« Wikileaks, the diplomatic turn | Main | DADT Post closed »

30 November 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nancy K

I would imagine most wives would be worried about women in the military, not gays. Most men will have extra marital affairs with women not other men.

JM

I'm one of those who thinks that sexual preference is *primarily* determined genetically (the way it ultimately gets expressed depends on environment, e.g., culture and society).

So I'm of two minds on this issue: I can appreciate the concerns of those who worry about open homosexuality in the armed forces and its potential impact on the military way of life.

But I also can't support discrimination based on something that I believe you're "born with."

Meanwhile, are the armed forces headed for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI

Tyler

A lot of you have no clue what's going on in your eagerness to slay the military on the altar of "diversity"?

You think a homosexual bringing his boyfriend back to the barracks on a Friday night in an infantry barracks (when most of the barracks is drunk) is going to go smoothly?

If the CQ sees a problem and denies the boyfriend access, he's screwed because he's "discriminating".

If he lets the pair go up and then a fight breaks out (almost guranteed), then he's screwed for letting him in.

Tell me how this report addresses this issue and the thousands of others like it?

highlander

Colonel,

Most of these "dwebs" never served a day in the military. They have no idea of what you are talking about, and don't really care.

Some do understand, but don't care. Because they just consider the military to be nothing more than a slightly distasteful social services project. And if the end result is a loss of of 10 to 20 % of marginal combat effectivness, that's no big deal. Because they damn sure aren't putting on a uniform and going in harms way.

You are absolutely right. Just as the homosexual priests have dealt a devastating loss to the Catholic church. Now, the next institutional casualty will be the US military. It will take about 10 years.

August 9, 378 AD draws ever closer.

Thanks for your service. I'm told by those that know, that you were one hell of Centurian.

Medicine Man

I follow you now. I can understand your worry, as what you are describing is not without precedent.

Clifford Kiracofe

On Log Cabin Republicans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans

"A lawsuit filed by LCR in federal court challenging the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" (DADT) policy, which excludes homosexuals from openly serving in the U. S. military, went to trial on July 13, 2010, presided by Judge Virginia Phillips. LCR argued that the policy violates the rights of homosexual military members to free speech, due process and open association.[39]"

John Minnerath

"This change in the law will create a protected class who will have a great deal of power in the ability to claim violation of the law against just about anyone. Priests had similar power in that they were protected by the hierarchy for many years. In these circumstances people who possess the protected trait are attracted to the institution. Once this change occurs the "self-policing" powers of the US Army will be applied against anyone who objects to the change. pl"

How much clearer does it have to be stated for you who think this outrageous political/social experiment is the correct way to go?

Clifford Kiracofe

On the Mattachine Society:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

Patrick Lang

Highlander

Thank you. pl

Patrick Lang

Nancy K

In the military in the circumstances of isolation that often exist in these (and other) wars the situation is not as unambiguous as you seem to think. Some men still distinguish between roles in homosexual sex. As a junior officer I sat on a number of boards that had the duty of deciding whether or not a "couple" apprehended by the MPs in flagrante should be boarded out of the Army. In every case some of my colleagues always wanted to distinguish between the role of the "top" and the "bottom." I always voted for equal justice. Out. Why? Because it was a violation of UCMJ. pl

Patrick Lang

JM

"who thinks that sexual preference is *primarily* determined genetically (the way it ultimately gets expressed depends on environment, e.g., culture and society"

I would agree with this in part. Some of this is genetically determined probably as a development defect in utero. In women I think this is less clear.

Nevertheless, for me, the issues of combat effectiveness, retention and enlistment have primacy over what some see as "social justice." The military exists to fight for the United States not to be an instrument of social justice.

There is a lot of grand talk from OSD today about how they don't poll the troops about policy and that the military will do what it is told. It is true that the institution will obey but the troops can vote with their feet over the coming years. pl

lina

"Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be.

These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country." [Gen. MacArthur, 12 May 1962]

It is not honorable to make soldiers lie about who/what they are.

Patrick Lang

lina

Macarthur, undoubtedly a strategic genius, but this is the same man who blackmailed FDR into giving him what he wanted in the SW Pacific. He did this with the threat of running against him in 1944. Then he attempted the same thing with Truman, who had guts enough to fire him. So much for Macarthur's notions of DHC. Nobody forces gay people in the military to lie about themselves. Nobody forces them to serve. When we had the draft all you had to do to get out of the military is to tell someone that you were gay. you have the idea that individual rights come before everything. This is nonsense. Individual rights are less important in the military than group rights. if that were not true then we would not order men to their deaths. pl

Laura Wilson

I think you are overly concerned about the wrong things. Married personnel housing...so what, many young people (20-45)socialize with gay/lesbian couples in each other's homes. Try neighborhood potlucks, family gatherings, school socials...it's the new reality and it is normal. Gays/lesbians are human beings. It's the Golden Rule writ large...in the American democratic experiment, IT MATTERS.

Patrick Lang

Laura Wilson

You are just wrong and know and care nothing for the military as a community.

All rights to the individual. To hell with the larger interest. that is the theme of people like you. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad