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.
Comments
91 Responses to “Poll Question: Gays in the Military”
THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD
This spot rotates to honor those who link us in shameless obedience to Rule 2 of "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog."
HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!
Search
Recent Posts
- Ukraine: Donbas Battles Intensify
- Rule 5 Sunday: Anya Forger
- FMJRA 2.0: Mirage
- ‘HORRIFIC’ MASS SHOOTING
- Ukraine’s Victory in the Battle of Kharkiv
- In The Mailbox: 05.13.22
- In The Mailbox: 05.12.22 (Evening Edition)
- Amber Heard and the Man-Haters Club
- In The Mailbox: 05.12.22 (Morning Edition)
- Ukraine Wipes Out Russian Battalion at Attempted Pontoon River Crossing
Click here to manage your email subscription options.
RSS reader subscription
MEMEORANDUM
Recent Comments
- News of the Week (January 30th, 2022) | The Political Hat on Mass Formation Psychosis: What Is It and Why Is Everybody Talking About It Now?
- News of the Week (January 30th, 2022) | The Political Hat on Yes, Black Lives Matters Was a Scam
- Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup - Pirate's Cove » Pirate's Cove on In The Mailbox: 01.28.22
- Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup - Pirate's Cove » Pirate's Cove on Rule 5 Sunday: Yvette Mimieux, RIP
- Sunday Linkage « Bacon Time !!!!!! on A Death in New Jersey
THE AMAZING GONZO FEED
Blog-Fu Ninja Masters
ADVERTISEMENT
Axis of Fedorables
- All-American Girl for the Restoration of Values
- Allergic to Bull
- Cat House Chat
- Chris Cassone
- Conservative Daily News
- DaTechguy
- Fishersville Mike
- Girl on the Right
- Haemet
- Just A Conservative Girl
- Little Miss Attila
- Marooned in Marin
- Paco Enterprises
- So It Goes In Shreveport
- SWAC Girl
- The (Perhaps Slightly Less) Lonely Conservative
- The Camp of the Saints
- The World's Youngest Blogger
- Uncoverage
- VA Right
AMAZING SAVINGS NOW!
Archives
- May 2022 (38)
- April 2022 (57)
- March 2022 (79)
- February 2022 (65)
- January 2022 (58)
- December 2021 (62)
- November 2021 (68)
- October 2021 (73)
- September 2021 (63)
- August 2021 (60)
- July 2021 (80)
- June 2021 (64)
- May 2021 (64)
- April 2021 (58)
- March 2021 (73)
- February 2021 (57)
- January 2021 (71)
- December 2020 (77)
- November 2020 (81)
- October 2020 (84)
- September 2020 (94)
- August 2020 (75)
- July 2020 (68)
- June 2020 (83)
- May 2020 (77)
- April 2020 (65)
- March 2020 (85)
- February 2020 (94)
- January 2020 (95)
- December 2019 (88)
- November 2019 (60)
- October 2019 (113)
- September 2019 (92)
- August 2019 (91)
- July 2019 (88)
- June 2019 (80)
- May 2019 (74)
- April 2019 (97)
- March 2019 (100)
- February 2019 (85)
- January 2019 (93)
- December 2018 (90)
- November 2018 (83)
- October 2018 (96)
- September 2018 (79)
- August 2018 (107)
- July 2018 (98)
- June 2018 (86)
- May 2018 (78)
- April 2018 (78)
- March 2018 (97)
- February 2018 (61)
- January 2018 (70)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (68)
- October 2017 (67)
- September 2017 (70)
- August 2017 (68)
- July 2017 (52)
- June 2017 (60)
- May 2017 (56)
- April 2017 (80)
- March 2017 (80)
- February 2017 (102)
- January 2017 (104)
- December 2016 (65)
