails he had sent to non-military people (family and friends). He is pressed in the interview as to whether DADT is bad policy or whether this was a misapplication of the policy, and he says “both”. He also admits that under the current policy explained by Robert Gates to Congress this year, he would not have been discharged. Basically, the Air Force “asked”. The policy is “don’t ask”.

    Again, this is assuming that his story is accurate.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 99: I read the link you posted on Major Mike Almy. We only know his side of the story, but if the facts are as he stated them, it seems to be a case of misapplication of the DADT policy. He admits this in the NPR interview. Essentially, as he tells it, the army rooted through his private emails without a legitimate purpose, leading to his discharge for being gay, based on private emails he had sent to non-military people (family and friends). He is pressed in the interview as to whether DADT is bad policy or whether this was a misapplication of the policy, and he says “both”. He also admits that under the current policy explained by Robert Gates to Congress this year, he would not have been discharged. Basically, the Air Force “asked”. The policy is “don’t ask”.

    Again, this is assuming that his story is accurate.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don, I still no sign that you know what you’re talking about when it comes to “don’t ask, don’t tell”, and you’re not offering any proof yourself. You still seem to think that everyone who’s discharged was either a “gay activist” or engaged in (homo)sexual activity. That merely disclosing your sexual orientation would not get you dismissed from the service.

    I spent some time doing more in-depth news research than I had time to before, and, while I don’t think it’s worthwhile to post everything I found (nor can I, as I’m using my library to access old news articles), I found many stories that clearly counter the picture you seem to have painted. Many people — often with excellent service records, no less — were discharged for simply acknowledging, in one way or another, that they were gay, without any actual evidence of (homo)sexual activity. The activity, of course, is presumed from the mere admission.

    Anyhow, you can look up their stories and do the research if you want. I don’t feel like doing the research for you, but I found more than enough articles from just the first year following “don’t ask, don’t tell” to satisfy myself that it’s not all egregious offenders and “gay activists” going on and on.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don, I still no sign that you know what you’re talking about when it comes to “don’t ask, don’t tell”, and you’re not offering any proof yourself. You still seem to think that everyone who’s discharged was either a “gay activist” or engaged in (homo)sexual activity. That merely disclosing your sexual orientation would not get you dismissed from the service.

    I spent some time doing more in-depth news research than I had time to before, and, while I don’t think it’s worthwhile to post everything I found (nor can I, as I’m using my library to access old news articles), I found many stories that clearly counter the picture you seem to have painted. Many people — often with excellent service records, no less — were discharged for simply acknowledging, in one way or another, that they were gay, without any actual evidence of (homo)sexual activity. The activity, of course, is presumed from the mere admission.

    Anyhow, you can look up their stories and do the research if you want. I don’t feel like doing the research for you, but I found more than enough articles from just the first year following “don’t ask, don’t tell” to satisfy myself that it’s not all egregious offenders and “gay activists” going on and on.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 103: What proof do you want me to offer? I have merely stated the DADT policy as I understand it. Did you even read my last post? Major Almy stated in the NPR interview that he understood his dismissal to have not been in accord with that policy because the Air Force should not have investigated his private emails without cause, as he alleged they did. If the facts are as he stated them, I agree. He was not an egregious offender or gay activist, and should not have been dismissed from the service merely on the basis of those emails.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 103: What proof do you want me to offer? I have merely stated the DADT policy as I understand it. Did you even read my last post? Major Almy stated in the NPR interview that he understood his dismissal to have not been in accord with that policy because the Air Force should not have investigated his private emails without cause, as he alleged they did. If the facts are as he stated them, I agree. He was not an egregious offender or gay activist, and should not have been dismissed from the service merely on the basis of those emails.

  • Peter Leavitt

    A final thought at this crepuscular stage of the thread. America, like Europe, is fast becoming a wasteland of what Nietzsche once aptly termed “the Last Men,” having at the broad cultural level abandoned a transcendent moral order. All has become voluntary will, where men do their own thing sexually and otherwise. The quaint notion that morality might apply to the homosexual proclivity of the last men leads even our military leaders to ditch a policy essential to the unit cohesion of its forces.

