As bizarre as that is, you are saying that gays shouldn’t be allowed in the military and that the ban should stay in place because men will somehow turn gay around them. So the ban must stay to prevent other men from going gay like your husband allegedly did by being in the military while said ban was in place. So apparently the ban you support didn’t save your husband from the fate of anal stimulation. If the ban didn’t work before why will keeping it mean it will work.

In fact, you argue that if the ban is lifted the result will be no gays in the military because they don’t want to be in the military. So your final argument seems to say that a ban didn’t prevent your husband from having gay sex with women because he was around gay men in the military when they were banned from being there. So the ban must stay but that if it is lifted no gays will join the military.

If you really don’t want gays in the military than, by your own logic, the only way to achieve that is to allow them in the military. Bizarre logic, but then anyone sharing the sexual pleasures of their ex-husband is already a bit on the bizarre side of things.

As elsewhere, there had been dire warnings that esprit d’corps, morale, and operational effectiveness would be compromised by a change in policy; but, as elsewhere, NONE of that happened in Canada.

At first the Canadian Forces did not recognize homosexual marriages or extend partner benefits to homosexual couples. but now Full partner benefits are available to all of Canada’s service members, including compassionate leave and partner entitlement to dental care and health care plans as dependents, among other standard benefits.

Recently a Gay Military Wedding, with both partners in full Military Uniform took place on a Canadian Military Base.

Patriotic gay and straight Canadians are serving and sacrificing in Afghanistan, alongside American troops, getting the job done. Gay service is no longer an issue in Canada — the standard of conduct for homosexuals serving in the Military is EXACTLY same as for heterosexuals.

The most comprehensive academic study of homosexuality in a foreign military ever compiled is titled “Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces; Appraising the Evidence”. and it reflects an exhaustive inventory of relevant data and research.

Key findings:

* Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has NOT led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.
* Self-identified gay, lesbian, and transsexual members of the Canadian Forces contacted for the study describe good working relationships with peers.
* The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment DROPPED 46% AFTER the ban was lifted. While there were several reasons why harassment declined, one factor was that after the ban was lifted women were free to report assaults without fear that they would be accused of being a lesbian.
* Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found NO increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems.
* NONE of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.

There is NO reason for the US Military to continue to ban/discriminate against Gays serving OPENLY.

As for DOMA… well the Australian Defence Force (ADF) offers full same sex partner benefits; and Israel has provided combat death benefits to same sex partners for years; despite the fact that NEITHER country allows same sex marriages to be performed.

The study I mentioned can be found here
http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/study_finds_gays_do_not_undermine_canadian_military_performance

The United Kingdom, Canada, and Israel transitioned to unrestricted open service policies quickly and without problems. ( And the jackass who claims that the Israelis performed poorly against Hezbollah as a result of “Gays” needs to be institutionalized)

Regarding retention & recruitment— —Neither the UK nor the Canadian Military where service is voluntary, have ever suffered ” any difficulties related to recruitment or training completion rates; recruitment levels are characterized as ‘quite buoyant.’”

The Canadian Forces have suffered “no resignations (despite previous threats to quit), and no problems with recruitment”.

Any argument against repealing DADT is without merit and based purely on homophobia and alot of ignorance about gays judging from some of the comments posted here…. and those same bogus arguments against repealing DADT are identical in every manner as those that were voiced when the Military decided to racially integrate.

REPEAL DADT NOW!!

Agreed. What goes unmentioned is that the overwhelming majority of gay servicemembers are known to be gay by their co-workers (yet retain their positions), exercise the good judgement not to engage in inappropriate behavior at the workplace, are competent and hard working, and don’t advocate for special status.
In my experience, those who “out themselves” do so not to avoid “living a lie,” but to unburden themselves of the responsibilities of their military committment.

Ilya Somin: I do not think making any comparisons to any other military is appropriate. We are the only world superpower. We are the standard, not the others.Really, so we have nothing to learn from others’ experience? The US military itself disagrees with you on that point. They devote extensive resources to studying Israeli and British military efforts, among others (e.g. — Israel’s various wars, and Britain’s Falkland Islands and Northern Ireland campaigns). The US and these other countries have similarly structured armed forces and often face similar enemies, using similar weapons and doctrines against them.

Exactly right, Ilya. And given the fact that most of the campaigns you mention occurred before gays were allowed to serve openly, or for that matter the combat exclusion prohibiting women from serving in front line units was lifted, it ought to be incumbent on you to demonstrate that this “progress” has in fact improved things.

It is beyond silly for you to suggest that the Falklands War tells us anything about gays in the military, as that war occurred in the early ’80s and the British military wasn’t forced by a court to accept homosexuals until 1999.

As far as the Israelis go, I am forced to wonder what effect court rulings have had on military efficiency. I am, of course, forced to wonder because such questions can not be entertained in our PC culture. As SMSGT Mac notes, “we do not like to think we have that kind of problem.”

So, WE DON’T!

