Poll Question: Gays in the Military

Posted on | February 11, 2010 | 91 Comments

“A new CBS News/ New York Times poll finds that the wording of the question is key when it comes to determining whether Americans support allowing gays to serve in the military.”
— Kevin Hechtkopf, CBS News

Q. How would you feel if you turned on the TV and saw a Navy admiral flouncing down Castro Street in full uniform in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, right next to Dykes On Bikes and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

I doubt CBS and the New York Times would phrase the question that way, but that’s what the proposal to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” boils down to. Of course, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is problematic in its own right: If a soldier is deployed to a combat zone and wants to go home, all he has to do is say, “I’m gay!”

All of this, you understand, is a result of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign promise to gay-rights radicals, even though sodomy is still defined as a court-martial offense under Article 125 in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Colin Powell and Sen. Sam Nunn forced Clinton to accept the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise, but to the radicals, all compromises are merely temporary ceasefires, a prelude to further aggression.

The gay-rights crowd won’t be satisfied until homosexuality is compulsory, with penalties for non-participants.

Category: Gays

Comments

91 Responses to “Poll Question: Gays in the Military”

Guest
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:43 pm

” People who feel threatened by gays.”

Not threatened, just sick and tired of the antiquated, highly-sexist and misogynistic Female-Facing Minstrel Shows.
Guest
February 12th, 2010 @ 7:43 am

” People who feel threatened by gays.”

Not threatened, just sick and tired of the antiquated, highly-sexist and misogynistic Female-Facing Minstrel Shows.
blaster
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:52 pm

DADT is not about gays in the military. This is the elephant in the room.

The gays in the Army crowd insist that there are tens of thousands of homosexuals already in the service. So it isn’t like if you are gay you cannot serve your country with honor.

The point of overturning DADT is to refashion marriage in a non-democratic way. DADT is based on the finding that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Once that is gone, then the lawsuits will begin to treat same-sex partners in the same way as married partners. Either there is a “domestic partnership” which will then cause problems/lawsuits about unmarried different sex partners, or there will be a Federally recognized marriage so that all the other rules don’t have to be changed.

Personally I don’t care about homosexuals being in the military (and I DO have a dog in hte fight, I am a West Pont graduate) and I think that gays should marry – why should they be exempt from suffering? – but I believe strongly that those changes should ONLY come about through democratic processes.

Repealing DADT may just be a “shout out” from President Obama to one of his constituencies, but it wouldn’t be the first time that he hasn’t fully thought through the extent of his policies. Of course, there is always the option that the upending of the social construct through non-democratic means was his intent to begin with.
blaster
February 12th, 2010 @ 7:52 am

DADT is not about gays in the military. This is the elephant in the room.

The gays in the Army crowd insist that there are tens of thousands of homosexuals already in the service. So it isn’t like if you are gay you cannot serve your country with honor.

The point of overturning DADT is to refashion marriage in a non-democratic way. DADT is based on the finding that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Once that is gone, then the lawsuits will begin to treat same-sex partners in the same way as married partners. Either there is a “domestic partnership” which will then cause problems/lawsuits about unmarried different sex partners, or there will be a Federally recognized marriage so that all the other rules don’t have to be changed.

Personally I don’t care about homosexuals being in the military (and I DO have a dog in hte fight, I am a West Pont graduate) and I think that gays should marry – why should they be exempt from suffering? – but I believe strongly that those changes should ONLY come about through democratic processes.

Repealing DADT may just be a “shout out” from President Obama to one of his constituencies, but it wouldn’t be the first time that he hasn’t fully thought through the extent of his policies. Of course, there is always the option that the upending of the social construct through non-democratic means was his intent to begin with.
Guitanguran
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

Y4e sez:

“Conservatives are more disturbed than I thought.”

“…your prejudices trump reason.”

“…Conservatives antiquated attitudes?”

And then y4e actually asks a question:

“Are you proposing that allowing our servicemen and women to be who they are without fear of recrimination will hurt morale?”

What they signed up for (as volunteers) was to BE servicemen and women,and nothing else. If a candidate for service feels like “being who they are” is more important than their duty, they have no business joining.
Guitanguran
February 12th, 2010 @ 7:58 am

Y4e sez:

“Conservatives are more disturbed than I thought.”