    We are have a young president with a predilection to bankrupt the country financially and morally on such issues as the federal budget, abortion, and homosexuals in the military. Of course our narcissistic last men have the president they deserve and will get the policies they deserve. A military that after WW II was respected and greatly feared will join the Europeans with their “progressive” military nostrums that provide, as the cases of Bosnia and Afghanistan make evident, a show of uniforms without true military might.

    Queers in uniform symbolize all of this.

  • Peter Leavitt

    A final thought at this crepuscular stage of the thread. America, like Europe, is fast becoming a wasteland of what Nietzsche once aptly termed “the Last Men,” having at the broad cultural level abandoned a transcendent moral order. All has become voluntary will, where men do their own thing sexually and otherwise. The quaint notion that morality might apply to the homosexual proclivity of the last men leads even our military leaders to ditch a policy essential to the unit cohesion of its forces.

    We are have a young president with a predilection to bankrupt the country financially and morally on such issues as the federal budget, abortion, and homosexuals in the military. Of course our narcissistic last men have the president they deserve and will get the policies they deserve. A military that after WW II was respected and greatly feared will join the Europeans with their “progressive” military nostrums that provide, as the cases of Bosnia and Afghanistan make evident, a show of uniforms without true military might.

    Queers in uniform symbolize all of this.

  • The Jones

    This decision bothers me less than it would have a short while ago, because I’m starting to realize the impossibility of enforcing a certain morality on a population that doesn’t accept that standard of morality. Unfortunately, I think we’re getting close to that point in America.

    However, a thing that “don’t ask don’t tell” supporting legislators should start to ask is if we would have seperate bunks and quarters for gay and straight soldiers, if a soldier who is uncomfortable living in close quarters with another soldier who may be sexually attracted to him would be accomodated, if there would be any new rules adopted about sexual activity in army barracks and such, and if hundreds of physically fit men living in common would be a recruiting tool for gay soldiers.

    And to respond to “There are many gay Americans who would make wonderful soldiers, but who are kept out of the ranks by this discriminatory practice.” I would say “Yes, there are also many long-haired Americans who would make wonderful soldiers, too. But nobody’s screaming about their exclusion. There’s just a certain code of conduct expected in the military, and that’s just the way things are.”

  • The Jones

    This decision bothers me less than it would have a short while ago, because I’m starting to realize the impossibility of enforcing a certain morality on a population that doesn’t accept that standard of morality. Unfortunately, I think we’re getting close to that point in America.

    However, a thing that “don’t ask don’t tell” supporting legislators should start to ask is if we would have seperate bunks and quarters for gay and straight soldiers, if a soldier who is uncomfortable living in close quarters with another soldier who may be sexually attracted to him would be accomodated, if there would be any new rules adopted about sexual activity in army barracks and such, and if hundreds of physically fit men living in common would be a recruiting tool for gay soldiers.

    And to respond to “There are many gay Americans who would make wonderful soldiers, but who are kept out of the ranks by this discriminatory practice.” I would say “Yes, there are also many long-haired Americans who would make wonderful soldiers, too. But nobody’s screaming about their exclusion. There’s just a certain code of conduct expected in the military, and that’s just the way things are.”

  • fws

    peter @90

    FWS, Peter, no lust you have ever had in your entire life is anything less than a damnable perversion of God´s intended order and creation. it was unnatural and disgusting to God.

    Peter: There is nothing at all wrong with a man having strong desire for a woman and acting on this with his lawful wife.

    St Paul says it is better to marry THAN to burn with Lust. Lust is a perversion and sinful in any context. Marriage is recommended by St Paul to practice self-restraint and avoid lust, not to have a license to indulge and wallow in lust. Your wife should be the object of your respect, love, and physical and emotional desire.

    Sex drive/desire lust.

    See how perverted you are Peter? Sin infects even your married life. I am no different than you. The serpent of original sin winds through our most noble efforts. Our best effort at righteousness is stained through and through with sin. You are no different than than any other sex pervert. We must all repent of the same things. We are no better than anyone else. That is exactly why you and me need Christ.

    Throw a stick (the law) into a pack of dogs, and the one that got hit by it is the one that yelps. That would be you in this case dear peter.