But the fact is that the IDF did not exactly perform in a stellar fashion against Hezbollah in 2006.

I dutifully note it would be completely unacceptable for me to ask why. There are certain questions that can’t be asked.

But I also note that a military that can not question its sacred cows is doomed to failure at some point. We may do fine against primitive tribes for a while, but that’s not really the point.

I tend to lean toward SMSGT Mac’s position. Not because he influenced me, but because we’ve both ridden herd on the 18 and 19 year olds who populate the military. I do not believe that a law school professorship provides similar insight.

I also acknowledge that my view is not the universal position. Sun Tzu’s Nephew is apparently an AF officer with different expeirience’s. Apparently he is unaware of any occasion when an individual’s homosexual behavior rose to the level that it attracted command attention.

If so, he was serving in a different military than I was. Because I helped process out several gays who did time in prison. Two that immediately spring to mind was a department head in a squadron that slipped date rape drugs into young sailors drinks so he could later drill them, and a CO who was engaged in public sexual frolic after hours at the base shopping mall.

The latter was kind of funny, as the Masters-At-Arms had no idea they had arrested their own CO until they removed the ski mask. All the participants in the public sex effort were wearing ski masks.

There was nothing funny about the other individual.

In any case, it is a complete myth that we lose lot’s of good people because of DADT. The military loses s%^$birds. Only a fraction of a percent of the military is processed out for homosexuality in any single year, and most of those who are out themselves. The others needed to be gone.

What is missing from the conversation, if we can call it that, is the fact that intergrating blacks into the military had a long history. There were, in fact, black units for years. Although segregated. And developing evidence that integrated units performed better than segregated units.

Simply decreeing from on high that sexual orientation is the same as skin color just doesn’t carry the same weight.

No, “merely having sex of any kind with consenting adults” is not sexual misconduct. Breaking curfew, having sex while a student at a service school (DLI) with another student and in government barracks when such behavior is prohibited is sexual misconduct.

“And why exactly were these guys asked about their sexual orientation? Don’t Ask means don’t ask. If they guys didn’t tell anyone about their sexual endeavors, then why is anyone asking at all?” I doubt if they were asked directly if they were gay. They were probably asked to respond to the allegations of the first two that they had been violating curfew and having sex in the barracks.

“This is exactly the type of action that DADT was supposed to end, the searching out and rooting out of any gays. At the very least, the policy is supposed to allow gay people to serve in the military so long as they don’t tell anyone about it. Seeing as how they at least seven of these nine didn’t tell anyone until they were identified by a third party, that’s prima facie evidence of a violation of DADT.”

30 years active duty and I have no direct knowledge of a “rooting out” of gays. And I repeat, the original charge was sexual misconduct relating to having sex in the barracks. Once they admitted to having sex, I’m pretty sure that the investigators were no longer constrained by the “don’t ask” dictates of the DADT policy.

“IT seems that you want to trap gays — find out who the gay ones are, get them to tell on their fellow enlistees, then get them to confess to having sex, and then discharge them.”

Who is this “you” that you speak of? The overwhelming majority of DOD discharges for violation of the DADT policy are of the self-referral “I’m gay and I want out” variety. Even then, most, if not all, of these self-confessed gays are told (if there are no witnesses present) to go back to work and pretend that nothing had been said (The Strategic MC’s preferred method for dealing with self-referrals).

“Why should any translator be discharged merely for being gay?” To be honest, they shouldn’t be, and unless they admit to being gay or are caught in the act, they aren’t. I would suggest, however, that this group shouldn’t have tempted fate by exercising a reckless disregard for the rules. And I’m not even talking about DADT violations. That senior leadership knew that they were engaging in inappropriate behavior (thus leading to the “trap”), says nothing good about either their judgement or their discretion.

The DLI is also a pretty strict and demanding place. All of these linquists were required to hold a top secret security clearance, given the sensitive nature of interpreting voice intercepts and participating in military interrogations. You can lose this clearance for simply having too many traffic tickets or demonstrated financial irresponsibility. Curfew violations and sexual misconduct in a service school environment? Yeah, you can lose a clearance over that.

Chris Travers:
I actually disagree with Longman’s thesis. I think there is are a number of interlocked reasons for the conservative shifts in America today.Contrary to what Longman thinks, I actually think many of the same forces which promoted counterculture in the 1960’s promote religious fundamentalism today. … Certainly parents provide a great deal of influence, but I think Longman overstates that influence.

You misunderstand his thesis, because again you are looking at an instance of an individual’s formative influence… there are always the odd sports ands outliers — What forms a cultural ethos however, are these same evolutionary forces such as Longman’s demographics properly describe (the resulting cultural outlook which he concludes is likely to predominate, he himself does not particularly support, I might add, so you may dismiss confirmation bias in his result).

His point is that development of the ethos is driven by the predominating cultural assumptions of those who predominantly procreate. The rest is math.

