The Pentagon has now released its 256-page report on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, called formally the “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” I won’t hide the ball. After reviewing tens of thousands of questionnaires and polling data from active duty service members, interviewing military leaders, analyzing past studies on the policy, and consulting the experience of foreign militaries, the Report concludes that DADT could be repealed with “low” risk of negative effects on the military. There is a fairly comprehensive “Executive Summary” at the beginning of the Report for you executives out there who don’t have the time or inclination to read the entire thing. And for the really high-flying execs, here’s the key paragraph in the Exective Summary:
Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the prompt implementation of the recommendations we offer below, the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low. We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting, and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below. Longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to core values of leadership, professionalism,and respect for all, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history.
I found intriguing one particular part of the report. The expansive survey of active duty personnel revealed that about 50-55% predicted repeal of DADT would have either no or mixed effect on the military; another 15-20% thought it would have a positive effect; and 30% believed it would have a negative effect (the negative group was highest in the Marine Corps, 40-60%, depending on the unit). At the same time, 69% of personnel said they had actually served with a gay person. Of these 92% said the unit’s ability to work together was either very good, good, or neither good nor bad. Of greatest potential concern was the greater anxiety of personnel in active combat units when asked about serving with openly gay people. But the survey shows that while problems are expected a priori in these units, they rarely arise in real life.
For example, when those in the overall military were asked about the experience of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, 92% stated that their unit’s ‘ability to work together,’ was ‘very good,’ ‘good’ or ‘neither good nor poor.’ Meanwhile, in response to the same question, the percentage is 89% for those in Army combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages. (emphasis added)
This is a common phenomenon is public policy disputes about homosexuality. Huge and catastrophic consequences are predicted almost any time some affirmative measure is proposed, like ending the ban on federal service, granting security clearances, eliminating sodomy laws, passing hate-crimes or antidiscrimination laws, and so on. Yet the apocalypse never comes. A few initial grumbles are heard, but these quickly subside and life goes on pretty much as before, except that a new group of people has had legal and stigmatic burdens lifted from them. The same dynamic is at work today on the issue of same-sex marriage. Pre-SSM, much doom and gloom is expected; post SSM, calm and ordinariness break out. (For example, 92% of Iowans polled in the November election reported that SSM had no effect on their own lives.)
And this hysterical form of argument has worked remarkably well, at least until today, on the issue of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve their country honorably in the military. Now, for the first time, we have a formal conclusion from the Defense Department itself, backed up by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that it does not need DADT to run an effective fighting force. As one special operations fighter told the Committee, “We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.” It’s now up to the U.S. Senate to end a misbegotten policy that has produced needless misery and expense, and that outlived its usefulness the day it was born.
ptt says:
When you’re looking at either end of the spectrum on any of the questions, keep in mind that 70% of those asked to take the survey failed to even bother to respond. That’s a big, fat bump to the “don’t care” middle of the road.
November 30, 2010, 5:56 pmAlaska Jack says:
To say members of my unit were skeptical about the survey is an understatement.
We received the survey letter mailed to our homes. When you opened the letter, the first thing you saw was a unique code you had to type in to access the survey.
I can tell you for a FACT that many people took one look at that and pitched the letter.
Anecdotally, these were disproportionately people who opposed the repeal of DADT. Sample reasoning:
* I can see the way the political winds are blowing on this.
* They can trace this ID number back to my home address
* I have absolutely nothing to gain by filling this out
* If this information is leaked or released, it could damage my career
= crumple crumple, toss
I don’t care about the results that much one way or another. I just wish more of the public understood that the survey and subsequent leaks were a giant piece of propaganda from the beginning.
– Alaska Jack
November 30, 2010, 6:01 pmMike P. says:
Did they actually ask if the person being polled supports repeal or not?
The thing about public policy is that catastrophic consequences are usually predicted about all sorts of policies: invading Iraq (or not doing so), not ‘fixing’ health care (or passing Obamacare), not passing TARP (or passing TARP), etc. Even when everyone agrees on what the consequences of the policy have been, folks of different political persuasions have different views on whether or not these consequences are good. This is why many poltical disputes are intractable.
As for Iowa, I don’t know where you got that figure, but I think the judicial retention vote clearly shows that most Iowans have a different standard for judging policy than ‘did it personally impact me.’
November 30, 2010, 6:02 pmAndyK says:
The experiences in the many militaristic societies show that homosexuals are not necessarily a problem, and in many cases are an asset to operations.
As we saw, for example, in Nazi Germany, anti-homosexual laws and actions were not opposed to homosexuality per se, but against “effete” homosexuality and insubordination. The macho elements in homosexual culture, the master-subordinate mentality that SUPPORTS the military structure, and so forth, were actually lauded at the highest levels of Nazi Germany.
And look at Sparta too.
So I would say that homosexuality is not opposed to the military project, and is in many respects essential to militarism. Whether it has a healthy relationship to a functioning *civilian* military is another question, however.
November 30, 2010, 6:05 pmChrisTS says:
This is good news. We can now expect to see lots of backpedalling and moving the goalposts: “True, they are not as upset as we predicted, but, but, some of them are sort of, still,…”
November 30, 2010, 6:07 pmLarryA says:
Too bad the “gloom and doom” predictions can’t be tracked and referenced. As in “You folks have made 42 G&Ds and your VPA (Valid Prognostication Average) is 0.000.”
November 30, 2010, 6:07 pmAlaska Jack says:
Followup -
Dale, you write:
“Meanwhile, in response to the same question, the percentage is 89% for those in Army combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages.”
I guess when poll numbers come back SO FAR IN EXCESS of expectations and real-world experience, your understandable reaction (in light of your feelings about this issue) is to say: “See!! The front-line guys LOVE the idea of gays in their units!!”
Some of the rest of us might have a different reaction: That, given the well-known difficulty of unbiased polling, Occam’s Razor suggests there was something wrong with the poll; either in the questions, the process, or both.
– AJ
November 30, 2010, 6:13 pmTrue Progressive says:
But the survey shows that while problems are expected a priori in these units, they rarely arise in real life.
That reality exists in the current state where open homosexuality is not permissible. It is not clear that such “problems” will remain rare if you remove that prohibition. Obviously, the reverse isn’t clear (or even likely) either, but I think you’re getting ahead of where the facts clearly support your argument.
As far as ptt’s claim regarding the 70% figure- his conclusion does not follow at all. We would need a lot more information to make any such claim regarding the various reasons for a FTR. My sense is in accordance with Alaska Jack, but without additional info, it’s tough to form a reasonable conclusion.
November 30, 2010, 6:14 pmKilpatrick says:
The key paragraph from the executive summary quoted above is written in godawful English. It should read something like:
Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that the risk of repeal, when coupled with the prompt implementation of the recommendations we offer below, of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low. We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we believe that this disruption will not be widespread or long-lasting, but that it can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below. We are convinced that, longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to core values of leadership, professionalism,and respect for all, the U.S. military can adjust for and accommodate this change, just as it has others in its history.
November 30, 2010, 6:16 pmAnon21 says:
Now we get to see if Obama’s political calculation that the cover provided by a favorable DoD assessment would be worth the delay. I can’t say I’m optimistic, but I do have hope.
November 30, 2010, 6:17 pmNo Comment says:
They should simply be required to fill out the form.
Crumple, crumple toss = Leavenworth for a few years.
Simple as that.
Problem solved.
November 30, 2010, 6:19 pmSeattle Law Student says:
AlaskaJack – at the time the poll was introduced supporters of DADT repeal felt that the wording was designed to reach the opposite conclusion.
November 30, 2010, 6:21 pmMike P. says:
What are we to make of the fact that the report says only 15% of gay/lesbian troops would want ‘everyone in their platoon to know’ that they are gay/lesbian (if DADT is repealed)?
November 30, 2010, 6:28 pmChrisTS says:
Alaska Jack:
How is Ockham’s Razor relevant, here? Is imagining problems in the poll a way of eliminating unnecessary theoretical entities? I don’t think so.
In fact, to reason from (a)’here are the results’ to (c)’there must be something wrong with the poll’ is an affront to the principle of parsimony. Unless, of course, we add the missing premise: (b) And I don’t like thes results. But Ockham would never have accepted such a premise.
November 30, 2010, 6:29 pmChrisTS says:
November 30, 2010, 6:30 pmWind Rider says:
While AlaskaJack may be correct about a paranoia level from some over the methodology of the survey, I’d be more inclined to chalk it up to the “don’t really care” factor, and the non-mandatory nature of completing “yet another” form or survey to explain the non-participation.
The disparity between preference for no gays despite a dearth of negative experience in actual situations tracks, as well. Anecdotal, but it was my experience over 24 years that the only time this, which more than a few in the military see as simply a distractionary issue, became a real problem was the realization by someone adamantly opposed to homosexuality suddenly realized that one of their co-workers was gay, and having a fit about it.
This makes me think that’s part of the reason for the survey, which I initially considered to be a “slow roll” by the Administration and the Pentagon Leadership to avoid the problem, was actually a ‘temperature check’ of the institutional homophobia, with the concern being over the backlash from those opposed, not the potential behavior of the gay servicemembers.
Since the institutional reaction seems to be a slightly exaggerated shrug. . .press ahead, and get rid of DADT, and the prohibition.
November 30, 2010, 6:41 pmByung Kyu Park says:
@AndyK
“And look at Sparta too.”
I’m surprised that you left out the famous Sacred Band of Thebes.
I wasn’t aware Sparta had an explicitly homosexual regiment (although I realize the movie “300″ gave, ah hem, wrong impressions).
November 30, 2010, 6:41 pmSviluppo says:
Coming out of the closet is still a personal thing. Some gay people are ready for it, some aren’t. If I prefer brunettes over blondes I don’t see how it’s the business of my coworkers or my employer. I’m assuming those individuals simply don’t want to live under the constant threat of getting fired. Which is sort of the ridiculous part–that you can be gay, married and have kids but be forbidden from talking about them with your colleagues.
But there’s a curious logical flaw here: with that particular question, doesn’t that mean that the Pentagon did, in fact “Ask”?
November 30, 2010, 6:42 pmHoward says:
Yes, and you can add every major environmental law or regulation. But the reason political disputes are intractable is not that people have different views of whether the results are good. It’s that they hide those differences behind dispute over the facts, and often do their best to scare the bejeezus out of people (see under “death panels” and “government takeover”).
BTW, did Harry Truman do a survey before he integrated the armed forces? I imagine not, and I doubt it would have looked as positive as this.
Like ChrisTS, I find that I appear in the preview as Anonymous. And what did happen to the buttons? The fun of actually writing html gets old very quickly.
November 30, 2010, 6:46 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
What now is the logical basis for maintaining gender segregation in the military?
November 30, 2010, 6:48 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
“Huge and catastrophic consequences are predicted almost any time some affirmative measure is proposed…”
Notice the lack of examples.
November 30, 2010, 6:53 pmStillman Brown says:
I must say, “The Apocalypse Never Comes” would be a great gay porn title.
November 30, 2010, 6:53 pmAndyK says:
@ Byung Kyu Park
I’m just noting the well-documented correlation between homosexuality and militarism. I don’t think Nazi Germany had an explicitly homosexual regiment either.
The Wikipedia article that you post is interesting, noting the age difference inherent in the couples– there was an older man and a protegee– the subordinate and the dominant.
It’s a testament to our American doublethink that we even CARE to poll servicemen and servicewomen in what is otherwise an authoritarian institution.
@anonymous
“What now is the logical basis for maintaining gender segregation in the military?”
I assume the justification would be the same as DADT, psychological cohesiveness (including concern by men for women on the battlefield limiting the mens’ effectiveness) and doubts of the machismo of women. Plus the added pregnancy issue and possibly respect for privacy of women (and the desire to keep mens’ minds pure).
November 30, 2010, 6:55 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
You don’t really think that’s analogous, right?
You don’t really think that’s analogous, right?
November 30, 2010, 6:55 pmKatahdin says:
FWIW, my off the cuff explanation was ‘it seems there aren’t any homophobes in foxholes’. IIRC, racial problems in Vietnam tended to be in rear echelon units, not line units, for similar reasons.
Risking your life with people seems to develop bonds that transcend petty prejudice.
November 30, 2010, 6:56 pmChrisTS says:
Howard:
That you ever find it fun at all worries me. :-)
November 30, 2010, 6:57 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
So both will/should end now?
November 30, 2010, 6:57 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Is the gender segregation in the military also “petty prejudice”?
November 30, 2010, 6:59 pmSteve says:
Who, exactly, opposes “gender segregation in the military”? DADT is not about segregation, it is about kicking people out.
November 30, 2010, 7:05 pmtorrentprime says:
Gates addressed this (straw man frequently cited by repeal opponents) in the first 10 minutes of his remarks. I haven’t located a transcript yet, but he dismissed that idea by reminding the audience that the military is not a democracy, and the US military doesn’t poll its members on whether or not any given policy should be changed.
November 30, 2010, 7:06 pmI Callahan says:
I’d like to know what percentage of officers or paper-pushers felt it as a positive, vs. those who are on the front lines. Also, I would believe an actual servicemember over a bunch of attorneys as to whether skipped surveys mean either servicemembers don’t care, or care but don’t want to be singled out.
There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking by the author of this post and most commenters. Sorry, but I’m not buying this.
November 30, 2010, 7:07 pmChrisTS says:
AndyK:
noting the age difference inherent in the couples– there was an older man and a protegee– the subordinate and the dominant.
The idea was that the older lover would mentor the younger beloved. Because of the – to us very odd – relations between young males and their fathers in ancient Greece, the older man was supposed to train his younger lover in virtue.
There may have been a dominance aspect to it in many cases, but the underlying notion was that men could only truly love, as equals, other men – given the inferiority of women. This notion of equality was at the heart of the norms [often violated] about approved kinds of sexual activity. Penetration reduced the beloved to the role of a female; thus, it was considered less than ideal.
In battle, the relationship was considered to be highly effective: neither man would desert the other, and they would fight ferociously in defending each other.
November 30, 2010, 7:07 pmrpt says:
Are you saying they passed on the opportunity to express their opinion? How does one account for that?
November 30, 2010, 7:10 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
So openly gay service members will be segregated the same way females are segregated?
November 30, 2010, 7:10 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Fear of retribution? A feeling their objections won’t change anything, won’t really be taken into account?
November 30, 2010, 7:13 pmAlaska Jack says:
That’s pretty much my point. You already consider the military’s current policy to be “petty prejudice.” Therefore, you are likely to see confirmation in the startingly one-sided poll numbers.
Someone who ascribes the current policy to something other than “petty prejudice” might wonder about the poll.
I’d love to see a solid scholarly critique of the poll. Has one been done? I’m far, far from an expert, but I wonder if (in light of my own experience) one would even be possible. How would you account for selection bias? Asking all recipients if they took the poll, and if not, why?
– AJ
November 30, 2010, 7:15 pmSteve says:
If you can’t see any difference between these two situations, there is little hope for you. The fact that gender segregation is utterly noncontroversial should have been a big hint.
November 30, 2010, 7:15 pmAlaska Jack says:
“A few”? Come on, no weaseling: For exactly how many years should we imprison our servicemembers, for failing to fill out a survey form?
– AJ
November 30, 2010, 7:19 pmtorrentprime says:
Has anyone established a need for such a thing?
Maybe it would be better to segregate the servicemembers who state or show they cannot serve with openly gay colleagues? If the gay guys can get along with everyone else (and the report urges no special class rights for gays and also reminds everyone that gays will be subject to the same UCMJ as everyone else) and most of the military can get along with them, who is actually the source of the problems we’re concerned about here?
November 30, 2010, 7:21 pmOrenWithAnE says:
TLDR version of the right:
Before: You can’t repeal DADT without doing a survey of the military and the brass.
After: The survey is wrong!
November 30, 2010, 7:21 pmOrenWithAnE says:
AJ, would you accept a requirement to fill it out in exchange for verifiable anonymity?
November 30, 2010, 7:22 pmJosh Bornstein says:
I do, to at least some extent. For those of us who support getting rid of DADT, we see a lot of the same arguments (e.g., troop morale, danger of troops leaving the military in ‘protest,’ etc.) being made here re gays that were made half a century ago, re racial integration.
History has not looked kindly on those who promoted the pro-segregation arguments back then, and I suspect (well, I hope) that history will show that openly gay servicemen can integrate as well as have different races.
I also find the DADT argument to be based on a premise that’s really insulting to our brave fighting men and women: That they are so poorly trained, and so homophobic, that they can’t follow orders, in spite of their own personal feelings. What makes our military so much worse in this regard than, say, those in the Israeli army? Or those serving in the military of those many many many many other countries that allow openly gay to serve?
Since Senator McCain long ago sold his integrity on this issue, I wonder what new excuse/justification he’ll come up with now? Maybe he’ll want to wait till all 100% of the military supports repeal?
If president Obama wants to act, or if any Rep. senators secretly want to act, at least this report gives the political cover. I’m not holding my breath.
November 30, 2010, 7:25 pmnice emotional blackmail says:
Easy to be glib ex ante.
Pre-no-fault divorce, nobody expected the divorce rate to skyrocket (only truly “dead” marriages would be affected, what would be the harm?). Post-no-fault divorce we see the unintended consequences of skyrocketing divorce rates and the impact of the silent revolution on children.
November 30, 2010, 7:26 pmTrashhauler says:
No Comment wrote:
“They should simply be required to fill out the form.
Crumple, crumple toss = Leavenworth for a few years.
Simple as that.
Problem solved.”
Aside from the ignorance this displays, there remains the fact that no one could make them answer honestly.
November 30, 2010, 7:27 pmAlaska Jack says:
Oren:
This seems facetious. I don’t think anyone would object to a poll that accurately captures the feelings of servicemembers. I am just skeptical that this one did. And I’m not staking my reputation on it; I’m not qualified to do poll-quality analyses. I’d like to see a thorough analysis by someone who is qualified.
– AJ
November 30, 2010, 7:28 pmKirk Parker says:
Steve,
Would you care to take a guess as to how few years we need to go back before the idea excluding open homosexuals was likewise “utterly noncontroversial”?
Take either side of this controversy as you like, I don’t care–but please don’t pretend that it’s not of fairly recent vintage.
November 30, 2010, 7:28 pmSteve says:
I’m pretty sure it was always controversial among gay people who wanted to serve, among others. Can you find me even one person who wants to get rid of gender segregation in the military? Yeah, none of us knows what the world will look like in 100 years, but all I know is that I’m not living in a world of unisex bathrooms just yet.
November 30, 2010, 7:32 pmTed says:
Alaska Jack:
You seem to question the completeness, and therefore the legitimacy, of the survey. But you feel the same way if the results more-closely matched you feelings about how service people should/do actually feel about DADT? If so, how you respond to argument that opposite poll results wouldn’t correspond to their feelings about how service people should/do actually feel about DADT?
I bet you would just think they’re full of sh*t, whining about results they didn’t like. See, we’re not so different after all…
Also, you realize that the report is not just based on the survey, but also involves various other considerations, including military experts’ opinions and analysis on the effects of repeal. Of course, those experts probably aren’t real experts, right?
November 30, 2010, 7:35 pminahandbasket says:
You can watch today’s press conference w/ Gates, Mullens, Ham and Johnson online at C-Span:
http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/11/30/HP/R/41306/Pentagon+Releases+Review+Ahead+of+Dont+Ask+Dont+Tell+Hearings.aspx
You’ll hear them say that there is one military and they will not be segregating the troops.
November 30, 2010, 7:40 pmHaroldHoward1967 says:
70% of those to whom the survey was sent did not respond to the survey. Thus this “study” isn’t a study at all. It’s a propaganda piece designed to push a desired result on the military. Those who responded to the biased questions were far more likely to be in support of the agenda than those who didn’t respond out of either disgust or fear of reprisal.
Moreover, the responses from the Marine Corps show that there WILL be a problem in that branch of the service, and this is using the biased propaganda piece as the standard.
Epic Homosexualist Fail.
November 30, 2010, 7:41 pmAlaska Jack says:
Josh -
You have exactly, perfectly expressed my point. This survey was never about accurately gauging the sentiments of servicemembers. It is about providing political cover.
I would tremendously respect Dale Carpenter if he said:
“Look — integrating gays into military service is the premier civil-rights issue of our time, and I and other freedom-loving Americans will never rest until that right is satisfied. But we don’t need manipulated poll data to help us do that. This poll was unscientifically administered; thus, it is worthless at best and misleading at worst. It is irrelevant to both sides of the debate.”
I am sure Dale is a great guy. I just think his advocacy blinds him to this kind of thing.
– AJ
November 30, 2010, 7:41 pmAlaska Jack says:
Ted:
(a) Grow up
(b) I never said I was immune to confirmation bias. I simply observed that the way the poll was administered seemed, in my impression, to raise questions about selection bias; questions that in turn call into question the poll’s final results.
(c) In dragging up the “various other considerations” in your final paragraph, did you notice that I didn’t criticize those other things? That I only criticized the survey?
– AJ
November 30, 2010, 7:46 pmHoward says:
Yeah, I pretty much do. Why isn’t it? Because that’s in the past and this is in the present? You don’t think there were plenty of soldiers with strong feelings against integration? You don’t think people talked about problems with unit cohesion?
As a matter of fact, several months ago Nate Silver, who does know a lot about polling, discussed the DADT poll. (Sorry, I can’t figure out how to search his archive since he moved to the NYT.) As I recall, his feeling was, as somebody said above, that the poll was biased toward finding problems.
November 30, 2010, 7:47 pmTed says:
Absolutely, Sir Howard. As you have been a true stalwart of reason and moderation, I trust you know what’s best for the military. Indeed, your previous suggestion that it may appropriate for service members to shoot fellow, openly-gay service members in the back, and then cover up the good deed, proves to me, as it should to others, that you are uniquely qualified to resolve this issue.
November 30, 2010, 7:48 pminahandbasket says:
Here’s your answer: Truman did indeed survey the troops prior to his order:
November 30, 2010, 7:55 pmhttp://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/20/old-surveys/
Ted says:
Never.
Totally. Selection bias is obviously the same as “never being about accurately gauging the sentiments of servicemembers”: selection bias = political cover. Damn lucky that shrewd, pre-mediated, political stunt it didn’t back-fire, eh? It would have been a political disaster if the 70% of the military that obviously hates gays actually responded to survey.
I noticed. I noticed that you didn’t even mention them. Which is why I didn’t notice that you noticed those considerations, and decided I should notify you of them.
November 30, 2010, 7:56 pmHoward says:
Well, it’s more of a guy thing…
November 30, 2010, 7:57 pmAlaska Jack says:
Howard -
May I ask where you got that 70-percent figure?
– AJ
November 30, 2010, 7:57 pmTrashhauler says:
It is worth pointing out that an attitudinal survey cannot possibly cover all the behavioral issues surrounding DADT. It is conceivable that the social dynamics of repeal will cause unforeseen damage to unit cohesion regardless of the percentages in favor of it.
For example, from the Support Plan for Implementation, we find:
“Training in support of the policy should address inappropriate behaviors without reference to sexual orientation.”
and further:
“Policies and standards should be sexual orientation-neutral, clearly worded, and equally enforced. The goal is
equitable treatment for all without endorsing any particular point of view or belief system.”
All well and good, except that not all sexual partnering in the military is forbidden – dating between genders is allowed in many cases, with as much leeway granted as the commander is comfortable with. So, what happens next? Do we forbid all sex in mixed gender units or allow it in single gender combat units? To what effect on unit cohesion?
Then there is this recommendation from the Working Group:
“The Department of Defense prohibit berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation, except that commanders should retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, case-by-case
basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, consistent with performance of mission.
The Department of Defense prohibit the designation of separate bathroom or bathing facilities based on sexual orientation except that commanders would have the authority to accommodate privacy requests on an individualized,
case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, consistent with performance of mission.”
What the heck will that mean?
November 30, 2010, 8:03 pmLiam says:
Out of curiosity, Mr. Alaska Jack, what is the branch/nature/location of your service?
If, for example, you are a Marine, then it would seem the poll results do more or less correspond to the experiences you claim, but also demonstrate that the Marines are an outlier rather than representative of the total armed forces. Or if you’ve never had anyone in your unit who was generally believed to be a homosexual, your experiences wouldn’t speak much to the question on how having homosexuals in the unit affects operational ability.
November 30, 2010, 8:08 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
You didn’t answer the question. If the difference is so obvious, why are you incapable of explaining it? The exclusion of homosexuals was utterly uncontroversial until recently too.
November 30, 2010, 8:10 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
This is a common, but obvious, fallacy. “An argument was made about X in the past, somewhat similar arguments could be made now about Y, therefore X = Y” is fallacious.
So then you must believe it’s equally insulting to segregate males and females, right?
November 30, 2010, 8:15 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
But they already do segregate the troops, by gender.
November 30, 2010, 8:17 pmJozxyqk says:
November 30, 2010, 8:20 pmAJ says:
If homosexual attraction is truly biologically programmed, then it would appear that someone gets a free peep show out of this deal. If homosexuals are only attracted to other homosexuals, then does that imply that gay men will need to be segregated from each other in showering, dressing, and berthing areas? If a heterosexual female soldier is uncomfortable with her lesbian room-mate or dressing “situation,” what specific privacy expectations does she have….what bounds must be passed before “she” is no longer the one that needs to be segregated? How long of a glance will be allowable…what are the new rules? How long before “training” gives us green light, yellow light, and red light behaviors to learn and take to heart?
Invariably I will be instructed that all of the above is going on right now in baracks today and at the local gym. Fair enough, but in the baracks closeted with the highest sanction keeping it there. No doubt a fair amount of situations, privacy will not be an issue. No doubt many soldiers considering the minimal privacies that the military normally provides will not much care. The difference is at the margin….with those margins dictating how recruitment and retention ACTUALLY get impacted. Good Luck USMC!
November 30, 2010, 8:22 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
I don’t think there’s any analogy at all between sexual orientation and race. The closest analogy would be between sexual orientation and gender.
November 30, 2010, 8:22 pmTrashhauler says:
Then there is this bit of guidance on religious orientations:
“Service members, to include chaplains, will neither be encouraged nor required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different views and beliefs. Specifially for chaplains, the existing guidance developed by and for our chaplains, should be reiterated as part of any education and training concerning repeal. These regulations strike an appropriate balance between protecting a chaplain’s First Amendment freedoms and a chaplain’s duty to care for all.”
So chaplains need not change their religious beliefs – they simply cannot speak or act on them if they differ from post-DADT policy. The “balance” is that they must not act on their beliefs. That seems to be a fairly straightforward violation of their First Amendment freedoms.
Of course, such a violation is not prohibited in the military. There is no “right” to be a military chaplain and any that cannot comply will presumably be free to leave. Again, though, at what cost, when recruiting enough chaplains is by no means easy?
November 30, 2010, 8:26 pmmiddleford says:
Most of the commentary seems to be debating the extent of the damage repeal of DADT might cause.
What is to be gained? If repeal will not make the military more effective, why do it?
November 30, 2010, 8:28 pmJakeD says:
Trashhauler:
There’s no RIGHT to serve in the U.S. military either.
November 30, 2010, 8:31 pmBABH says:
Statistics 101 fail. A sample of 100,000 members of a population of 1,500,000 is a staggeringly good sample. If it was a purely random sample, then there’s a 99.999999% chance that it accurately represents military opinion.
The sample may be slightly non-random (in the way that Alaska Jack is worried about, or other ways), but I am confident that the Pentagon has plenty of geeks who are competent to correct for this.
November 30, 2010, 8:32 pmJakeD says:
AJ:
What’s next, fully co-ed dorms?
November 30, 2010, 8:32 pmDavidicus says:
The Romans were pretty bad-ass and had an interesting take on the issue–if you were a “top,” no problem. If you got caught being the “bottom,” however, you could be ejected from the Senate (and suffer loss of senatorial status as well). Apropos of what I’m not sure.
November 30, 2010, 8:35 pmHoward says:
Thanks for the link. This is a good reference point for comparison with the recent survey, although it’s smaller. But for example: 32% of white soldiers from the North thought blacks should be kept out of the PX, while another 44% thought it was OK for them to “buy things, as long they don’t hang around or sit down.” In fact, I’m starting to suspect this is some kind of hoax. But then I wasn’t alive then.
I found the Nate Silver post. It is:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/pentagon-spends-44-million-to-test.html
May I respectfully suggest you read it before discussing the survey methodology further?
BTW, would everyone please stop calling HaroldHoward1967 “Howard”?
November 30, 2010, 8:39 pmAJ says:
As usual that confuses voluntary from involuntary. People can voluntarily give up any privacy rights that they wish. Please explain, is homosexual attraction something that can be turned ON and OFF? Can you imagine an uncomfortable situation where someone ogles you that you are not the least bit attracted to? Do you like movies about gladiators?
November 30, 2010, 8:40 pmTrashhauler says:
Davidicus wrote:
“The Romans were pretty bad-ass and had an interesting take on the issue–if you were a ‘top,’ no problem.”
Then again, the Romans also punished lackluster performance in battle by the use of decimation.
November 30, 2010, 8:43 pmJakeD says:
No.
November 30, 2010, 8:44 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Can you imagine an uncomfortable situation where someone ogles you that you are not the least bit attracted to?
There is a school of thought that men who are particularly troubled by the concept of homosexual men, are those who indulge themselves in vulgar speculation about every woman they run across; and while that’s cool for them and the women, the thought that someone might look at them the way they look at women, is intolerable.
November 30, 2010, 8:49 pmTrashhauler says:
AJ wrote:
“People can voluntarily give up any privacy rights that they wish.”
But it will not be voluntary. Berthing and billeting, as well as washing facilities, will be up to the commander.
November 30, 2010, 8:52 pmHaroldHoward1967 says:
BTW: Carpenter is lying.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/military/article_f9a1edea-5848-5d2e-8efe-9e0c2a29ac16.html
Nearly seven out of every 10 combat Marines oppose repealing the policy that prohibits gays and lesbians from being allowed to serve openly, according to a long-awaited Pentagon survey released Tuesday morning.
Forty-four percent of all service members say their units’ effectiveness would be negatively impacted by the repeal; among Marines, that number rose to 67 percent.
November 30, 2010, 8:52 pminahandbasket says:
John (McCain), is that you?
Not that facts matter to you but here’s a few regarding statistical accuracy: (I highly doubt you’ll read the below excerpt but here goes)
“A survey’s response rate is the result of dividing the number of people who were interviewed by the total number of people in the sample who were eligible to participate and should have been interviewed.[1]
A low response rate can give rise to sampling bias if the nonresponse is unequal among the participants regarding exposure and/or outcome.
For many years, a survey’s response rate was viewed as an important indicator of survey quality. Many observers presumed that higher response rates assure more accurate survey results (Aday 1996; Babbie 1990; Backstrom and Hursh 1963; Rea and Parker 1997). But because measuring the relation between non-response and the accuracy of a survey statistic is complex and expensive, few rigorously designed studies provided empirical evidence to document the consequences of lower response rates, until recently.
Such studies have finally been conducted in recent years, and they are challenging the presumption that a lower response rate means lower survey accuracy.
One early example of a finding was reported by Visser, Krosnick, Marquette and Curtin (1996) who showed that surveys with lower response rates (near 20%) yielded more accurate measurements than did surveys with higher response rates (near 60 or 70%).[2] In another study, Keeter et al. (2006) compared results of a 5-day survey employing the Pew Research Center’s usual methodology (with a 25% response rate) with results from a more rigorous survey conducted over a much longer field period and achieving a higher response rate of 50%. In 77 out of 84 comparisons, the two surveys yielded results that were statistically indistinguishable. Among the items that manifested significant differences across the two surveys, the differences in proportions of people giving a particular answer ranged from 4 percentage points to 8 percentage points.[3]
A study by Curtin et al. (2000) tested the effect of lower response rates on estimates of the Index of Consumer Sentiment (ICS). They assessed the impact of excluding respondents who initially refused to cooperate (which reduces the response rate 5-10 percentage points), respondents who required more than five calls to complete the interview (reducing the response rate about 25 percentage points), and those who required more than two calls (a reduction of about 50 percentage points). They found no effect of excluding these respondent groups on estimates of the ICS using monthly samples of hundreds of respondents. For yearly estimates, based on thousands of respondents, the exclusion of people who required more calls (though not of initial refusers) had a very small one.[4]
Holbrook et al. (2005) assessed whether lower response rates are associated with less unweighted demographic respresentativeness of a sample. By examining the results of 81 national surveys with response rates varying from 5 percent to 54 percent, they found that surveys with much lower response rates were only minimally less accurate.[5]
As a result of these and other such recent findings, it now seems clear that a low response rate does not guarantee lower survey accuracy and instead simply indicates a risk of lower accuracy. Consumers of survey results are therefore cautioned to view response rates as informative but to recognize that these rates “do not necessarily differentiate reliably between accurate and inaccurate data.”[6]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_rate
You need to realize, Howard, that your generation’s attitude and bigotry toward gays is outmoded. The average soldier who isn’t a quivering mass of insecurity simply doesn’t care about who might be gay. The recruits who are 18, 19, 20 years old KNOW gay people already and just aren’t that worked up over Teh Ghey Boogie Man because, unlike you, the young guys and gals in the military know that TGBM is only a figment of the older generation’s imagination.
November 30, 2010, 8:53 pmTrashhauler says:
Laura(southernxyl) wrote:
“There is a school of thought that men who are particularly troubled by the concept of homosexual men, are those who indulge themselves in vulgar speculation about every woman they run across; and while that’s cool for them and the women, the thought that someone might look at them the way they look at women, is intolerable.”
Interesting. Now, would that be an innate, genetically-determined characteristic or is it learned? lol
November 30, 2010, 8:57 pmAJ says:
So straight men should be OK with showering with gay men that could be attracted to them….I get it….payback for being the misogynist pigs that we are. Here I thought it was about all them gay linguists…my bad
November 30, 2010, 8:58 pmHoward says:
So you don’t think it’s analogous because you don’t think there’s any analogy? Not a compelling argument.
Here are some points of similarity: 1)Not a matter of individual choice. 2)Is known to have been a characteristic of some people with exceptional combat performance. 3)Members have been victims of discrimination, and even hatred, even lynching, over an extended period. 4)Arguments against rely on prejudices of other soldiers rather than issues of performance.
November 30, 2010, 8:59 pmShelbyC says:
I suspect that if you look globally, and especially historically, at problems associated with homosexual activity in militaries, most of the problems you will find are those of exploitation. And not primarily by gays.
November 30, 2010, 9:03 pmAJ says:
I’m sorry I was unclear. In co-ed dorms (as JakeD explained) , people can voluntarily give up any privacy expectations that they desire…and also leave the situation if they do become uncomfortable. In the military, not so much. His comparison mixed voluntary (at college) with involuntary (in the military).
November 30, 2010, 9:04 pmSviluppo says:
The really amusing part of this whole debate is that we’re going to go through the same thing (military service, marriage, general civil rights, etc.) in the next couple of generations with genetically modified people, people with cybernetic implants, and perhaps one day, aliens of the non-Mexican variety.
Over the years we’ve learned to live with various groups categorized as monsters by the majority: Suffragettes, Native Americans, Jews, Japanese, Blacks, Atheists… The gay one is going a little faster, and in ten years this thread will seem quaint and outdated. I always wonder, given the historical record, is it politically wise to be the last one standing in opposition on these matters?
November 30, 2010, 9:05 pmRicardo says:
One way to check for response bias is to do your summary stats. This should be easy for the military. Look at the means of basic demographic variables like age, race, state of residence, sex, education level, tenure, rank, etc. of those who responded and compare them to that of the military overall. If you don’t see any significant differences, that means there probably isn’t anything to worry about (not definitely, but probably).
If you do see significant differences, you can weight the sample to correct for this. Suppose the sample of respondents tend to be younger and less likely from the South than the overall composition of the military. That’s a potentially serious problem to the extent that either of these variables might correlate with attitudes toward homosexuals: it can be partially corrected by putting more weight on the age cohorts and states less likely to participate.
November 30, 2010, 9:06 pm1040 says:
heh.
first it was: let the military leaders support it. it they say it’s ok, we’ll agree it’s ok.
when the military leaders supported it, it was let’s poll the rank and file. if they say it’s ok, we’ll agree it’s ok.
when the rank and file was in majority support, it was let’s wait for the study. if that says it’s ok, we’ll agree it’s ok.
now that the study says it’s ok, it is that the study is rigged. so, sorry, we’d really love to support this, but we’re honor bound not to.
didn’t realize we had so many mccain supporters commenting on volokh :)
November 30, 2010, 9:07 pmTrashhauler says:
Ah, I see. I somehow missed his sarcasm punctuation
November 30, 2010, 9:11 pmJustlurker says:
There’s was an issue in the Russian army about homosexual exploitation and prostitution. Google it.
November 30, 2010, 9:12 pmAnonStatsGeek says:
You’ve missed the point. If there’s a 70% non-response rate, it raises a serious concern that the set of people who responded is not a random sample (even if the set of people who were sent a poll is a random sample). Alaska Jack gives significant reasons for concern that there may be significant selection bias in who responded and who did not.
And yes, I know the statistics and the underlying mathematics very well.
November 30, 2010, 9:17 pmHaroldHoward1967 says:
Did you really just appeal to Wikipedia? Really? As for your other lunacy, unlike you, I served in the military, and I know the problems that sodomites cause. I also know that they don’t tend to do well. There are ways to handle them despite the wishes of the politicians. Not a thing you can do about it either.
November 30, 2010, 9:21 pmMalvolio says:
Laura, are you saying that you personally have no trouble with being ogled? Do you mind showering with straight men you don’t know?
November 30, 2010, 9:21 pmJustlurker says:
That would take quite a bit of “extrapolation” when you have 30% return of a survey that already was only asking 40% of service members. I seriously doubt any anti-DADT people would be defending the validity of this joke if the results had come out the other way.
November 30, 2010, 9:23 pmHaroldHoward1967 says:
Another newspaper confirms that Carpenter is lying:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/30/front-line-fighters-wary-of-repealing-dont-ask/
November 30, 2010, 9:23 pmdts-01 says:
I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. The example you show is that of a large sample, not necessarily a good one. From that data, you can’t tell if it is a truly representative sample. If only 30% of a targeted group participate, then a high degree of self selection has already taken place. Like an internet poll, it’s not random.
November 30, 2010, 9:24 pmHaroldHoward1967 says:
The study was rigged, and even so, it doesn’t say what you lying fools are claiming it says.
Nearly 60 percent of Army and Marine Corps warriors said open homosexuals in the ranks would damage war-fighting capabilities, the study found.
November 30, 2010, 9:24 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Is the current segregation by gender bigoted?
… pederasts, schizophrenics, kleptomaniacs, carjackers, Islamists …
November 30, 2010, 9:34 pm1040 says:
and you.
November 30, 2010, 9:38 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
From HaroldHoward’s nctimes.com link above:
So the DoD is trying to repeal DOMA as well as DADT, looks like.
November 30, 2010, 9:41 pm1040 says:
i thought if it’s not called marriage, it’s a-ok?
November 30, 2010, 9:42 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
A similarly mature response would be “I know you are, but what am I?” and maybe throwing some sand.
November 30, 2010, 9:43 pm1040 says:
http://www.sunherald.com/2010/11/28/2676621/graham-no-quick-end-to-dont-ask.html
Looks like Lindsey Graham still wants to make sure he won’t accidentally have to serve.
November 30, 2010, 9:44 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
No, I don’t believe you did.
November 30, 2010, 9:45 pmOwen H. says:
That their goal isn’t to flaunt themselves, just get on with their lives honestly?
November 30, 2010, 9:45 pm1040 says:
that would be a step up from the feces that seems to be your usual choice. congratulations on moving up in the world.
November 30, 2010, 9:45 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
A similarly mature response would be “I’m rubber, and you’re glue…” and maybe throwing some sand.
November 30, 2010, 9:48 pm1040 says:
I’m sure that’s true. You wouldn’t know what that process involves.
November 30, 2010, 9:49 pminahandbasket says:
So you just dismiss Wikipedia out of hand despite of the references given in the article? Wiki or not, as pointed out by others here, you know squat about statistics. I am not an expert on statistics; please refer to the Nate Silver links posted above. He blew your homophobic rant out of the water.
You are a dangerous entity in society. You support the harassment and murdering of human beings simply for being gay. You are a disgrace to the military and to humanity. Your hatred of homosexuality is most likely a visceral self hatred projected outward. Get some help.
November 30, 2010, 9:49 pmOwen H. says:
Of course you are sceptical. You disagree with it. That doesn’t mean it actually is wrong, however.
The part I find most telling is where the troops know about a gay soldier, and are ok with him/her. In comparison with the responses to gays in general, it was pretty clear that many were of the mind, “Well, our gay guy is ok, that’s different”.
November 30, 2010, 9:50 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
A similarly mature response would be “I know you are, but what am I?” and maybe throwing some sand.
November 30, 2010, 9:51 pm1040 says:
uh oh. commentus anonymous got stuck. somebody dislodge him before he wears out.
November 30, 2010, 9:53 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Yet another example of liberal tolerance for dissent.
November 30, 2010, 9:53 pmLN says:
Yet another example of the conservative infatuation with moral relativism.
November 30, 2010, 9:57 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
What? Your comment seems to have no connection to any context or reality.
November 30, 2010, 9:59 pmSviluppo says:
Pederasts, kleptomaniacs, and carjackers are criminals, though that won’t necessarily keep you out of the military. There are Criminal History Waivers, and there’s the grand old tradition of “jail or the military” sentencing that still pops up from time to time. Schizophrenics are mentally ill, and may be denied on medical grounds. Being gay is neither a crime nor an illness from a legal standpoint.
Islamist is not really a defined term–there are plenty of Muslims serving in the US Armed Forces. Based upon the general blogosphere idea of “Islamist”, our troops live and work around them on a daily basis in our current military operations.
November 30, 2010, 10:01 pm1040 says:
and this is the great tragedy of our society, and the cause of the plagues that befall it.
November 30, 2010, 10:05 pmyguy says:
Would you expect an apocalypse if SCOTUS declared age of consent laws unconstitutional?
November 30, 2010, 10:05 pmRicardo says:
Nonsense. You are conflating sample size with sample bias. 12% is actually a pretty big sample of an organization the size of the military and it presents no problems. The question is whether the sample is biased or not. I presented a very standard way of looking for sample bias.
November 30, 2010, 10:07 pm1040 says:
Have they done a troop survey on what it does to their morale to be asked to lay down their lives in a war they were sent into based on lies? where does that rank in comparison to serving with gays?
November 30, 2010, 10:08 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
It is currently illegal for homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Hadn’t you heard?
Some do, some don’t. Several former soldiers at Ft. Hood don’t, for example.
November 30, 2010, 10:10 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
blah blah blah Halliburton, blah, blah blah BusHitler blah blah blah … *yawn*
November 30, 2010, 10:12 pm1040 says:
i know. death of american troops in a war entered into on false pretences is so boring. Oh, and TROOP MORALE!!!! I CARE FOR OUR SOLDIERS!!! SO MUUUUCCCCH!
November 30, 2010, 10:14 pmJon Rowe says:
My first thought is, “so what?” My second is, not much of a peep show. Soldiers don’t just shower, but shit together as well.
WTF? Homosexuals aren’t just attracted to other homosexuals.
The post is a big red herring. THERE IS NO PRIVACY IN THE MILITARY. You shower and shit together. If you are squeamish on ANY grounds you don’t belong in the military. All of a sudden hard nosed men and women who are willing and able to take a grenade in their gut turn into George Costanzas worried about pecker checkers. Gimme a break.
November 30, 2010, 10:14 pmRandolph says:
Wow, anyone what cowardly really needs to consider a different line of work, that’s pathetic.
November 30, 2010, 10:16 pmSteve P. says:
Man, they really come out in a Dale Carpenter thread.
Newsflash to straight guys — if you’ve showered in a communal shower, like at a gym, there’s a very good chance you’ve showered with a gay guy. He probably didn’t proposition you, or stare at your penis, or do anything but get clean.
If he did, and you were in the military, you could get him iced on inappropriate sexual behavior. There should be no tolerance for sexual harassment, gay or straight.
November 30, 2010, 10:16 pminahandbasket says:
What HH1967 said:
HaroldHoward1967:
“… As for your other lunacy, unlike you, I served in the military, and I know the problems that sodomites cause. I also know that they don’t tend to do well. There are ways to handle them despite the wishes of the politicians. Not a thing you can do about it either.”
So it’s a conservative value to advocate the harassment, bashing and murdering members of a minority?
You tell me what he’s advocating. If it’s not violence, then why the veiled references to ‘handling them?”
November 30, 2010, 10:17 pmSviluppo says:
Most gay service members are discharged “General Under Honorable Conditions”, and there’s no criminal penalty, and it’s certainly nothing like being arrested for theft or child rape. You can get a dishonorable discharge for adultery even though that’s not a crime in the United States. At worst it is going to prevent you from rejoining the military unless the policy changes, as it soon might. If DADT is repealed, will you fight as hard to support that new freedom on the basis of its status as military policy?
I was actually referring to Iraqi/Afghani nationals that our troops are around all the time. Are you suggesting that Muslims likewise be removed from the Armed Services?
November 30, 2010, 10:26 pminahandbasket says:
Here’s a letter from a reader of Andrew Sullivan’s blog. This is exactly the frame of reference that HH1967/John McCain cannot compute, or to paraphrase HH1967/John McCain:
EPIC HETEROSEXUALIST/OLD FOLKS FAIL
“A reader writes:
Watching clips of John McCain move the goal posts again on DADT repeal, and listening to my teen age kids react to what he is saying, has made it clear to me why DADT repeal is held up by the Senate. It is a perfect illustration of the generational shift that has taken place regarding acceptance of gays and lesbians in general.
My kids are 16 and 18. While my wife and I are progressive, we sent our kids to a Catholic High School in Dallas, Texas so they get plenty of exposure to conservative thinkers. Nevertheless, they and all of their friends simply cannot understand why anyone would be “freaked out” by letting gays and lesbians serve in the military. It seems as ridiculous to them as forcing “coloreds” to drink from separate water fountains.
My kids aren’t gay, and they don’t really understand being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex. But they think it is private, and the result of the way god made people, so let them be because they aren’t hurting anyone. They all know gay kids because, thankfully, they are no longer afraid to “come out”. Teenagers all understand that no one would “choose” to be gay and face the hysterical ranting of the far right. They laugh at older people who say that soldiers would be afraid of being “targeted” by a “homo” as complete nonsense.
On the other hand, John McCain is 74 years old. People who are his age and served in the military have a very different perspective. When they were in the military, being gay would have been viewed as shameful and perverted. Many people that age still think that. Senators, given the bubbles they live in, don’t realize how much things have changed. When McCain was saying that he wanted to “hear what the soldiers had to say” he was certain they would be against repeal – because he would have been uncomfortable serving with gay soldiers.
You can tell by watching McCain that it is simply inconceivable to that 74 year old military man that gays and lesbians would be accepted by soldiers. It just doesn’t compute. He can’t process that information because it is so different from his world view. When he gets a survey that tells him that such acceptance has occurred, he can’t believe it; it must be wrong. Most of the men in the Senate are much closer to McCain’s age than to the age of the average soldier serving today. What we are seeing is what happens when cultural norms change and “the old folks don’t like it.”
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/a-breath-of-sane-air-ctd.html
November 30, 2010, 10:27 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Wacko conspiracy theories, like “Obama was born in Kenya”, or “the US government blew up the towers on 9/11″, or “Bush lied us into war”, are boring.
November 30, 2010, 10:28 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
But there is segregation, based on gender. Should that “bigotry” be ended as well?
November 30, 2010, 10:29 pmAlaska Jack says:
OK, well I returned to find this thread having seriously degenerated. I’m out of here.
– AJ
November 30, 2010, 10:30 pmOrenWithAnE says:
The divorce rate is symptom, not cause, of the sad state of marriage in this country. Complaining about divorce as the cause of our problems is like blaming the lifeboat for sinking the ship. No one would leave their marriage if things were as hunky-dory as you imagine they were.
In regular logic, the fact that the divorce has negative impacts would indicate that things must be pretty awful for it to be the least-bad alternative. Talking about how crappy the lifeboat is only proves that things on the ship must have been truly horrific.
Fair enough.
It’s still somewhat cheap to demand some point of proof, such as a survey, but then to repudiate it when it doesn’t show what you want. If you are truly willing to accept a contrary result from a survey if you feel it was done properly, all the better. My feeling from a lot on the right is that any survey that showed support for open service for our gay servicemembers was, ipso facto, unreliable because “it just can’t be”.
And if heterosexual attraction is biological, that means male doctors must be getting a free peep show out of giving pap smears and breast exams. Oh my!
Or maybe you can try not to impugn the professionalism of your fellow soldiers, who are capable of controlling their sexual urges and impulses to the same degree (probably more, given that they have survived DADT) that you can.
She can ask the roommate not to watch. And if the roommate is a decent person, she will abide this simple request because it’s trivial to do so. The roommate would presumably do the same thing if the complaint involved loud music, smelly clothes or clanging noise at night.
I’m starting to feel like you think that our servicemembers have the emotional maturity of an 8 year old. If they are incapable of mastering the basics of interpersonal relationships I shudder to think that we trust them with the actual use of deadly force.
Because there are a large number of officers, translators and other personnel in whom we’ve invested tens of millions in training that are being dismissed despite the immediate and pressing need for their services. The man has 2000 flight hours and 9 medals and combat experience in two theaters. It’s not that he’s absolutely irreplaceable, but that kind of training takes a long time.
Been there, done that. With coed bathrooms and showers too. It may shock you that adults are capable of self-control.
Agreed, although I’m not sure I concur in the vulgarity of speculation so long as the speculator keeps it within his own cortex.
Newsflash buddy, half of America is a sodomite at this point. Oral sex in the 18-45 age group (e.g. the fighters) hit 50% more than two decades ago and has been going strong ever since.
November 30, 2010, 10:30 pmHoward says:
Again, purely in the interest of clarity, please stop calling our esteemed colleague “Howard.” Maybe you could call him “Harold.” Or “Mr. 1967.”
I recall reading, many years ago, an interview with a gay ex-serviceman that had this great line: “Heterosexual men always overestimate their own attractiveness.” (Not me– I always underestimate my own attractiveness.)
November 30, 2010, 10:32 pmAJ says:
Actually we do kinda have a survey, enlistment and retention have not been too bad for a war based purportedly on “lies”.
November 30, 2010, 10:34 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
I didn’t say I agreed with him. I can disagree with him and criticize your bigotry and intolerance simultaneously.
This seems to be a long non sequitur. You can’t use what current law is to argue for or against what the law should be, as in “pederasty is different, that’s illegal.”
November 30, 2010, 10:35 pmJohn Herbison says:
Can you imagine an uncomfortable situation where someone ogles you that you are not the least bit attracted to?
Well, if a large busted 15 year old girl can stand it, . . .
November 30, 2010, 10:37 pmRandy says:
HaroldHoward: “, I served in the military, and I know the problems that sodomites cause. I also know that they don’t tend to do well.”
And of course you knew all the gays, right? You have these special powers that no one else has that can identify the ‘sodomites’ even when they are closeted. And you are never, ever wrong, because you channel these god-like powers. Good for you!
“There are ways to handle them despite the wishes of the politicians. Not a thing you can do about it either.”
I think that murdering soldiers will get noticed at some point and you will be treated in a way that you don’t particularly like. But go ahead and use as your defense that it’s okay to kill a man just because he’s gay and see if the tribunal will let you off scot free.
You live in a fantasy world, and you have no business defending our country. I for one am quite glad that you are out of there.
November 30, 2010, 10:39 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Yes, we should let the children run the country!
So you think the military should end the “bigotry” of gender segregation too?
November 30, 2010, 10:39 pm1040 says:
a. that’s lies without quotes.
November 30, 2010, 10:39 pmb. and speaking of lies, the army has drastically lowered standards consistently year after year in the last few years after consistently failing to meet recruiting goals, so yes, they have been bad.
1040 says:
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/politics/bush.iraq_1_intelligence-flaws-iraq-and-al-qaeda-study?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/priraqclaimfact1029.htm
November 30, 2010, 10:41 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
I don’t like what he said, but he did not in fact mention murder. You seem to have just made that up. Why do you feel you need to lie?
November 30, 2010, 10:42 pmAJ says:
This is a fairly ignorant comment. It ignores the obvious fact that men and women serve together and there is most certainly privacy accommodations. Further, people who are openly attracted to each other sexually currently are not allowed to shower together. You seem to be playimng fast and loose with “attraction”
November 30, 2010, 10:46 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Oh, so the leftist Center for American Progress agrees with your nutty conspiracy theory, eh? And?
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?248715-Murder-of-Elvis-Presley-exposed-worldwide-first-by-Matt-Marriott-on-Obama-s-100-days
November 30, 2010, 10:46 pmRandy says:
OrenwithanE: As usual, you speak the voice of reason.
If you are truly willing to accept a contrary result from a survey if you feel it was done properly, all the better. My feeling from a lot on the right is that any survey that showed support for open service for our gay servicemembers was, ipso facto, unreliable because “it just can’t be”.
Exactly — now they want a survey about the survey! Clearly, nothing will satisfy them unless the survey gives them the results that they want. So why bother even addressing their concerns?
“I’m starting to feel like you think that our servicemembers have the emotional maturity of an 8 year old. If they are incapable of mastering the basics of interpersonal relationships I shudder to think that we trust them with the actual use of deadly force.”
And HaroldHoward is a perfect example. He simply can’t stand that gays even exist, and advocates ‘taking care of them’ even if they’ve done nothing. Anyone who is that hung up about gay men has serious emotional problems. Thank goodness he is the minority, as the survey shows.
“Newsflash buddy, half of America is a sodomite at this point. Oral sex in the 18–45 age group (e.g. the fighters) hit 50% more than two decades ago and has been going strong.”
I guess to HaroldHoward its’ okay to get a blowjob from a girl but not a guy, despite the fact it’s the exact same act. But why anyone would be concerned about how other people have sex is really bizarre.
November 30, 2010, 10:48 pmTrashhauler says:
Jon Rowe wrote:
“THERE IS NO PRIVACY IN THE MILITARY. You shower and shit together. If you are squeamish on ANY grounds you don’t belong in the military.”
Of course, this isn’t strictly accurate. Genders are separated. Even the post-DADT Implementation Plan would recommend that commanders be allowed to adjust berthing and billeting to accomodate individual cases. Lord knows what criteria they’d use, but the implications are clear – they anticipate problems.
November 30, 2010, 10:49 pmAJ says:
Is that the model? Seems like we’ve veered somewhat away from what the purpose of the military is…
November 30, 2010, 10:50 pm1040 says:
i see you are unable to actually dispute any of the facts there, so you are left banging the table and not seeing that i linked to multiple sources or counter even one of the statements in either of those sources. that’s ok, i understand.
November 30, 2010, 10:51 pmRandy says:
CA: “Why do you feel you need to lie? ”
I didn’t. In a previous post, he advocated the fragging of gay soldiers, and when others called him on his advocacy for murder, he didn’t repudiate it at all.
Violence towards one’s own military people is a pretty serious offense, but he thinks it is justified if he finds out you are a ‘sodomite.’ If he has changed his position, then I hope he will say so, and I will be happy to congratulate him.
November 30, 2010, 10:52 pminahandbasket says:
Commentus Anonymus says:
inahandbasket:
What HH1967 said:
HaroldHoward1967:
”… As for your other lunacy, unlike you, I served in the military, and I know the problems that sodomites cause. I also know that they don’t tend to do well. There are ways to handle them despite the wishes of the politicians. Not a thing you can do about it either.”So it’s a conservative value to advocate the harassment, bashing and murdering members of a minority?
You tell me what he’s advocating. If it’s not violence, then why the veiled references to ‘handling them?”
I didn’t say I agreed with him. I can disagree with him and criticize your bigotry and intolerance simultaneously.
So my pointing out his viewpoint is dangerous is bigotry? Why are you standing up for someone who advocates violence?
November 30, 2010, 10:52 pm1040 says:
it’s not somewhat cheap, it’s downright lying. from what i can gather from this thread and from an earlier thread from when the survey results became known, apparently so many soldiers were so strongly against gays in the military that they couldn’t fill out the survey, which is why we must not trust it.
November 30, 2010, 10:53 pmAJ says:
Which is it: is Bush so stupid or diabolically brilliant? How would the Kurds weigh in on the decision? Guess Sadam was just misunderstood.
November 30, 2010, 10:55 pmTrashhauler says:
It’s fair to say that every wartime President has told a passel of lies before and during ever single one of our wars. We only tend to notice when we disapprove of the particular war.
November 30, 2010, 10:56 pmRandy says:
What I find really interesting is that there is healthy percentage of people who say that letting openly gay people serve will actually be beneficial to the military.
And 92% said that they have a positive or neutral experience with a gay serviceman.
That means that despite DADT, there are quite a few people who know that there are many gays already in the military and they know who at least some of them are. And they don’t have a problem with them.
So what’s your response, supporters of DADT? Doesn’t it make you angry that so many people don’t hate gays as much as you do? Should we expell these homo-lovers too? Aren’t they feminizing the military, just like all those other militaries that allow gays to serve openly, like the Israeli army, and the British and Australian, and French, and German and all the other NATO allies?
November 30, 2010, 10:58 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
The vulgarity of the speculation a particular man indulges in is probably directly proportionate to the discomfort he feels – “I’d like to (blank) that” -> “he wants to (blank) me”, with the discomfort commensurate with whatever “blank” is.
Whereas gay people of both sexes report irritation at the idea that every homosexual-averse person thinks he or she must be an object of desire.
November 30, 2010, 10:58 pmSviluppo says:
In your prior comment you equated homosexuality with pederastry and carjacking. Or perhaps I have misunderstood your intent and you also group in women voters and black people with pederasts.
Just so that I am clear, do you feel that homosexuality (civilian or otherwise) should be a criminal offense on the order of grand theft auto, including prison time as punishment?
Back to my original point: Native Americans were once hunted, killed, or driven off their land by the US Armed Forces. They were not even legally allowed to vote until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (years after blacks and women), yet served with honor and distinction in WWII and every conflict since. Society and the military can adapt to new people pretty quickly, which is a strength of our nation, not a failing.
November 30, 2010, 11:00 pminahandbasket says:
Your arguments are getting weaker by the second….
Nooo, teenagers should not run the country, but the teenagers of today with their perspective of having grown up with openly gay peers, knowing their parents’ openly gay friends, having relatives in their lives that are openly gay, etc., etc., simply realize that being gay is no more deviant than left handedness or having naturally red hair. They truly are aghast at the bigotry of folks who cloak their prejudice in religiosity or willful ignorance.
The teenagers of today are the leaders of tomorrow. Ten years from now, a lot of the gay bashing dead-enders WILL be dead and John McCain’s legacy will forever be tarnished by his feeble-minded rantings against progress.
November 30, 2010, 11:02 pmRandy says:
1040: “from what i can gather from this thread and from an earlier thread from when the survey results became known, apparently so many soldiers were so strongly against gays in the military that they couldn’t fill out the survey, which is why we must not trust it. ”
My favorite excuse is that it’s so P.C. to be pro-gay that all the anti-gay military guys felt intimidated about filling out an anonymous survey.
But I guess the Marine Corps weren’t quite as intimidated — somehow, they, unlike all the other branches of the military — stood up and voiced their opposition to gays in ways that the Navy, the Army and the Air Force just couldn’t muster.
Makes you wonder what cowards we have in the military.
November 30, 2010, 11:02 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
I said I disagree with him. That’s standing up for him?
You didn’t dispute any of the facts at my link either, hypocrite.
November 30, 2010, 11:07 pmSeamus says:
Come on, you can’t just demand a single number for something like that. The sentence would have to vary depending on their answers to the survey. If they don’t fill it out, they can stay in the stockade until they rot. If they provide correct answers, they might get out in a couple of months. If they insist on supporting DADT, well, they just have to stay in until their reeducation is complete.
November 30, 2010, 11:10 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Nothing I’ve said would lead a reasonable person to ask such a question.
Support for DADT does not imply hatred of anyone. You’re projecting.
Do you support the continued “bigotry” of segregation based on gender in the military?
November 30, 2010, 11:10 pmRandy says:
Laura: “Whereas gay people of both sexes report irritation at the idea that every homosexual-averse person thinks he or she must be an object of desire. ”
Amen, sister. And the guys who are the most afraid of being “oogled” — or worse, fantasized about — are invariably the least attractive.
My experience, FWIW, is that really attractive guys, the hot ones, actually don’t mind the attraction of gays, and often welcome it. They are quite secure in their sexuality and so don’t feel threatened at all (unlike the homophobes) and consider it a complement. The internet is awash with very hot male models, most of whom are straight, who gladly pose for gay photographers in the most extreme provocative poses, where nothing is left to the imagination, knowing that they will be posted on various gay sites and gay men everywhere will be oogling them, and more.
I am very happy that the majority of our servicemen are at least as mature as your average male model when it comes to gays.
November 30, 2010, 11:10 pminahandbasket says:
Sorry about that, Howard. I now refer to him as HH1967/John McCain.
November 30, 2010, 11:12 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Hopefully many of them will become wiser with age.
November 30, 2010, 11:13 pmRandy says:
CA: “Support for DADT does not imply hatred of anyone. You’re projecting.”
Then what do you classify HaroldHoward? Seems like he hates gays enough to want to do violence to them, even if they did nothing to him. You know darn well that a large percentage of the support arises from hate against gays.
But I agree — perhaps ‘hate’ is too strong a term for all supporters of DADT. Fear and misunderstanding be better words. The fact remains that every military that allows gays to serve openly hasn’t had any problems, and as this report also concludes, it won’t be a problem here. But some people *insist* that there will be problems, even though there is no evidence to support it. Why the insistance?
November 30, 2010, 11:15 pmRandy says:
CA: “Support for DADT does not imply hatred of anyone. You’re projecting.”
Then what do you classify HaroldHoward? Seems like he hates gays enough to want to do violence to them, even if they did nothing to him. You know darn well that a large percentage of the support arises from hate against gays.
But I agree — perhaps ‘hate’ is too strong a term for all supporters of DADT. Fear and misunderstanding be better words. The fact remains that every military that allows gays to serve openly hasn’t had any problems, and as this report also concludes, it won’t be a problem here. But some people *insist* that there will be problems, even though there is no evidence to support it. Why the insistance?
November 30, 2010, 11:15 pm1040 says:
i will forever admire mccain for his courage in vietnam – another war based on a lie – and his hard work in the 90s after his bad behavior in the keating scandal. however, his principles go out the window the moment they conflict with his greed for power. this started becoming obvious in 2000, when he was the undeserving victim of the nasty smear by bush about fathering a black baby out of wedlock, and he responded with lots of negative ads of his own despite forswearing them just a few months ago (david foster wallace wrote brilliantly about this episode). i am still sympathetic to him because bush’s behavior was so abhorrent. but since 2005-6 when he started running again, his repudiation of his own straight talk on every issue, his erratic campaign, his picking palin – somebody the true straight talking mccain would have abhorred back in the day, his behavior on dadt, and his race baiting anti immigration talk in his recent arizona senate campaign are indicative of a man whose principles have long left him. if mccain had retired after 2000, or even in 2004-5, he would have been a real hero for his entire life of public service. now he is just an opportunistic unprincipled old relic.
November 30, 2010, 11:16 pm1040 says:
thank you for confirming that the death of american soldiers is a joke to you.
November 30, 2010, 11:18 pminahandbasket says:
You mean develop a prejudice against gays? Uh, not likely when they’re growing up with empirical knowledge of gays and lesbians are as normal as the straight population.
November 30, 2010, 11:18 pmJon Rowe says:
Who knows one day perhaps? It was that way in Starship Troopers.
November 30, 2010, 11:21 pmRandy says:
BTW, this isn’t the first report to conclude that gays serving openly won’t pose any problems. The Rand Corp. (hardly a bastion of liberality), said so back in 1993. The Army War College also did an exhaustive study several years ago and concluded the same thing.
In short, this is only the latest report to conclude the exact same thing — that there will be no effect on unit cohesion or morale, or even fighting effectiveness.
Supporters of DADT don’t have any evidence at all to back up their claims — nothing — which is why they rely solely upon insults, innuendo, cheap shots, and speculation. But they have no reports, history or evidence, whereas those who want to repeal DADT have a majority of Americans, a majority of conservatives, a majority of foreign allied armies on their side.
Your side really has nothing, except perhaps some religion, or disgust with gay sodomy. But you certainly don’t have history, because even if DADT isn’t repealed this month, it will be gone at some point. Even Republicans are starting to realize that.
November 30, 2010, 11:24 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
If he did say gays should be murdered, I’d classify that as evil. I didn’t see him say that. But you’re suggesting he’s representative, which is baseless.
No, that’s just more projection.
November 30, 2010, 11:29 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Stop-loss anyone?
I think Congress should let the military set whatever policy on gender segregation the brass sees fit.
What makes Congress better qualified to figure out gender segregation than the Armed Forces, exactly? I mean, surely they have the Constitutional authority to make the rules, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t defer to the military, right?
I trust the commanders a heck of a lot more than I trust either Congress or the Chiefs, to tell you the truth. If their estimation is that shuffling people around will help, I’m all for it.
The usual response is usually “thanks for the compliment” or “flattered but spoken for”.
As I read it, the men of the military are also going to indiscriminately sexualize every woman with whom they share a bunk. We’re told they have the discipline of a 13 year old and the indiscriminate sex drive of a rabbit.
At this rate, it’s a wonder they aren’t having sex with camels and sheep. Or the barrels of grenade launchers.
November 30, 2010, 11:29 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
I don’t accept the premise that opposition to repealing DADT is based on prejudice.
You are a joke to me.
November 30, 2010, 11:31 pmSviluppo says:
Sviluppo: “Over the years we’ve learned to live with various groups categorized as monsters by the majority: Suffragettes, Native Americans, Jews, Japanese, Blacks, Atheists…”
Commentus Anonymous: “… pederasts, schizophrenics, kleptomaniacs, carjackers, Islamists …”
Obviously I have misunderstood your intent. Can you explain what your list has to do with my list? As I pointed out, from your list, many convicted criminals are allowed to serve. I do not understand where homosexuals fall into the grouping of child rapists, the mentally ill, robbers, and religious terrorists.
November 30, 2010, 11:31 pmRandy says:
Political correctness cuts both ways, of course. Those who are absolutely convinced that their buddies would hate to have open gays no doubt discussed the issue.
So imagine a scenario where someone who is slightly unhinged, like Harold Howard, who spouts off about sodomites, and how he would like to ‘take care’ of them, and then says he couldn’t stand any gays in his unit. And what would you say? Disagree with him? Pretty unlikely. Instead, you go along with what he and others say, and mutter ‘effing faggots’ and such to make you look all macho and so very very hetero. But the truth is that you really don’t care and can’t understand why some guys get so worked up about this.
And so your surprise to find out that your buddies were actually just humoring you! So maybe they didn’t really respect you anyway, and you are just finding that out now.
My deepest sympathies.
November 30, 2010, 11:32 pmTrashhauler says:
Well, I don’t hate gays, but the idea of expelling non-gays brings up a point of interest. The post-DADT Implementation Plan is full of considerations about how to minimize the negative impact of repeal. Proponents of repeal make much about the advantages to the military of gays serving openly and there would be some. But apparently, we already benefited from their presence, for the most part.
But how many are there, anyway? Five percent of the force? It’s possible we’ll lose far more than that when DADT is gone. Should we care about a chaplain shortage?
And of course, the social dynamics can still result in lost unit cohesion, regardless of poll results. Why are proponents of repeal so sanguine about such things?
November 30, 2010, 11:32 pm1040 says:
it’s not that. if only there was one more study, i mean, a real study, then i’d totally be for it. really.
November 30, 2010, 11:32 pminahandbasket says:
So murder is evil but harassment and fragging is A-OK? Thanks for clearing that up. I think I’ll sleep better – NOT -
November 30, 2010, 11:33 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/military/article_f9a1edea-5848-5d2e-8efe-9e0c2a29ac16.html
November 30, 2010, 11:33 pm1040 says:
how are they different? commentus anonymous’s standard technique is to insist that the burden of proof is on you to establish the converse of any assertion he makes.
November 30, 2010, 11:35 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
One of the things that irritates the living daylights out of certain feminists is the assumption that any attention is a compliment, hence not wanting attention, rather than being a neutral fact, is outright rudeness. Regardless of who it’s from or the form it takes.
I suppose that I am an easygoing person b/c attention of that sort doesn’t bother me. That doesn’t mean that other people shouldn’t be bothered by it, of course. If I were “hot” enough to get a lot of attention, I can see how it would get old.
November 30, 2010, 11:36 pmRandy says:
CA: “No, that’s just more projection. ”
FEar is most definately a reason to oppose DADT. That’s exactly what you guys are saying! You are afraid that if gays serve openly, it will harm unit cohesion, morale, effectiveness, that they will oogle other men, make sexual advances and so on. Those who don’t share those fears have no problems with gays serving openly. That’s 70%.
So again, what do you think of those who have no problems with gays serving — do you think they are blind to the problems? Stupid? Gay themselves? If it is so clear that gays will be harmful — despite no evidence whatsoever — then anyone in the military who supports repeal (and that includes Gen. Powell and many top generals, both active and retired) really don’t know anything about the military, right?
” don’t accept the premise that opposition to repealing DADT is based on prejudice.”
Well it certainly isn’t based on evidence. Do you care to enlighten us as to what exactly it IS based on?
November 30, 2010, 11:38 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
I do not understand where homosexuals fall into your list either.
Stop lying about what I said. I don’t think lying is OK. Thanks.
November 30, 2010, 11:40 pmRandy says:
CA: “Nearly 7 of every 10 Marines in combat roles say repealing the policy that prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly would harm their unit’s effectiveness”
Oh! Now I get it!
The survey is accurate and should be respected where the results are what you want, but should be ignored and discredited where the results are contrary to what you want.
Brilliant!
November 30, 2010, 11:41 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
You didn’t answer my question. Do you support or oppose the “bigotry” (or if you prefer “fear”) that leads to the current policy of segregation by gender in the military?
November 30, 2010, 11:42 pminahandbasket says:
You need to remind yourself of that old saying, “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
November 30, 2010, 11:44 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Where did I say any results of any survey should be ignored? Why are you so utterly dishonest?
November 30, 2010, 11:45 pmTrashhauler says:
Well, the first thing most would do is to warn him to shut the hell up before someone heard him and reported it. After DADT repeal, it will be worth anyone’s career to openly say such things. Such a person is almost certainly going to give himself away during the mandatory sensitivity sessions, anyway. If he can’t live with it, he’ll undoubtedly get out – as will an unknown number of people who wouldn’t think about speaking out, but nonetheless would decide the situation went too far against the grain.
November 30, 2010, 11:45 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
You need to stop lying.
November 30, 2010, 11:46 pmLN says:
Does Commentus Anonymous support or oppose the “bigotry” (or if he prefers “fear”) that lead to slavery, racial oppression, the Holocaust, etc?
Once that is settled, perhaps we can turn our attention back to the matter at hand. It is true that human social behavior is not characterized by total freedom for all parties, but by restrictions on what is considered appropriate. The merits of any particular restriction are not decided by the fact that some restrictions must exist.
November 30, 2010, 11:47 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Gender segregation in the US military is like slavery or the Holocaust? That may press the analogy a wee bit too far.
November 30, 2010, 11:49 pminahandbasket says:
For all of you breathlessly hanging on to the brawny Marines who seem to be the most afraid of the HoMoSexuls, here’s what else the Few & Proud saith in the report:
”
November 30, 2010, 11:51 pm4) Last, I suspect that we will see some creative slicing and dicing of the raw data. Look for a special focus on the Marines, whose attitudes are least supportive of repeal. This too shouldn’t be persuasive. To my mind, the most telling responses are to questions 39a, 39b, and 39c (at pages 181-182 of the report). Service members who said they had served in units in which they and everybody else in the unit believed the unit leader to be gay or lesbian reported high levels of unit cohesion (77% good or very good), morale (68% good or very good), and performance (78%). Answers for the Marine Corps were, respectively, 68%, 58%, and 72%. And most of those in all branches who did not answer good or very good to these questions said that cohesion, morale, and performance were “neither good nor poor,” with only small percentages choosing “poor” or “very poor.” Nevertheless, I’m sure that some ominous numbers can be massaged out of the data if one tries hard enough. And because most people won’t actually look at the report or the data, the competing views of the report will largely mirror previously held views.”
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2010/11/now-what-for-dont-ask-dont-tell.html
OrenWithAnE says:
Because we don’t believe they will come to pass.
Of course. And the most people can read by fairly simple body language when attention is unwelcome. Those that persist in the face of obvious signs of obvious disinterest should be sprayed with icewater until they desist.
Just don’t mistakenly lump in the clueless with the tactless.
December 1, 2010, 12:01 amSviluppo says:
The current policy of DADT forces American servicemen and women to lie. A soldier can get married to his boyfriend while on leave and, upon return, have to lie if anyone asks him how he enjoyed his time off. Later, he and his husband can adopt children. If he receives a letter from one of them, he is forced to lie and say that it’s from a nephew or a friend’s kid. That’s one of my main objections to DADT: you can nail a hooker in every port while your family is suffering back home, but if you tell the truth about a legal marriage, you can get kicked out of the service.
December 1, 2010, 12:04 amCommentus Anonymus says:
And if they do, then what?
Where are the numbers for the control group for comparison?
December 1, 2010, 12:05 amCommentus Anonymus says:
I don’t accept the premise that it’s a “lie” not to tell people about your relationships. I also don’t accept the premise that two people of the same sex can get married.
December 1, 2010, 12:08 amRandy says:
CA: “Do you support or oppose the “bigotry” (or if you prefer “fear”) that leads to the current policy of segregation by gender in the military?”
Seeing as no one is advocating any change in that policy, I’d say that’s a red herring.
I asked you what the policy of DADT is based on if not fear, and you still fail to answer.
“Where are the numbers for the control group for comparison? ”
What need is there for a control group or any comparison? The question was straight forward. But again, you don’t question the report where it supports your contentions, but you question it where it doesn’t.
CA: ” I also don’t accept the premise that two people of the same sex can get married. ”
Well, now you are certifiably in unhingedland. Two people of the same sex can indeed get married in several states and many countries. You may not like that, but it’s called reality.
I don’t like the fact that the drinking age is 21. It should be lower, IMO. But I accept that fact as a matter of law. If I said that 19 year old can legally drink, you would think I’m nuts. And so I think that of you. Good night.
December 1, 2010, 12:22 amSviluppo says:
The superior officer walks by your locker and asks, “Who’s that in your picture, your brother?”
The serviceman must lie, tell the truth and be discharged, or commit insubordination and refuse to respond.
The serviceman, a devout Episcopalian, member of a church that embraces homosexual clergy and members, is having a family problem back home and needs spiritual counseling. In order to discuss the issue openly with an Episcopalian chaplain, he has to risk being discharged.
The laws of several states say otherwise. The laws of other states may or may not change in the future, which is really what we’re debating, right? The very likely change of an existing policy enacted by Congress. Personally, I’m less bothered by two adult males getting married rather than the many states where you can marry your first cousin or marry someone as young as 13. However, I fail to see how recognition of a legal marriage should result in someone being removed from the Armed Services.
December 1, 2010, 12:22 amTrashhauler says:
And if they do nonetheless come to pass, we can doubtless expect plenty of self-righteous comments about eggs and omelets.
Give nothing, take a little bit away, repeat indefinitely. It is probable that at least some of the shift in attitudes is simply fatigue. Those with a tribal agenda are implacable in their efforts, whilst most of us are simply individuals not much inclined to fall on our swords over what seems inevitable.
We will still worry about the outcome, though. And suspect most repeal proponents won’t give it another thought after it happens, except to use the precedent for the next thing on the agenda. It’s that sense of merely being used that irks so.
December 1, 2010, 12:28 amRicardo says:
This argument always baffles me. It is part of having a normal social life and engaging in casual banter with colleagues that people talk about their relationships and who they are attracted to. This is true 10-fold when applied to testosterone-fueled young men.
Any 20-year-old guy who has a normal work and social life is going to be spending some time talking about past or current boyfriends or girlfriends or making comments about who he is interested in. If he doesn’t, he is going to raise immediate red flags among everybody that he is hiding something and/or is just incredibly weird and asocial. Most gay guys would not want to raise those questions and so will lie in a situation where they cannot tell reveal their sexuality.
If this comes as a revelation to anybody, it’s an indication you need to spend less time on the internet.
December 1, 2010, 12:31 amAngus says:
Let me see if I can summarize the pro-DADT/anti-gay comments so far: “Some of us in the military are so filled with hatred for gays that we’ll quit if gays are allowed to serve openly.”
My response: Good riddance.
December 1, 2010, 12:50 am1040 says:
That’s a lie considering your commenting record.
December 1, 2010, 12:51 am1040 says:
no, they won’t quit. heck they hate gays so much they couldn’t even fill out a survey form.
December 1, 2010, 12:53 amCommentus Anonymus says:
So you just blindly accept bigotry if there’s no current movement to change it. OK.
Because the numbers by themselves are relatively meaningless. If, for example, one group reports 77% good or very good unit cohesion, and the control group also reports 77%, that would indicate a different circumstance than if the control group reported 95% unit cohesion. This should be obvious.
I think calling a same-sex relationship “marriage” is unhinged. Just because a government employee does so doesn’t change that.
If you said a 19 year-old is a 21 year-old, I’d think you were nuts. If a judge said so, I’d think the judge was nuts. Just because some government entity says “X equals Y” doesn’t mean I’m obligated to go along with the ruse. If you want to just blindly go along with anything the government says, that’s your problem. I think that’s nuts.
December 1, 2010, 12:53 am1040 says:
which is what commentus anonymous’ girlfriend told him when she said she didn’t want to be seen in public with him ever.
December 1, 2010, 12:56 amCommentus Anonymus says:
It’s part of a normal social life to date members of the opposite sex. So what’s your point?
December 1, 2010, 12:58 amCommentus Anonymus says:
A similarly mature response would be “I’m rubber, and you’re glue…” and maybe throwing some sand.
December 1, 2010, 1:00 amOrenWithAnE says:
Then power to exclude gays from wherever they are causing problems will still reside in the military. I have faith that the decision making process we use to decide the billion other things in the military that aren’t mandated by Congress can handle this as well.
Repealing DADT doesn’t constrain the military, it removes a constraint.
December 1, 2010, 1:00 am1040 says:
still stuck, i see. and so stuck that you attribute your comment to me too!
December 1, 2010, 1:02 amCommentus Anonymus says:
I hope you’re right. We shall see I imagine.
December 1, 2010, 1:03 amCommentus Anonymus says:
Small children require repetition.
December 1, 2010, 1:05 am1040 says:
well, good luck repeating things enough to get them right then. my best wishes to you.
December 1, 2010, 1:11 amHoward says:
I don’t think this fallacious, unless all empiricism is fallacious. The fact that the Second Coming has been inaccurately predicted many times doesn’t mean it’s not true this time, but…
December 1, 2010, 1:46 amKen Arromdee says:
But the elephant in the room, which CA seems to be trying to point out, is that the same thing can be said for gender segregation as well. The argument for gender segregation is that women really are the object of unwelcome desire from straight men. If this is so, it’s hard to deny that men really are the object of unwelcome desire from gay men.
And nobody would ever say “the women who complain the most about being ogled by men are probably either ugly anyway, or secretly attracted to those men and insecure about it.”
December 1, 2010, 1:54 amHoward says:
Whereas you, I have no doubt, would be vigorously defending its validity if results had come out the other way
December 1, 2010, 1:57 amTrashhauler says:
That’s exactly it – you don’t understand and that doesn’t bother you a bit. I’ve spent over 41 years in or employed by the military and proponents of repeal such as youself merely see what I’ve given my life to as something from which to wrest political points. Well, sorry, but I care about the consequences a whole lot more than that.
December 1, 2010, 2:26 amHoward says:
a) absence of any evidence for such things
b) presence of evidence against such things
Listen, folks, this is turning out to be a debate between CA and the Rest of the World. And CA seems to operate at the “I know you are, but what am I?” level. Not really very interesting. Be well.
December 1, 2010, 2:30 am1040 says:
That should have been evident from his yeoman work on the ucla animal researcher thread.
December 1, 2010, 2:34 amleo marvin says:
I discovered what causes homosexuality. It isn’t nature. It isn’t nurture. It’s HaroldHoward1967. After 40+ years of heterosexuality I thought the sexual orientation question was settled for me. And yet, after reading comments like this:
the only words that come to mind are “Blow me.”
December 1, 2010, 3:24 amDoug D. says:
I was in the Marines for 4 years as a closeted gay man from 1996-2000. I did run into a lot of gay Marines off-base. It was a lot of fun to make my fantasies come true when I had some free time. However, I was always discreet on base and even made up an imaginary “girlfriend.” Sure, I noticed the hot guys, but no way did I ever stare at anyone or do anything to make anyone else uncomfortable when on duty.
The main reason I left the Corps was because I was totally paranoid about being found out. I liked my job and really wanted to continue serving, but it would have involved paying too high a personal price.
December 1, 2010, 4:59 aminahandbasket says:
December 1, 2010, 7:30 aminahandbasket says:
Thread winner.
December 1, 2010, 7:35 amAJ says:
Priceless. You must know different Marines than I do.
December 1, 2010, 7:45 amJon Rowe says:
You may want to consider it’s not “the same thing,” but rather a very imperfect analogy.
Consider that a typical heterosexual male soldier, or a collective of predominantly heterosexual male soldiers, may be able to handle the circumstances differently than female soldiers, as the situation currently stands. Think power dynamics.
December 1, 2010, 8:00 amJon Rowe says:
Likewise one can conversely argue that Jim and Bob are indeed “married” in a metaphysical sense even if the state refuses to call what they have a “marriage.”
We can argue over who is really “married” in a metaphysical way in the same way we can argue whether someone who doesn’t believe in the Trinity is a “Christian” even though they call themselves one.
That’s one reason why I support privitizing marriage. Let any two people, even two elderly celibate biological sisters who happen to be Roman Catholic Nuns get a two person civil union and NO ONE get a “marriage” from the state.
December 1, 2010, 8:04 amShelbyC says:
My understanding is that the Russian army has always been rife with non-consentual homosexual activity (by straits), as has many other militaries. I think it’s interesting that in a 20th century US context we often view homosexual activity as romantic activity by homosexuals, but globally and historically it has often taken the form of exploitive activity by straits. I suspect that many attitudes toward homosexuality have evolved in the context of viewing such activity as exploitive, rather than romantic activity by homosexuals.
December 1, 2010, 8:27 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Is it being the object of unwelcome desire that’s the problem here, or potentially being the object of assault?
December 1, 2010, 8:58 amRandy McDonald says:
Trashhauler: Why would it do bad things to the American military, again?
Commentus Anonymus: “It’s part of a normal social life to date members of the opposite sex.” Does that mean that gay men should be excluded from normal social life?
December 1, 2010, 9:32 ambadlaw says:
Was anybody under the impression that this study was going to be non-biased? I wasn’t. The DoD wasn’t going to issue that goes against the President’s stated policy goals. Gates might would disagree with him in private talks, but this “official study” wouldn’t have.
December 1, 2010, 9:49 amHaroldHoward1967 says:
I can’t believe the spin that Professor Carpenter and other have engaged in on the actual results from this poll. (I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since homosexuals are narcissistic liars.)
THE REAL PENTAGON POLL: 91% REJECT HOMOSEXUAL LEADERS. 85% OF COMBAT MARINES DISTRUST, 71% WON’T SHARE SHOWERS, 24% WON’T RE-ENLIST.
HALF MILLION TROOPS, ONE IN FOUR, WOULD LEAVE THE MILITARY
Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt just read the full Pentagon report on repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and here’s his analysis:
“Don’t believe the phony liberal media reports that 70% of troops support open homosexual service, because that statistic included ‘mixed’ feelings. A closer reading of the fine print in the newly released Pentagon survey shows our troops answered as follows:
Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact on unit’s performance.
Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust if DADT is repealed.
Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers with homosexuals. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don’t know or do “something else” [including violence].
Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (One half million troops will QUIT the service early, destroying our national security.)
Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don’t know about recommending military service to others. (Destroying recruiting efforts.)
Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.
Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about permitting open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 60% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.
Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don’t know.
In summary, the real statistics prove our nation faces a NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, and open homosexual aggression is forced upon our troops against their will.”
December 1, 2010, 10:04 amjsmith says:
I think it’s appropriate that according to anecdotal evidence many pro-DADT service members threw away the survey letter – their views are suited for the dustbin of history.
December 1, 2010, 10:15 amBuzz says:
The biggest lie of all is that homosexuals can’t presently serve in the military. They can, they just can’t advertise their sexual preference, nor can leaders ask about it.
When you look at the total number of people in the military with the number who actually responded to the survey and the number who see no problem, you have barely 5% of the active military wanting repeal of DADT.
It’s simply dishonest to say that there will be no problems.
I, by the way, am a combat-arms veteran, so I know a bit more than a lawyer who’s never worn the uniform.
December 1, 2010, 10:32 amecho whiskey says:
This is precisely why I chucked my survey into the shredder. I have nothing to gain and plenty to lose.
December 1, 2010, 10:49 amrichard40 says:
I think a big factor here is what type of homosexuality will be tolerated. As long as a guy tries to be discreet, and otherwise tries to fit in with the norms of the unit, but ends up being found out because somebody outs him, I think most military people would not mind, and anyone who oppresses him when he is otherwise trying his best to fit in, should be stopped. However, if some guy marches in a gay parade as a drag queen, or tries to convert fellow members of his unit, and his unit ribs him about it, an he responds by droning on about homophobia and rights and how dare they criticise his lifestyle, there will be trouble. There will also be trouble if some leftie administration tries to introduce some form of affirmative action or anti hate speech for gays. If they are willing to recognize that gayness will never be popular in the military, but might be discreetly tolerated, then it will work.
December 1, 2010, 10:50 am1040 says:
heh heh. hh1967 says “former” but doesn’t mention what the pro prayer christian bush administration had to say about him:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401544.html
A Navy court decided yesterday to reprimand and dock the pay of an evangelical Protestant chaplain after finding him guilty of disobeying an order…
sounds like a wonderful military man.
and no wonder that hh1967 loves him. he too advocates the killing of those he dislikes:
http://blog.au.org/2009/04/27/spiritual-warfare-exchaplain-prays-for-death-of-aus-lynn/
And — apparently still disgruntled — over the weekend he called on supporters to launch “imprecatory” prayers against AU Executive Director Barry W. Lynn and MRFF founder Mikey Weinstein.
For those of you not versed in the finer points of extreme right-wing theology, imprecatory prayers are prayers that bad things will happen to your enemies – things like death, loss of income, loss of property, etc.
“Almighty God, today we pray imprecatory prayers from Psalm 109 against the enemies of religious liberty, including Barry Lynn and Mikey Weinstein, who recently issued a press release attacking me personally,” prays Klingenschmitt on his Web site. “God, do not remain silent, for wicked men surround me and tell lies about me. We bless them, but they curse us. Therefore, find them guilty, not me. Let their days be few, and replace them with godly people. Plunder their fields and seize their assets. Cut off their descendants. And remember their sins. In Jesus’ name. Amen.”
December 1, 2010, 10:53 amBuzz says:
First, this is nothing but an ad hominem attack. What does his past have to do with the legitimate points he makes about the survey questions?
But while on the topic, you want to know the “order” he disobeyed: to not end his public prayers “in Jesus’ name,” even though he is a Christian chaplain and it is Christian doctrine to pray in this way.
The “order” was in fact an unlawful order in that it was the government telling a Christian how to practice his religion, a clear violation of the First Amendment free-exercise clause.
December 1, 2010, 11:03 amSkyler says:
They use ACORN and other organizations to stuff ballot boxes when there are federal laws to discourage it. What’s to stop them from rigging an opinion poll?
I can tell you that sitting at my desk in my combat unit getting ready for Afghanistan that there is no way in hell that 84% think that this will have no impact.
It’s been rigged.
December 1, 2010, 11:05 amJon Rowe says:
“Gordon James Klingenschmitt”
LOL. My buddy Ed Brayton (with my help and others) at Dispatches From the Culture Wars has made this guy look like such a fool when he stops by and tries to engage us.
December 1, 2010, 11:06 am1040 says:
i don’t think you are aware of the first amendment. are you by any chance a christine o’donnell voter? and the conservative military under the evangelical favoring bush administration shut down klingenschmitt’s ability to practice christianity. got it.
December 1, 2010, 11:13 amDaveO says:
One point to consider for determining the validity of DOD surveys: only the approved result is published. For example, during the 1990s, the Army took annual surveys. One year the survey dealt with the integrity of leaders and the personnel system. The results were so bad that General Reimer, the CSA, refused to release the results of the survey.
The polls returned showed 1% of the military responded. That numbers favoring the President’s stated policy are published are not so remarkable. That close to a million personnel, including the Guard and the Reserves, were either excluded or discarded, or refused to respond (something like 99% of our military) is being ignored.
December 1, 2010, 11:26 amCalifornio says:
Totally aside from the subject – a “survey” – really?
Comrade: Do you as a loyal member of the people’s army support the diktats of the people, as exemplified by the vanguard of the people – our glorious party? punch out this chad for “yes” or pull this trigger (metaphorically) for “no”. Yeah – I’ll be sure to vote my conscience on that one, chief.
December 1, 2010, 11:27 amBuzz says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
Now what part don’t I understand. The chaplain was forbidden the free exercise of religion by being told, by the government, how to pray.
Are you capable of anything but ad hominem arguments and gratuitous insult?
December 1, 2010, 11:29 amChrisTS says:
The U.S. military uses Acorn to stuff ballot boxes? Quick, someone call Prison Planet!
December 1, 2010, 11:30 amDenver says:
Not a word in any language.
December 1, 2010, 11:38 am1040 says:
ok, i see you don’t understand the first amendment. let me know when you do and we can discuss.
December 1, 2010, 11:41 amMatt in Chicago says:
At the end of the day, I don’t think most people in the military really care anymore about DADT. But what this survey actually does is prove that this policy is not likely to affect the ability of our military to perform it’s duties… if supporters of DADT had done this years ago they would have had a much better argument in support of repeal. Instead, for years they asked for repeal and ignored the idea that it might have a negative impact… in other words, they have opted for the ‘ignorance is our only virtue” strategy and then called everyone who pointed out the fallacy in their so-called plan a homophobe.
Given the huge issues facing our country, DADT is so low on my list of priorities as to be non-existent! Repeal it, don’t repeal it… I don’t care, but stop wasting time. We have important things to address and DADT is not one of them. This whole debate is a distraction that effects a tiny fraction of the country and a tinier fraction of the gay community. So vote and let’s move on.
December 1, 2010, 11:50 amBuzz says:
Oh, puh-leeze. Why don’t you, o wise one, enlightment me.
December 1, 2010, 11:54 amMike Anderson says:
Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but were there any survey researchers involved in compiling that steaming mass of barely tablulated data? The few people I was able to successfully locate on the web all seem to be LAWYERS (nothing wrong with lawyers per se, but I wouldn’t hire one to fix my plumbing, or design a survey).
There seems to be no discussion of response RATES or verification that the respondents were representative of the Armed Forces, in spite of the fact that plenty of demographic data was collected to do so. Page 49 of the report screams selection bias: “The Service
members we heard from through these mechanisms were those individuals who felt strongly enough and motivated enough to give voice to their views” and then has the balls to follow up with this laughable non sequitur: “The survey results, by contrast, were intended to and did capture the views of the force as a whole in an analytically sound and objective manner, and were representative across every component of the force.” This is friggin’ handwaving, and doesn’t substantially address the credibility of the survey.
If the result is anywhere close to reality, it’s primarily due to the DoD’s “Red Army” sampling scheme–overwhelm the problem with very large numbers. If the statement about participation is true, the results are probably concentrated in the extremes, sugggesting more variability than really exists. But without some reproducible analysis, who can tell?
Nevertheless, my hat’s off to anyone who can get 115,000+ responses to a survey! Better yet, all THOSE survey participants deserve our thanks for having the fortitude to grind through 96+ eyeball-glazing questions.
December 1, 2010, 11:56 amJon Rowe says:
This is dead wrong. The military NEVER tells chaplains praying in their private capacity (i.e., fulfilling the role that a soldier’s private minister at home would) how to pray.
Rather, the military rightly and constitutionally told the good chaplain when you are praying a government prayer on behalf of us, you will do so in as non-sectarian a way as possible.
When government prays on behalf of the entire military it’s the government, not the individual actor that dictates the content of the prayers. If you don’t like the way government is telling you to pray then don’t act as an agent for government praying on behalf of the entire military.
December 1, 2010, 11:59 amBuzz says:
No, they sent out 115,000 surveys. They got 44,000 responses, less than half. So 44,000 responses are supposed to represent the views of a military 1.5 million strong?
No, this thing was rigged from the beginning.
December 1, 2010, 12:14 pmOrenWithAnE says:
The purpose is not to wrest political points, its to ensure that our brave gay servicemembers are not subject to arbitrary dismissal based on their sexual orientation.
A soldier was recently dismissed after a third non-military party went to her commanders with evidence of her gay marriage. She had not advertised it, they had not asked.
At the minimum, the policy needs to have an exception for those outed by the actions of third parties through no desire of the servicemember to be exposed.
December 1, 2010, 12:20 pm1040 says:
no point trying to reason with buzz. i doubt he’s interested in actually learning why he is wrong.
December 1, 2010, 12:25 pminahandbasket says:
EPIC FAIL.
December 1, 2010, 12:30 pmhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia
Buzz says:
It already does. If this is true, the commander who initiated the discharge violated orders.
December 1, 2010, 12:39 pminahandbasket says:
You are wrong. The military sent out 400,000 surveys and got 115,000
responses back.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/07/4632839-dont-ask-dont-tell-surveys-sent-out-to-400000-service-members
December 1, 2010, 12:40 pmPersonal Privacy says:
I agree with the flawed survey argument. The majority of military members wouldn’t see a problem, since a majority of military members are not affected by the unique personal privacy issues that surroud this topic.
If your not sharing a shower, latrine, or sleeping pad together…then…no…there doesn’t seem to be a problem. However, the minority, pointy-end of the spear folks…do have these concerns. One reason why in the military your not a citizen…you’re Government Issue. Subject to the UCMJ and denied a good chunk of the Bill-of-Rights.
DADT works because we make our superficial assumptions about sexual preference based upon gender. “Telling” removes gender-based assumptions/doubt.
If we only punish behavior and not thoughts, and sexual preference is not allowed to be a consideration, then why don’t we just have unisex bathrooms, and showers at all gyms?
December 1, 2010, 12:43 pmBuzz says:
Yes, I misread part of a news story on NPR. The 44,000 responses was from military spouses. You’re right: it was 115,000 out of 400,000 of service members.
December 1, 2010, 12:49 pmSkip Venable says:
Since those who oppose are such a small percentage, they should let them opt out of the service with an honorable discharge. These small numbers would not hurt the service and all remaining service personnel would be supportive and allow for a smooth transition.
December 1, 2010, 12:52 pmBuzz says:
Still the same snark and insult but no answer to my question, o wise one. Please enlighten me as to how I don’t understand the First Amendment.
December 1, 2010, 12:57 pmPaul A'Barge says:
So, you want open gay activists in the military.
Have you see the photos on the Zombie Time blog of the San Francisco Folsom Street Fair and the Gay Pride Parades.
You want these folks on the front lines?
You’re insane.
December 1, 2010, 1:06 pmMDC says:
Middleford hits the important question at about 8:38 pm… How does this make the military BETTER at doing its job? How does it make us BETTER warfighters?
If we were discussing a weapon system, then the question would not be “does it hurt us to start using this new weapon” (or tactic, or whatever). The ONLY important question would be “does it make us more effective?” Followed closely by “can we afford whatever the direct and indirect costs of this new system?” Call it second- and third-order effects to use the current parlance.
Having watched HOW the military has reacted to the changing roles of women in the military over the last couple of decades, I am skeptical of how honest ANY information gathered in the first years is (think “Kara Hultgreen”). All stories will be successes, all failures will be somebody else’s fault. This is not a criticism of the women, it’s an observation about how a hierarchal bureaucracy responds to directives. Bad stories will not happen, good stories will be legion (how many women left Desert Storm early because of pregnancy and/or prostitution? I don’t know because that statistic was not gathered or published. It was a LOT!). Women (or gays now) don’t have to feel bad… we do the same thing for weapon systems, too. People have careers staked on success (or at least on not running afoul of a negative mark in very competitive promotion boards), so there will be at least a subconscious calculus of how career-enhancing is touting the success of a program that higher is behind. It would be nice to believe that there is a sharp line between professionalism and careerism, but it certainly hasn’t been MY experience. Again, nothing against the subjects of this, it just is what it is.
As to the pooh-poohing of the “doesn’t this mean we should desegregate the sexes?” line of reasoning… unless we are currently setting up seperate billeting and showers for some reason OTHER than addressing the reality of sexual attraction (and its consequences, both welcome and unwelcome), I’m curious as to the justification. If there is such a fierce moral urgency to allow open serving of homosexuals, how can these same people stand idly by while men and women are kept in different areas? There MAY be good arguments about this, but just dismissing it is a cop-out.
As to the survey… not a statitician, but I cannot express any surprise that its results support the positions of the SecDef and Commander in Chief. Does anybody REALLY think they were pacing around the room waiting for the Executive Summary, hoping that it didn’t come back with a resounding negative response? Sure. I didn’t get the survey, by the way… probably went to my address in the states vice Afghanistan. But I’m sure that was statistically adjusted for. Sure.
So: will the military collapse? Of course not. Will there be a single critical study that reveals negative impact on effectiveness (which one could reasonably associate, in a non-specific sort of way, to battlefield death and injury)? Of course not. I don’t doubt it (DADT going way) will happen, but don’t kid yourself that this report is anything other than, as has been pointed out, political cover.
Full disclosure: 29+ years in the military, currently in Afghanistan, lots of time in Iraq and Desert Storm before that. And I’ll be out before any negative impacts manifest (but probably not before hyped reports of massive improvements show up in every news outlet).
December 1, 2010, 1:08 pm1040 says:
so i see you chose to ignore the answer that jon rowe gave you. i wonder why.
December 1, 2010, 1:19 pmDeoxy says:
As best I can tell, the reason people have such high desire for laws/regulations/whatever against homosexuality (besides the religious reasons, which I have but don’t think that the government is the best vehicle for by any means) is not because they really want all gay people to suffer/die/go away forever (indeed, I know and have worked with some gay people, and it’s no issue, and I don’t comment on it unless there’s a very specific reason to do so), but because they don’t want it to be an issue. At all. EVER. DADT follows this vein fairly well, really, at least in theory – do what you want in private, but really, REALLY, just keep it private, OK?
I think that’s really what a lot of this is about. The coworkers you would never know were gay? Even the ones that you know are gay because you have met their partner (and even see them at company events, etc), but otherwise wouldn’t know? We don’t care*. “Out and proud”? Yeah, the Onion nailed that a long time ago: “Gay Pride parade sets back gay rights 50 years”
*OK, Christians believe homosexuality is a sin… but then, so is sex outside marriage, lying, and a whole bunch of other things. Christian theology states as fact that all humans sin. Non-Christians should be EXPECTED to “live in sin”, and the proper way to deal with that is to convert them, not condemn them. The Puritan tradition/concept of “community sin” or whatever you want to call it, has had terrible fruit (such as the church’s treatment of homosexuals). It’s just so much EASIER to just condemn and shun “bad people” than it is to actually deal with people’s difficult lives and really help them… Yeah, the church is made up of imperfect people, too (that’s Christian theology, too, actually).
December 1, 2010, 1:21 pm1040 says:
oh yeah, nothing to feel bad. examples will be cherrypicked, and we know that any good stories are LIES, because we know the TRUTH about teh wimmen and teh gays.
December 1, 2010, 1:35 pminahandbasket says:
Have you seen the perverts at the New Orleans Mardi Gras annual parade? Do you want them in the military?
December 1, 2010, 1:36 pmzuch says:
Oh. You hang with the homely/ugly ones?
Cheers,
December 1, 2010, 1:40 pmyguy says:
The previously documented mendacity of 1040 aside, I beg to differ, as 1A is not reasonably interpreted to give an employee leave to overtly practice his religion in the course of his duties and in contravention to the wishes of his employer.
December 1, 2010, 1:46 pmBuzz says:
No, I responded to his inadequate answer. Still nothing from you, though, even though you pose as the great wise one. And you brought it up first, anyway, so surely, you have some idea.
Enlighten me, o wise one.
December 1, 2010, 1:51 pmDeoxy says:
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Nobody want so to be around these people. Military, work, neighborhood, whatever. If there was a way to just get both sides to leave well enough alone (we will never bother you again, you quit messing with the word “marriage”* and otherwise messing with our lives), I think that would be great.
*A non-marital legal arrangement that let people easily assign bits of marriage rights/privileges (hospital visitation, survivorship, medical power of attorney, etc) easily and individually would be a really nice thing for society in general. Take the word “marriage” out of it entirely, where the government isn’t in the “marriage” business at all, and the whole bloody problem goes away. What riles people the most is simple the government co-opting language out from under them (I strongly suspect that, language being fluid, the SSM sector would get what they want out of it in fairly short order, anyway… faster than the other alternatives, even, but it would avoid the problem that abortion had when SCOTUS rules on it – decision forced on people from on high).
December 1, 2010, 1:53 pmMDC says:
So your point is what? Is your position that there will be no cherrypicking of reports? Do you base this on the extensive examples of PAOs pointing out the flaws in their own commands? Or are you just pissy because I implied that women or gays might feel bad about being women or gays and completely missed the point of the post because of a trip-wire intention to be offended by anybody daring to not be 100% onboard with this idea? Yeah… there won’t be any cherrypicking… I’m sure you are correct. Sure.
December 1, 2010, 2:04 pm1040 says:
heh heh. just saying “you lied” doesn’t count, you know. even joe wilson probably knows that by now.
December 1, 2010, 2:07 pmBuzz says:
Maybe I should have been clearer. Yes, I think there’s a valid argument to support your point, and there’s case law outside the military to support it.
But I think the chaplain also had a reasonable argument, whether or not it wins the day. My point was that labeling him a wacko extremist is simply lazy argumentation.
December 1, 2010, 2:09 pm1040 says:
umm.. i see not a single response to you to jon rowe’s explanation about the first amendment.
December 1, 2010, 2:11 pm1040 says:
as i said earlier:
i love how now that the data doesn’t support the excuses, the whole world must be lying and in a conspiracy.
December 1, 2010, 2:13 pmOnlyOneDataPoint says:
I asked my son about this. He is in one of the high-speed special ops units.
On this issue he personally is liberal minded. He is from a liberal /gay friendly community.
His short answer was that it would devastating and impossible. And, that openly gay guys would be immediately peered out the unit. He said that knowing, or suspecting, that your friend/buddy is gay would be a lot different than a soldier being openly gay.
Maybe we should keep the openly gay troops in the same units/jobs that women are in as a start. After the troops get used to seeing gay troops in the open then integrate them into the trigger puller units.
December 1, 2010, 2:32 pmBuzz says:
Well I did, even if it didn’t take. But see my response to yguy at 2:09 pm for a summary of what I said.
But my point remains: you brought it up first, which means you must have some understanding of how I don’t understand the First Amendment.
Please, without resorting to snark or what anyone else said, please enlighten me.
I’m not going to hold my breath, because you haven’t said anything substantive the whole day.
I think you’re really a pimply 15-year-old playing hooky. Apparently nothing good on Oprah or Dr. Phil today.
December 1, 2010, 2:37 pmMDC says:
And as -I- said (or implied): you have absolute faith that the report is without critical flaw, that reports of success will be objective and that if there is a dearth of negative reporting, it is only because there ARE no significant issues.
I envy you your faith. Good luck with it, it just doesn’t match much that I’ve seen. Perhaps my experiences were the exception and I just missed all the negative reporting. Could be that you are right. The POINT was: how does this make us (the military) BETTER at fighting? If it does, then use that argument. If you want to criticize people for being skeptical about human and bureaucratic nature, then that tells us something, too.
December 1, 2010, 2:39 pm1040 says:
ok :) then i did too, and it didn’t take either. how sad.
December 1, 2010, 2:42 pmrjschwarz says:
Why not remove Don’t Ask Don’t Tell from the Air Force and see how things go before opening up the ground combat units.
December 1, 2010, 2:45 pm1040 says:
so now the chain of command in the military is mendacious and misguided. whatever happened to support the troops?
December 1, 2010, 2:46 pmrjschwarz says:
Why not remove Don’t Ask Don’t Tell from the Air Force and see how things go before opening up the ground combat units.
December 1, 2010, 2:46 pmBuzz says:
Ah, but my response is there to another poster, and I pointed you to it. Now give me yours … or try Power Rangers or something else if Oprah’s boring today.
December 1, 2010, 2:52 pm1040 says:
as jon rowe said, he was indulging in govt speech not private speech. the end.
December 1, 2010, 2:53 pmMichael Ejercito says:
I do think this study is biased. The issue does require additional congressional hearings.
I am agnostic on the issue, and admittedly a good case could be made that DADT should be scaled back, at least from the extent it permits discharging servicemen for revealing a homosexual orientation in a civilian setting or while otherwise off-duty.
The best piece of history from which Congress can learn is the history of integration of the sexes in military units Did the challenges of dealing with the sexual dynamics outweigh the benefits?
December 1, 2010, 2:54 pmwriter on loan says:
First time a drill sergeant calls a gay guy a “nancy” there’s going to be a lawsuit.
December 1, 2010, 2:58 pmwriter on loan says:
First time a drill sergeant calls a gay guy a “nancy” there’s going to be a lawsuit.
December 1, 2010, 2:58 pmwriter on loan says:
First time a drill sergeant calls a gay guy a “nancy” there’s going to be a lawsuit.
December 1, 2010, 2:58 pmBuzz says:
No, you raised the objection before he did, so no mimicking what others have said.
Besides, there’s an equal argument that the government cannot tell you how to practice your religion.
You know, my kids tell me Dora the Explorer is pretty good. YOu might want to try that if Dr. Phil is boring.
December 1, 2010, 3:09 pm1040 says:
i have no idea what this even means and how this is relevant to anything. i raised the objection before he did, but the explanation is blindingly obvious to anybody who has tracked anything about the first amendment. obviously not to you since you just use it in the vague meaningless manner popularized by palin and dr. laura (i assume she’s your favorite, since you use phil and oprah as insults).
December 1, 2010, 3:20 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Untrue, with dozens of citations.
Are you suggesting that the commanding officer, having initiated discharge despite the disclosure coming from a non-military third-party (as in most of the cases above) and through no intent of the service-member to make it known, violated orders? That would be news to the military, to say the least.
<blockq
December 1, 2010, 3:27 pmVanguard of the Commentariat says:
Served 22 years (Navy). Saw it all. Whole shipboard/squadron divisions of aggressive lesbians where no straight servicewoman dared to venture due to sexually oriented bullying. A fatal aircraft crash where the aircraft crew had more time in the previous year training on how to put condoms on bananas than they had practicing the maneuver that killed them. Known places and times on ships where gay crew members trolled for assignations. Sailors who had to have special dispensation and handling because they were HIV positive. Females and minorities who had serious skill, talent and personality flaws overlooked in order to ensure their success at the expense of females and minorities who could compete with anybody. I got a million of them. And they are all nothing more than distractions. Hell, that stupid survey kept someone away from fixing an airplane or training or securing early one day. Some distractions are merely wasteful and some are fatal, and they all keep us from doing the job at hand. That job is operating the force structure in the interest of national security policy. I do not mind if gays serve, they can now, and we have the best military in the world. Of all of the various demographics I have ever worked for or with (includes academia, the private sector and government), I have found military members to be the most tolerant and accepting of anyone who pulls their own weight. They are remarkably intolerant of people who don’t, and I thank God every day for them. Sorry rant off, but lets just let them do their jobs. DADT is actually a fair minded policy because it does just that. Keep your proclivities to yourself and nobody else will care about them either. Oh, and politicians, use some other institution for social experimentation, where the stakes aren’t so high.
December 1, 2010, 3:28 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Untrue, with dozens of citations.
Are you suggesting that the commanding officer, having initiated discharge despite the disclosure coming from a non-military third-party (as in most of the cases above) and through no intent of the service-member to make it known, violated orders? That would be news to the military, to say the least.
Until a vengeful former spouse, border patrol officer, local police officer or really any third party decides to out you against your will to keep it private.
The net effect is not only must you keep it private from the military, you must keep your orientation private from anyone and everyone that might possible blab to your CO.
December 1, 2010, 3:30 pmBuzz says:
Then you’re not paying attention. It is Christian doctrine to pray in Jesus’ name, and that’s all the chaplain wished to do. He was ordered not to. That, in effect, is telling the chaplain how to practice his religion, which involves both an establishment of religion (“we think Christian doctrine is such and such”) and a violation of the right to practice it freely (telling a Christian chaplain that he may not follow Christian doctrine).
That’s neither vague nor meaningless.
Also, neither Palin no Dr. Laura (favorite bugbears of liberals) don’t have TV shows for hooky-playing 15-year-olds to watch, while Oprah and Dr. Phil do.
December 1, 2010, 3:34 pmfurious says:
Hence, Achilles’ rage at Patroclus’ death, or so the
December 1, 2010, 3:37 pmlecturer for the Great Works’ course insinuated.
1040 says:
buzz, since you seem to need to suppress facts, do not address any of the substantive issues raised by jon rowe who took you for somebody asking a serious question, i don’t think there is any point in continuing to explain why the palin-laura-esque use of the words “first amendment” is useless.
and the fact that not one person pursued this supposed violation of the first amendment and suppression of christianity by the govt in the courts is enough evidence of its lack of substance.
December 1, 2010, 4:08 pmAJ says:
I would say on the positive side: (1) a lot of administrative time is saved kicking people out, (2) harassment by threatening exposure of gay soldiers would end; (3) over 13,000 gays have been ejected since 1993, this would end — including at least some who might be in critical areas such as linguistics
On the negative side: (1) there will be more cases of sexual harassment by gays and abuse against gays (at least initially as commanders figure out how best to deal with boundaries, privacy, rules, and punishments); (2) some of the side effect of (1) will impact readiness but again probably not long term; (3) other costs will go up do to new training; and (4) some (especially religious) people will either be disuaded from enlisting or staying in. The question will be how many do we lose versus how many do we gain; and is there any difference in quality?
I suspect that surveys will over-estimate the number that would get out based on what happened in the UK when they integrated and during a recession, a military career still looks attractive (except for that war thing with the long deployments). Exact effects will depend on the wisdom of the leaders, how gay things get, and what accommodations are required.
December 1, 2010, 4:19 pmBuzz says:
1040, please stop resorting to quoting someone else. I raised substantial issues. Please, all by yourself, deal with them. Deal with the issue of the government, in effect, telling a person it hired precisely because of his religious creditials that he could not practice his religion as required by its doctrine. Please, now, do not use the words “jon rowe” in your answer.
Please do not cite irrelevancies. Please answer the question and address the issues I raised.
Really, now, if I’m as clueless as you say, surely you can, all by yourself, point that out by citing some actual facts and arguments.
December 1, 2010, 4:26 pmBuzz says:
Forgot to add that the reason no one took up the chaplain’s case on First Amendment grounds is because he was guilty of violating one legitimate order: not to wear his uniform to a political rally. So the Navy was within its right to court martial him for that.
It was not legit to order him how to practice his religion.
December 1, 2010, 4:29 pmAJ says:
Unless of course the guy’s last name is in fact Nancy….then it might be OK.
December 1, 2010, 4:33 pmJon Rowe says:
Buzz,
I don’t think you answered me at all. If one is charged to pray on behalf of the entire military, to the extent that we can formulate an “American creed” that is at once monotheistic, but also general enough to accomodate our religious pluralism, that’s not just constitutional but the right thing to do.
America is not a nation “under Jesus” and wasn’t founded to be either. The Declaration of Independence even though it mentions a God of some sort in 4 places never mentions Jesus.
This is where I think Chaplain K was not just misled but actually severely hurt by being taken in by the Christian Nationalist history revisionists like David Barton and the late D. James Kennedy.
George Washington was never once recorded as praying in Jesus’ name in either his PRIVATE OR PUBLIC capacity. Though he did pray quite a bit.
Chaplain K basically ruined his career because he refused to pray like George Washington did — in the name of an inclusive, non-sectarian, generic God.
December 1, 2010, 4:41 pmptt says:
Alaska Jack claims the survey had a pro-repeal bias. Oddly enough, that claim never surfaced until now. In fact, the opposite view — that the survey was biased against repeal — was heard loud and clear when the proposed questions were leaked and again when the actual survey was released. (some will chalk that up to crafty deception on the part of gay folks, I suppose).
Against all evidence, let’s say that anti-repeal folks and pro-repeal folks (some of whom faced actual consequences like discharge under current policy) somehow balanced out and some in both groups sent their surveys to the shredder. That still leaves a huge “don’t care” middle.
If you don’t like your bunkmate, you get to ask to change. The Commander’s solution can’t be “gays only” barracks. As to the showers, well, you can keep your shorts on. I see guys do this at the gym.
The “balance” is that they can rail against the Whore of Babylon in Rome during sermons but cannot refuse to hear or facilitate Last Rights for Catholic servicemen.
Honorable discharges for those who have served long enough come with separation pay. DADT dischargees get only 50% of what other honorable dischargees get.
Nonsense. For almost 20 years, repeated studies have come to the exact same conclusions, even those released during the presidency of GWB who opposed and opposes repeal of DADT.
I suppose one might have to take it up with the Almighty, but conflating “no” with “neutral” and presenting the total as “opposed” strikes this non-believer as bearing false witness.
Would you and your unit have benefited from your inability to contact your loved ones back home?
December 1, 2010, 4:49 pmptt says:
ooops. left off the link to the separation pay inequality:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/collins-v-united-states-class-action-military-separation-pay
December 1, 2010, 4:51 pmBobVB says:
What kind of low life drill instructor would do that? None of mine every stooped that low.
December 1, 2010, 4:52 pmBobVB says:
What kind of low life drill instructor would do that? None of mine every stooped that low.
December 1, 2010, 4:52 pmJon Rowe says:
“Forgot to add that the reason no one took up the chaplain’s case on First Amendment grounds …”
The Rutherford Institute took it up using an extremely interesting argument: By demanding government prayers adhere to specific non-sectarian or generic theistic content, government was in essence establishing a kind of “unitarian” religion.
Well, if when government speaks it’s establishing a religion, then the ACLU is right and government qua government should never be able pray. (Which means no praying on behalf of the military.)
But this is essentially the doctrine of ceremonial deism that the Supreme Court has validated: It’s okay for government to recognize a Supreme Being as long as the content is inclusive and non-sectarian. (And so what if atheists’ or polytheists’ consciences are offended.)
Additionally, as I noted in my earlier comment, small u unitarianism (or general theism) seems to have been the religion of the first half dozen or so American Presidents. They didn’t pray in Jesus’ name either when praying on behalf of the nation. If there is a constitutional tradition for this ceremonial deism/theism/unitarianism, praying to God, but not in Jesus’ name, it was started by them!
If Chaplain K. understood this and wasn’t taken in by David Barton history, he might still have a job.
December 1, 2010, 4:52 pmOldFan says:
Big Surprise for civilians – no surprise for the line troops.
In the 27 years I spent in an Army uniform, I knew who most of the gay guys and lesbian gals were in my company. It was not an issue – as long as “good order and discipline” were maintained. And they were maintained: these were seasoned veterans who were committed to having a good unit.
In one instance, my First Sergeant was hammering a new recruit for “inappropriate public display of affection” on a similarly-gendered person by sharply reminding her to “keep that sort of sh*t downtown in an apartment and never on duty” – which is what she did herself. I knew all about it and said nothing – only the ‘Dean of the College of Idiots’ undercuts the best ramrod on the installation.
December 1, 2010, 4:55 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
“My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.” — George Washington
December 1, 2010, 5:01 pmRachel says:
I agree that this poll is too unstructured to be meaningful. I’m not sure how I feel about gays in the military; not sure I care really. But I find it interesting that everyone just assumes that as soon as they make it illegal to discriminate against gays that all gays who enter the military are going to be these stellar individuals who would never, ever, ever hit on their bunkmates or grab a quickie in the berthing units or self-pleasure while watching others dress etc. Have you ever been to a parade in SF? You can’t turn a corner without seeing bjs and all manner of bad behavior. It is totally disgusting. What makes you think these people, who now can’t be turned away, are suddenly going to act like perfect gentlemen? And yes, it would be correct to point out that you could make the same claim for heterosexual behavior, but there is a reason that they don’t house men and women in the same rooms.
Why not just stick with don’t ask don’t tell and enforce punishing those who ask or tell and the transition happen naturally. Did forced bussing really help racial relations or improve schools? I think the consensus is now that it did not. I think we should let the generals decide.
December 1, 2010, 5:06 pmOwen H. says:
Why monotheistic? Despte the efforts of former Rep Barr and then-Governor Bush, polytheism is in fact legal in the military.
December 1, 2010, 5:09 pmAJ says:
Well…that’s kind of gay….not that there is anything wrong with that. I figure another solution would be a question of timing: send in all of the gay guys and the good-looking guys that like to be looked at by the gay guys, then follow it up with all the ugly guys with small penises (using the analysis from upthread). I suppose a practical problem is that some disclosure will be required to figure out who’s who….though I’m guessing we have some VCers who can voluntary their time.
That’s a generous read. One could also say that many feel their response won’t matter one way or the other. With the current President, the pro-stop DADT have more to gain than the pro-DADT and seem to have a greater incentive to respond. Also, much of the questioning is “perception” and may not be based on any sense of reality. Push come to shove, will someone actually leave the military? Are they 100% sure someone in their unit was gay or do they only suspect? It’s interesting but not really compelling one way or the other.
December 1, 2010, 5:14 pmRachel says:
and no, I did not even begin to imply that all gays act that way…I’m just saying that some do. To deny that fact is to not be serious about the valid concerns expressed by leaders who will have to deal with it.
December 1, 2010, 5:15 pmptt says:
Of course, no one would make such a claim without having experienced it.
So, how many corners did you turn? And which intersections? I want to be properly positioned for next year’s parades.
December 1, 2010, 5:30 pmJon Rowe says:
CA: Ha ha. Try finding ONE other time GW mentioned JC by name, lest you give the misimpression that GW commonly went around talking about Jesus.
The address you mention was 1) not written in GW’s hand (rather of an aide’s) but given under his imprimatur, so I’ll let that go. But 2) was given to Natives who ALREADY decided to convert.
Don’t give the misimpression that GW was proselytizing, as many Christian Nationalists do when they deal with that quote. He was approving the Natives’ decision to assimilate into American culture.
And GW was likewise fine with Natives who decided to persist in their pagan faith. I have TWO examples where he speaks to UNCONVERTED Natives and calls God “The Great Spirit” exactly as they did. He even prays to the Great Spirit by name. From the perspective of orthodox Christianity, that’s even worse than praying to Allah by name because at least Allah claims to be the God of Abraham whereas the Great Spirit makes no such claim.
And GW never still was recorded praying in Jesus name. Think about that, GW prayed to “the Great Spirit” but never to Jesus Christ.
December 1, 2010, 5:48 pmOwen H. says:
When the study was first proposed, and question and then the study itself released, many repeal supporters asserted that it would be biased the other way. And those demanding DADT remain were chortling about it, claiming it was no such thing. Now that we have the results, they change their tune.
December 1, 2010, 5:51 pmSarcastro says:
Undoubtedly this is a rigged outcome, since I and those I know disagree with it. It’s the “delphi technique” – crowd control and manipulation in order to effect a desired outcome while giving participants the illusion there has been an honest debate.
So the poll is wrong.
What’s correct? My ideas homosex in the military, of course! Don’t need no fancy surveys neither! See, you start by assuming a gay man is just like a woman. I’ll leave the icky icky conclusions as an exercise to the reader.
December 1, 2010, 6:07 pmOwen H. says:
Of course it is also possible that the survey was in fact biased, as many supporters of repealing DADT feared; biased in favor of retaining DADT. That would mean the numbers really are skewed, just the other way, and that the military in general is even more accepting of repeal than it shows.
December 1, 2010, 6:15 pmbadlaw says:
1040: Are you conscientiously avoiding capitalizing anything?
Most of those studies have been commissioned or carried out by organizations who would like to see repeal. Now, including this one.
I wish liberals would understand that conservatives tend to believe in their convictions, and aren’t just going to drop them the second you try and get somebody official-sounding to corroborate your argument. Conservatives have an inherent bias against “institutions”, especially those that take one position, totally disregard the “controversy” of an issue because they assume all smart, rational people agree with them, and use polls as proof.
Also, I’m leery of any study that is supposed to determine opinion, but fails to ask the important question. It’s like that link Prof. Carpenter posted about how 92% of Iowans saying their lives haven’t been affected since gay marriage was legalized. What? That’s a laughably shallow poll meant to avoid asking the real question: Do Iowans agree with legal same-sex marriage?
This poll seems to be in the same vein. The poll (what I’ve read of it) seems to be less “do soldiers want openly gay men and women serving with them? Do they want DADT repealed?” and more about affirming or contradicting a particular du jour argument by DADT proponents. It’s possible proponents of DADT are both wrong about why repealing is a DADT, but right that most soldiers don’t want it repealed.
This was never the case. Most people kicked under DADT weren’t because someone decided to investigate and found out the person is gay. There have been more people who admitted it so they could be kicked out because that’s what they wanted to have happen.
December 1, 2010, 6:30 pmDeraj says:
“You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”
December 1, 2010, 6:33 pm– Barry Goldwater
Owen H. says:
I think the concept you were looking for there is “evidence”. As in, you don’t care what the evidence is, you already know the answer.
December 1, 2010, 6:38 pmptt says:
I was responding to your comment about DoD studies. I’m talking about studies commissioned or carried out by the military.
December 1, 2010, 7:01 pmChrisTS says:
Badlaw:
Do you have a cite for this?
December 1, 2010, 7:09 pmLN says:
Bizarre. We can’t have gays serve in the military because they’re going to be checking out guys in the shower, acting all sissy on the battlefield, shoving their homosexuality down our throats, ruining morale, forcing people to order code reds, etc etc. Also, things are fine just the way they are because gays already serve in the military, and the ones who get thrown out are just looking for an excuse to leave, so why change things?
December 1, 2010, 7:38 pmDensityDuck says:
320 comments and no mention of Joachim Steuben from Hammer’s Slammers?
I’d think that guy could cure anyone concerned about the combat performance of mincing queens.
December 1, 2010, 7:46 pmyimee says:
Direct hit. One of the reasons the snake eaters and door kickers (and perhaps the Marines, though I was not one of them) will not accept this, is because being openly gay in the military is at the last, an egoistic expression of individuality. It’s saying “you must accept me as I am,” and that is SO not what the special operations community is about. Ego there (and there is plenty of it) is about being the best at your job, the best asset the team has, not being “yourself.”
Over the years, I served with two people I strongly suspected of being gay. To my knowledge, they kept it under wraps because the was expected behavior. What they did on there time away and off duty was no one’s concern, certainly not mine. But you had to want to be in the community, it was not a “right” everyone had.
If you make it through Superman U, I can’t imagine keeping your sexuality under wraps is a serious hardship.
Also not a statistician, but I am an experimental methods specialist. Notwithstanding a Wiki “article” that glosses over a lot of selection bias issues particular to the subject at hand, a response rate of 30% is (to me) surprisingly low. That seems too low for general apathy to account for, especially for those accustomed to “Mickey mouse BS” even if seen as of little value, it would seem a venue ripe for clandestine rebellion. Or perhaps that has been eliminated in the armed forces (yeah, RIGHT!). My curiosity is now pestering me, I shall have to dig deeper.
December 1, 2010, 8:11 pmOwen H. says:
Much like using the fictional activities of Jack Bauer to justify torture, a fictional gay bad-ass mincing commando doesn’t really help.
Although to be fair, Drake did serve in the Army.
December 1, 2010, 8:14 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
You know, I’ve worked around gay people of both sexes. It wasn’t like the work day was one long endless gay pride parade. As near as I could tell, they were and are just people trying to live their lives.
December 1, 2010, 9:15 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
“Never prayed to Jesus” and “never recorded praying to Jesus” are not at all synonymous.
December 1, 2010, 9:16 pmptt says:
I have a hard time seeing how that is more egotistical than your belief that everyone must be as you are.
December 1, 2010, 9:17 pmOwen H. says:
yimee-
Did you miss?
December 1, 2010, 9:53 pmShelbyC says:
I have as well, and in almost every case it wasn’t like the workday was one long gay pride parade.
December 1, 2010, 11:21 pmThe Opinionator says:
It occurs to me that a solution to the living quarters issue is to simply issue BHA to all servicemembers once they leave basic/AIT/OSUT. Most troops probably have little issue serving with gays, rather it is the enforced intimacy issues that those of us that have lived in the barracks are well aware of that are problematic. Forcing straight and gay troops to shower together is a bit much, don’t you think? Yes I know it happens now, but it is not out in the open. Imagine if we asked female troops to shower with straight men, regardless of whether or not there was any attraction. Allowing everyone to secure their own quarters solves a lot of issues and makes the military look a lot more like the rest of society.
December 1, 2010, 11:45 pmTom says:
AJ, Buzz, you’re right that the way this survey was worded and presented was a setup. I’m an FGO working in the Pentagon, I took the survey without any fear of reprisal despite my frankly conservative views–but there are other dirty tricks that were played, especially with the “worked with a gay service member” questions:
1. Obvious questions not asked because they might have endangered the desired results.
*If DADT had not been in effect at the time do you think this would have changed your work relationship with the servicemember you believe to have been gay in a negative way?
*do you believe DADT has a positive effect on gay service members behavior?
*Do you believe the UCMJ should mirror the laws of American society or set higher moral standards?
2. Responses buried in the report but clearly damaging to the “money quotes” repeal pushers are trumpeting.
1. astoundingly higher likelihood to get out if it passes.
2. Combat folks overwhelmingly saying it wil hurt cohesion.
3. Way negative effects on “likelihood to recommend the military as a career.
But if this thing passes anyway– there are enough A-hole senators-for-life who would love to stick this one on as a “cost free feel-goodl win” in the lame duck that will be shoveled onto the backs of the troops in war time–drastic changes to UCMJ will follow in all other “moral” arenas. Good bye adultery, good bye conduct unbecoming an officer.
These jerks think the thin red line between our freedoms and our slavery to a much less benign culture is the perfect place to force the social changes they want for the rest of the society.
Be careful what you wish for.
December 2, 2010, 12:48 amTom says:
Forgot to mention the main point the survey didn’t even touch– all the questions focused on the attitude of soldiers towards gays or units containing gays. The kind of questions you would ask if the question you wanted to answer was “how bigoted against gays are service members and how will their bigotry affect implementation.”
Unsuprisingly, the answer is we’re American citizens from all backgrounds and we’re no more bigoted against gays than the average American, it’s not an issue of self-selection or Neanderthal soldiers. Put random people in these jobs a few months the answers would be the same.
Not a single question asked us about our thoughts on the role of gender, sexuality or sex with regards to our jobs in general. We are not dumb rocks, we can think these things through. This is the heart of the matter, this is what the surveys ought to be asking about, because this is what the implementation would actually have to consider.
They don’t want to ask these questions because the answers would be impossible to disregard, unlike the answers they sought and got with this survey on “bigotry.”
It would also endanger another pet project, moving women ever closer to infantry combat roles. Again, the answers might be extremely damaging to the movement.
December 2, 2010, 1:10 amKanageloa says:
I keep wondering why the military has to be the social test bed for our society. Our soldiers, sailors and commanders have a tough enough job just fighting the enemy, why does the government feel compelled to saddle them with this controversy?
December 2, 2010, 1:29 am1040 says:
i agree. why not let gays serve openly with straights in other walks of life first?
December 2, 2010, 5:53 amleo marvin says:
We keep hearing these arguments, and they’re BS. It would be one thing if military chaplains were required to perform same sex marriages, but merely repealing DADT doesn’t “force [the military to accept] the social changes they want for the rest of the society” or use it as a “social test bed for our society.” On the contrary, it only catches the military up with the rest of society where gays and lesbians already have the same right everyone does to be employed without hiding their sexual orientation.
[EDIT: I should have refreshed the page, as I now see 1040 beat me to it, and wasted a lot fewer electrons doing so.]
December 2, 2010, 6:23 amAJ says:
This quite reasonable observation has been addressed by the following answers upthread and at other posts. Here’s the top-10 synopsis:
1. Gay men do not assault straight guys in public gym locker-rooms so it must be OK…grow up
2. There is already no privacy in the military so imposing a bit less is no big deal….grow up
3. Once gay men know that you are straight, they will leave you alone….grow up
4. Gays showering with other gays that they are attracted to is not a problem because…errr..grow up
5. Gays already shower with straights and nothing cataclysmic happens….sure they will get kicked out quickly if something did under DADT…but still,…grow up
6. There are co-ed dorms around the country where young men and women work out privacy issues….sure on a voluntary basis where they can also leave if they no longer feel comfortable so the comparison is not really close…but grow up anyways
7. Good-looking guys like to be ogled in the shower because they are quite comfortable with their sexuality….any opposition must mean you are ugly….get to gym and work on your abdominals…and grow up
8. Payback for all the eons of men sexually harassing and ogling women…deal with it…legacy guilt sucks
9. Wear some boxers in the community shower if you are uncomfortable….no one will laugh at and mock you, right?
10. And my favorite….what’s the problem, do you have a small “package”? Man up!
The survey does indicate that a majority of respondents do in fact have somewhat of an issue community showering with someone gay….many of these would resolve it by showering at a different time. The report seems to be dismissive of the concern…apparently those that object must…”grow up”. A peculiar tactic, I wonder how this will work in terms of recruitment and retention…but why would THOSE things matter? Two snaps for progress.
December 2, 2010, 8:59 amComment says:
Really? You’re going to send people to jail for years for not filling out a survey? And you think that requiring people under pain of prosecution to complete a survey will yield meaningful results? I’m glad you’ll never be in charge of anything . . .
December 2, 2010, 9:24 am1040 says:
because these are in such good shape now as you insisted earlier despite evidence to the contrary. how does going into a war based on lies affect these again?
December 2, 2010, 10:18 amAJ says:
Are you arguing that in a time of war, it is a good idea to do things which might make it even harder to attract and keep people in a voluntary military?
It appears that all services continue to meet their recruiting goals. If you are arguing that only felons and old guys are signing up, where is your evidence that mission performance has dropped off? Where is your evidence that retention has fallen off?
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/recruitingstatistics/Military_Recruiting_Statistics.htm
The “lie” meme is awkwardly tired. I’m not sure if you have heard, not many U.S. troops are dying in Iraq right now.
December 2, 2010, 11:05 am1040 says:
i know. since it was the good guys who lied and took america into a war that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of iraqis, it is boring. not like the bad guys who run america now and want to destroy its military.
anyways, as the pentagon itself has said, the recession has helped army recruitment in the last couple of years (till before which the military kept failing to meet its goals for year on year even despite consistently reducing minimum requirements)
December 2, 2010, 11:27 amAJ says:
1. Iraq was either in compliance with UN687 and other resolutions relating to the end of Gulf War I or it was not. Are you offering evidence that it secretly was in compliance and the security council still voted harsher sanctions (which we took to be military action)
2. Sadam was either a mass murderer or he was not. Was the mass killing of Kurds a fiction or is it fact?
3. Did Sadam use chemical weapons on his people? Did he report the destruction of all chemical weapon stockpiles as was required by UN resolution? Was it improbable that this program would be restarted?
Certainly intelligence errors were made….by our agencies, the Brits, and many others around the globe…also there was undoubtedly a desire to change the dynamic in the middle east, but to conflate intelligence errors with lies is something most Americans reject….especially those who still enlist in the military
December 2, 2010, 11:48 amPaulie says:
No Comment: They should simply be required to fill out the form.Crumple, crumple toss = Leavenworth for a few years.Simple as that.Problem solved.
They should be waterboarded too, then the information will be even more reliable.
December 2, 2010, 12:28 pmOften Wrong Never In Doubt says:
When the DoD does a survey during the Obama Administration that assesses the effect of a policy change that the Obami promised to deliver and endorses that policy change I question it.
When it turns out that the vast majority of the population did not respond and that those who did knew that their responses could be tracked back to them, I question it even more.
When I remember that ‘homophobia’ is held to be either a mental illness or grave moral failing by those who now control the DoD as well as most press and metropolitan elites I double-question the result.
And when I reflect upon recent high profile firings of people who (quietly and privately) opposed the California Gay Marriage vote, I conclude that the entire process is not worth the paper it’s printed on.
Call me cynical but I just don’t trust our political, media and academic elites to play honest with an agenda item that they badly want. See “Global Warming”, “Tet Offensive is a huge US Defeat”, and “Iraq is Lost” for other examples. I personally don’t have a dog in this fight but it’s tough to do ‘progressive’ ‘reform’ when ‘progressives’ have such a bad reputation for manipulation and bias, isn’t it? Howzabout playing the next one straight and seeing how THAT works?
December 2, 2010, 12:44 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
If my boss told me that, I’d tell him to fill out the form with the correct answers and I’d sign it. Ibedanged if someone is going to force me to share my thoughts and opinions.
December 2, 2010, 1:03 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Er, if you’re referring to me, that wasn’t my point. My point is that decent people don’t attribute indecency to others without good reason. If your mind is always in the gutter, though, you might assume that other people’s are as well.
December 2, 2010, 1:05 pmleo marvin says:
HaroldHoward1967 got himself banned today.
http://volokh.com/2010/12/02/motion-asking-judge-reinhardt-to-recuse-himself-from-the-prop-8-case/#comment-1079713
The implications for the sexual orientation of VC readers remains to be seen.
http://volokh.com/2010/11/30/hes-big-hes-mean-and-he-kills-lots-of-bad-guys-the-dadt-report/comment-page-7/#comment-1078242
December 2, 2010, 2:42 pmbadlaw says:
No, it’s that often times “evidence” is used as a smoke-screen to turn thoughts, beliefs, guesses, and predictions into facts. Especially when it comes to gay rights issues, the modus operandi seems always to be “this major change that we’re desperately fighting for will result in no major difference and no major change and everything will be the same way it is now”. Even Carpenter — who I think is an otherwise libertarian — uses some semblance of that argument above. Liberals eat that kind of stuff up, conservatives wisely suspect otherwise.
I think it’s dishonest to take a null hypothesis and promote it as an affirmation of a particular view.
Oh, studies like this have been carried out by the military that found that most of the military supports openly gay soldiers? Which ones? Where?
December 2, 2010, 3:13 pmAJ says:
Yes it was your point…and I was just having fun with it…because a quick read of what you wrote seemed to say “now men would know how women feel about being put in awkward situations (ie ogling and unwelcome advances)”. At least one other poster took your meaning that way…
December 2, 2010, 3:28 pmAJ says:
Ha! Don’t throw out the Playgirls yet, I’m sure he will be back in some new incarnation soon. I mean it seems like you have a few years invested in this whole gay thing….hate to throw that all away willy-nilly
December 2, 2010, 3:38 pmleo marvin says:
Don’t worry, I’m the soul of deliberation. I’ve been just about to change my ISP for almost five years.
December 2, 2010, 4:57 pmOwen H. says:
No, it’s that when the evidence goes against what you believe, you deny it because if it were right it would say what you believe to be true. Since it goes against your beliefs, it has to be wrong.
December 2, 2010, 7:03 pmOwen H. says:
That’s right, keep arguing against a irrelevant comment to avoid the actual topic.
Can anyone produce any evidense that the answers to the survey were linked to the individual, and that negative repercussions would result by answering the “wrong” way? And which way was the “wrong” way, and how did they know, as compared to earlier surveys which showed pretty much the same thing?
December 2, 2010, 7:04 pmJustalurker says:
Under the same umbrella with that logic lies the fact that…If you send your child to a day care, there’s a decent chance that one of the workers there may have an innate sexual attraction to children that they aren’t telling anyone about. I wonder would attitudes toward such people change if suddenly they were allowed to “openly” announce it, as long as they don’t act on it.
December 2, 2010, 8:24 pmBesides, with gay men being as small as 2-5% of the population, and most studies indicate concentrations of them in certain areas, the assumption that “you’ve showered with one” is actually rather improbable. Not to mention, if you wanted to avoid said situaition, you could just shower at home. In this case “home” is where the gay man is.
Justalurker says:
What other surveys were there that showed the same thing? From my understanding this was the 1st government sponsored survey of this type. And there was one done by Zogby a few years ago that actually showed that while many soldiers suspected there were gay people serving, they supported keeping DADT intact.
December 2, 2010, 8:26 pmRagebot says:
I really do not have a dog in this hunt, but can not let your uninformed comment pass.
When you posted “the Marines are an outlier rather than representative of the total armed forces” I have to ask if you figured that out all by yourself or if you needed any help?
Of course the Marines are outliers, and anyone who has seen the TV ads from the Corps could figure this out all by them selves.
But more to the point even a quick study of military science will reveal that (and I think this goes for a lot more than the military) less than 10% of the troops do more than 90% of the killing. I guess you think the less than 10% are outliers.
I would bet dollars to donuts that if you did a survey of Ivy League Law school grads feelings about serving with gays the results would be much different than the voting population of Iowa; and we all saw what happened to the Iowa Supreme Court Judges.
The point that needs to be made is that one ignores outliers at their own expense; be those outliers Ivy League grads or recon marines.
When I was on active duty in the late 60s part of a recon marine dress uniform was a garotte under the lapel of the coat. Priority on a military hop was based on rank; with one exception, a recon marine could bump anyone.
Bottom line, I feel a lot more comfortable ignoring an Ivy League grad than a recon marine.
December 2, 2010, 9:01 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Owen, my point here was that no one has the right to demand that I share my thoughts and opinions. They are my damn business. “Fill out the form or go to jail” my foot.
December 2, 2010, 10:06 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I can’t help that. The guilty dog barks first.
December 2, 2010, 10:08 pm: )
nice emotional blackmail says:
And the extant literature suggests that the no-fault divorce is a cause of that symptom. In regular logic, those “negative impacts” may well outweigh the benefits that accrue from the “alternative,” meaning that the negative externalities of a no-fault divorce regime may in fact outweigh its benefits — it isn’t always the “least-bad alternative”:
With regard to the same-sex marriage debate, history seems to be repeating itself.
December 3, 2010, 8:55 ambadlaw says:
I saw the Senate hearing on DADT yesterday, and one telling moment was when McCain asked Mullens why they never asked the direct question about whether to repeal DADT. Mullens (and Gates) both said it’s because they don’t do that, and it would be unwise to ask soldiers about military policy.
Now, I kind of understand why they don’t do that, but then they need to concede that failure to ask the pertinent question kind of obligates people to not take these findings very seriously. Asking questions about soldier’s general views on homosexuals and that’s…kind of beside the point.
Why commission a study on the effects of repealing DADT when you avoid directly asking whether it will be repealed?
December 3, 2010, 10:44 amMichael Ejercito says:
No fault divorce means that people can dissolve a marriage for the most trivial of reasons. Are you awarer that women file for divorce in over 60% of divorce cases?
December 3, 2010, 2:19 pmbadlaw says:
Dude, get serious. Spin this another way. What if you put, say, two men in a communal shower with several women. How much would you want to bet they would ogle those women in the shower? It’s not that all straight dudes are pigs, it’s just what happens. Nobody would have bat an eye if a woman said they felt uncomfortable being naked in front of a man. And if you asked a straight guy, “will you check out women while showering?” many of them will probably say no.
December 3, 2010, 7:05 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Actually, there are commenters here on VC who from time to time deny that “the modern American woman” has any modesty or decency or sensitivity left; or who deplore the hanging-on of western civilization’s sexual hangups and wish we would all get over them, drop the pretense of modesty, and screw freely.
(Also, when you have specified “a woman”, you can actually use “she” rather than the gender-neutral “they”. But you don’t have to if you don’t want to.)
December 3, 2010, 11:07 pmSergio says:
“We Have A Gay Guy. He’s Big, He’s Mean, And He Kills Lots Of Bad Guys. No One Cared That He Was Gay…” And I say, good that no one cares!! I would care about the one that has said such a n statement and that is holding a position of responsability within the army. “he Kills a lot of Bad Guys”??? and no one is even shock for such a brainless comment! Well, now Wikealks reveales Video Game Like behavior in matters related to war so I can understand… Thats war for you guys over the USA, a computer game to “kill bad, bad guys” Thanks God I was born in Europe, I believe we have other kind of values over here…
December 4, 2010, 10:02 amAJ says:
I’m guessing those values were adopted after WWI and WWII? Nowadays you all are so peaceful…handing off much of your security concerns to the USA. Look even dustups in Kosovo, Bosnia, and a former colony Somalia required the USA to come in and establish peace because the europeans were unable to. Massive killing in Africa (ex. Ruwanda) is met by a yawn by the “peace loving” Europeans. Let’s not confuse the understandable exhaustion with war with a more noble moral sense
December 4, 2010, 1:06 pmleo marvin says:
I actually agree. Though I strongly oppose our major military policy since we invaded Afghanistan, claiming European moral superiority under the circumstances is a bit much.
December 4, 2010, 3:46 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Some women, yes. Though I have met women who do not engage in the hook-up culture.
December 4, 2010, 6:29 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Michael, just to satisfy my curiosity, when you say “some women” and then that you have met women who don’t hook up, in the Venn diagram you have there, is there an age range and a hotness index you are thinking of? When you say “women”, in other words, are you including every female from a fat shy pimply 16-yr-old who hasn’t kissed a boy yet, to somebody’s great-grandma in a wheelchair and a purple sweater?
IMO when a man lets “the modern American woman” slip from his lips or his keyboard, he is signalling that he is an idiot. There is no one such creature. Courtney Love is a modern American woman. Phyllis Schlafly is a modern American woman. What meaningful statement can you possibly make, that starts that way?
December 4, 2010, 8:29 pmHoward says:
Actually, what they said was that never in history had soldiers been surveyed about whether they approve of a military policy, and it would be a very bad precedent to start. Why do opponents of DADT suddenly think we need majority rule on this, and not on whether to invade Iraq? The correct purpose of this survey was to find out if there would be big problems created by repealing it, and the answer was no. As for the Marines, they found that a large majority of those who thought they had served with a gay said that there were no big problems. Now opponents are saying, “Yes, but… they’re gonna be ogled in the shower! Yes, but… Yes, but…” If a majority had said they thought DADT should be repealed, opponents would be saying , “The military shouldn’t be run by majority rule!” The fact is, large majorities were against racial integration. But that, we are told, is completely different, though we are not told why.
December 5, 2010, 4:38 pmMDC says:
Well… what they REALLY said is that roughly half didn’t think it would be disruptive. My Math-For-Marines tells me that some non-zero percentage approaching 50 DO think it will be disruptive. Now if I was running a business and was thinking of changing things from status quo, and half my indicators said that it would be disruptive… the benefits would have to be pretty massive, explicit, and as sure a thing as can be. And the military’s business is national defense. To play word games and hedge that “well… only 17% of the married couples will move out of housing and only 50% of the trigger-pullers will be somewhat disgruntled” makes a mockery of the actual mission. It’s not to be fair. It’s not to be just. Hell, it’s not even to reflect a cross-section of America other than insofar as that makes us better at national defense. The only thing I’m interested in hearing is how this move would make us BETTER at killing bad guys, helping good guys, and making the world safer for Americans. I’m not saying there aren’t good arguments in that direction… but I’m not hearing much of that here.
December 6, 2010, 2:42 pm