  • fws

    peter @90

    FWS, Peter, no lust you have ever had in your entire life is anything less than a damnable perversion of God´s intended order and creation. it was unnatural and disgusting to God.

    Peter: There is nothing at all wrong with a man having strong desire for a woman and acting on this with his lawful wife.

    St Paul says it is better to marry THAN to burn with Lust. Lust is a perversion and sinful in any context. Marriage is recommended by St Paul to practice self-restraint and avoid lust, not to have a license to indulge and wallow in lust. Your wife should be the object of your respect, love, and physical and emotional desire.

    Sex drive/desire lust.

    See how perverted you are Peter? Sin infects even your married life. I am no different than you. The serpent of original sin winds through our most noble efforts. Our best effort at righteousness is stained through and through with sin. You are no different than than any other sex pervert. We must all repent of the same things. We are no better than anyone else. That is exactly why you and me need Christ.

    Throw a stick (the law) into a pack of dogs, and the one that got hit by it is the one that yelps. That would be you in this case dear peter.

  • fws

    previous post correction

    sex drive/desire lust… should read…

    sex drive/desire DOES NOT EQUAL lust.

  • fws

    previous post correction

    sex drive/desire lust… should read…

    sex drive/desire DOES NOT EQUAL lust.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    If I could add a little perspective to this conversation.
    Many men feel quite uncomfortable around gays.
    This is rarely fear about “what he might do to me.”
    This is more often severe moral revulsion at an abomination.
    This aspect of the conversation is always left out of the secular discusions, but at the end of the day the issue that our culture has with homosexuality is its grossly immoral nature. No amount of pragmatic argument can change that. I am sure soldiers everywhere intellectually understand the arguments for and against DADT. But such understanding can never change their conscience.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    If I could add a little perspective to this conversation.
    Many men feel quite uncomfortable around gays.
    This is rarely fear about “what he might do to me.”
    This is more often severe moral revulsion at an abomination.
    This aspect of the conversation is always left out of the secular discusions, but at the end of the day the issue that our culture has with homosexuality is its grossly immoral nature. No amount of pragmatic argument can change that. I am sure soldiers everywhere intellectually understand the arguments for and against DADT. But such understanding can never change their conscience.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS, the Creator endowed men and women with very strong sexual desire or passion that within the bounds of ideally a life-long marriage between a man and a woman may be joyfully and properly exercised. Your view that such passion within marriage is a perverted sin is risible. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed such passion for many years and am not in the slightest apologetic about it.

    Your remarks at 107 are exceedingly rude and intemperate.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS, the Creator endowed men and women with very strong sexual desire or passion that within the bounds of ideally a life-long marriage between a man and a woman may be joyfully and properly exercised. Your view that such passion within marriage is a perverted sin is risible. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed such passion for many years and am not in the slightest apologetic about it.

    Your remarks at 107 are exceedingly rude and intemperate.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@104), I’m assuming we’ve miscommunicated again. My comment (@103) was not in any way about Maj. Almy. It was about the many stories I found on other servicemen who’d been discharged merely for saying that they are gay. There was no evidence of actual sexual activity — the mere admission sufficed as “evidence” of that. The admissions took various forms, but the point is that, yes, merely saying you are gay, even outside the context of the military, can, in fact, get you discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell”. You don’t have to be engaged in sexual activity. You don’t have to be a “gay activist” going on and on about your homosexuality. You just have to say you’re gay. That seems obvious to me, but your posts so far have not given me the impression you understand this.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@104), I’m assuming we’ve miscommunicated again. My comment (@103) was not in any way about Maj. Almy. It was about the many stories I found on other servicemen who’d been discharged merely for saying that they are gay. There was no evidence of actual sexual activity — the mere admission sufficed as “evidence” of that. The admissions took various forms, but the point is that, yes, merely saying you are gay, even outside the context of the military, can, in fact, get you discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell”. You don’t have to be engaged in sexual activity. You don’t have to be a “gay activist” going on and on about your homosexuality. You just have to say you’re gay. That seems obvious to me, but your posts so far have not given me the impression you understand this.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 111: I guess I’m not sure how you want me to respond to that. The policy is: “don’t ask, don’t tell”. So, technically, if a service member tells another service member or the media that they are gay, they have broken the policy and there are grounds for discharge. The reason for this policy is that a majority of service members don’t want to sleep or shower with someone whom they think might be sexually attracted to them, especially given the fact that homosexuality is a sin, and a majority of Americans still have enough of a moral compass to recognize this fact. So, in a rare bit of wisdom, Congress determined that it is better to exclude known gays from the military than to risk losing a lot more uncomfortable heteros from the service, or otherwise harming our fighting forces.