- November 2016 (86)
- October 2016 (77)
- September 2016 (81)
- August 2016 (66)
- July 2016 (83)
- June 2016 (81)
- May 2016 (65)
- April 2016 (64)
- March 2016 (81)
- February 2016 (74)
- January 2016 (66)
- December 2015 (64)
- November 2015 (85)
- October 2015 (71)
- September 2015 (80)
- August 2015 (67)
- July 2015 (79)
- June 2015 (69)
- May 2015 (72)
- April 2015 (94)
- March 2015 (122)
- February 2015 (71)
- January 2015 (93)
- December 2014 (99)
- November 2014 (67)
- October 2014 (109)
- September 2014 (87)
- August 2014 (106)
- July 2014 (132)
- June 2014 (154)
- May 2014 (126)
- April 2014 (145)
- March 2014 (144)
- February 2014 (142)
- January 2014 (185)
- December 2013 (192)
- November 2013 (174)
- October 2013 (175)
- September 2013 (181)
- August 2013 (172)
- July 2013 (147)
- June 2013 (135)
- May 2013 (128)
- April 2013 (105)
- March 2013 (162)
- February 2013 (191)
- January 2013 (206)
- December 2012 (190)
- November 2012 (176)
- October 2012 (240)
- September 2012 (206)
- August 2012 (235)
- July 2012 (223)
- June 2012 (161)
- May 2012 (230)
- April 2012 (269)
- March 2012 (282)
- February 2012 (247)
- January 2012 (267)
- December 2011 (285)
- November 2011 (300)
- October 2011 (302)
- September 2011 (297)
- August 2011 (288)
- July 2011 (297)
- June 2011 (245)
- May 2011 (260)
- April 2011 (344)
- March 2011 (293)
- February 2011 (201)
- January 2011 (263)
- December 2010 (265)
- November 2010 (266)
- October 2010 (305)
- September 2010 (280)
- August 2010 (272)
- July 2010 (230)
- June 2010 (244)
- May 2010 (256)
- April 2010 (222)
- March 2010 (271)
- February 2010 (286)
- January 2010 (229)
- December 2009 (21)
- October 2009 (1)
Wombat's Wizards of Blog
SHAMELESS CAPITALISM
The Other McCain is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for this blog to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Can't Get Enough of That Hot Bloggy Stuff
- All-American Blogger
- American Glob
- American Power
- Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
- Athens & Jerusalem
- Barney Quick
- Bartholomew's Notes On Religion
- BatesLine
- Bear Creek Ledger
- Bearsears Patriots
- Blog de KingShamus
- Blueshelled
- Bride of Rove
- Cold Fury
- Dr. Helen
- Dustbury
- Five Feet of Fury
- I Own The World
- Legal Insurrection
- Little Miss Attila
- No Runny Eggs
- Obi`s Sister
- Piece of Work in Progress
- Pirates Cove
- Rhetorican
- The Conservatory
- The Sundries Shack
- VodkaPundit
- Zilla of the Resistance
Blogroll
- 90 Miles From Tyranny
- A Conservative Shemale
- AmSpec Blog
- Bad Blue
- Caffeinated Thoughts
- Calvin Freiburger Online
- Carol's Closet
- Cassy Fiano
- Catholic Bandita
- Catholic Tide
- Caught Him With A Corndog
- Cecil Calvert
- Charles G. Hill
- Clever S. Logan
- Common Cents
- Common Cents
- Conservative Girl With a Voice
- Conservative Hideout
- Conservative Watch News
- Conservatives for America
- Conservatives For Palin
- Crazy For Liberty
- Creative Minority Report
- Crush Liberalism
- Cubachi
- Cynthia Yockey
- Dad 29
- Daria DiGiovanni
- Dateline Zero
- DC Damsel
- Dr. Flap
- Dyspepsia Generation
- Effing Conservatives
- Election Dissection
- Ennui Pundit
- Eric Reasons, IT Genius
- Evil Blogger Lady
- Eye of Polyphemus
- Fausta's Blog
- Finding Ponies. . .
