tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3859190525965346852..comments2024-03-28T08:30:09.967-05:00Comments on Althouse: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" clears the filibuster!Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger260125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7000246750539747192010-12-20T22:10:33.679-06:002010-12-20T22:10:33.679-06:00ISn't DADT basically telling gays to shut the ...<i>ISn't DADT basically telling gays to shut the fuck up and get back to work?</i><br /><br />Not even remotely.<br /><br />Keep in mind that "don't ask, don't tell" is just a nickname for the law, not a literal description of it. Under DADT the military was barred from actively pursuing homosexual troops, but was both able and required to act on credible evidence of homosexuality. So it isn't just that, e.g., a gay Marine couldn't mention he had a boyfriend. He had to actively *conceal* that fact, along with all other evidence of homosexuality. If, say, an officer saw him off-base, on leave, kissing said boyfriend, then that's it: career over.<br /><br />It is the difference between "if you spend time on the job haranguing your coworkers to convert to Christianity, you will be disciplined and possibly fired" and "if it comes to your attention that you're Christian you'll be fired".Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-92175091250205425362010-12-20T22:02:45.773-06:002010-12-20T22:02:45.773-06:00Let the witch hunt begin!
I love how much Christi...<i>Let the witch hunt begin!</i><br /><br />I love how much Christian conservatives have in common with the political Left. Criticism = persecution in both your minds.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51202066701109682862010-12-20T21:57:31.748-06:002010-12-20T21:57:31.748-06:00Unpleasantness like keeping your mouth shut about ...<i>Unpleasantness like keeping your mouth shut about your personal predilections?</i><br /><br />A brief window into a world where Marines can't stomach hearing people talk about their "personal predilections": <br /><br />"Sergeant, Sergeant! Private Smith told me he had a girlfriend! Then Corporal Jones mentioned his wife and, ugh, said he was going to have *sex* with her when we got back from deployment! And then Private Carter invited me to his... WEDDING! Make them stop telling me about their personal predilections, Sergeant! Make them STOP!"<br /><br />... and that's how you think the Marines should work, is it? Of course not. You're fine with Marines talking about their loved ones and their sex lives; it is just homosexuals who turn your stomach. Well, man up.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9937934354525330852010-12-20T16:47:58.428-06:002010-12-20T16:47:58.428-06:00Will pre op shemales get to serve openly and house...Will pre op shemales get to serve openly and house with females and wear female unifomrs while they still have their dicks? And can transvestites walk arouund the barracks wearing their dresses? is that what it means to serve openly?jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/07630491937904835553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37423000261498334012010-12-20T15:01:39.735-06:002010-12-20T15:01:39.735-06:00Revenant wrote:
I work in the private sector. Eve...Revenant wrote:<br /><br />I work in the private sector. Every company I've ever worked for has taken the following two-phased approach to people with strong moral objections to the private lives of their coworkers:<br /><br />(1): Shut the fuck up.<br /><br />and<br /><br />(2): Get back to work<br /><br><br />ISn't DADT basically telling gays to shut the fuck up and get back to work? Why are you ok with it in the private sector but think that gays should scream out "Im here and I'm queer" in the miiitary. What does their gayness bring to their ability to serve as a soldier? And why can't they simply shut up about their sexual lives and get back to work?<br />Gays define themselves by their sexuality alone. The army makes a point that they don't want sex there. SO then why can't gays keep their gayness at home? Now they are going to serve openly as gays? What does that mean? Since they define themselves sexually doesn't that bring sex into the equation? DADT is basically the military saying shut up about your sexuality and get back to work. <br />Why are you not ok with than?jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/07630491937904835553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5532314590972752782010-12-20T12:41:25.273-06:002010-12-20T12:41:25.273-06:00Revenant:
Thanks for being plain: all those who b...Revenant:<br /><br />Thanks for being plain: all those who believe (as Christianity teaches) that homosexual behavior is sinful, are bigots. Let the witch hunt begin!<br /><br />Also, private companies do not, usually, tell their employees to STFU about their religious views 24/7. The military can. Also, civilian employees of said companies can quit on the spot. Service members cannot. You seem unclear on these distinctions; because otherwise your analogy is clearly inapt.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-31654539701375288832010-12-20T09:53:00.160-06:002010-12-20T09:53:00.160-06:00Does anybody think congress critters will vote on ...<i>Does anybody think congress critters will vote on a rule allowing sodomy in the military?</i><br /><br />Lawrence v. Texas allows sodomy everywhere -- is there a need unique to the military to keep a soldier's wife from giving him a blowjob?<br /><br />A UCMJ cleanup of obsolete laws seems indicated. The Illinois General Assembly led the way by repealing its sodomy law (for consenting adults) in 1961, coincidentally the year Obama was born.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66530098214524256872010-12-20T09:01:36.336-06:002010-12-20T09:01:36.336-06:00The current bill does call for:
(D) Recommend app...The current bill does call for:<br /><br />(D) Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.<br /><br />Does anybody think congress critters will vote on a rule allowing sodomy in the military? Not unless they bury it in a 2,000 page omnibus package.dbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00457585811847604584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51336951892138360842010-12-20T08:46:09.668-06:002010-12-20T08:46:09.668-06:00Removal of DADT will allow homosexuals to be open ...Removal of DADT will allow homosexuals to be open about their orientation. They still will not be permitted to have sex though:<br /><br />“(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<br />to complete the offense.<br /><br />(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”<br /><br />Elements.<br /><br />(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)<br /><br />(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.<br /><br />(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.<br /><br />Explanation.<br /><br />It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.dbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00457585811847604584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6979351284413998882010-12-20T06:21:02.138-06:002010-12-20T06:21:02.138-06:00Every company I've ever worked for has taken t...<i>Every company I've ever worked for has taken the following two-phased approach to people with strong moral objections to the private lives of their coworkers...</i><br /><br />And that demonstrates the point perfectly. This is not analogous to private sector employment. Furthermore, this whole issue is about the apparent need gay people feel to make their private lives public.<br /><br /><i>And honestly, who exactly is it who joined the Marines expecting their delicate feelings to be shielded from unpleasantness?</i><br /><br />Unpleasantness like keeping your mouth shut about your personal predilections? The discomfort of not being able to casually talk about what a nice ass the Marine next to you has? The people that are pushing this apparently think that Revenant. That's what this is all about.DaveWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07384839000387921199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41568927283809651912010-12-20T03:17:03.104-06:002010-12-20T03:17:03.104-06:00dick,
I'd be curious to hear what part of the...dick,<br /><br />I'd be curious to hear what part of the UCMJ you think will authorize prosecuting homosexuals.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36537664912651928392010-12-20T02:33:08.927-06:002010-12-20T02:33:08.927-06:00Revenant,
You are missing the whole point of why ...Revenant,<br /><br />You are missing the whole point of why there was a DADT in the first place. Until DADT anyone who was found to be gay was drummed out of the service by following the rules of UCMJ. With DADT gays could serve with no problems so long as they did not broadcast that they were gay or make it obvious to people policing the area (not cleaning but MP's, etc). Now unless the UCMJ has been changed which I have not read the bill to see, then the gays are back being subject to getting kicked out just for being gay again and without the potential protection of DADT. Were those writing up this legislation smart enough to change the UCMJ as part of this law? Don't know but I would almost bet they missed this point because after all who reads the laws they vote for, at least in this congress and senate.<br /><br />And as to who started pushing the kicking out of gays which ended up with DADT? Our favorite ex-president Jimmuh Cartuh from Georgia. Until then it worked pretty much like officers and enlisted at the Pentagon. It is almost funny to watch them walk up to the door. The officers look off to one side and the enlisted look off to the other so that they don't have to walk with a constant salute. Until Jimmuh both sides just ignored the question unless it was made obvious or someone claimed to be gay to get out of the service. To protect the gays DADT was passed so that you almost had to stand up and claim to be gay or be as open as the guys at the Folsom St Fair in SF. Now that DADT has been repealed what is the status of the protection of gays in the military. Did they change the UCMJ to get rid of the automatic discharge of gays who were open about it?dickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976498133597991337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17006198248161028882010-12-20T01:32:29.219-06:002010-12-20T01:32:29.219-06:00I have said before that it would be fine to try it...