UPDATE: The Senate votes to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," 65-31.
“We righted a wrong,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut and a leader of the effort to end the ban. “Today we’ve done justice.”4 Senators did not vote. 3 Republicans — Bunning, Gregg, and Hatch. 1 Democrat: Joe Manchin. All of the no votes were Republican. Republicans voting yes were: Scott Brown, Burr (of NC), Susan Collins, John Ensign, Mark Steven Kirk (in Barack Obama's old seat), Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snow, George Voinovich.
I don't like all this lame duck action, but I'm greatly pleased to see the awful old law repealed at last.
AND: John McCain raged, as Dana Milbank describes it:
McCain famously said in 2006 that he would support repeal once military leaders recommended it. Instead, he led the opposition to repeal. McCainologists in the Capitol speculate that on this and other issues he's driven less by policy consideration than by personal animosity....
On Saturday, McCain's rage was all the more striking because the general tone of the debate was tame. Republicans were mostly defensive, objecting not to the service of homosexuals in the military but to procedures and other technical matters. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said of the repeal: "Should it be done at some point in time? Maybe so, but in the middle of a military conflict is not the time to do it."...
When it came time for his closing argument before the day's key vote, McCain spoke for only a few seconds: "Today's a very sad day. The commandant of the United States Marine Corps says when your life hangs on the line, you don't want anything distracting. . . . I don't want to permit that opportunity to happen and I'll tell you why. You go up to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Marines are up there with no legs, none. You've got Marines at Walter Reed with no limbs."
McCain turned and, without another word, walked into the cloakroom.
Posts
260 comments:
1 – 200 of 260 Newer› Newest»Too bad. I hope it works out.
So Ivy League schools will have ROTC in the Fall of 2012 now that DADT isn't an excuse for them anymore, right?
Ask. Tell.
Heaven help us.
I can't wait to see what excuse the Ivies come up with to explain their continuing ROTC ban.
Same as the DREAM. Cloture ends debate.
This is about paying off political constituencies and weakening defense, not civil rights.
In any case, it won't work.
PS What Tosa, clint, and Skyler said.
An historic achievment! It is way beyond time to get over prejudice against gays and lesbians.
Excellent! About time.
PS The Tea Partiers plan to challenge Scott Brown anyway. Just a little added incentive for the non-Libertarians among them.
Liberals want to weaken, shrink and lessen the effectiveness of the US military, repealing DADT is a means to those ends. So sadly, I question the motives of many of DADT repeal's supporters and find they are bad. They will never admit it, but many of repeal supporters believe this will hurt US military effectiveness and they like that.
Now the military will be like most other places of employment.
Let's all bookmark this post and then look at it again in 5 years, where we can discuss the repeal of DADT and where the US Military - particularly the US Marines are at that point.
I don't think it's going to be where the advocates of repeal believe it's going to be.
When it comes to security, is it more important to be politically correct even if it puts you at the point of losing?
This moral issue is one area where Biblical scholars for many years have come to believe that the United States will not remain the world's beacon for freedom and hope, that God's blessings on this country are swiftly coming to an end, that there is no mention of a country with great power and good such as the US found in any interpretation of he last days in Scripture. The United States sacrificed it's moral values to "whatever goes" and God agreed.
"Woe to those who call evil "good", and good "evil"; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;"
(Isaiah 5:20)
Good. Repealing DADT will be the one and only good act of the 111th Congress.
Let's all bookmark this post and then look at it again in 5 years
The negative consequences will take longer to materialize. I think the currrent crop of gays in the military will be demure about it. In fact, most will maintain DADT privately because they've been burned too many times on it.
Its the generation that follows that will abuse it.
Let's not blow it this time! We have to make sure we don't take it in the shorts. Don't let them make us grab our ankles.
Just short of two years in. That's some fast Hopey Change.
The day they drove old gay proscriptions down. Let the bells ring to mark Gay Freedom Day December 18 2010. Next comes a long hard fight to defeat the murderous Muslim Forces. Gays, need to come on down and enlist in the combat infantry today.
Jason (the commenter) said...
Now the military will be like most other places of employment.
actually not.
The military is a very regulated environment.
all that is not forbidden, is encouraged. very bi-polar
repeal of DADT means that Gay diversity training will hit the training schedule. The military will start keeping track of gay promotion rates
if they dont track to population, boards will be given instructions to try to make that up.
Gay applicants to the service academies will first claim discrimination, then preference.
Denomiations that provide the bulk of military Chaplains will move forward with decertification.
Gay couples will request married onpost housing...
it will get interesting
since ART. 125. SODOMY is still in place.
(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.
The legislation is not really fair unless it also allows heterosexuals to serve openly in the Navy.
Do you guys have the holiday spirit?
I support a "Don't Ask, Don't Flame" policy.
I think repeal proponents have done a terrible job of proving to skeptics both in and out of the enlisted ranks that tolerance of homosexual orientation will not translate into de facto protection of homosexual conduct.
EDH: I think repeal proponents have done a terrible job of proving to skeptics both in and out of the enlisted ranks that tolerance of homosexual orientation will not translate into de facto protection of homosexual conduct.
De facto protection? It is protection of homosexual conduct. Members of the military will be able to go on dates, write love letters, adopt children, and come out to their families without having to worry about being fired.
Good.
The best part of this passage of this bill is that people who want to scam out of their enlistments won't have this avenue open to them.
They will never admit it, but many of repeal supporters believe this will hurt US military effectiveness and they like that.
The ability to read minds is a skill that is absolutely precious. And fabulous.
If the Secy of Defense and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs think DADT should be repealed, then why anyone argue against it?
There's a joke about Texan exports in all of this.
Members of the military will be able to go on dates, write love letters, adopt children, and come out to their families without having to worry about being fired.
And I think thats a good thing. It was never a fair compromise.
However, bringing sexual tension into a combat unit WILL damage that unit's esprit de corps.
If they're smart, they'll limit homosexual MOS's the same way they limit females.
Although I am curious - do the proponents of repeal also support mixing males and females in combat units? If not, why not?
BTW, don't women have a "right" to play football for the New England Patriots?
Reading the text of the House amendment to the Senate Amendment to HR 2965, it says that DOD policy must be reviewed re implementation of repeal of DADT, that there is no immediate effect on current policy, and that if the underlying policy is not changed, DADT remains in place.
This does not direct DOD to change policy to eliminate sexual preference as a criteria for enlistment or commission, it just suggests.
text here
Tom Brady's kind of a women and he plays for the Pats. Does that count?
Three questions for the pro-repeal crowd:
1) Does this improve the military's effectiveness? If so, how?
2) If you take the "This is a victory for liberty" angle, where is the "right to serve in the military" enumerated?
3) Where do you think lines should be drawn for military service and why?
It is totally gay for this lame-duck congress to be thumbing its nose at the intent of the 20th Amendment.
I keep asking, proponents of repeal don't answer (and I missed where these questions were asked in Congressional hearings):
1. With repeal, will there be separate housing for heterosexual and homosexual personnel? If not, why not? Why do the reasons that drive sex-separate housing not point to orientation-separate housing?
2. If so, how will the military know how to assign servicemembers to housing?
2a. What will addressing this housing situation cost--in dollars and in readiness, particularly in forward locations?
3. Why won't this mean DADT becomes MAMT: "must ask, must tell"? (How else assign housing and track promotion rates etc.?)
4. Will the inevitable diversity- and sensitivity-training mean that servicemembers face discipline for expressing their moral and/or religious disapproval of homosexual conduct?
5. Aren't these all questions whose answers would would help the public assess the wisdom of this proposal?
When I was a student, I joined a frat house....cuz that's where the girls go to find men.
The correct statement would be "cuz that's where the gays go to find men".
How does the military avoid becoming a dating service for homo's?
....and don't give me the "service to country" crap. I've never met a homosexual that wasn't completely self-centered, and self-serving.
An absolute disaster for group cohesion under conditions of extreme stress.
GMAY:
the "victory for liberty" cry falls mute once the question of servicemembers' freedom to express disapproval is brought up. Then all you hear is how the military isn't a democracy. Until you talk about DADT--then that gets dropped for the liberty talk. Rinse and repeat.
wv: "wariend"
Three replies for GMay:
1) This wasn't done mainly to improve the military's effectiveness, but a good case can be made that it does anyway, at least a little. If nothing else, it expands the recruiting pool. I mind a case a few years ago where the Army discharged a few of its already-scarce Arabic interpreters for being gay.
2) Don't let Nino Scalia hear you implying that the only liberties are enumerated liberties!
3) The effectiveness of the military has to take precedence, but since the Pentagon is now telling us that we won't be harming that with this step towards greater tolarance and equality, I'm happy to take their word for it.
Geez, you guys are silly. You're ignoring that almost every other first-world military in the world allows gays to serve openly.