Chris Travers:I am a Norse Pagan and think abortion and infanticide should be legal up until 9 days after birth, as Norse legal tradition allowed.

Here is an opportuntiy for what I hope you will take as a gentle lesson. However strongly you feel about its merits, Norse neo-paganism, is not a ethos — not because I can prove it logically wrong, but because it has no living tradition that an individual can look to, experience and on an empirical observational basis engender some trust in him that it has a practical and moral efficacy for guidance in living.

Ethos is by definition not a set of rules but a living tradition. The Amish have a proper ethos. Neo-pagans do not — becasue an ethos is framed by an understanding of what is necessary and accepted to do in a community — REGARLDLESS of one’s personal opinion about it. Neo-pagaism is almost defined by boundless subjectivity — or at least bounds that are not noticeably restraining in many ways.

That is what makes ethical arguments objective arguments — they are the product of a long and broad human devotion of effort at coming to a understanding of something and acting in accordance with that understanding. THAT aspect — a living trust in operative and structural principles of a broadly functional society is what is classically meant by ethos. The forms of ethical argument are in this way objective — as distinct from logical or reasoned arguments, and the third classical form, emotional or pathos arguments.

Pathos arguments classically are ALSO understood objectively, not subjectively, a problem for most moderns who do not typically think about or communicate in feelings in an overtly objective way. Filmmakers do. They must do to be successful — and one can learn much about the objective elements of argument to feeling from watching good movies. Classiaclly this was source of abuse noted in the Sophists who expressly taught people the objective methods of pathos arguments — but ( and this was the scandal) without regard to conforming them to either ethical or logical standards. It is the coincidence of all three that assures one as to the likelihood of truth — and any point supported only by one or two of the three is much more likely to be in serious error.

Chris Travers:Human societies are self-healing in ways that spider webs aren’t.

… but they need not be self-wounding either.

To my mind, opponents of allowing gays to serve openly in the military need to show that the ill effects they predict have actually occurred in these other countries. If they can’t, they should support the idea of allowing the armed forces to choose the best available recruits regardless of sexual orientation.

Uhh, Ilya, how do you propose we opponents go around and gather the evidence?

When these sorts of policies get implemented by advocates at the top of the chain of command, only supportive evidence is allowed.

Contrary evidence is not allowed. Or at the very least, not welcomed. It is potentially career ending to offer it; two cases that bear this out concern LT Hultgren and MAJ Hasan.

In both cases, the obvious fact that either one was likely to get someone killed was intentionally ignored due to diversity goals.

In LT Hultgren’s case, her flight instructors did speak up. But they were shut up by their seniors who had previously decreed that LT Hultgren would graduate to the fleet, no matter what her deficiencies. They didn’t want to hear it. But that was back in the ’90s. By 2009 those lower down had learned better.

What point is there in speaking up about MAJ Hasan’s jihadist tendencies if the only likely result is you getting hung out to dry, not MAJ Hassan?

Again, I can’t emphasize enough how much the Army’s own report on MAJ Hassan’s atrocity illustrates just how much it wants to ignore the problem.

It all comes down to who do you think is an honest broker. And, frankly, I mistrust the establishment.

That is based on 20 years of service, during which I observed just how desperately the establishment wishes to view its diversity initiatives as a success.

G.R. Mead: People make language and social structures like — well, … like spiders make webs… Spider webs are evolutionary artifacts not objects of arbitrary invention — and human languages are the same. Meaning only exists between people needing to transmit meaning to one another — I do not need the word “chair” to know that thing I call a “chair” when I see one. But You and I, between us need the word to indicate what I know and you know , when we see or think of the thing that we call “chair.” So it is not within the power of any one person or even a small group of people to alter the meaning of words or social structures to which they refer at their whim — at least not without disproportionately large and unintended consequences. If I saw the chair up and make a potrack out of it, it certainly has the elements of the chair left in it — but it is nonsense to call it a “chair.”

True (of course this doesn’t apply in the same way to formal institutions’ structures, to formal laws and the like and to truly highly prescriptive languages or dialects, like computer languages or legalese). Of course if we hold this, then as society continues to change (due to normal social forces, etc), as acceptance of homosexuality increases, and as DADT becomes harder to approach, that logic would seem to suggest “we dont have to worry about it. When it becomes necessary then society will find ways of coping.” That’s all well and good.

G.R. Mead: change shape ? She abandons it and builds another one that works pretty much like the original. Read Longman’s article on the actual demographics curve again.

I actually disagree with Longman’s thesis. I think there is are a number of interlocked reasons for the conservative shifts in America today. Contrary to what Longman thinks, I actually think many of the same forces which promoted counterculture in the 1960′s promote religious fundamentalism today. Keep in mind that I left the religion of my parents (Quakerism) for Neopaganism.

People aren’t just social products of their parents. They are social products of drifting languages and cultures as well, and the forces which condemn secular progressive ideologies (except as necessary for a pluralist society) are the same whether one gives up on progress, entertainment, and materialism (as a friend and fellow-Neopagan put it, “American Idolatry”) to become Asatruar, Quaker, or Pentacostal. Certainly parents provide a great deal of influence, but I think Longman overstates that influence.