<i>I have said before that it would be fine to try it out in the parts of the military where service is more like a normal job and then expand from there depending on how it goes. This seems radical or unreasonable? Really?</i><br /><br />Drumming loyal and competent soldiers out of the military because they like having sex with the wrong kind of consenting adults seems radical and unreasonable.<br /><br />I don't know how I feel about your suggested policy. What I do know is that it is a moot point; you might have suggested it, but so far as I know nobody in Congress ever did. The Republican Party could have enacted that nine years ago if they'd wanted to. They didn't want to. The only problem social conservatives had with DADT was the DA part.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76300975310392256752010-12-20T01:19:39.351-06:002010-12-20T01:19:39.351-06:00People that think this is going to be just peachy ...<i>People that think this is going to be just peachy squeaky easy greasy are living in a dream world</i><br /><br />I work in the private sector. Every company I've ever worked for has taken the following two-phased approach to people with strong moral objections to the private lives of their coworkers:<br /><br />(1): Shut the fuck up.<br /><br />and<br /><br />(2): Get back to work<br /><br />with a subtext of<br /><br />(2a): No, seriously, get the fuck back to work.<br /><br />This approach works. And honestly, who exactly is it who joined the Marines expecting their delicate feelings to be shielded from unpleasantness?Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12602823238109909262010-12-20T00:55:18.773-06:002010-12-20T00:55:18.773-06:00And Revenant lets slip that from now on, anyone wh...<i>And Revenant lets slip that from now on, anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is sinful is the moral equivalent of a racist and a bigot, and/or a "homophobe."</i><br /><br />Um, no. You're not the "moral equivalent" of a homophobe and a bigot. You're a homophobe and a bigot, full stop. You are, however, the moral and intellectual equivalent of a racist, yes.<br /><br />And I didn't "let it slip".Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1423697456123973152010-12-19T21:35:29.697-06:002010-12-19T21:35:29.697-06:00GMay wrote:
A much smaller percentage of that popu...GMay wrote:<br />A much smaller percentage of that population is only going to be considered as possible candidates for mliitary service. <br /><br>Living in new york, I know a lot of gay people and not one of them is beating down the door to joiin the military. The pool is already tiny, but the gays who wantt o be in the military is even tinier.<br />Even the village people didn't have a military guy. THey had the cowboy and the police officer and the indian (!) but no military guy. And that's pretty emblematic.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/07630491937904835553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67284989102161539832010-12-19T18:38:39.687-06:002010-12-19T18:38:39.687-06:00The old mythologer would seem to have been right i...The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of womenUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15568522114181050780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67119690082821794722010-12-19T17:11:57.245-06:002010-12-19T17:11:57.245-06:00@Revenant Is there a reason you believe the majori...@Revenant <i>Is there a reason you believe the majority of our soldiers are homophobes?</i><br /><br />If the definition of "homophobe" is one who thinks it is a bad idea to allow open homosexuals to serve in combat arms and other areas of the military that lack privacy, then yes, the majority would fall under that definition.<br /><br />I have said before that it would be fine to try it out in the parts of the military where service is more like a normal job and then expand from there depending on how it goes. This seems radical or unreasonable? Really?dbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00457585811847604584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50908075839524374252010-12-19T16:39:58.697-06:002010-12-19T16:39:58.697-06:00Revenant, for what it's worth I didn't thi...Revenant, for what it's worth I didn't think DADT was a good idea when Clinton (and Colin Powell) came up with it just as I don't think repealing it during an ongoing land war is a good idea now. <br /><br />Better would have been to do away with the whole thing in the mid-1990s when they passed this in the first place. At least then we weren't actively engaged with troops on the ground facing daily live fire. <br /><br />You ever spend any time in the military, much less a USMC squad bay Revenant? People that think this is going to be just peachy squeaky easy greasy are living in a dream world. It's going to be difficult and there will be conflict among the troops. Now, you might say fine, run the bigots (and flamers of course) off, but that pretty well does away with the idea that this is not going to adversely affect our abilities during this war wouldn't you think?<br /><br />If I was an "openly" gay male just about the <i>last</i> place I'd want to be bunking is a Marine Corps squad bay. Depending, of course, on what is meant by "openly gay", which is something I am very suspicious about both in intent and in ultimate practice.