I don't see Israeli unit cohesion falling apart, and Judaism has a very harsh view of homosexuality.
Really, after the end of DADT, they really need to allow women to serve in combat units.
1) Does this improve the military's effectiveness? If so, how?
It increases the pool of available recruits by around 3% and allows the military to redirect resources currently wasted prosecuting homosexual soldiers.
2) If you take the "This is a victory for liberty" angle, where is the "right to serve in the military" enumerated?
Non-sequiteur. Enumerated rights are a legal concept, liberty is a philosophical concept.
3) Where do you think lines should be drawn for military service and why?
They should be drawn by Congress, like the Constitution says.
GMay: 1) Does this improve the military's effectiveness? If so, how?
They wont have to fire trained personal.
Being able to write letters to your loved ones is bound to ease seperation anxiety for those stationed away from home.
There wont be as much of a culture clash between life in the military and without.
2) If you take the "This is a victory for liberty" angle, where is the "right to serve in the military" enumerated?
It's a freedom of speech issue, covered by the freedom of speech.
3) Where do you think lines should be drawn for military service and why?
People should be allowed to engage in legal activities in their off time.
that-xmas: Ah, but the Israelis profile!!! They profile at the airport!!! They can't be a good example for this can they?
ricpic: An absolute disaster for group cohesion under conditions of extreme stress.
I would say the exact opposite is the case. Generally, when someone tells you they are gay it is a sign that they trust you.
"Really, after the end of DADT, they really need to allow women to serve in combat units."
I agree. They should have rotationg regiment with just women about to have their period.
They could get a cool red badge and everything.
That would be some scary shit.
that-xmas:
Lots of non sequiturs.
That other "first world" militaries do this doesn't say anything about whether it helps, hurts or doesn't matter. The UK military might be better with a DADT, or it might be worse or no different.
Also, why does it follow that what applies in other cultures works here? Non sequitur.
Israel, in particular, has to take everyone it can. They might have done it anyway, but when your back is against the wall, you'll put 50-year-olds on the line. Doesn't make it the best policy in general.
Also, exactly which military in the world compares with the U.S. military in effectiveness? When we gather a coalition for anything, even the "good war" in Afghanistan, the troops for our wealthy coalition partners -- except for the Brits and Australians -- seem to all get take-out-the-trash detail or something. So citing the effectiveness of other militaries seems a risky strategy.
An absolute disaster for group cohesion under conditions of extreme stress.
I don't know what they are talking about when they say repeal would mean a disruption of unit cohesion.
My experience was that if I wasn't careful my playboy pages would bond irretrievably ;)
Paul replied:
"Three replies for GMay:
1) This wasn't done mainly to improve the military's effectiveness, but a good case can be made that it does anyway, at least a little. If nothing else, it expands the recruiting pool. I mind a case a few years ago where the Army discharged a few of its already-scarce Arabic interpreters for being gay."
First, thank you for the thoughtful response.
I see the expansion of the recruiting pool argument comes up from you and someone else. I'll address you both here. Expansion of the recruiting pool as a positive effect on operational capability is negligible.
Counting the 4-6% of the population as gay doesn't mean the recruiting pool is automatically 4-6% larger. A much smaller percentage of that population is only going to be considered as possible candidates for mliitary service.
When you also consider that our armerd forces aren't hurting for qualified candidates under the old rules, this argument falls a bit short.
"2) Don't let Nino Scalia hear you implying that the only liberties are enumerated liberties!"
Poor word choice on my part. The 3rd question I asked ties into it a bit however. Asked a different way - what gives someone the "right" to serve in the mliitary? There are many restrictions to military service that would be utterly destroyed in the civilian world, and for good reason. However, we seem to consider the military exceptional. Why?
"3) The effectiveness of the military has to take precedence, but since the Pentagon is now telling us that we won't be harming that with this step towards greater tolarance and equality, I'm happy to take their word for it."
And what are you basing this on? The service chiefs and many senior officers have a different take on this. The Pentagon is not really a good representation of the opinions of leaders within the services. You do understand that when the Pentagon dictates something to the services, it becomes hazardous to careers to disagree?
That's not really effective policymaking when it comes to the military.
If the Secy of Defense and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs think DADT should be repealed, then why anyone argue against it?
Because both are political positions, serving at the pleasure of the President.
"I agree. They should have rotationg regiment with just women about to have their period."
Is it true that women in close quarters for long periods of time start to get on the same cycle?
What's that all about?
I heard a comic once say that if men had their periods they would just shove a sock up there.
I know I would.
It's on the floor, absorbs the mess and if it is a long sock should be able to be used twice, once on each end.
"Geez, you guys are silly. You're ignoring that almost every other first-world military in the world allows gays to serve openly."
Silly argument. There are many ways to compare the US to other, far more culturally homogenous countries. Where do we stop with such convenient comparisons? When it undermines our own point of view? Of course.
This is the United States, not another country.
"I don't see Israeli unit cohesion falling apart, and Judaism has a very harsh view of homosexuality."
And homosexuals are still stigmatized in the Israeli military and are still restricted some occupations and assignments.
"Really, after the end of DADT, they really need to allow women to serve in combat units."
Unit cohesion in mixed gender non-combat units is already under great stress. And that's back here stateside. In a forward deployed environment, it's even worse. Putting them in combat units is only going to amply an existing problem.
Don't buy into the PC filtered comments you get from public affairs officers and sympathetic media stories. Talk to the senior NCOs.
On the average, women are not as physically fit as men. That would be the only reason not to put them in, say, the infantry.
Fr. Fox, I ask because housing is an issue for you: how does the church separate its straight and gay priests? You don't let priests bunk with women, right?
Hard to imagine this change but I was in years ago, Vietnam. Maybe we are planning a new war and need the help? If many leave will cause a draft? Legislature had to act before a socially active judiciary.
Gays in medical and REMFs no big deal and navy, ha ha. War fighters are really heated about the decision. Will require many changes and great cost.
Mil Blogs suggest gay women will dominate and discriminate against straights with promotions and assignments and jealousy, like hollyweird.
In one move will break many traditions that created a superior military. Will chase off or keep out many soldiers that are religious, change who enlists or stays, who attends the academies and how they lead. Lawsuits out the ass for the next decade.
This will weaken our military, which was the actual goal of the left and Soros. Very high percentage chance an 18 year old gay guy gets hiv/aids and will have other significant medical problems as he works through his 1,000 partners. Just what we want to introduce to our national security forces - not.
If it is a disaster can be changed, after more come out.
People will still notice gays are gay. Change the long grey line to a rainbow for how many people?? Buy stock in mazola.
There are many ways to compare the US to other, far more culturally homogenous countries.
Huh? No country is more of a melting pot than Israel. The millenia-old diaspora covered the earth. Israel drew back people of every nation and race.
Revenant said:
"It increases the pool of available recruits by around 3% and allows the military to redirect resources currently wasted prosecuting homosexual soldiers."
See my response to Paul. Also, resources "wasted" prosecuting homosexual soldiers are laughably minimal.
"Non-sequiteur. Enumerated rights are a legal concept, liberty is a philosophical concept."
See my response to Paul on this one too.
"They should be drawn by Congress, like the Constitution says."
Yes, this is plain. I was asking how you would draw the line.
YouTube - Chinese Jews from Kaifeng arrive in Israel ...A short documentary produced by Shavei Israel on the aliyah of Jews from Kaifeng China to Israel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edhtdoPukk0
While not technically a homosexual, I have the aesthetic sensibility and fashion forward sense of an Oscar Wilde. I served in the military and found the duty oppressive. Spit shined shoes, gig lines, and short haircuts were utterly foreign to my ideas about being well dressed. I think my lifelong habit wearing suede shoes dates back to the trauma I suffered in basic training at the hands of an extremely insensitive DI......They say that gays serve openly in the European military, but I wonder how many there really are. It doesn't seem to me that very much of military life would appeal to gays. I'm attracted to Vicoria Secret models, but if I had to wear thong underwear and live on 1000 calories a day, I would pass on the chance to shower with them.
FLS replies to me:
"On the average, women are not as physically fit as men. That would be the only reason not to put them in, say, the infantry.
"Fr. Fox, I ask because housing is an issue for you: how does the church separate its straight and gay priests? You don't let priests bunk with women, right?"
FLS:
The last, smart-alecky part is beneath you.
Priests take a vow of celibacy and go through their own "boot camp" (seminary) aimed at evaluating their fitness for that. I missed where our military has that same policy. So another non sequitur.
How your response about fitness is relevant escapes me.
Housing isn't an issue for me; it is an issue, period. Or do you consider the question absurd even to ask? Why is it absurd to ask? The military does, in fact, separate men and women in housing. Why or won't this be extended to orientation differences?
It seems like such a simple question, with significant ramifications. Why an on-point response is so elusive is curious.
that-xmas said...
Geez, you guys are silly. You're ignoring that almost every other first-world military in the world allows gays to serve openly.
I don't see Israeli unit cohesion falling apart, and Judaism has a very harsh view of homosexuality.
Really, after the end of DADT, they really need to allow women to serve in combat units.
Most of the "first-world" militaries are for show only and rely on the US to protect them.
Israel requires homosexuals to live off-post, preferably at home. No Sodomites in the barracks.
The only people who want women in combat are people like Gloria Steinbrenner and people like William Ayers (and his pal in the White House). It's been tried, it's never worked.
Needless to say, this guy proves that this is part of the Lefties' intent to destroy the US military.
The final Senate vote just happened. They voted to repeal 65 to 31. They picked up two votes in only a few hours!
Two more fucking republicans supported this. The vote was 65-31. One democrat didn't vote.
Jason,
"They wont have to fire trained personal."
Best argument I've seen yet. However the number of servicepersonnel "fired" for being gay is just not large enough to affect performance in any meaningful way.
Considering that the CJCS has said that everyone else must conform or "be out of a job", you're actually talking real numbers there.
"Being able to write letters to your loved ones is bound to ease seperation anxiety for those stationed away from home."
In this day and age, this is just not an issue. People communicate privately very easily through unsecure communication in forward areas.
"There wont be as much of a culture clash between life in the military and without."
This doesn't affect readiness whatsoever.
"It's a freedom of speech issue, covered by the freedom of speech."
Servicepersonnel are denied many liberties. Definitely including freedom of speech. One thing this is definitely not is a Freedom of Speech issue. You're not even protected from double jeopardy in the military.
"People should be allowed to engage in legal activities in their off time."
Off time in the military is a completely different concept. The miitary can ban you from going to a perfectly legitimate business if it deems necessary.
edutcher: The only people who want women in combat are people like Gloria Steinbrenner and people like William Ayers...
"Everyone who disagrees with me is evil!"
Even if that were the case, being evil doesn't mean their ideas shouldn't be followed.
"I'm attracted to Vicoria Secret models, but if I had to wear thong underwear and live on 1000 calories a day, I would pass on the chance to shower with them."
It's called taking one for the team. I'd certainly give it a shot.
There are no gay priests Lawguy.
That was a low blow.
Holy typos. Sorry all.
I denounce myself.
GMay: Best argument I've seen yet. However the number of servicepersonnel "fired" for being gay is just not large enough to affect performance in any meaningful way.
...in your opinion. And that's how I'd expect you to respond to any good idea. All that matters to me is, they were good enough for the military to recommend ending DADT.
TosaGuy, great point about the Ivy League not having the DADT excuse for banning ROTC anymore. But it won't take them a millisecond to come up with half-a dozen more--the gay general gap, Guantanamo, rifles on campus, the regimentation of army life not being in the liberal free inquiry tradition (and this despite academia having the most rigid group-think of any institution anywhere).
TosaGuy said...
So Ivy League schools will have ROTC in the Fall of 2012 now that DADT isn't an excuse for them anymore, right?
Hold not thy breath.
FMF said: "It seems like such a simple question, with significant ramifications. Why an on-point response is so elusive is curious."
This one completely escapes me. I look at it from my experience of over 10 years as a SNCO and senior SNCO. I have no idea how to make it work. The SNCOs are the ones who will be told by officers (especially those like Capt Fox from the other thread) "Make it work, it's a leadership issue."
These officers are not the ones who will have to deal with it. They are the ones who will give the platitudes and the glowing public statements, but they will just not be the ones trying to make it work.
If they ever get the housing worked out, everything else I think would be relatively easy to deal with. (Although the vast amounts of time about to be wasted on sensitivity training makes me cringe. Some people think it's an exaggeration. It's not.)
The military will now have to make this work.
They will, but at a cost, because they will have to put energy into the issue. It won't just involve changing a few boxes on some forms.
GMay: Servicepersonnel are denied many liberties. Definitely including freedom of speech. One thing this is definitely not is a Freedom of Speech issue. You're not even protected from double jeopardy in the military.
This response doesn't make any sense at all. You asked where the rights were enumerated. We answered.
If you think your own question wasn't relevant in the first place, you shouldn't have asked it.
And it obviously is a freedom of speech issue. That's what the court ruling against DADT was based on.
The whole issue was never a big deal to me during my 25 years of service --of course that is probably why I retired as a Lieutenant Colonel rather than a Lieutenant General--
I am remembering with great fondness my old friend Leonard Matlovich, one of the first to publicize military policy towards gay men and women. He even made the cover of TIME magazine in 1975. The legend on his tombstone in Arlington Cemetery reads, "The Air Force pinned a medal on me for killing a man and discharged me for making love to one." We finally did it, Leonard!
The Senate voted 63–33 to cut off further debate on a bill already passed by the House to begin repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on military service by gay men and lesbians. A final vote will be held soon. (Watch the final debate and vote here.) The president will sign the bill, which requires a short certification process before repeal is final.
This means the end of a cruel and ultimately counter-productive anti-gay policy that kept a few thousand people from serving and put many times that in fear of expulsion from service. What’s more, the change occurred legislatively. The president, the Democrats in Congress, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and six Senate Republicans who voted for repeal (Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (ME) and George Voinovich (OH)) deserve praise. Credit is also due to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which worked tirelessly for two decades to get rid of the policy.
Mostly, I’m happy for the men and women, some of whom I know, who will now be able to serve their country without fear of discharge because of their sexual orientation.
UPDATE: The final Senate vote was 65–31. - Dale Carpenter at Volokh
Jason said: "...in your opinion. And that's how I'd expect you to respond to any good idea. All that matters to me is, they were good enough for the military to recommend ending DADT."
Well, my opinion is based off experience and data.
Experience being in 20 years I can count on one hand the number of people I was stationed in proximity to who were discharged for violating DoD homosexual policy. Half of those did it on purpose to avoid fulfilling their contracts. The other half I'm not sure if they were "asked" or if they "told".
In that same amount of time, I run out of fingers and toes recalling the number of Marines and Sailors I saw get the boot for drug use.
The military discharges far more each year for drug use than it does for violations of DADT and it manages to perform just fine. And there's data to support the conclusion that homosexual attrition is negligible to readiness.
If you've got a different argument, I'm more than willing to hear it out.
Could it be that many opponents of repeal are predicting the possible repercussion (in their minds) that the military would be perceived, by friends and foe alike, as a gay enterprise/heaven?
As tradguy said the other day about the girl with no fear..
Fear is a useless emotion... unless you can cause fear within your opponents.
If our opponents believe we are weaker for living up to the letter of our values, all I can say, with a certain degree of confidence and respectfull gratitude for the soldiers that make it possible.. Bring'em on.
I'm aiming most of this post for GMay's questions, although because I'm lazy and will admit it, I'm not going to do a direct copy/paste/reply exercise.
First I'll say that I'm in favor of this bad kluge of a policy, which resulted, if we recall, from Clinton going about this the wrong way (Executive order) in the first place.
The policy itself has been more disruptive, in my observationally based opinion, than the repeal will likely be. Yes, the number of qualified, trained and competent people ejected from service is not tremendously large, but fairly significant - somewhere around 13K is a common total I've seen bandied about. I do know for fact that in addition to the Army losing quite a lot of their Arabic linguists (many of which were probably not gay, but claimed to be as it was an easy out from their service contracts) that the Air Force lost a significant number, as well - at one point during the late 90's the AF had a 0% first term retention rate for the specialty, and DADT was one of the exits used to get there.
As far as morale, cohesion, and disruption - again, it was my observation that the policy created more erosion than the sexual orientation of the individuals. Having a member of a bonded team suddenly yanked and ejected for a reason that his compatriots didn't view as a problem was certainly distracting. From not just the perspective of the member being ejected, but from the mistrust and recriminations fostered by what many perceived as the betrayal of trust amongst the group, if it was the result of someone 'outing' the gay member against their wishes. If they could turn on someone they'd been calling 'buddy' the day or week before, were they really trustworthy when the shit hit the fan? Makes ya wonder. That's an extremely corrosive environment.
(As there is a length limit, I'll insert a break here)
Jason said: "This response doesn't make any sense at all. You asked where the rights were enumerated. We answered."
What doesn't make sense? I asked "where is the right to serve in the military". And no, you didn't answer. I'll ask again, where is the right to serve in the military?
"If you think your own question wasn't relevant in the first place, you shouldn't have asked it."
I didn't say my own question was irrelevant, I said I chose the wrong word. Are you even reading what you're responding to? I'm trying to have a discussion in good faith, but if you'd like to turn it into a snark fest, fuck it, I'll be happy to oblige.
"And it obviously is a freedom of speech issue. That's what the court ruling against DADT was based on."
So, servicepersonnel are now granted unrestricted Freedom of Speech?