As you say (and I agree), it’s a nonlinear process.

One important piece of data involves differences between views by younger Americans on abortion vs. homosexuality. What we are seeing is a swing back away from acceptance of abortion but towards greater acceptance of homosexuality. I think this is quite interesting and suggests things are more complex than one might assume just reading the Longman article. I think there are a number of reasons for this but they go beyond what is on topic here.

I personally think this will lead to the end of DOMA and universally accepted gay marriage here in the US. I also think the trends suggest that the view regarding abortion will (unfortunately) lead to eventual criminal penalties on that practice.

(I am a Norse Pagan and think abortion and infanticide should be legal up until 9 days after birth, as Norse legal tradition allowed. And I would also note that pro-choice Lutherans are less likely to actually have abortions in practice than pro-life Catholics.)

The spider web was just a metaphor. Human societies are self-healing in ways that spider webs aren’t. The fact is that when humans build new societies they rarely build it identical to past models (see the US, republican Iceland, and the like). The main point is that this is nonlinear and that changes in one structure don’t necessarily cause decay but instead force a shift in the culture. This is not far from what Karl Marx articulated as the Historical Dialectic, but is very different from how that idea has generally been applied. Indeed changes in one part of the society can cause changes in seemingly distant parts over time as things shift around.

In the end, I suppose nobody knows how the complex forces which work cultural change will transform our culture. The above are my best guesses.

Chris Travers: G. R. Mead:I think the issue is that we are coming at things from opposite angles.I spotted the Kipling reference immediately. However, let’s start by looking at different approaches.One of my major hobbies is studying historical linguistics, Indo-European comparative mythologies, and related topics.

Well that IS ironic. The quote was to Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty:

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master — that’s all.’

Chris Travers:They are in essence a part of a social structure relating to certain ideas regarding sexuality and gender roles.Change one small part, and the whole structure will shift…. This is what I call the “sticky web problem” (you have a sticky spider web,you cut a thread, and the shape of the web changes).

That argument was rational, clear, linear — and completely wrong:

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini, that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
Vinny Gambini: Thank you.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Overruled.

People make language and social structures like — well, … like spiders make webs… Spider webs are evolutionary artifacts not objects of arbitrary invention — and human languages are the same. Meaning only exists between people needing to transmit meaning to one another — I do not need the word “chair” to know that thing I call a “chair” when I see one. But You and I, between us need the word to indicate what I know and you know , when we see or think of the thing that we call “chair.” So it is not within the power of any one person or even a small group of people to alter the meaning of words or social structures to which they refer at their whim — at least not without disproportionately large and unintended consequences. If I saw the chair up and make a potrack out of it, it certainly has the elements of the chair left in it — but it is nonsense to call it a “chair.”

Not even spider webs react to damage in the way you assume… they can withstand a number of the spiral threads being broken without the stress concentrations that might cause them to change shape — If YOU made a web it would do what you suggest, but then you did not evolve to make webs.

Do you know what happens when the spider’s web has too many broken strands, such that it does begin to change shape ? She abandons it and builds another one that works pretty much like the original. Read Longman’s article on the actual demographics curve again.

People do the same thing as spiders do when their evolved survival mechnisma become too bent out of shape. They abandon them and start over. Cities are not the source of civlization — they are its artifacts. So, be very careful what you are clipping and stretching. The end result of the process in real, evolved dynamic systems is not the linear progressions you so trivially assume — but a non-linear discontinuous disjuncture and either extinction of the whole social structure — or a recursion to the root state of that social structure.

Chris Travers:Otherwise I fear we are headed for a train wreck.

You are already in one — I suggest you hold on tight. The web’s gettin’ kinda tattered…

Gay men’s evolutionary advantage: being ‘super uncles’ – http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2523199 via Kittybergers http://ff.im/fvqn6

I don’t agree with the article’s findings which makes the argument that being Gay is a born trait in conflict with the APA findings, but much in line with some of the rhetoric being pushed by our media and is reflected in our culture obviously: Majority supports gays in U.S. military: poll http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2547240 via Kittyburgers http://ff.im/fK759 ,but the study is interesting in that they found that smaller numbers cause acceptance. Differences are always workable when people become intimate with those that are different. We begin to respect each other and our boundaries better then those that are exactly like us.

Fix the issue of living conditions just like was done for women

Can’t speak directly to this, I’m just comparing assertions here, but:

If the statement “inappropriate relationships between different genders result in more courts-martial each year than any other cause” is in fact accurate, then maybe the issue of living arrangments for women doesn’t yet fall into the category “problems that have been solved”?

When we discuss unit cohesion, that’s the baseline we need to compare to – not some idealized magical land where everyone loves each other. It’s time to repeal DADT, which has done far more harm than good since the war on terror started.