    That being said, the policy includes the command to the military not to ask. So, a gay service member who wishes to serve can do so as long as he/she keeps his/her mouth shut concerning his/her sexual proclivities. Anyone who is rightly discharged under current policy couldn’t keep their mouth shut.

    Even so, from the things I have read, it doesn’t seem that the military is that aggressive concerning discharging those who might have, on a rare occasion, disclosed their sexuality. I guess it depends upon to whom they disclosed it, and how many times they did so. It also probably depends upon how valuable they are perceived to be to their unit.

    Bottom line — if someone broke policy and disclosed their sexual orientation, they deserve to be discharged, and they are fortunate if they are not. So, pardon me if I don’t cry for them.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 111: I guess I’m not sure how you want me to respond to that. The policy is: “don’t ask, don’t tell”. So, technically, if a service member tells another service member or the media that they are gay, they have broken the policy and there are grounds for discharge. The reason for this policy is that a majority of service members don’t want to sleep or shower with someone whom they think might be sexually attracted to them, especially given the fact that homosexuality is a sin, and a majority of Americans still have enough of a moral compass to recognize this fact. So, in a rare bit of wisdom, Congress determined that it is better to exclude known gays from the military than to risk losing a lot more uncomfortable heteros from the service, or otherwise harming our fighting forces.

    That being said, the policy includes the command to the military not to ask. So, a gay service member who wishes to serve can do so as long as he/she keeps his/her mouth shut concerning his/her sexual proclivities. Anyone who is rightly discharged under current policy couldn’t keep their mouth shut.

    Even so, from the things I have read, it doesn’t seem that the military is that aggressive concerning discharging those who might have, on a rare occasion, disclosed their sexuality. I guess it depends upon to whom they disclosed it, and how many times they did so. It also probably depends upon how valuable they are perceived to be to their unit.

    Bottom line — if someone broke policy and disclosed their sexual orientation, they deserve to be discharged, and they are fortunate if they are not. So, pardon me if I don’t cry for them.

  • The Jones

    You know, under the old British Articles of War (from which our military codes were almost copied), the penalty for “sodomy” was death. This was a reflection of the accepted code of morality that existed (and to a much lesser degree still exists) in society regarding homosexuality.

    Call me crazy, but in light of history, I see “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” as quite a step forward for homosexuals in society and quite a reasonable compromise between the old ways and the new.

  • The Jones

    You know, under the old British Articles of War (from which our military codes were almost copied), the penalty for “sodomy” was death. This was a reflection of the accepted code of morality that existed (and to a much lesser degree still exists) in society regarding homosexuality.

    Call me crazy, but in light of history, I see “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” as quite a step forward for homosexuals in society and quite a reasonable compromise between the old ways and the new.

  • Joe

    The Jones – I did not look it up, but when I was in the penalty for Sodamy was up to 5 years at hard labor.

  • Joe

    The Jones – I did not look it up, but when I was in the penalty for Sodamy was up to 5 years at hard labor.

  • kerner

    Joe:

    Back @92 you said that we have evidence of other armies in which ineffectiveness has not resulted from allowing open gays to serve. Which armies are you talking about, exactly? And how do we know that combat effectiveness hasn’t suffered?

  • kerner

    Joe:

    Back @92 you said that we have evidence of other armies in which ineffectiveness has not resulted from allowing open gays to serve. Which armies are you talking about, exactly? And how do we know that combat effectiveness hasn’t suffered?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@115), you may be interested in the Wikipedia article on the matter [1]. You also may be interested in the GAO’s 1993 report “Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices
    of Foreign Countries” [2], a quick search of which finds these results about “effectiveness”:

    Military officials from Canada, Israel, and Sweden said that, on the basis of their experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in the military is not a problem and has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale.