Has anyone's legs fallen off since the vote?
edutcher said...
PS The Tea Partiers plan to challenge Scott Brown anyway. Just a little added incentive for the non-Libertarians among them.
=================
Because everyone agrees that it is better to have a real Democrat like Martha Coakely than a traitor RINO like Brown or Mike Castle of Delaware who votes with Republicans 90% of the time.
And better that Harry Reid remain in the Senate for another 6 years and running the Senate at least another 2 years as Nevadans appreciated the Purity of Sharron Angle. Then rejected her for "dead man walking". Who was gifted by the Tea Party with perhaps the one far right "true believer" 'ol Harry could beat.
Remember...
Better to have Democrats run the Senate than sully things with Republicans north of the Mason Doxon Line who don;t believe as rural white Georgians believe.
Better Obama get another 4 years by beating the Goddess Palin than see a lousy RINO like Pawlenty, Christie, Romney, or the morally impure Gingrich.
All I can think about right now is the Village People's video In The Navy where they are on a ship spinning flags.
Goddammit -- I lost my excuse to stop posting here.
Lem asked: "Could it be that many opponents of repeal are predicting the possible repercussion (in their minds) that the military would be perceived, by friends and foe alike, as a gay enterprise/heaven?"
I don't think anyone who's seriously interested in the well-being/effectiveness of our military on the side of keeping DADT is pushing that argument. If they are, it is hopelessly weak or waaaaaay way down on the list of important factors.
Wait till Lieberman goes back to Connecticut. He is going to be the new honorary gay.
Watch his campaign coffers fill up with all that gay money too. It will be a huge windfall for him, you can guarantee it.
C-4 ... And a Merry Christmas to you from Palin, from Netanyahu, and from wishing you and yours a new year of Peace and Joy.
Now, on to the issue of berthing/billeting - The gender separation policies of the military are unlikely to change due to the repeal. It's currently based solely on physiology, not ideology/orientation. The reasons I'm thinking it won't change is that past basic training, the vast majority of service people are berthed or billeted not in the large open-bay barracks situations many people visualize - but rather in two person (or even single person) accommodations, such that simple roomate swaps take care of the 'issues' - and in situation where group billeting is used (austere conditions/forward areas) - those aren't usually conducive to romantic inclination, as there's usually some higher priority distractions in play. Even on board Navy vessels, individuals are afforded physical barriers for individual privacy - and the standard underway bunk in a junior enlisted berthing space is kinda cramped for any 1 + 1 action.
Oh, and without the restraining thought that making some one stop inappropriate (and possibly mis-construed) conduct could end up being a career ender, do you think that someone like Eric Massa would have been called out much earlier in their career for stupid stunts such as his famous 'tickle fights'? I do.
On the subject of will it become MAMT - why would it? The military currently inquires about religious orientation only occasionally, mostly for dogtags - unless someone gets a bean counting bug up their butt over this, I don't see any reason (based upon my discard of the billeting issue) for such a policy.
"Is this a 'Victory for Liberty'"? - not so much that as a victory against intolerance. And to take a swing at the additional follow on - I think anyone physically capable should be eligible for military service, if they so choose. The 'physical capability' angle is my one reservation for assigning females directly to units designated as direct combat outfits, particularly if this was done automatically. Since the question of a female's physical ability to perform is a valid one (on aggregate, but not necessarily in individual cases), the females who really, really REALLY WANT to place themselves, voluntarily into harm's way should have that chance - IF they can pass and maintain the ability to perform at an established minimal physical standard, which is not gender weighted (which, if the guys can't pass, they are barred as well). If so, by all means, ladies, have as much fun as you're expecting to. But don't ask me to agree with putting other's lives in danger simply for your self esteem issues.
(yet another break)
People should be allowed to engage in legal activities in their off time."
Off time in the military is a completely different concept. The miitary can ban you from going to a perfectly legitimate business if it deems necessary.
LOL, like being on 15 minute recall (bed to safe) 24/7 for 2 weeks at a time to decode nuclear release orders.
The time is now for the good times. We can save money on billets and segregation of troops by letting everybody sleep together. Women can no longer be treated differently. Yep, it's distraction time on the battlefield and we shall see an end to military discipline. Our military forces are now and forever dramatically weakened.
But we are politically correct except that heteros will continue to be called gay-bashers because minorities always can get their way by screaming "discrimination"
There are girly gay men and who define themselves as gay, and then are men who happen to be gay. I doubt the first type will join the military; most of the second type will not hit on their straight colleagues. I am 100% heterosexual and I have been hit on my gays, but not by friends or those I work with and know who came out years later as gay.
I believe it will equivalent to women in the military. Considering the practices of the Greek army of Alexander the Great, unit cohesion did not appear to be a problem.
Jason (the commenter) said...
edutcher: The only people who want women in combat are people like Gloria Steinbrenner and people like William Ayers...
"Everyone who disagrees with me is evil!"
Cute little Alinsky there. But it's interesting how the advocates are either Demos paying off bloc voters, hard core Lefties, and homosexual rights advocates who are pushing an agenda.
I've yet to hear any of them say how this will make a better military.
Even if that were the case, being evil doesn't mean their ideas shouldn't be followed.
This goes along with the "all cultures are equal, just because stone stone people doesn't make us any better" argument.
sunsong said...
six Senate Republicans who voted for repeal (Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (ME) and George Voinovich (OH)) deserve praise.
No, they sold out. As I say, Brown will be challenged anyway, as will the Weird Sisters from Maine.
I'll bet Kirk gets one, too. He's already making little RINO noises.
And yes, Cedar, a vote you can't count on is no damned good.
The comparisons between modern gay people and ancient Greek pederasts must stop.
There are no other "first world" militaries. The U.S. is the only country that can project power around the globe the way we can, that can maintain bombers over foreign airspace on the other side of the planet. No other military on Earth is comparable to the U.S. military in capability, mission or current commitments and deployments. This "other first-world militaries" argument is bogus.
They'll figure out a way to deal with it. It's just a shame that right now, fighting a nasty war on the other side of the globe, military personnel are going to have to deal with this in addition to everything else.
In just the way desegregation waited until after WWII was over, this should have waited in my opinion. However, perhaps they can find a way to slowly implement the new policy stateside first, then rotate it out with intact units that have been organized and trained with the new rules in mind.
Housing, eh. I don't know what they'll do with that. I'd guess they'll leave the prohibition on sexual behavior in place and have gays bunked with straights (barracks housing). That's sure to cause problems though, there will be at least some big trouble with that, the only questions are how much and how are they going to deal with it when it happens.
As far as base housing for married folks, well, the line is awful long for that anyway, and gay couples can live off-base just as easily as straight married couples do now.
Now, as for what I see as a false conflation of 'rights' versus behaviors, with the specific one that seems to be a bone of contention successfully tossed out for the rumble -
Service members still have the right of free speech, but it is, without question, restricted in ways civilians would likely find intolerable. Actually, they are free to say whatever they want, it's just that they are in a position where there is more likelihood of there being a direct and often rapid consequence for exercising it.
The conflation here is one of rights versus behaviors. Most sexual conduct, by both hetero and homosexual service members is already highly regulated. For instance, Google 'General Order #1' for an example. Per GO#1 NOBODY is supposed to be diddling ANYONE (or anything) in a forward operating area where it is in effect. Further, the same rules wrt fraternization vertically within the rank structure still apply. And NO will still mean NO.
It would be nice if the opponents of the repeal would quit acting like we need to re-invent ALL of the wheels using pure unobtainium.
The two primary and immediate benefits to repeal are this - it removes the figurative Sword of Damocles hanging over the gays already in the military, and it takes an actually rather minor but still distractionary issue off the table.
And yeah, I wouldn't mind revisiting this in 5 years to review prognostications. Cause I'm relatively confident that most of the more extreme doom mongering will appear to be paranoid fantasizing.
tw: flxblin - 'an internet comment thread discussing a hot topic of the day that reveals ideological fissures not readily assigned or described by conventional political identification norms'
Now that this issue is wrapped, can we institute a "no socialists in the military" rule? That seems more important, and yet, we don't have it.
Now that this issue is wrapped, can we institute a "no socialists in the military" rule? That seems more important, and yet, we don't have it.
I'd settle for a rule banning silly people who hate guns and the 2nd Amendment.
What an extraordinary week.
- The Obama Tax Increases were defeated.
- The trillion dollar slush fund went down.
- The DREAM is dead.
- And DADT is repealed.
I could have sworn that Republicans would cave on one of the things I opposed, not the only one I supported. How pleasantly unexpected.
Re: DADT repeal...
Please keep in mind that gay men and women have been legally serving in the armed forces for the last 16 years. The repeal of DADT has absolutely nothing to do with that.
The only thing that has changed is that our gay troops are no longer legally required to lie.