I think the issue is that we are coming at things from opposite angles. I spotted the Kipling reference immediately. However, let’s start by looking at different approaches.

One of my major hobbies is studying historical linguistics, Indo-European comparative mythologies, and related topics. These areas tend to be studied from a fairly “structuralist” perspective. In essence the structures are looked at first and only after they are understood are efforts made to understand functional units. This is important because often the structural units, rather than the functional application of those units, are the elements where one can show greatest genetic resemblance. For example there are many places where the structural resemblance between Zeus and Thorr is much more clear than any functional resemblance. The same is even more pronounced between the Gaulish Taranis and the Irish In Dagda despite the fact that there is a very clear genetic link.

Consequently when I look at a problem like DADT, what I see is not a military policy in isolation, but a military policy which is tightly bound to other policies relating to homosexuality in the modern world. DOMA, questions of gay marriage, the demise of sodomy prohibitions outside the military, etc. are all closely bound together. They are in essence a part of a social structure relating to certain ideas regarding sexuality and gender roles. Change one small part, and the whole structure will shift. I firmly think that even with a rise of a new social conservatism, that acceptance of homosexuals in our society will continue to increase. The real divisive issues are likely to be abortion, divorce law, etc. Premarital sex and teenage sex are unlikely to to be major issues either. We may see the pendulum swing slightly back on some of these issues but I don’t think it will go very far.

The problems arise because when one thing changes other things have to shift around to maintain a stable and complete system. As more states legalize gay marriage, pressure to repeal or strike down DOMA will increase.

DOMA, however, strikes me as the one thing which makes DADT a workable policy. As long as same-sex spouses (recognized by the state as such) are not recognized by the federal government, then you can forbid folks to look into state-sanctioned marriage records, etc. But if the federal government ever recognizes the marriages then suddenly you have a huge equal protection problem because DADT would essentially forbid a gay man from taking advantage of certain statutory benefits, and, worse still, a civilian (the same-sex spouse) might have standing to sue over it. This is what I call the “sticky web problem” (you have a sticky spider web, you cut a thread, and the shape of the web changes). Suddenly you have a very good chance that courts will look less favorably on DADT and throw it out.

Culture, a nebulous concept that includes our laws and language as well as material artifacts, isn’t a simple thing. It is always changing and adapting to its own changes. If we are wise, we value stability and work towards achieving it, and avoiding rapid unnecessary change, and we certainly don’t go looking for progress (towards “social justice,” “privatization,” or any other good idea). In the culture wars, each side can be expected to win some battles. The gay rights side will win, I have full confidence based on what I am seeing in actual demographic studies rather than in rhetorical pieces. It is less clear which side the abortion debate will go, on the other hand. Certainly we are not heading back to the 1890′s concepts of sexual morality either.

What I hear you saying is that there are certain functional requirements in the army, and that homosexual relationships between individuals in a unit threaten these. In this I agree with you. I further agree with you that gay men pose a number of challenges that even having straight women in the same unit don’t pose. I further agree that, improperly handled, these could be very problematic for a number of reasons (including a few beyond what you mention).

I am not sure what you expect society to do when Doe v. US Army Corps is filed sometime after DOMA is repealed and Mr Doe argues that DADT is unconstitutional because it prevents his (unnamed) husband from enrolling in survivor benefits with him as a beneficiary. I don’t expect a court to be unsympathetic to such a claim. At very least, it might carve out a huge exception to DADT regarding benefits enrolment. But once that door is opened, I don’t think DADT can survive as a policy.

You seem to think we can cross these bridges when we come to them. I think we should be starting to look at them now so that we are able to address the problems that can arise before there is a major shift in what’s acceptable.

What I would actually propose would be for Congress to authorize pilot programs looking at units and repealing DADT on some units, going one step at a time, rolling this out and developing alternatives as necessary. Otherwise I fear we are headed for a train wreck.

That being said, I think another topic of contention which is only hinted at above is the execution of this policy. Some people want to think that it’s an easy law- we repeal it, feel good and go home. The folks who have to live the military lifestyle know full well that’s not the case. After everyone else has forgotten about it, they have to sit through the mandatory EEO sessions and Sexual Harrassment preventions and a littany of these brilliant PC requirements passed down the Chain of Command by ‘Those in Charge’ and ‘Who Must Know Better’. They will be the people talking about how successful the integration is, just like the IDF and Brits. As previous commenters alluded to, while we can learn from any other militaries experience, just because they did it doesn’t mean we should. We definitely don’t want to emulate the recent Israeli experience in southern Lebanon or the British experience in Basrah.

Chris Travers:
But that’s my point about DOMA.If DOMA is repealed they will be spouses.Then how will DADT work?

Leopards, man. They still have those darned spots. How many reams of statutes must be drafted to change them…?

Obviously, you did not google the quote.

And I still don’t think you have grasped the doubled-edged nature of “irrational” social roles in the face of paper reasoning…

Chris Travers: G R Mead:I do agree that sexual relationships should be veiled.However, if DOMA goes, then you have massive problems regarding married gay couples, survivor benefits, tracking these benefits without violating DADT (a chinese wall around those who process benefits?) etc.I think it would be VERY HARD to keep up a DADT policy of same-sex, married as a matter of public record, could still serve. I think it is likely to cause problems very soon simply because state records of such marriages are public.One could, I suppose, order folks not to look into such records as long as DOMA remains intact, but as soon as one puts one’s same-sex spouse on any piece of legal paperwork, you have problems.Removing DOMA would change the legal structure of same-sex marriages in relationship to the army and would undermine DADT fatally.What’s your alternative?Keep DOMA just because of being afraid of gays serving openly in the military?Think of what would happen for programs like this.

Your argument turns on the word, “If…”
I find this more encouraging

And if it were to occur, then why should not religious people simply refuse civil marriage — better tax benefits anyway — Civil marriage as it stands now under no-fault laws (a Bolshevik legal innovation interestingly) is less enforceable than a contract for bubble gum. Push come to shove, I’ll stick with the “merely” notional “flesh of my flesh, imperil my soul if I be faithless, till death do you part” thing.

Seems more durable somehow — this illegal religious marriage thing …

G.R. Mead: Since they aren’t spouses the question does not arise.Nice folks, good members of the Church and for all I know need to confess less than I do, but not spouses, like I am not horses. Positivism is the modern just-so story — which still cannot make the leopard spotless.“Glory!”By which I mean, of course, “that’s a good knock-down argument for you!” ;->

But that’s my point about DOMA. If DOMA is repealed they will be spouses. Then how will DADT work?

Chris Travers:
Simple.Do same-sex spouses get the same benefits as opposite-sex spouses?

Since they aren’t spouses the question does not arise. Nice folks, good members of the Church and for all I know need to confess less than I do, but not spouses, like I am not horses.

Positivism is the modern just-so story — which still cannot make the leopard spotless.

“Glory!” By which I mean, of course, “that’s a good knock-down argument for you!”

;->

trashhauler writes:

The problem is not (primarily) the uneasiness felt by the non-gay. The problem is that once pairing is allowed (as it will inevitably be), then all the same issues arise that currently occur in mixed gender units. Even with non-fraternazation rules, the existence of couples, real or imagined, will cause more incidents of jealousy, clique-forming, favoritism, and retaliation than is likely to be found in a single sex-oriented unit.

This is an important issue, and can cause corrosive damage. The PC reaction to this is even worse – look at how incompetently our military handles the issue of Muslims. Those who believe that “soldiers take orders and we will order them to behave” are denying human nature.

The issue of women in the military is raised to show how integration of gays should not be a problem – “we did it okay with women, so we should do it with homosexuals.” It rests on a huge lie and a lack of proportion.

The integration of women into almost all units has led to many, many problems, some of which have been described above. In my branch of service, it led to the “USS Pregnant,” a ship which lost its combat ready status due to the pregnancy of too many of the crew. Integration of women still causes a lot of problems.

TailHook was an example of the Navy losing a significant number of highly skilled, expensively trained pilots directly due primarily to the PC changes in the Navy, and it only failed to cripple Navy Air because it coincided with a major need for reduction in force.

Overall, the increase in military discipline/unit cohesion problems is significant (depending on the unit) and the PC approaches to dealing with it are a serious problem.

However, with an all volunteer servicce, there is an overwhelming need to integrate women.The problems caused by integrating women are, it appears, significantly overshadowed by the fact that women constitute 50% of the eligibility pool, and much higher percentages of certain pools.

There seems to be no such need for gays. They constitute a tiny part of the recruiting pool, although in a few specialties they might be critical. In those cases, the problems their integration would bring would be a necessary pric, and DADT is not a bad solution from the military standpoint – gays who obey the rules (and in the military, if you don’t obey the rules, you don’t belong – special operators excepted) and are needed will be used.

Forcing the military to take gays on the same terms it took women, however, is likely a lousy choice. I don’t think the costs come close to justifying the gain (especially in light of the successful use of gays through DADT).

Finally, none of this is to imply that we didn’t and don’t have gays and many women who have and are performing admirably, defending us all and bringing honor to themselves. The problem isn’t the individuals, it is the social situation and human nature.

Sonicfrog:
You’re right. Bullets aren’t fair. Nor are terrorist bombs. They will
kill both straight and gay alike. So both groups should have the inalienable right to fight for our country to defend against those who would kill us — both must combine to combat existential threats.
… And with that, you have just proven the critics of socio-b right on target.

There is the problem right there. Serving in a role involving protective violence isn’t about rights it is about duties — to save the lives of others — not find personal fulfillment. Thus, anyone who wants to serve must be willing to sublimate his or her LIFE to the service of others, and at least while on duty, be willing to undergo any privation in that calling — up to and including death.

