No, it wasn’t.

It was a criminal, jailing, put behind the bars, drum out of the service offense to commit sodomy during the time I (correctly) tout as “not having a ban.”

It was also a criminal, jailing, put behind the bars, drum out of the service to commit adultery during that time (and it still is). Did that constitute a “ban on heterosexuality?”

The ban on homosexuality is part of a bundle of post-WWII religious conservative social engineering projects.

Not the only one by a damn sight, of course. It was in this period that the words “under God” were inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance (1954) and “In God We Trust” was adopted as the official motto of the United States (1956).

Half a century of historical revisionism doesn’t change the facts. Those who claim that a ban on gays in the military in any way reflects the actual history of the United States are no different than the people who airbrushed Trotsky out of Russian political photos.

No, it wasn’t.

It was a criminal, jailing, put behind the bars, drum out of the service offense to commit sodomy during the time I (correctly) tout as “not having a ban.”

It was also a criminal, jailing, put behind the bars, drum out of the service to commit adultery during that time (and it still is). Did that constitute a “ban on heterosexuality?”

The ban on homosexuality is part of a bundle of post-WWII religious conservative social engineering projects.

Not the only one by a damn sight, of course. It was in this period that the words “under God” were inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance (1954) and “In God We Trust” was adopted as the official motto of the United States (1956).

Half a century of historical revisionism doesn’t change the facts. Those who claim that a ban on gays in the military in any way reflects the actual history of the United States are no different than the people who airbrushed Trotsky out of Russian political photos.

They, too, are people and worthy of all respect.

This thread ain’t about THAT. It’s about allowing them to serve openly in the service.

If we acknowledge that grown-ups have sex and that doing so sometimes causes problems, then why on this green earth do we want to ADD the problems which allowing gays (who also, being grown ups, have sex and attempt to have sex, have unrequited love (with gays and non-gays), have break-ups, etc.) would ADD?

It just seems a foolish choice made for foolish reasons.

Others can differ in their conclusions, of course. But refusal to address the legitimate arguments of opponents doesn’t make them go away.

They, too, are people and worthy of all respect.

This thread ain’t about THAT. It’s about allowing them to serve openly in the service.

If we acknowledge that grown-ups have sex and that doing so sometimes causes problems, then why on this green earth do we want to ADD the problems which allowing gays (who also, being grown ups, have sex and attempt to have sex, have unrequited love (with gays and non-gays), have break-ups, etc.) would ADD?

It just seems a foolish choice made for foolish reasons.

Others can differ in their conclusions, of course. But refusal to address the legitimate arguments of opponents doesn’t make them go away.

It was a criminal, jailing, put behind the bars, drum out of the service offense to be homosexual during the time you tout as “not having a ban.”

There wasn’t a “ban” against most things which were criminal. There wasn’t a need.

They were crimes.

Then applying a “cause and effect” formula to the institution of the ban to our “mixed success” in our wars is a non sequitur of the highest order.

Let’s see. You argue that, somehow, the institution of a “ban on homosexuality in the military,” — something which, even at the time of the outright ban, was a criminal offense — led to our “mixed success” in wars following banning this criminal offense.

Wow. You mean that homosexuals who were found to be homosexuals and could be drummed out of the service and jailed were flocking to the service before the UCMJ was altered to “ban” them? And, that, since they were no longer flocking to the institution which now, in addition to promising to put them in jail after dishonorably discharging them, explicitly told them “you’re not welcome here,” they decided that they would no longer join the U.S. Military and, therefore, WE LOST SOME WARS?

Oh. My. God. Just HOW unserious are you?

I don’t know how widespread rumors about von Steuben’s sexual preferences were.

He wasn’t openly homosexual.

That’s what this thread was about.

I thought you knew that.

It was a criminal, jailing, put behind the bars, drum out of the service offense to be homosexual during the time you tout as “not having a ban.”

There wasn’t a “ban” against most things which were criminal. There wasn’t a need.

They were crimes.

Then applying a “cause and effect” formula to the institution of the ban to our “mixed success” in our wars is a non sequitur of the highest order.

Let’s see. You argue that, somehow, the institution of a “ban on homosexuality in the military,” — something which, even at the time of the outright ban, was a criminal offense — led to our “mixed success” in wars following banning this criminal offense.

Wow. You mean that homosexuals who were found to be homosexuals and could be drummed out of the service and jailed were flocking to the service before the UCMJ was altered to “ban” them? And, that, since they were no longer flocking to the institution which now, in addition to promising to put them in jail after dishonorably discharging them, explicitly told them “you’re not welcome here,” they decided that they would no longer join the U.S. Military and, therefore, WE LOST SOME WARS?

Oh. My. God. Just HOW unserious are you?

I don’t know how widespread rumors about von Steuben’s sexual preferences were.

He wasn’t openly homosexual.

That’s what this thread was about.

I thought you knew that.

I’m Not-Gay and was allowed inside however my Not-Gay friend was denied entrance.

Out of all the political identified groupings, Gaydom is the most exclusive, intolerant, discriminatory, and profiling group out there.”

Really? I’m just curious, how did the gay bouncer know that your other male friend WASN’t GAY?

What is he? Telepathic? LoL. What a flagrant lie. So transparent.

I’m Not-Gay and was allowed inside however my Not-Gay friend was denied entrance.

Out of all the political identified groupings, Gaydom is the most exclusive, intolerant, discriminatory, and profiling group out there.”

Really? I’m just curious, how did the gay bouncer know that your other male friend WASN’t GAY?

What is he? Telepathic? LoL. What a flagrant lie. So transparent.