    [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service
    [2] dont.stanford.edu/regulations/GAO.pdf

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@115), you may be interested in the Wikipedia article on the matter [1]. You also may be interested in the GAO’s 1993 report “Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices
    of Foreign Countries” [2], a quick search of which finds these results about “effectiveness”:

    Military officials from Canada, Israel, and Sweden said that, on the basis of their experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in the military is not a problem and has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale.

    [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service
    [2] dont.stanford.edu/regulations/GAO.pdf

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@115), you may also be interested in reading this article, even though it is at the Huffington Post: Countries Where Gays Do Serve Openly In The Military. Even if you don’t trust the article, it does point to other papers you can read:

    n 2000, [Aaron Belkin, a political science professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara] co-authored an exhaustive 44-page study on Canada, which, after a series of lawsuits in 1991, changed its policies to allow gays to openly serve in the military. Belkin’s study, which at the time was regarded as the most comprehensive academic study of homosexuality in a foreign military ever completed, concluded that the change in policy had “not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.”

    I include this because it’s a more recent study than the previous one I referred to (@116), and Canada is a very close match to the U.S. culturally.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@115), you may also be interested in reading this article, even though it is at the Huffington Post: Countries Where Gays Do Serve Openly In The Military. Even if you don’t trust the article, it does point to other papers you can read:

    n 2000, [Aaron Belkin, a political science professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara] co-authored an exhaustive 44-page study on Canada, which, after a series of lawsuits in 1991, changed its policies to allow gays to openly serve in the military. Belkin’s study, which at the time was regarded as the most comprehensive academic study of homosexuality in a foreign military ever completed, concluded that the change in policy had “not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.”

    I include this because it’s a more recent study than the previous one I referred to (@116), and Canada is a very close match to the U.S. culturally.

  • fws

    peter at 110

    “your remarks are exceedingly rude and intemperate”

    Note I fully included my ownself in any comments about your sinfuless and pervertedness. I paraphrased isaiah who said that all your and my most righteous efforts are like dirty used tampons. The Holy Scriptures tell you that your very best and most noble thoughts and most righteous acts are shot through with the very deepest perversion Peter. you deserve temporal and eternal punishment for everything you have ever thought or done in your entire life Peter. You deserve this in fact for being a sinner who is by nature an enemy of God.

    Only Christ can make any of that less than a stench in the nostrils of your God.

    I am only repeating what God has said is the sad truth about me and about you and every other human Peter. Hard words. If you do not believe them, then you call God a Liar and the truth is not in you according to st John.

  • fws

    peter at 110

    “your remarks are exceedingly rude and intemperate”

    Note I fully included my ownself in any comments about your sinfuless and pervertedness. I paraphrased isaiah who said that all your and my most righteous efforts are like dirty used tampons. The Holy Scriptures tell you that your very best and most noble thoughts and most righteous acts are shot through with the very deepest perversion Peter. you deserve temporal and eternal punishment for everything you have ever thought or done in your entire life Peter. You deserve this in fact for being a sinner who is by nature an enemy of God.

    Only Christ can make any of that less than a stench in the nostrils of your God.

    I am only repeating what God has said is the sad truth about me and about you and every other human Peter. Hard words. If you do not believe them, then you call God a Liar and the truth is not in you according to st John.

  • fws

    the Jones at 113

    “You know, under the old British Articles of War (from which our military codes were almost copied), the penalty for “sodomy” was death.”

    I understand that sodomy was synonymous with anal sex then legally. Neither the word nor content of the word homosexuality was something that existed when that law was written. Men could be executed therefore for sodomizing their wife. do you know if the law was ever enforced. It was enforced only once here in Brasil. It happened because one political rival wanted to eliminate another and that was the method used. Unfortunately it was proven after the fact (witness recanted) that the man was innocent.

  • fws

    the Jones at 113

    “You know, under the old British Articles of War (from which our military codes were almost copied), the penalty for “sodomy” was death.”

    I understand that sodomy was synonymous with anal sex then legally. Neither the word nor content of the word homosexuality was something that existed when that law was written. Men could be executed therefore for sodomizing their wife. do you know if the law was ever enforced. It was enforced only once here in Brasil. It happened because one political rival wanted to eliminate another and that was the method used. Unfortunately it was proven after the fact (witness recanted) that the man was innocent.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    Well, I read the Huffington Post link, and was able to finish it before my computer froze again. [normally I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but as a conservative, I have to wonder why that site always freezes my computer; can they possibly know who I am? ;) ]

    I’ll try to read the more extensive materials too.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    Well, I read the Huffington Post link, and was able to finish it before my computer froze again. [normally I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but as a conservative, I have to wonder why that site always freezes my computer; can they possibly know who I am? ;) ]

    I’ll try to read the more extensive materials too.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@120), it’s clearly because, as a conservative, you are opposed to change. You’re obviously reading the Web site over a dial-up modem, using Internet Explorer 6.0 (“The Choice of the Corporate Establishment”), on your Pre-Carly-Fiorina HP desktop.

    If you were to embrace liberalism, get with these modern times, and browse the site with a more enlightened computer, you’d have no problems. ;)

    I might not be around this weekend, so I hope you have a nice one.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@120), it’s clearly because, as a conservative, you are opposed to change. You’re obviously reading the Web site over a dial-up modem, using Internet Explorer 6.0 (“The Choice of the Corporate Establishment”), on your Pre-Carly-Fiorina HP desktop.

    If you were to embrace liberalism, get with these modern times, and browse the site with a more enlightened computer, you’d have no problems. ;)

    I might not be around this weekend, so I hope you have a nice one.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS: Note I fully included my ownself in any comments about your sinfuless and pervertedness.

    Fine. Flagellate yourself for being, as you say, a sinful pervert, though don’t risibly slander me in the allegation. I am quite aware of my assorted sins, though not that of being sinful for continuing to richly enjoy passionate relations with my wife.

    Your blatant sophistry on this blog is a marvel.

  • Peter Leavitt

    FWS: Note I fully included my ownself in any comments about your sinfuless and pervertedness.

    Fine. Flagellate yourself for being, as you say, a sinful pervert, though don’t risibly slander me in the allegation. I am quite aware of my assorted sins, though not that of being sinful for continuing to richly enjoy passionate relations with my wife.

    Your blatant sophistry on this blog is a marvel.

  • Joe

    tODD – thanks for responding to Kerner. I thought the usefulness of this post died and stopped checking it. I see now that I missed the chance to offer good information to someone who was actually intersted in looking into the subject. Thank you for supplying that to Kerner. I don’t think I have anything else to add, excpet for the article that Frank linked to at the very begining of this monster (comment no. 1).

  • Joe

    tODD – thanks for responding to Kerner. I thought the usefulness of this post died and stopped checking it. I see now that I missed the chance to offer good information to someone who was actually intersted in looking into the subject. Thank you for supplying that to Kerner. I don’t think I have anything else to add, excpet for the article that Frank linked to at the very begining of this monster (comment no. 1).

  • Now a Fonseca

    Dare I enter such a debate? I would like for everyone to take time and think about what you are actually arguing about. My personal opinion is that you all have valid points but are all way off the mark. Is this issue really about homosexuals? Or perhaps, this is the classic sinful debate of which sin is worse…….I have served in the military and have unfortunately discovered that in an imperfect world nothing can ever be run perfectly. Yes, homosexuals now serve faithfully. I was friends and roommates with several. Yes, there is sexual scandal among heteros. Yes, the don’t ask don’t tell policy created a legal loop hole for a slew of sexual crimes punishable by the UCMJ.

    The overall issue being missed is that in an imperfect orginization, the best thing anyone can do is minimize its imperfections and do everything to operate as smoothly and effectively as possible. Afterall, there are reasons that out military is the world’s finest as opposed to comprimised countries such as Canada.