“…your prejudices trump reason.”

“…Conservatives antiquated attitudes?”

And then y4e actually asks a question:

“Are you proposing that allowing our servicemen and women to be who they are without fear of recrimination will hurt morale?”

What they signed up for (as volunteers) was to BE servicemen and women,and nothing else. If a candidate for service feels like “being who they are” is more important than their duty, they have no business joining.
Huey
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:49 pm

Recognizing the predictable outcome of allowing gays to openly serve in the military isn’t “homophobic.” It’s a recognition of reality.

Looking at the lesser military forces around the world and determining that any rush to “be like them” is a rush in the wrong direction isn’t a blow to national security. It’s an effort to maintain our current level of unparalleled dominance in that area.

Leftists, in this as in all other areas of thought, consider all opposing opinions to be invalid and all who hold opposing opinions to be evil.

Thankfully, the time for this kind of blackmail is rapidly disappearing.
Huey
February 12th, 2010 @ 8:49 am

Recognizing the predictable outcome of allowing gays to openly serve in the military isn’t “homophobic.” It’s a recognition of reality.

Looking at the lesser military forces around the world and determining that any rush to “be like them” is a rush in the wrong direction isn’t a blow to national security. It’s an effort to maintain our current level of unparalleled dominance in that area.

Leftists, in this as in all other areas of thought, consider all opposing opinions to be invalid and all who hold opposing opinions to be evil.

Thankfully, the time for this kind of blackmail is rapidly disappearing.
Thomas L. Knapp
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

“If a candidate for service feels like ‘being who they are’ is more important than their duty, they have no business joining.”

Absolutely.

And if a candidate for service feels like “being sure that everyone else is just like me” is more important than their duty, ditto.

A “candidate for service’s” sexual orientation is irrelevant. Either he/she is qualified to contribute to mission accomplishment, or he/she isn’t. Either he/she chooses and commits to the duty, or he/she doesn’t.

The idea that a “candidate for service” is somehow entitled to serve only with those of an age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, race, hair color, music preference, etc., that the candidate is “comfortable” with is psychobabble social engineering horseshit.

Supporters of “don’t ask, don’t tell” or any other policy designed to bar individuals from the military on ANY basis other than their ability to get the job done are demanding that their personal prejudices trump the national defense. They are, in two words, anti-American and un-patriotic.
Thomas L. Knapp
February 12th, 2010 @ 8:54 am

“If a candidate for service feels like ‘being who they are’ is more important than their duty, they have no business joining.”

Absolutely.

And if a candidate for service feels like “being sure that everyone else is just like me” is more important than their duty, ditto.

A “candidate for service’s” sexual orientation is irrelevant. Either he/she is qualified to contribute to mission accomplishment, or he/she isn’t. Either he/she chooses and commits to the duty, or he/she doesn’t.

The idea that a “candidate for service” is somehow entitled to serve only with those of an age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, race, hair color, music preference, etc., that the candidate is “comfortable” with is psychobabble social engineering horseshit.

Supporters of “don’t ask, don’t tell” or any other policy designed to bar individuals from the military on ANY basis other than their ability to get the job done are demanding that their personal prejudices trump the national defense. They are, in two words, anti-American and un-patriotic.
Huey
February 12th, 2010 @ 3:33 pm

Knapp: Sigh. There are many factors which make a service member suitable for service which are beyond the narrow confines you set forth (i.e., “ability to get the job done”). Many people have the “ability to get the job done” but have other characteristics which render them incompatible with mission parameters, whether in the military or private life.

The effect a person has on others plays an important part in how well the GROUP does its job, regardless whether the INDIVIDUAL is imminently qualified to “get the job done.” Refusal to take this into account is myopic beyond reason.

Further, the simple dynamics of potential romances while deployed (or attempted romances or failed romances) cannot be ignored. Common human experience informs us that keeping the genders separated to the degree possible, especially in intimate circumstance, prevents even GREATER outbreak of these inevitable conflicts than routinely occur between heterosexuals. ADDING the same issues between homosexuals and homosexual/heterosexual rejection — especially when it is NOT accompanied by physical segregation — is simply foolish. The fact that other countries have followed a foolish path is no warrant for us to do so.