Why is this so difficult to get across? And why does sex as an aspect of life (like drinking for us sailors) get a pass on the “Ooh, that’s too hard to give up because it intrudes on my “right to define my own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

I mean, come on. You’ll give up your life– but not the display of what makes your nethers wobbly?

Kalroy:
As a welder, I can state that the female welders I’ve met in that environment are as good as the men.However, I can count that number on my fingers.

Again me being unclear. I should have said “I can count that number on the thumb of one hand, but Cindy was an outstanding welder and worker.”

Kalroy

Tim:
You are claiming that women are the problem, and that men are picking up the slack for them.Then, without data, you are implying that the net result of allowing women to serve has been negative.That is nonsense.

Then I was being unclear. I am stating that allowing women to serve by lowering standards so that they can serve has been negative. It has. When a man (or a woman who meets the same standard as a man) has to load a fifty pound bag of sand into a sandblaster because a woman (and very rarely a man) can’t physcially pick up the fifty pound bag, hump it on their shoulder walk seventy yards and place it in the machine, then you have one person not being productive at their own project, and another person standing around and not being productive while someone else does their job for them.

I know on this we agree, so I think that my thoughts came out muddled in written form (heck, they could be muddled in my head suffering from a surfeit of scotch as I am this evening). It is not that women in the military are necessarily detrimental, it is that it is detrimental because of the implementation of policy.

As to women increasing productivity in the non-union, for profit, workplace this is entirely true. The difference being that the women are usually expected to compete with the men and because of sexism in the workplace often have to do better than the men. As a welder, I can state that the female welders I’ve met in that environment are as good as the men. However, I can count that number on my fingers. That number goes up greatly as the job becomes less physical and goes down as the job becomes more physical.

As to data, mine is entirely from personal experience and based on stories from a large number of others with the same experience as myself. Having spent nine years in the US Air Force as both a Metals Processing Specialist and a Aircraft Metals Technologist (ie welder/heat treater/electroplater and welder/heat treater/machinist) I both seen and experienced the morale drop that comes from having to carry, make up for, cover for, and fix f-ups for a fellow technician who made it through technical school and who is still in the career field because of their sex.

Again the real problem isn’t women in the military, it’s the way that policy was implemented. Thing is, there is no other way that policy was going to be implemented and there is no way that the policy will be corrected. Because of this the men will always have something to gripe about, and the competent women will always have to live with the suspicion that, unless they excel far beyond their male co-workers, most of their co-workers figure they are in their position because of their sex.

Kalroy

Since when is sexual abstinence is more important than winning the war on terrorism? If an Arab linguist wants to screw around with his mates, whether the mate is male or female, who the hell cares? They are taking far more risk than any busybody sitting here in the comfort of their own home.

And why not? If you engage in sexual misconduct, then you should be discharged. Just being gay isn’t sexual misconduct.

” While I used a generic “they” and didn’t provide a 2/7 breakdown, the fact of sexual misconduct remains.

How so? I guess you are assuming that EVERY person who is gay is engaging in sexual misconduct, that simply isn’t true.

Also remember your assertion: “…Because it simply isn’t true.” Actually, it’s way true.
The value-added that I provided (not included in the article) was that the seven had also admitted to sexual misconduct (not just being gay) after having been identified by the other two as participants in the barracks extra-curriculars.

Really? So merely having sex of any kind with consenting adults is ‘sexual misconduct”? Then I guess you would have to discharge the majority of servicemen today. I know of no military regs that require its servicemen to remain celibate during their service if unmarried.

And why exactly were these guys asked about their sexual orientation? Don’t Ask means don’t ask. If they guys didn’t tell anyone about their sexual endeavors, then why is anyone asking at all?

IT seems that you want to trap gays — find out who the gay ones are, get them to tell on their fellow enlistees, then get them to confess to having sex, and then discharge them.

This is exactly the type of action that DADT was supposed to end, the searching out and rooting out of any gays. At the very least, the policy is supposed to allow gay people to serve in the military so long as they don’t tell anyone about it. Seeing as how they at least seven of these nine didn’t tell anyone until they were identified by a third party, that’s prima facie evidence of a violation of DADT.

This is exactly why the policy is such a disaster. Good people thrown out of the military.

And you *still* are avoiding the question: Why should any translator be discharged merely for being gay?

Kalroy:
The question is whether those detrimental effects are outweighed by the benefits, and that question is entirely subjective.

Nonsense. If there’s one thing that economists are good at measuring, it’s productivity. Women entering the US work force have made us more productive and created more wealth than ever before.

I do not agree with allowing women to meet lower standards in military service, either, but I certainly wouldn’t argue it’s because it’s unclear whether they are beneficial to us or not. Of course the women in the military are both hard working and productive. The deeper question should be why we have qualifications for jobs that have both men and women, and yet men must meet a higher standard for the same job. It is a fact that we have kicked males out of the military for failing to make physical fitness standards, and that women serve every day who lack the strength and endurance of men we’ve already kicked out. How we justify that is beyond me, but it definitely happens.