DADT always struck me, even at the time, as the worst of both worlds -- letting gay men an women serve in the military as long as they agreed to do so dishonorably.
can we institute a "no socialists in the military" rule?
The military is pretty socialist already.
Somebody already raised the question, but it will be interesting to see whether the Ivy's reverse their stance on ROTC. I'll bet Columbia holds out the longest.
We have discovered what all this fuss is about!
Needless to say, this guy proves that this is part of the Lefties' intent to destroy the US military.
And Fureeman's little quips are sounding pretty desperate.
Mr. Dental,
You think I'm opposed to repeal of DADT?
Maybe somebody's just desperate to argue with me.
It's not like there weren't plenty of gays in the Marines when I was there. Mostly women. The damage they caused was horrendous. Now the Marines will have the same issues on a much broader scale.
The people cheering this on ought to spend a couple of months living in an open squad bay before they pretend to have an informed opinion.
Comparing Hephaestion to a younger, manipulated victim of pederasty is pretty desperate. Or pretty ignorant.
And I guess as a hater of Socialism you must be pretty opposed to those socialist "nation-building" exercises we've committed to in the Middle East over the last decade.
First you must tolerate it.
Next you must accept it.
Eventually is becomes compulsory ....
No socialists in the military = half the generals gone.
Paul and GMay
Paul: "1) This wasn't done mainly to improve the military's effectiveness, but a good case can be made that it does anyway, at least a little. If nothing else, it expands the recruiting pool. I mind a case a few years ago where the Army discharged a few of its already-scarce Arabic interpreters for being gay."
GMay - First, thank you for the thoughtful response.
I see the expansion of the recruiting pool argument comes up from you and someone else. I'll address you both here. Expansion of the recruiting pool as a positive effect on operational capability is negligible.
Counting the 4-6% of the population as gay doesn't mean the recruiting pool is automatically 4-6% larger. A much smaller percentage of that population is only going to be considered as possible candidates for mliitary service.
My own arguments:
1. One part of the argument overlooked is the astronomically higher rates of men having sex with men for HIV and other communicable disease infections. 44 times the rate of straight men and 79 times the rate of females. Gay men comprise 54% of the infected in the USA.
Current military policy is that you cannot recruit HIV positives, and active duty members infected after joining cannot be deployed overseas.
The last thing you want in a foxhole or on patrol is someone who will be bleeding in combat shedding billions of viruses while you are there in proximity with open wounds or abrasions expected to carry them or give 1st Aid or vice versa.
And I was never in the field on an exercise where I didn't get bruises and cuts.
So recruitment would be diminished by the HIV factor alone..unless a policy change put the infected in front line duty.
2. Unlike putting blacks in the military and whites and blacks alike having no choice put to stay and make it work once Drafted into a company...the volunteer military means you do have a choice. And any gains of gays may be lost in a drop of recruiting by guys who don't want any part of a gay-redolent barracks or by parents of women concerned about reports that Ft. Sill or the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier had problems with a coven of NCO bull dykes running the new chickens.
3. The NY Times article on the "tremendous loss" of gay linguists found trolling local AZ high schools for boys is like their hysteria over women becoming members at Augusta Golf Club - warning that the rights of 20 rich women threatened the whole game of golf.
4. As GMay said, the losses of "trained gay heroes" is trivial compared to other things the military boots people out civilians don't realize happen. Half that get out on violating DADT are straights who can't get enough weight on to get out on Fat Boy's Squad rules. The drug testing discharges far more "trained, highly fit heroes".
I just sent a text to one of my honeys asking her to show up at my place in a (low cut) sailor's outfit, ready to take my orders.
In celebration of this instance of divide et impera.
I missed her call an hour ago and it's the best I can do, you see.
Plus, I think she'd look really good in a sailor's suit. And I'm sure she's the type to enjoy dressing up even more than most.
She's also quite the vixen. She's mellowed out in recent years, but still retains the sense of fun that remains at the core of a true vixen.
edutcher - "six Senate Republicans who voted for repeal (Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (ME) and George Voinovich (OH))... sold out. As I say, Brown will be challenged anyway, as will the Weird Sisters from Maine.
I'll bet Kirk gets one, too. He's already making little RINO noises.
And yes, Cedar, a vote you can't count on is no damned good."
================
It is a little sad to see the far right wing that shuns "book larning" for "true believing authenticity" prefers a Democrat that votes against them 100% of the time to a Republican north of the Mason-Dixon line that votes with them 90% of the time.
As right-wingers say, "Math is hard! And Jesus didn't have to "larn it!".
"Better Dems rule and we are Powerless, but Pure!"
Red hair goes quite well with a white sailor suit. Although I'd like to see a removable captain's hat to go with it.
Off to the races!
If you open a book you will lose your integrity on the spot!
And yeah, I wouldn't mind revisiting this in 5 years to review prognostications.
Don't bother. I already know 5 Marines who say they will not re-enlist because of this. If this become the trend, the activists here will simply blame something else, ie. "stretched too thin, illegal war, blah blah blah"
Apparently vixen doesn't mean what I thought it did. Minx must be the word I'm looking for.
The problem with that is I kept hearing people refer to Stumpy McCain's wife as a minx two years ago, but it's clear she's not in the right season of life for that description. Minxes are, it would appear, young and saucy - or at least so says the Urban Dictionary.
Minx hunting season has now opened!
@Freeman: Dental isn't really a socialist-he's a Sullivanist.
First you must tolerate it.
Next you must accept it.
Eventually is becomes compulsory ....
Didn't take long:
A special Defense Department working group appointed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended that the military should “expressly prohibit” heterosexuals from using separate showers, bathrooms and bunking facilities from homosexuals when the repeal of the law banning homosexuals from the military goes into effect.
The working group has also recommended that commanding officers be left with the authority to exempt individuals from using the same showers, bathrooms and living facilities as homosexuals, but only on a “case-by-case” basis.
The House voted earlier this week and the Senate voted this afternoon to repeal the military ban on homosexuals, which has often been referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”...
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2644693/posts
Everyone that has looked at this knows that gays in the military is just a stalking horse for gay marriage and full moral acceptance of gays in society, under force of law.
In a few years, NPR will replace it's endless "Eye on the Prize" black civil rights documentaries with endless female moaning in the background of black spirituals with the gay struggle to join the military and gain access to the Boy Scouts and teach children that trying the gay lifestyle is wonderful, fabulous and worth a try.
I guess the female spiritual moaning will be replaced by flute music, gay icon singers...
==============
As for the military, another way it will be used to sanctify gay marriage is the military will have to pay out. Unlike civilian life, the military strongly incentivizes marriage financially.
And gays or opportunistic straights will pounce on that.
Imagine you are Fred, a straight Marine in Afghanistan and now Percy, the Flamogoyant one is in your outfit now. Percy, you learn - is married to Dirk, a Bear gay in civilian life....gets 280 a month in "family separation pay" for being separated from Dirk. Percy also gives Dirk 800-1600 a month in housing allowance(BAH), family food allowance(BAS), free health care which is grateful Bear homo compensates for by picking up Dirk's car payments and insurance.
Now Fred thinks..what if I say I suck cock and arrange a fake marriage to Steve, my buddy from combat infantry school who hates all the chickenshit of base living, crappy mess hall food, and MP goons tossing his stuff every other month looking for drugs??
We both could get an extra 20 K with no danger of a female bride divorcing either of us and sticking us with 2K in monthly alimony and child support for a kid that isn't ours but you can;t appeal in the military??
Say we are "bisexual" so we can still go after girls as long as we agree no adultery complaints, and the religious right whackos, even if they think we are scamming, will not report us for chasing pussy on the off chance we are gay and trying to become straight through prayer...
(And everyone knows a married soldier or sailor is less likely to draw the really bad overseas assignments as a single military person who costs less to deploy and "puts up with less comfort and money, naturally".
I expect:
1. Gays in the military means Federally sanctioned gay marriage must follow because of pay disparities.
2. It won't take long for the sham marriages to get another 12,000 - 25,000 in pay and benefits starts.
3, It won't take long for civilians stuck with poor, or expensive, or unavailable due to pre-existing health conditions to be out on the avenue leading to and from the base waving money and marriage deals at same sex young soldiers.
4. And this will cost taxpayers plenty extra.
Light years away for me, sometimes straight men didn't take "No" for a "No". You have to make your objections VERY CLEAR. Marines are not wussie.. If a gay man is obtuse he will "pay the "price". I'm sure the marines can handle it.
Wind.rider:
Thanks for providing thoughtful replies to several of my questions.
I think you may be right about no change in billeting policy--but had there been any such change, I think I'm right it would have big consequences--which is probably why they won't do it.
As far as "must tell"--if, down the road, activists begin complaining that gays aren't being promoted fairly, there will be the problem of how the military tracks such things. These are times not of little tweaks regarding such matters, but of a deliberate social revolution--and I have a suspicion we may end up with "must tell."