<br /><br />The way proponents talk about this (letters to loved ones, putting a picture on their desk, my civil rights!) is so stunningly ignorant as to leave those of us who served pretty well speechless and shaking our heads. <br /><br />And the failure of supporters to address it in terms of how it will improve our military, how it addresses the needs of the military, demonstrates a complete lack of seriousness by the supporters, at <i>best</i>.<br /><br />/shrug. The military will deal with it, the just shouldn't have to deal with it <i>now</i>, again, in my opinion.DaveWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07384839000387921199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45214041329876035742010-12-19T16:34:46.746-06:002010-12-19T16:34:46.746-06:00The immorality of homosexuality is at the core of ...The immorality of homosexuality is at the core of no one's faith except the Phelpses.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-78464676398977039922010-12-19T12:50:49.418-06:002010-12-19T12:50:49.418-06:00Based on the obviously unrepresentative sample of ...Based on the obviously unrepresentative sample of pro-repeal advocates writing here, it's clear victory for, let us say, "sexual liberty," is a defeat for religious liberty.<br /><br />And Revenant lets slip that from now on, anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is sinful is the moral equivalent of a racist and a bigot, and/or a "homophobe."<br /><br />FYI, yes, I'm well aware being in the military means some subordination of the rights one enjoys as a civilian (gee, wasn't that the offensive justification for DADT? nevermind); nevertheless, the military has always had a chaplain service and gone to great lengths to accommodate service-members' religious observance. <br /><br />Expect conflict on this very point as Revenant and others of his viewpoint seek to silence all they label bigots and homophobes--i.e., anyone who believes homosexual behavior is sinful. The new witch hunt won't work, but it will be ugly.<br /><br />And of course, it'll do wonders for enlistment and readiness!Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58064644809832800382010-12-19T11:54:25.027-06:002010-12-19T11:54:25.027-06:00I see DBP has arrived to stick up for the busybody...I see DBP has arrived to stick up for the busybody contingent.<br /><br />Don'tcha know that our greatest liberty is not to be able to follow our own happiness, but to poke our nose into what other people do so as to offer our approval or disapproval.<br /><br />Pecchia's fitting in with his fellow Puritan busybodies quite well.Ritmo Re-Animatedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15912086218531198114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-452219512493199732010-12-19T11:06:35.590-06:002010-12-19T11:06:35.590-06:00We can imagine an ideal society but we can't b...We can imagine an ideal society but we can't build it. At least so far in my lifetime. Of course DADT is a terrible law, and a particularly degrading one. But I don't feel celebratory today, I feel pretty sober minded. <br /><br />We can imagine a military free of prejudice and rancor but at least one terrible occasion has suggested that we cannot build one of those either. Major Hasan, who openly gave powerpoint presentations on his love of jihad, killed 13 military members because no one was brave enough to believe him. (Islam is peace!) Soldiers were reduced to <i>throwing chairs at him</i> to stop him because guns are banned at the base.(Guns are bad!)<br /><br />So let's pause and consider some empathy for the old warrior McCain. He fears that a few eggs will be broken to make this omelet as well. I just hope that we can keep uppermost in our hearts what is good for the country as well as for our interest group as we go forward.PatCAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08920623662477828662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76428342986012424722010-12-19T11:06:18.614-06:002010-12-19T11:06:18.614-06:00switching to a witch hunt against the majority of ...<i>switching to a witch hunt against the majority of its soldiers.</i><br /><br />Is there a reason you believe the majority of our soldiers are homophobes?Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85205404396347491422010-12-19T10:54:26.319-06:002010-12-19T10:54:26.319-06:00that 1) they have given the slightest thought to w...<i>that 1) they have given the slightest thought to what military service is about, or 2) take the issue of how the military will have to adjust to this change in a time of war seriously.</i><br /><br />The argument has been going on for as long as the web has existed. If you want to see the serious arguments for and against, Google them. What you have here is a bunch of people who are happy they won and a bunch of people who are pissed that they lost. Nobody's offering interesting, original, or well-thought-out arguments. <br /><br />On a side note, it would be easier to take that "time of war" bit seriously if any of the people making it had favored repeal before we went to war. As it stands it looks like "we're at war!" is just the position they retreated to when "gay officers will order innocent hetero enlisted men to shower with them" became untenable.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.com