You are claiming that women are the problem, and that men are picking up the slack for them. Then, without data, you are implying that the net result of allowing women to serve has been negative. That is nonsense.

ChrisHo: It would seem that many of the arguments against gays serving in the military were used as reason to not allow women to serve.

Women serving in the military has had a detrimental effect. From the lowering of physical qualifications and expectations, to the lowering of technical qualifications for diversity (remember the first female aviator to die in a carrier landing?). Not to mention the lessening of camaraderie among men, because they were no longer in their exclusive club. As a blue collar craftsman I know that working with another craftsman who happens to be a woman works fine, but working with a woman who happens to be a craftsman (or worse who owes their position entirely to diversity quotas) creates a hostile working environment, slams morale, reduces productivity and quality. The question is whether those detrimental effects are outweighed by the benefits, and that question is entirely subjective.

Also note that most (but not all) of the negative effects are the effect of the lowering of expectations for women when compared to men. Also note that some women can and do meet the physical expectations and that every specialty will be different on this. The more physical specialties (combat, welding, etc)the more pronouced the negative effect of lowered expectations are.

Funny part is that this not caused by the possession of a vagina. It is caused by being forced to cover for, bear the load for, and fix F-ups for someone who was placed in a position they are not qualified for. Placed in that position simply because they have a vagina.

Kalroy

I do agree that sexual relationships should be veiled. However, if DOMA goes, then you have massive problems regarding married gay couples, survivor benefits, tracking these benefits without violating DADT (a chinese wall around those who process benefits?) etc. I think it would be VERY HARD to keep up a DADT policy of same-sex, married as a matter of public record, could still serve. I think it is likely to cause problems very soon simply because state records of such marriages are public. One could, I suppose, order folks not to look into such records as long as DOMA remains intact, but as soon as one puts one’s same-sex spouse on any piece of legal paperwork, you have problems. Removing DOMA would change the legal structure of same-sex marriages in relationship to the army and would undermine DADT fatally.

What’s your alternative? Keep DOMA just because of being afraid of gays serving openly in the military?

Think of what would happen for programs like this.

G.R. Mead: OK, we are moving the bedposts off the battlefield, now? WTH does DOMA have to do with this issue? What does DOMA have to do with a traditional posture toward veiling ALL sexual relations, of whatever stripe, moral or legal claim to legitimacy, from public view, though not out of public concern — negatively or positively ?

Simple.

Do same-sex spouses get the same benefits as opposite-sex spouses? or does DADT mean “no benefits for same-sex spouses?” Or is there an alternative?

How would DADT change if same-sex couples were entitled to the same survivor, etc. benefits as straight couples?

Basically this gets into the sticky web of how one legal change makes things harder to maintain other legal statements.

In essence we are moving from the battlefield here to the HR office and the courtroom with this question….

G.R. Mead: Ah.“The argument is winning support so let’s deny it credibility.”Take out “sociobiology” and put in “hormonal action under common threat.”Bullets aren’t fair.Neither is evolution.Or do you seriously argue/believe that evolution has not equipped the human organism with mechanismsmore basic and overriding that the neocortex when people must combine to combat existential threats?

You’re right. Bullets aren’t fair. Nor are terrorist bombs. They will
kill both straight and gay alike. So both groups should have the inalienable right to fight for our country to defend against those who would kill us – both must combine to combat existential threats.

The emotional appeal of [marriage] is clear — whence the desire of gay couples to possess it. But they do not get the true emotional content invested IN it by those that MADE it, nor the depth of culture associated with it. Instead, they have combined their particular Pathos or feeling with reasoned argument of equality — which almost entirely misses the point of marriage as a social institution. Their sexual nature appears to be different, and so they should (rationally) not expect to enjoy a structure that evolved for a different nature, with a culture and set of emotional bonds all its own. That they have no institution of equal dignity is a complaint, but not one with any weight of either emotional appeal or of cultural weight.

… And with that, you have just proven the critics of socio-b right on target.

I also don’t think that Maj Hasan was a woman.

Did I misquote or misrepresent the article?

I didn’t make a distinction btwn those who were caught in the act and those who admitted their homosexuality. While I used a generic “they” and didn’t provide a 2/7 breakdown, the fact of sexual misconduct remains. Also remember your assertion: “…Because it simply isn’t true.” Actually, it’s way true.
The value-added that I provided (not included in the article) was that the seven had also admitted to sexual misconduct (not just being gay) after having been identified by the other two as participants in the barracks extra-curriculars.

The meme preferred by many is that arab linquists were separated for merely being gay. Not true.

What “if being gay loses its stigma and all the supposed bad effects of that don’t happen.”

Then I probably wouldn’t have as big a problem with it. The real problem is that there is a radical politcal/social agenda attached to the issue. Homosexuality is wrong per se, but so are a lot of things. I cringe at the thought of San Francisco style gay marine pride parades. I can’t imagine how we would instill fear in our enemies that way.