My question remains about silencing soldiers from expressing moral and religious disapproval of homosexual behavior. I am confident that will happen, caught up in a new policy of sensitivity etc. Pro-gay rights activists will give strong support for such a policy, calling it "hate speech."
If Senate opponents sought to attach amendments that clarified these issues, I missed it. That would have been a smart strategy.
Ready yourselves for gays in thongs racing from the barracks across the parade grounds. Welcome to the San Francisco Folsom Street Fair on our military bases.
Ask. Tell. Discharge.
It increases the pool of available recruits by around 3% and allows the military to redirect resources currently wasted prosecuting homosexual soldiers.
Um, sodomy is not permitted in the military.
Where do you stupid people get these ignorant ideas?
Ann Coulter says that you can't have gays or women in combat because it takes them too long to get ready.
"Really, after the end of DADT, they really need to allow women to serve in combat units."
No.
In order to do that, they'd have to get rid of the different standards for physical fitness that currently exist. If they did that, then the number of women who'd be capable of serving in the military at all would be far smaller.
In other words, opening combat arms to women would close the whole military to that vast majority of women.
My question remains about silencing soldiers from expressing moral and religious disapproval of homosexual behavior. I am confident that will happen...
So what?
There are "behaviors" a thousand times more reprehensible, exploitive and morally unjustifiable than "homosexual behavior", but that doesn't stop much more powerful institutions from preventing anything from being done about that.
What an incredibly distorted set of priorities some people have when it comes to anything touching on human sexuality.
Jason said: "...in your opinion. And that's how I'd expect you to respond to any good idea. All that matters to me is, they were good enough for the military to recommend ending DADT."
You've never served in the military and your opinion means nothing.
Ready yourselves for gays in thongs racing from the barracks across the parade grounds. Welcome to the San Francisco Folsom Street Fair on our military bases.
It's conceivable that that could happen, but only in San Francisco. But since the military (the Navy at least) is no longer there, it won't happen. Still, it's likely to be staged as a fantasy production at least.
Jeez Pollo. Don't tell me you're up for indulging the "morally disgusted" crowd too.
Dental,
Fr. Fox said:
My question remains about silencing soldiers from expressing moral and religious disapproval of homosexual behavior. I am confident that will happen...
His concern is that expressing disapproval of, say, an unmarried hetero couple engaging in premarital sex is just "prudishness" but that same expressing that same disapproval toward a homosexual couple could be considered "hate". (Fr. Fox, please let me know if I misunderstood...)
That's delusional, kim. He mentioned nothing about the great moral supposed quandry of premarital heterosexual sex. Nor is there much widespread disapproval for that, here or in the military, thankfully. But it's when intolerance for gays is at stake that he draws the line. Not surprisingly so. The cover-up and botched handling of a recent global scandal revealed just how willing some people are to get off the hook by conflating truly abhorrent behaviors with, you know, being gay.
But let's continue allowing that crutch to be used. Nothing to see here.
It increases the pool of available recruits by around 3% and allows the military to redirect resources currently wasted prosecuting homosexual soldiers.
====================
A false statistic.
It would be true if there was a draft with no choosing involved and a pure reflection on population demographics.
But it is a situation where you have a volunteer Army and many straights may elect now, or in the future, to not volunteer. Making for a diminished or net negative recruiting consequence.
It could be now, if could be as speech is suppressed to block Christians or Muslims from saying homosexuality is a sin once they join the military, in consequence to favortism scandals or stories of women going on ships where female crew compliments are run by senior NCO bulldykes or reports of several soldiers infected by an HIV+ gay from fluids spread in combat.
What is far more consequential than the great gay rights camapign liberals and gay activists ran (neither group likely to join in any significant numbers)- is loss of high quality and trained soldiers for:
1. Failing Fat Boys squad.
2. Picayune drug positives.
3. Fixing bad Pay policy that puts some of the most valuable soldiers to mission as the lowest paid (Marine combat vets, AF enlisted IT and Navy aviation and nuclear specialists that can quadruple their pay getting out while a similary paid E-4 in the mess hall cooking force or a AF truck driver is incentivized to stay in as making more than a civilian counterpart.
Pay that causes a single soldier to make up to 40% less pay and benefits than a married E or O in the same situation.
This is one of few issues where I have no opinion. It seems to me that it could work, but so many who know better say otherwise. So I guess we'll see.
I do think the living quarters issue is not a small one.
I see that Stormtrooper-Soldat UberKommando Klink Cedarford has no shortage of opinions on the matter.
Nazism is apparently the ultimate in political positioning. You get all the populist economics of the left, with all the nationalism/ethnic cult favortism of the right.
Comparing Hephaestion to a younger, manipulated victim of pederasty is pretty desperate. Or pretty ignorant.
Okay. Good thing I didn't do that.
And I guess as a hater of Socialism you must be pretty opposed to those socialist "nation-building" exercises we've committed to in the Middle East over the last decade.
No.
Spoiling for an argument with me? Why? Given your long, and I do mean long, commenting history, I'd think you wouldn't even need another person for an argument. You rarely do.
You don't have to get defensive about it.
The comparisons between modern gay people and ancient Greek pederasts must stop.
Precisely which ancient Greek "pederasts" do you think were being compared to modern gay people in the context of military policy, if not Alexander's lover?
Glad to know you're not afraid to admit to being a socialist, at least when our imperial projects take place in "other" lands.
As for the rest of it, what's wrong with being open to taking on a good argument? If you'd prefer to just toy creatively with oblique generalizations when it comes to historical troop composition or whatever, just say so. Sorry for making you feel I was laying in wait to bite your head off. I'll try to keep my sharpened fangs more tightly muzzled if it pleases you.
Precisely which ancient Greek "pederasts" do you think were being compared to modern gay people in the context of military policy, if not Alexander's lover?
This:
Considering the practices of the Greek army of Alexander the Great, unit cohesion did not appear to be a problem.
And there was much of the same in another thread. It seems rather insulting to compare the ancient Greek practice of pederasty with the practices of modern gays.
It would be and I apologize if it seems clear to you that the practice of pederasty was indeed the basis of these comparisons.
But I just can't help wondering why pederasty is assumed to be the basis of these comparisons when we are talking about an historical era in which adult male bisexuality was a much more common habit than now. And why the focus would be on pederasty among the rank-and-file when the greatest military leader of all time had an especially affectionate and devoted, lifelong, adult male companion and friend, with whom he was much more intimate and even jealous of than his own wife (all this, again, in a time when bisexuality was such an accepted norm that the logical implication of all this provides the dominant narrative of Alexander's relationship with him), is something I can't understand.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/Harvard_Yale_moving_on_ROTC.html
Harvard and Yale already moving on ROTC, TosaGuy.
-TosaJon
Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...
You don't have to get defensive about it.
The comparisons between modern gay people and ancient Greek pederasts must stop.
Precisely which ancient Greek "pederasts" do you think were being compared to modern gay people in the context of military policy, if not Alexander's lover?
Try again. Al's pal wasn't one of the troops. And the Greeks looked down on those who didn't grow out of that stuff, find a girl, get married, and had kids.
As for unit cohesion, that was based on your relatives and neighbors being on all sides of you. Boyfriends were on the side.
Ritmo made more sense when government was trickling down his leg.
PS Willie Clinton, who told us how he loathed the military, took something that was the purview of military regulation and turned it into law, making it the realm of politicians and judges, which puts us where we are today.
Maybe this was his intent all along. Destroy what he loathes.
Think about it.
This makes me sad.
We need to keep our Gays safe. They're simply too valuable to put at risk in the Military. If they all join the Army who's going to watch "The View" or attend Elton John Concerts or send Liz Taylor birthday cards.
I hope they all don't realize their life's dream of being John Wayne.
the greatest military leader of all time
These comparisons to Alexander are ridiculous. Warfare has evolved in the last 2400 years.
Today, Alexander couldn't lead a fire team, much less an army. And Achilles? The least of my men could kick his ass.
Ritmo,
In ancient Greek culture, the kind of same-sex relationships that were accepted (and often revered) were pederastic. We have extensive evidence of pederasty in the militaries of various city states (as well as in those societies more generally).
What we don't have is a lot of evidence that homosexual relationships as we know them today (romantic relationships between two social equals) were accepted or common.
The evidence that we do have suggests that it was fine for masters to penetrate their students, slaves, or adolescent soldiers, but for an adult male free man to allow himself to be penetrated was shameful in the extreme. (See any one of several of the plays of Aristophanes, although "The Knights" is particularly instructive.)
The relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion is the exception that proves the rule. None of his contemporaries or early historians mentioned a romantic or sexual relationship between the two men. Not one.
To the extent that they talked about this relationship, it was in code (for example, there are a number of cases in which Alexander refused traditional pederastic relationships, even with attractive young boys, on moral grounds).