- Fire Andrea Mitchell
- For What It's Worth
- Founding Bloggers
- Free Will
- Funny and Jewish
- Gay Patriot
- Get Along Home
- GM's Place
- Grandpa John's
- Granite Grok
- Granny Rant
- GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
- Hit & Run
- Hoosier Access
- Hot Air Green Room
- Hugh Hewitt
- Ignorant Me
- Inside Charm City
- Is This Blog On?
- Jackie Wellfonder
- John William Perry
- Judicial Watch
- Jumping in Pools
- Katy's Conservative Corner
- KillTruck
- KURU Lounge
- Laughing Conservative
- Laura Elizabeth Morales
- Lead and Gold
- Lee Hernly
- Libertarian Republican
- Liberty Pundits
- Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
- Live Action
- Maj. Steven Givler
- Makes My Brain Itch
- Marathon Pundit
- Martin Eisenstadt's Blog
- Media Fade
- Michael Leahy
- Mind Numbed Robot
- Mister Pterodactyl
- Monique Stuart
- Morally Right
- My Blog
- My Thoughts on Freedom
- Naked Villainy
- Nathan Martin
- Never Yet Melted
- Newsreal Blog
- Nice Deb
- noot's observatory
- Not One Red Cent
- NOVA Townhall
- Ollieander
- Ordered Liberty
- Outside the Beltway
- Pierre Legrand's Pink Flamingo Bar
- Pileus
- Pinup Girl
- PJ Tatler
- Point of a Gun
- Political Clown Parade
- Political Pit Bull
- Politicaljunkie Mom
- Primordial Slack
- Public Secrets
- Pundit and Pundette
- Reaganite Republican Resistance
- Red Alexandria
- Red Dog Report
- Red State Eclectic
- Red, White & Conservative
- Republican Redefined
- ResCon1
- Rhymes With Right
- Ric's Rulez
- Ricochet
- Right of Course
- Right Pundits
- Right Turns Only
- Right View From the Left Coast
- Right Wing News
- Right Wing Nut House
- Robipedia
- Robomonkey
- Ruby Slippers Blog
- Saberpoint
- Scared Monkeys
- Sentry Journal
- Serr8d's Cutting Edge
- SI VIS PACEM
- Sissy 'put moi in your blogroll' Willis
- Skepticrats
- Smash Mouth Politics
- Sooper Mexican
- Southern Maryland Online
- Soylent Green
- St. Blogustine
- Stacy on the Right
- Story Balloon
- Suzy Rice
- Taking Hayek Seriously
- Tel-Chai Nation
- Tequila & Javalinas
- That Mr. Guy
- The Aged P
- The American Catholic
- The Anchoress
- The Blogmocracy
- The Busted Nut
- The Classic Liberal
- The Daily Conservative
- The Daily Ramble
- The Daley Gator
- The Essex Blog
- The Frugal Cafe
- The Hay Ride
- The Indentured Servant Girl
- The Izzy Report
- The Jawa Report
- The Last Tradition
- The Looking Spoon
- The Minority Leader
- The Minority Report
- The NeoSexist
- The Nose on Your Face
- The Political Commentator
- The Prudence Paine Papers
- The Real Mike
- The Republican Mother
- The Right Sphere
- The Saint Angilbert Press
- The Snark Factor
- The Snooper Report
- The Tiger on Politics
- The Underground Conservative
- The View From LL2
- The Washington Rebel
- Three Beers Later
- Threedonia
- Thunder Tales
- Tigerhawk
- Tom McLaughlin
- Tory Anarchist
- TrogloPundit
- Ui2 — Informed Dissent
- Urban Grounds
- Valley of the Shadow
- Vets On The Watch
- Vox Day
- Watcher of Weasels
- Western Experience
- Wintery Knight
- Word Around the Net
- World's Only Rational Man
- WyBlog
- Yankee Phil
- Zingstrom's Blog
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 […]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?