    Civilians, who daily enjoy their civil liberties, DO NOT understand what it is like to defend the Constitution’s amendments while having no Constitutional rights of your own. Free speech, gone. You take lawful orders from your superiors and shut up about it. Your personal opinion doesn’t matter. The right to bear arms, gone. You are not allowed to possess your own fire arms unless you check them into the battallion armory and in most cases not at all. You may not keep weapons on you or in your quarters. The right to privacy, GONE. you are subject at anytime to personal and property searches. You sign away these civil liberties when you sign that contract and take that oath.

    The reality is you become a “serviceman” (or servicewoman). You enter a service and become “one who serves” or servant to the Constitution and it’s citizens. If I hire a cleaning service to clean my house and they end up fornicating in my bedroom, I fire them. After all, why did I pay them? To satisfy their sexual urges on my time and dollar? No, the reason the sexual laws exist for ALL servicemen is Two reasons. 1) when engaging in sex outside of a monogomous relationship, you risk spreading disease or contacting it causing loss of physical readiness. 2) when your personal sexual encounters are made public, they are now everyone’s business which degrades morale causing loss of mental readiness.

    Now honestly, we can’t expect all serviceman to not engage in sex for their entire enlistment, but we can ask for self-control and personal discretion. Consentual sex isn’t really anyone’s business except for the parties involved. When did sexual flagrancy become okay? There are tons of people I would rather not think about involved in ANY sexual activity. It is purely a distraction from mission accomplishment.

    In summary, we expect our servicemen and women to always appear and behave uniformly, to represent our nation to the highest standard. Just as Christ washed the feet and served those who should’ve been serving him, servicemen and women need to serve those who are trusting them for protection and LEAVE their sexual baggage at the door.

  • Now a Fonseca

    Dare I enter such a debate? I would like for everyone to take time and think about what you are actually arguing about. My personal opinion is that you all have valid points but are all way off the mark. Is this issue really about homosexuals? Or perhaps, this is the classic sinful debate of which sin is worse…….I have served in the military and have unfortunately discovered that in an imperfect world nothing can ever be run perfectly. Yes, homosexuals now serve faithfully. I was friends and roommates with several. Yes, there is sexual scandal among heteros. Yes, the don’t ask don’t tell policy created a legal loop hole for a slew of sexual crimes punishable by the UCMJ.

    The overall issue being missed is that in an imperfect orginization, the best thing anyone can do is minimize its imperfections and do everything to operate as smoothly and effectively as possible. Afterall, there are reasons that out military is the world’s finest as opposed to comprimised countries such as Canada.

    Civilians, who daily enjoy their civil liberties, DO NOT understand what it is like to defend the Constitution’s amendments while having no Constitutional rights of your own. Free speech, gone. You take lawful orders from your superiors and shut up about it. Your personal opinion doesn’t matter. The right to bear arms, gone. You are not allowed to possess your own fire arms unless you check them into the battallion armory and in most cases not at all. You may not keep weapons on you or in your quarters. The right to privacy, GONE. you are subject at anytime to personal and property searches. You sign away these civil liberties when you sign that contract and take that oath.

    The reality is you become a “serviceman” (or servicewoman). You enter a service and become “one who serves” or servant to the Constitution and it’s citizens. If I hire a cleaning service to clean my house and they end up fornicating in my bedroom, I fire them. After all, why did I pay them? To satisfy their sexual urges on my time and dollar? No, the reason the sexual laws exist for ALL servicemen is Two reasons. 1) when engaging in sex outside of a monogomous relationship, you risk spreading disease or contacting it causing loss of physical readiness. 2) when your personal sexual encounters are made public, they are now everyone’s business which degrades morale causing loss of mental readiness.

    Now honestly, we can’t expect all serviceman to not engage in sex for their entire enlistment, but we can ask for self-control and personal discretion. Consentual sex isn’t really anyone’s business except for the parties involved. When did sexual flagrancy become okay? There are tons of people I would rather not think about involved in ANY sexual activity. It is purely a distraction from mission accomplishment.

    In summary, we expect our servicemen and women to always appear and behave uniformly, to represent our nation to the highest standard. Just as Christ washed the feet and served those who should’ve been serving him, servicemen and women need to serve those who are trusting them for protection and LEAVE their sexual baggage at the door.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X