The Greeks spoke freely about pederasty, and they spoke freely (if negatively) about adult male homosexuality. Yet, when it comes to Alexander the Great, the best they could muster was to speak in code (if that was indeed what they were doing).
If it was so common and accepted, why'd they have to do that? Why is there fairly extensive documentary evidence of pederasty in ancient Greek militaries, but none of adult male homosexuals?
Why were the Thebans praised for pimping out their boy soldiers to other militaries to raise morale, but there is no record of homosexual relationships as we know them today in any ancient Greek military?
You know, all those bigots in the military that hate gays can go take a fucking hike. We don't need them. Gay soldiers can protect our freedoms just fine.
I can see MUL/Ritmo has created a new monikor as though that will help him.
I already know 5 Marines who say they will not re-enlist because of this.
I wish them luck finding other employment in this economy.
Actually, I suspect they are processing the change, and are at the anger part, having passed through denial. Bargaining, depression and acceptance will not be far behind.
rcocean said...
"... who's going to watch "The View" or attend Elton John Concerts or send Liz Taylor birthday cards[?]"
Rush Limbaugh?
Wonderful to see the knuckle-draggers gnash their teeth and rend their garments like the bunch of pussies they've shown themselves to be.
But even more wonderful that this stupid law was finally axed. Perhaps the one good thing the Democrats have done in years, correcting their old mistake.
"And Achilles? The least of my men could kick his ass."
I'd suggest going for the back of his ankle instead of his ass.
Madison: I wish them luck finding other employment in this economy.
Sure you do.
I'd suggest going for the back of his ankle instead of his ass.
Nah. His gods are all dead.
This will not turn out to be a good thing for the military or our national security. But, what the hell, as long as some people can feel good about themselves, right?
I've got two gay friends who are currently on duty in the greater Middle East. I doubt either of them will be coming out anytime soon, but it's wonderful to know that they'll be safe from DADT.
As for the other concerns raised here - that today's vote will somehow erode America's military supremacy, et al - I'm not afraid. My friends are superb soldiers. They've got the commendations to prove it.
And they're both ardent patriots. They love this country. They'd lay down their lives for Father Fox, for GMay, for Chase, and for all their ilk. They'd lay down their lives so that you guys can enjoy the right to bash online.
Something quite beautiful about that. Something quite noble.
Try again. Al's pal wasn't one of the troops.
And Alexandros wasn't? Nowhere in DADT do I find any mention of who the lover is, military or not, just that he is of the same sex.
Get a clue.
I can see MUL/Ritmo has created a new monikor as though that will help him.
And yet you seem to be agreeing with my arguments just fine, bozo.
Perhaps the one good thing the Democrats have done in years, correcting their old mistake.
Slick Willie's deceptive mind notwithstanding, it's likely that we wouldn't have got to this point had he not made the initially untenable bargain.
History is not always as neat and tidy a thing as our more conservative friends want us to believe.
Today, Alexander couldn't lead a fire team, much less an army.
It's the inevitable progression to an army led by joystick commandos, perched on their lazy-boys and trained in the art of warfare by a Sega Genesis.
Not exactly the most proper model of manliness now, this service sector economy.
Interesting who's accusing everybody else of bigotry while sounding like an Alinskyizing Lefty himself.
This will not turn out to be a good thing for the military or our national security.
This country can't even properly tend the graves at Arlington.
Or count the absentee ballots of troops fighting overseas.
And now this. People who don't even know what a MEU-SOC is insist its no big deal.
And people like Palladian are counting coup, as if they've won some great victory.
There will come a day when our countrymen call out to "send in the Marines!" and no one will answer.
We stain our souls with blood so that American's have the luxury of taking Liberty for granted. I think its time that came to an end.
Ahhhh Youngblood: Not missing any of the angles. Alexander's famed egalitarianism and respect at work - even if that involved being a less dominating sexual partner than his peers expected. Merely more evidence for his relationship as an example of the love that dare not speak its name.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time and thought to offer the informed rebuttals.
They told me if I voted for John McCain the Bush tax cuts would be extended and Clinton's DADT would be repealed... AND THEY WERE RIGHT!
that it was fine for masters to penetrate their students
Penetration was condemned, which means some of it was going on. Sex was between the thighs.
Gomorrah's (and that other place) discovery of the prostate was lost for many centuries, apparently.
John McCain endured horrible torture as a soldier. This did make him a great man, and it certainly did not make make him smart.
"There will come a day when our countrymen call out to "send in the Marines!" and no one will answer."
Yes, because apparently (according to you and your ilk) our lily-liver'd, traitorous soldiers so hate the idea that their gay comrades-in-arms won't have to play pretend anymore, that they'd desert their posts and allow the country, their country, to be destroyed by enemies.
Wonderful faith you have in the military and in America, Fen!
"John McCain endured horrible torture as a soldier. This did make him a great man, and it certainly did not make make him smart."
So very true. Hell John Murtha did some great things in the Marines and he was a collapsed lung of a man ever since then.
I wanna be your lover, baby
I wanna be your man
I wanna be your lover, baby
I wanna be your man
Love you like no other, baby
Like no other can
I wanna be your lover, baby
I wanna be your man.
I wanna be your man
I wanna be your man
I wanna be your man
I wanna be your man!
"And they're both ardent patriots. They love this country. They'd lay down their lives for Father Fox, for GMay, for Chase, and for all their ilk. They'd lay down their lives so that you guys can enjoy the right to bash online.
Something quite beautiful about that. Something quite noble."
I applaud their service. but they're no more noble than anyone in the military laying down their life for freedom. They don't get extra points for being gay.
There are a goodly number of gay commenters here. I would be interested to know if within their circle they know of any gays who will join the military because of the end of DADT. I just don't think that there is any large number of gays, exclusive of lesbians, who are interested in a military career. A commenter noted that only 13,000 gays have been discharged in the past sixteen years under DADT, and that a lot of them were gaming the system to get early discharges.....Many professions are self selecting in gender bias. I'm no authority on this, but I just don't see a military career having that much appeal for a gay man....I certainly don't see gays enlisting for the joy of showering with straights. They could just join a gymn.....This is all much ado about nothing. Those gays currently serving will probably remain circumspect. Silence and cunning are the easiest way to negotiate life in a hostile environment. And the overall ambience of military life will remain hostile to gays.
This one's even funnier.
These clips of Ringo are just way too much.
I said:
My question remains about silencing soldiers from expressing moral and religious disapproval of homosexual behavior. I am confident that will happen...
The "Conservatives 4" moby said:
So what?
There are "behaviors" a thousand times more reprehensible, exploitive and morally unjustifiable than "homosexual behavior", but that doesn't stop much more powerful institutions from preventing anything from being done about that.
What an incredibly distorted set of priorities some people have when it comes to anything touching on human sexuality.
My priorities were freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which are clearly not priorities for you--at least not for those you don't approve of.
wv: "equable"
"I certainly don't see gays enlisting for the joy of showering with straights. They could just join a gymn.....This is all much ado about nothing. Those gays currently serving will probably remain circumspect. Silence and cunning are the easiest way to negotiate life in a hostile environment. And the overall ambience of military life will remain hostile to gays."
I suspect you are correct. Most will continue to serve honorably under the radar so to speak, sometimes in order to avoid potential personal problems, but mostly because they know that the needs of the service outweigh their own personal needs.
However, there will be a few who will enter the service not so much to serve but to engage in social engineering. And it only takes a few of these people to cause chaos in any institution.
"I applaud their service. but they're no more noble than anyone in the military laying down their life for freedom. They don't get extra points for being gay."
Gay military personnel don't want any extra points. What they want is to not have points deducted.
Clearly you are not familiar with what freedom of speech entails, then: The freedom to disagree and even to make fun of incredibly shoddily constructed argument - as well as the prejudices behind it.
As for censoring and discarding arguments I don't like, I'll defer to you on how to go about doing that one. I haven't done it once.
"Silence and cunning are the easiest way to negotiate life in a hostile environment. And the overall ambience of military life will remain hostile to gays."
Yes, today's military is straight-as-an-arrow, the most abjectly hostile, anti-gay environment on earth. I pity the poor gay soldiers subjected to this hyper-masculine environment.
Palladian: because apparently (according to you and your ilk) our lily-liver'd, traitorous soldiers so hate the idea that their gay comrades-in-arms won't have to play pretend anymore, that they'd desert their posts and allow the country,
No boy-lover, thats always been your argument, not mine.
Metropolitan John:
My "ilk"? Who are my "ilk"?
If you actually take a close look, I didn't state a position on the issue itself. I asked questions and raised a concern about this being turned into a restriction on service members' religious freedom.
I haven't heard any of the advocates of DADT repeal say they think soldiers who have religious and moral objections to homosexual behavior shouldn't have their religious freedom suppressed. Just crickets. So I'm thinking my prediction was spot on.