Will it cause a breakdown of our military to abandon this policy? No. Neither would a complete rejection of gays in the military. Would it cause our military to be unable to fulfill its mission objectives? No. Our service members are professionals. But, neither would getting excluding gays from military service cause our military to be unable to fulfill its mission objectives.

So, attempting to frame the debate in terms of how it will affect our national security is simply absurd. Every argument which is advanced can be answered with: “Yes. But, the same is true if you exclude gays from the military altogether — WITHOUT the problems allowing them to serve causes.”
Huey
February 12th, 2010 @ 10:33 am

Knapp: Sigh. There are many factors which make a service member suitable for service which are beyond the narrow confines you set forth (i.e., “ability to get the job done”). Many people have the “ability to get the job done” but have other characteristics which render them incompatible with mission parameters, whether in the military or private life.

The effect a person has on others plays an important part in how well the GROUP does its job, regardless whether the INDIVIDUAL is imminently qualified to “get the job done.” Refusal to take this into account is myopic beyond reason.

Further, the simple dynamics of potential romances while deployed (or attempted romances or failed romances) cannot be ignored. Common human experience informs us that keeping the genders separated to the degree possible, especially in intimate circumstance, prevents even GREATER outbreak of these inevitable conflicts than routinely occur between heterosexuals. ADDING the same issues between homosexuals and homosexual/heterosexual rejection — especially when it is NOT accompanied by physical segregation — is simply foolish. The fact that other countries have followed a foolish path is no warrant for us to do so.

Will it cause a breakdown of our military to abandon this policy? No. Neither would a complete rejection of gays in the military. Would it cause our military to be unable to fulfill its mission objectives? No. Our service members are professionals. But, neither would getting excluding gays from military service cause our military to be unable to fulfill its mission objectives.

So, attempting to frame the debate in terms of how it will affect our national security is simply absurd. Every argument which is advanced can be answered with: “Yes. But, the same is true if you exclude gays from the military altogether — WITHOUT the problems allowing them to serve causes.”
Davod
February 12th, 2010 @ 11:02 pm

“Every other NATO military has integrated gays with minimal issues.”

How do you know there are minimal issues. Maybe this is another situation where complaining is a career kiler.
Davod
February 12th, 2010 @ 6:02 pm

“Every other NATO military has integrated gays with minimal issues.”

How do you know there are minimal issues. Maybe this is another situation where complaining is a career kiler.
Thomas L. Knapp
February 12th, 2010 @ 11:20 pm

Huey,

You write: “Yes. But, the same is true if you exclude gays from the military altogether — WITHOUT the problems allowing them to serve causes.”

If there was any evidence at all that “allowing them to serve” causes any problems, you might have a point.

Feel free to present any such evidence. I’ve been looking for, or at least open to, such evidence for more than 20 years now (I started looking for that evidence as a junior Marine infantry NCO when I received a “rumor mill” communication to the effect that one of my best troops might be gay) and haven’t found it yet.
Thomas L. Knapp
February 12th, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

Huey,

You write: “Yes. But, the same is true if you exclude gays from the military altogether — WITHOUT the problems allowing them to serve causes.”

If there was any evidence at all that “allowing them to serve” causes any problems, you might have a point.

Feel free to present any such evidence. I’ve been looking for, or at least open to, such evidence for more than 20 years now (I started looking for that evidence as a junior Marine infantry NCO when I received a “rumor mill” communication to the effect that one of my best troops might be gay) and haven’t found it yet.
Huey
February 12th, 2010 @ 11:36 pm

Whether it “will” cause problems, is moot. We won’t know until and unless the change is implemented.

This is the reason for a rejection of social experimentation in the military.

I listed many reasons for not allowing gays to openly serve. You may disagree with my conclusions, but you can’t say that they aren’t rational objections.

When alternative life-styles are mainstreamed, you have predictable results:

If you don’t think that having openly gay people serve with heterosexuals, especially in intimate circumstance, won’t cause problems, then I can’t convince you otherwise.

When being “gay” was socially unacceptable, it was even less acceptable for there to be same sex sexual harassment. Now that being “gay” is socially acceptable, the predictable result is that there will be a rise in same sex sexual harassment. Being “gay” doesn’t prevent one from being willing to use positions of power for sexual favors.

http://www.tesh.com/ittrium/visit?path=A1x97x1y1xa5x1x76y1x2449x1x9by1x244ex1y5x1cbddx5x1

If you think that it’s a good idea to ADD problems to the military, beyond those it already has, then, that’s your decision. I choose otherwise.
Huey
February 12th, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

Whether it “will” cause problems, is moot. We won’t know until and unless the change is implemented.

This is the reason for a rejection of social experimentation in the military.

I listed many reasons for not allowing gays to openly serve. You may disagree with my conclusions, but you can’t say that they aren’t rational objections.

When alternative life-styles are mainstreamed, you have predictable results:

If you don’t think that having openly gay people serve with heterosexuals, especially in intimate circumstance, won’t cause problems, then I can’t convince you otherwise.

When being “gay” was socially unacceptable, it was even less acceptable for there to be same sex sexual harassment. Now that being “gay” is socially acceptable, the predictable result is that there will be a rise in same sex sexual harassment. Being “gay” doesn’t prevent one from being willing to use positions of power for sexual favors.

http://www.tesh.com/ittrium/visit?path=A1x97x1y1xa5x1x76y1x2449x1x9by1x244ex1y5x1cbddx5x1

If you think that it’s a good idea to ADD problems to the military, beyond those it already has, then, that’s your decision. I choose otherwise.
Thomas L. Knapp
February 13th, 2010 @ 2:03 am

“Whether it ‘will’ cause problems, is moot. We won’t know until and unless the change is implemented.”

“We won’t know?” Au contraire. We already do know.

The US won the Revolution, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II without a policy barring homosexuals from military service.

Since implementing that policy, the US hasn’t declared war, but its undeclared engagements have been very mixed — a draw in Korea, a loss in Vietnam, victories in Grenada, Panama and Kuwait, losses in Somalia, Iraq and probably Afghanistan.
Thomas L. Knapp
February 12th, 2010 @ 9:03 pm

“Whether it ‘will’ cause problems, is moot. We won’t know until and unless the change is implemented.”

“We won’t know?” Au contraire. We already do know.

The US won the Revolution, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II without a policy barring homosexuals from military service.

Since implementing that policy, the US hasn’t declared war, but its undeclared engagements have been very mixed — a draw in Korea, a loss in Vietnam, victories in Grenada, Panama and Kuwait, losses in Somalia, Iraq and probably Afghanistan.
Huey
February 13th, 2010 @ 2:33 am

Thomas: If you think a comparison of homosexuals in the service 200 years ago when an openly gay person would be subject to severe sanction by his peers and superiors, spat upon by society at large, never given command if his sexual preferences were known — to openly gay soldiers TODAY, you are completely unserious about this discussion.
Huey
February 12th, 2010 @ 9:33 pm

Thomas: If you think a comparison of homosexuals in the service 200 years ago when an openly gay person would be subject to severe sanction by his peers and superiors, spat upon by society at large, never given command if his sexual preferences were known — to openly gay soldiers TODAY, you are completely unserious about this discussion.
The guys at The Other McCain have been good to me « A Conservative Shemale
February 12th, 2010 @ 11:23 pm

[…] second post I found disturbing was Poll Question: Gays in the Military. First the question itself is insulting – Q. How would you feel if you turned on the TV and saw a […]
Thomas L. Knapp
February 13th, 2010 @ 9:31 am

“Thomas: If you think a comparison of homosexuals in the service 200 years ago when an openly gay person would be subject to severe sanction by his peers and superiors, spat upon by society at large, never given command if his sexual preferences were known — to openly gay soldiers TODAY, you are completely unserious about this discussion.”

I’m actually thinking not of 200 years ago, but of 235 years ago, whena gay man taught the Continental Army how to be an army and saved the American Revolution. He was subsequently promoted to Inspector General of the army, made an American citizen by act of Congress, and had a holiday named for him.

But please, don’t let actual history get in the way of your post-Azusa-Street-Revival ponderings on how history must have actually played out because you wish that’s how it actually was.
Thomas L. Knapp
February 13th, 2010 @ 4:31 am

“Thomas: If you think a comparison of homosexuals in the service 200 years ago when an openly gay person would be subject to severe sanction by his peers and superiors, spat upon by society at large, never given command if his sexual preferences were known — to openly gay soldiers TODAY, you are completely unserious about this discussion.”

I’m actually thinking not of 200 years ago, but of 235 years ago, whena gay man taught the Continental Army how to be an army and saved the American Revolution. He was subsequently promoted to Inspector General of the army, made an American citizen by act of Congress, and had a holiday named for him.

But please, don’t let actual history get in the way of your post-Azusa-Street-Revival ponderings on how history must have actually played out because you wish that’s how it actually was.
Huey
February 13th, 2010 @ 5:32 pm

Thomas: Really. You really attempt to equate the example of a Prussian officer who sold his services to the U.S. to establish that U.S. mores of the time would accept him as an OPENLY GAY soldier?

Really?

This guy?

“In 1776, Steuben’s career at Hohenzollern-Hechigen ended in scandal: he was alleged to be a homosexual and was accused of improper sexual behavior with young boys.[2] Whether or not Steuben was actually a homosexual is not known, but the rumors compelled him to seek employment elsewhere.[2] Steuben tried employment in several foreign armies including Austria, Baden, and France.”

You did read the part where his career ENDED because of his alleged homosexual conduct, right? And where he tried, but failed, to find employment elsewhere? And, where his homosexuality was never established?

Um…how, EXACTLY is that instructive of how OPENLY GAY soldiers were treated 200 years ago — you know — the SUBJECT OF THIS DEBATE?

He may or may not have been “gay.” He certainly, at no point, OUTED HIMSELF. He, at no point, served as OPENLY gay, as such would subject himself to dishonorable discharge, and, if circumstances warranted, he could have been IMPRISONED.

Again. Just unserious, man.
Huey
February 13th, 2010 @ 12:32 pm

Thomas: Really. You really attempt to equate the example of a Prussian officer who sold his services to the U.S. to establish that U.S. mores of the time would accept him as an OPENLY GAY soldier?

Really?

This guy?

“In 1776, Steuben’s career at Hohenzollern-Hechigen ended in scandal: he was alleged to be a homosexual and was accused of improper sexual behavior with young boys.[2] Whether or not Steuben was actually a homosexual is not known, but the rumors compelled him to seek employment elsewhere.[2] Steuben tried employment in several foreign armies including Austria, Baden, and France.”

You did read the part where his career ENDED because of his alleged homosexual conduct, right? And where he tried, but failed, to find employment elsewhere? And, where his homosexuality was never established?

Um…how, EXACTLY is that instructive of how OPENLY GAY soldiers were treated 200 years ago — you know — the SUBJECT OF THIS DEBATE?

He may or may not have been “gay.” He certainly, at no point, OUTED HIMSELF. He, at no point, served as OPENLY gay, as such would subject himself to dishonorable discharge, and, if circumstances warranted, he could have been IMPRISONED.

Again. Just unserious, man.
Huey
February 13th, 2010 @ 5:35 pm

Oops. When I said his career “ended,” that was his career BEFORE he sold his services to the U.S. where he served with great distinction and played an important role in the successful prosecution of the war.

Had he been “openly gay,” he would not have served such an important role. He kept his private life private — as was the custom of the time.
Huey
February 13th, 2010 @ 12:35 pm

Oops. When I said his career “ended,” that was his career BEFORE he sold his services to the U.S. where he served with great distinction and played an important role in the successful prosecution of the war.

Had he been “openly gay,” he would not have served such an important role. He kept his private life private — as was the custom of the time.
Thomas L. Knapp
February 13th, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

Huey,

I’m not the one who demanded a comparison of “homosexuals in the military 200 years ago … to openly gay soldiers today.” You are. If you wanted the “openly gay 200 years ago” factor in there, you should have specified it instead of omitting it.

“Baron” von Steuben was not openly gay, but he was WIDELY BELIEVED to be gay. That cost him his job in Germany, but in America he was commissioned as an officer in the Continental Army, promoted to Inspector General, made an American citizen by act of Congress, and honored with a holiday in his name. QED, evidence is lacking for prejudice against homosexuals in the military which you assert existed 200+ years ago.

The US military’s ban on homosexuals dates from the post-WWII period. We managed to do without any such ban for ~170 years while emerging clearly victorious from every major conflict we engaged in except one (the War of 1812).

The burden of proof for the necessity of a regulation which covers a period of general degradation of the nation’s military capacity should be on those who support that regulation, not on those who support the environment that covered 170 years of military glory.
Thomas L. Knapp
February 13th, 2010 @ 6:07 pm

Huey,

I’m not the one who demanded a comparison of “homosexuals in the military 200 years ago … to openly gay soldiers today.” You are. If you wanted the “openly gay 200 years ago” factor in there, you should have specified it instead of omitting it.

“Baron” von Steuben was not openly gay, but he was WIDELY BELIEVED to be gay. That cost him his job in Germany, but in America he was commissioned as an officer in the Continental Army, promoted to Inspector General, made an American citizen by act of Congress, and honored with a holiday in his name. QED, evidence is lacking for prejudice against homosexuals in the military which you assert existed 200+ years ago.

The US military’s ban on homosexuals dates from the post-WWII period. We managed to do without any such ban for ~170 years while emerging clearly victorious from every major conflict we engaged in except one (the War of 1812).

The burden of proof for the necessity of a regulation which covers a period of general degradation of the nation’s military capacity should be on those who support that regulation, not on those who support the environment that covered 170 years of military glory.
Tom
February 13th, 2010 @ 11:49 pm

“My GAY male friend, my Not-Gay male friend and I, a Not-Gay female went clubbing one night in NYC. Upon arrive to the club, the Gay female doorperson immediately denied entrance to my Not-Gay male friend but allowed my Gay male friend and I, a Not-Gay female entrance.

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.
Tom
February 13th, 2010 @ 6:49 pm

“My GAY male friend, my Not-Gay male friend and I, a Not-Gay female went clubbing one night in NYC. Upon arrive to the club, the Gay female doorperson immediately denied entrance to my Not-Gay male friend but allowed my Gay male friend and I, a Not-Gay female entrance.

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.
Huey
February 14th, 2010 @ 1:40 am

Thomas: Unserious. Completely, totally, unserious.

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.
Huey
February 13th, 2010 @ 8:40 pm

Thomas: Unserious. Completely, totally, unserious.

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.
Huey
February 14th, 2010 @ 1:53 am

Thomas: There are legitimate reasons to deny gays military service which have nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of individual gays. Individually, gays are as worthy of any in society.

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.
Huey
February 13th, 2010 @ 8:53 pm

Thomas: There are legitimate reasons to deny gays military service which have nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of individual gays. Individually, gays are as worthy of any in society.

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.
Thomas L. Knapp
February 14th, 2010 @ 4:17 am

“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.'”

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.
Thomas L. Knapp
February 13th, 2010 @ 11:17 pm

“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.'”

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.
frank carter
March 20th, 2010 @ 11:11 am

I was in the military for 4 years…gays overall is a problem you will always have your exceptions…even between man and woman there is always problems…even in the military they are always getting pregnant, in the police dept they have problems between the sexes…you can minimize the problem just keep it the same it was before, it worked, why mess a good thing. If the Jews are happy with the gays in their units, so be it…we don’t know all they do at night when they sleep together!!! easy and handy sex?
frank carter
March 20th, 2010 @ 6:11 am

I was in the military for 4 years…gays overall is a problem you will always have your exceptions…even between man and woman there is always problems…even in the military they are always getting pregnant, in the police dept they have problems between the sexes…you can minimize the problem just keep it the same it was before, it worked, why mess a good thing. If the Jews are happy with the gays in their units, so be it…we don’t know all they do at night when they sleep together!!! easy and handy sex?