FYI "Conservatives 4" -- the reason I didn't address freedom to object to other forms of immorality was it doesn't seem likely to me that gay-rights activists are going to use DADT repeal to take issue with that. In that unlikely event, then I'd have exactly the same concern.
And what's with this weird idea that gay men are some sort of sub-species of human? Gay men are men, contrary to what rabid activists on the right and left might say. The kind of gay man that wants to join the services is the same kind of man as the straight man that wants to join the services. Not all men are suited to military service, whatever their sexual orientation. Those that are, and wish to pursue such a career, will.
I wish all the people who are wringing out their brains trying to justify their bigotry would just be honest and admit that the reason they're against this is because they're bigots. I certainly wouldn't admire them, but I'd at least respect their honesty.
"Yes, today's military is straight-as-an-arrow, the most abjectly hostile, anti-gay environment on earth. I pity the poor gay soldiers subjected to this hyper-masculine environment."
I pity the poor straight solders who do something like this in the future. What is now harmless stress-relief fun will now no doubt been seen as harassment against any over-sensitive gay man in their unit. Great for unit cohesiveness I tell ya.
No boy-lover
For some reason, Fen seems as comfortable conflating homosexuality with pederasty as Colonel "Klink" Cedarford once was.
It's desperate.
BoyLover; I wish all the people who are wringing out their brains trying to justify their bigotry would just be honest and admit that the reason they're against this is because they're bigots.
And after 400 comments on this topic saying the exact opposite, I wish you would just be honest and admit that you can't read.
You've been reduced to playing Al Sharpton, shouting "racist!" at everyone who disagrees with you.
"I haven't heard any of the advocates of DADT repeal say they think soldiers who have religious and moral objections to homosexual behavior shouldn't have their religious freedom suppressed."
Soldiers who have religious and moral objections to classes of people shouldn't have pursued a career in the military in the first place.
What about the rampant, out-of-wedlock straight sex that many, many soldiers participate in? How do all these religious and moral soldiers cope with that reality? As a man of the cloth, you certainly know that everyone is a sinner. Jesus didn't set himself apart from sinners, and certainly us mortals can't either, if we're to leave the house or look in a mirror.
You've been reduced to playing Al Sharpton
In that case, what do we call someone who compares arguments for tolerating gays to tolerating incest?
At least no one called you mother-f*&(er, Fen - and you were the one talking about earlier about sexual feelings being closely associated with parenting.
"For some reason, Fen seems as comfortable conflating homosexuality with pederasty as Colonel "Klink" Cedarford once was.
It's desperate."
Fen is comfortable with all manner of despicable slurs. It's his specialty. Well, that and desperation.
BoyLoverAnd what's with this weird idea that gay men are some sort of sub-species of human?
Something to do with boylovers sucking their own cum out of their lovers ass and being offended when its called an abomination?
[Hint: I'll play fair with you when start doing the same]
BoyLover: Fen is comfortable with all manner of despicable slurs.
...say the Filcher who's tossing out accustations of bigotry with reckless abandon. I'm just your mirror.
And while these sorts of discussions are naturally heated, I have no problem agreeing with someone like Fen when he's right. I'd sit down and have a drink with any person on this thread, and I bet you we'd find some common ground about something and get along. I think it's important not to let the animosity that arises from strong differences of opinion cause us to dehumanize and hate each other.
Important to remember, even when we're hurling rhetorical bombs.
Palladian, the last time we had a discussion re Gay Rights, it was civil, and you convinced me to drop my opposition to gay marriage.
You've lost your way since then.
"Soldiers who have religious and moral objections to classes of people shouldn't have pursued a career in the military in the first place."
Question answered I guess.
"Something to do with boylovers sucking their own cum out of their lovers ass and being offended when its called an abomination?"
Huh, I certainly wouldn't do such an icky thing. Let's not start comparing the despicably of our respective side's most perverse sexual practices, because I've seen things done between men and women that would make even a hardened Marine lose his appetite. There's all manner of depravity out there, and no single group of people has a monopoly on it.
"Palladian, the last time we had a discussion re Gay Rights, it was civil, and you convinced me to drop my opposition to gay marriage.
You've lost your way since then."
Well I must have convinced you that marriage was no business of the States, because I've never advocated State-sanctioned gay marriage, only that marriage is a private, religious and/or personal matter best left to churches and individuals.
I said:
"I haven't heard any of the advocates of DADT repeal say they think soldiers who have religious and moral objections to homosexual behavior shouldn't have their religious freedom suppressed" (emphasis added).
In response to my point, Palladian said:
"Soldiers who have religious and moral objections to classes of people shouldn't have pursued a career in the military in the first place" (emphasis added).
I can tell the difference between the terms "behavior" and "classes of people"--but I didn't know Palladian couldn't.
Palladian could be taken as meaning that all Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe sex outside of marriage is wrong should be excluded from the armed services. Yet with such muddled thinking, it's hard to tell. But if that is what he's saying, then, wow, this new policy will sure do wonders for enlistment numbers!
"What about the rampant, out-of-wedlock straight sex that many, many soldiers participate in? How do all these religious and moral soldiers cope with that reality?"
I'm sure they do fine. And as far as I know, they don't face a "sensitivity" policy--backed by activists--that insists they keep objections to said behavior to themselves. If you are saying that this is how it'll be with openly gay soldiers, then that's good.
"As a man of the cloth, you certainly know that everyone is a sinner. Jesus didn't set himself apart from sinners, and certainly us mortals can't either, if we're to leave the house or look in a mirror."
I'm not advocating setting anyone apart. You're the one who just advocated drumming out large numbers of service members because of their religious views.
"I'm not advocating setting anyone apart. You're the one who just advocated drumming out large numbers of service members because of their religious views."
Father, entering the military means accepting certain realities of military life, such as serving with all kinds of people, the possibility that you'll have to take human lives as part of your duties, the loss of certain freedoms, etc. If a person's religious and/or moral views cannot adapt to or tolerate such conditions, then a career in the military is probably not the career for them. Our military is a volunteer organization.
Palladian said...
"I'm not advocating setting anyone apart. You're the one who just advocated drumming out large numbers of service members because of their religious views."
Father, entering the military means accepting certain realities of military life, such as serving with all kinds of people, the possibility that you'll have to take human lives as part of your duties, the loss of certain freedoms, etc. If a person's religious and/or moral views cannot adapt to or tolerate such conditions, then a career in the military is probably not the career for them. Our military is a volunteer organization.
Palladian:
You're missing my point.
I don't think that service members should be punished by higher ups for expressing their religious beliefs--including that homosexual behavior is sinful. It's a simple idea. Currently they can express those religious views without sanction. I asked whether DADT repeal will change that. It seems a simple question to answer.
When did I say that such service members should be protected from "serving with all kinds of people, the possibility that you'll have to take human lives as part of your duties," etc.?
As far as accepting restrictions on freedoms. Well of course. But then that was the argument for DADT, now, wasn't it? Then it was, how terrible. But when it means Christians who live their faith? Why, they can go elsewhere!
William, I think some gay men join the military because they feel their masculinity is suspect. That may explain why so many Marines are bottoms (so I've been told). That, and the thrill of submission (and prostate massage).
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the name of Frederick the Great in their discussion of great gays in the military. I suppose gays don't want to acknowledge their contribution to Prussian militarism, which I always regarded as kind of poufy anyway....It seems to me that there is a great deal of homoeroticism in the military. All that talk of reaming asses, being the tip of spear, fetishizing spit shined shoes, getting your hair cut just so: it's like some kind of weird bdsm cult. I suppose that's where the homophobia comes from. You can only be that homoerotic in an environment where homosexuality is forbidden.....The hostility that adolescent males feel towards homosexuality comes in large part from insecurity. They have all that libido, and they are afraid they will fall through the trap door and end up God knows where. They want to preclude that possibility. Young men will always be actively hostile to overt homosexuals. For that reason, military service is a poor career choice for someone who is blatantly gay.
There are many things that one can like about McCain, but this is certainly not one of them. To my mind, it is his attitudes, dissembling, and behavior on this kind of thing that made it impossible to support him for president. He is a sadly limited and un-self-aware man.
One more thing--the military is not a private boys club. If a soldier is for whatever reason uncomfortable with a gay brother-in-arms, then TOUGH. Man up and get over it. The military is not your living room and it is not designed for your personal preferences about who you want to work with. It has bigger fisher to fry than your sexual anxieties.
Man up and get over it. The military is not your living room and it is not designed for your personal preferences about who you want to schtup with.
Fixed it for you.
"The military is not your living room and it is not designed for your personal preferences about who you want to schtup with."
Which is exactly what the ban on openly-gay service members, instituted by straight people, was. And that's why DADT was overturned.
In other words, WE WON. haha.
/200th comment
Post a Comment