Tuesday, February 23, 2010

DADT 101

One thing I learned as a LT doing my first Staff Weenie tour was this simple fact: you don't have to be an expert in everything - you just have to make sure you get the right people on your staff.

In that line, one of the great things about this blog is the network of commenters, emailers, lurkers, facebookers, and twitterers that keep the information flow going both ways. When things come up that are complicated - I reach out to them. When I put something out there that I am a little off-phase about - they reach out to me.

I tend to run the anti-DADT argument from the upper-level, large pixels. A few weeks ago I reached out to one of the JAGs I keep in the stable. If you want to read about DADT from the JAG level - you cannot do better than this.

Counselor - over to you.

There is a lot of confusion and misinformation circulating about how DADT is applied to the fleet. While it is easy for some to pull up a random piece of the US Code, it is far more difficult to explain how that law is applied to a given sailor. This brief primer is designed to give a more comprehensive explanation on the law of DADT, explain how it is applied, and give concrete examples of how DADT has failed as a policy.

First: The Law.

The DADT policy is codified as 10 U.S. Code 654. However, the actual process for applying DADT is primarily covered in MILPERSMAN 1910-148. DADT prohibits anyone who "demonstrates) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though credible and particularly evidence of homosexual behavior may cause an investigation.

Second: How it works.

The Act gives the policy, but the MILPERSMAN gives the process. Under the MILPERSMAN, separation processing is MANDATORY if the CO believes based on credible information, the servicemember has committed homosexual conduct.
Homosexual conduct includes engaging in a homosexual act, marrying or attempting to marry a person of the same gender, or making statements evidencing a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts. "Credible" information MAY be in the form of outing by a third party, a provision that has come under increased scrutiny, but has not yet been repealed.

Credible information does NOT include opinion, rumor, frequenting of homosexual establishments, reading of homosexual materials, or associations with homosexuals (e.g. participating in a "pride march"). Credible information DOES include a statement by the member that they are gay, a reliable person observing the member in homosexual activity, or a reliable
person relates that the member made a homosexual statement (either verbal or non-verbal). So yes, outing by a third party CAN lead to a separation board.

Processing for these cases is MANDATORY, unless it can be proven that the conduct in question was committed solely to get out of service and separation is not in the best interest of the service.

If the CO questions the validity of the information, the CO, and only the CO, may authorize an investigation. The purpose of the investigation is not a witch hunt and is used only to gather information necessary to assist the CO in determining the appropriate disposition. Per MILPERSMAN, this is to be done after consultation with the Staff Judge Advocate of the General
Court-Martial Convening Authority. Many GCMCAs will in fact order subordinate units to not conduct an investigation without the GCMCA's approval.

Where a member admits to being gay and does not contest separation, little investigation is needed, unless the CO believes the statement was made to avoid service obligation. In this case, the CO must seek approval from SECNAV (ASN (M&RA)) before initiating an investigation.

Once referred to an admin board, the verbatim reason for processing must be stated on the notice form. (e.g. Separation by reason of homosexual conduct as evidenced by member's statement that he is a homosexual).

If a member marries or attempts to marry a member of the same gender, the member must be separated. If a member makes a statement that he or she is gay, the member must be separated UNLESS the member can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they do not intend to engage in homosexual acts. (i.e. they intend to remain celibate). If a member engages
in homosexual acts, the member must be separated UNLESS the member can prove that the act is a departure from their normal behavior; not done by use of force, intimidation or coercion; the acts are unlikely to recur; the member does not have a propensity to engage in homosexual activity; and retention is not contrary to good order, discipline, and morale.

If the evidence of homosexual conduct is not deemed credible by the board, the board may find no basis and retain.

Everyone following?

Third: How it REALLY works.

Since DADT's implementation, over 13,000 servicemembers have been processed out. I can say that I have never seen a gay sailor with a good record, who wanted to stay in, kicked out. However I've seen MANY straight sailors claim to be gay in order avoid service. While I caveat this segment by stating that this is anecdotal, enough anecdote eventually becomes data.

Case 1: A nuke sailor finishes his enlistment and re-enlists with a substantial bonus. A month later he says he's gay. He keeps the bonus, waives his board in exchange for an honorable, and goes to work for a power company.

Case 2: A sub par sailor with only three years in and a poor performance record claims he is gay. He leaves with a General and retains is VA disability benefits and his VA loan benefits.

Case 3: A slightly better sailor claims gay at three years. He gets an honorable and keeps his GI Bill.

Case 4: A strong sailor, well liked by his chain, is outed by his psychotic ex-boyfriend. The command drops several hints to the PIO that, should the investigation into the credibility of the evidence come back "inconclusive", they would not be upset. No board conducted upon a proper investigation and determination that the evidence was not credible.

Case 5: Similarly strong sailor caught receiving oral sex in the sea bag locker by shipmate. After referral to NJP, where the same punishment was given in other cases of shipboard sexual activity, regardless of gender involved - restriction and a bust, the case is sent for mandatory processing. Sailor presents a good military character defense with testimony from his LCPO and others in his chain, and claims "queen for a day". Sailor retained by vote of 3-0.

Case 6: (And there are a lot of these) A sailor is caught groping his shipmates in the berthing. The command is low on operational funds and is worried about a drawn out court-martial which will be expensive, politically charged, and require sending several of their key crewmembers TAD to TPU during their upcoming underway. To save cost, the defense attorney offers, and they agree to process the member for homosexual conduct vice sexual assault in exchange for his waiving a board and accepting an OTH, denying him all veteran benefits.

This is how it really works.

The problem with DADT is that is primarily a vehicle through which poor performers can get an easy out, and good sailors live in fear of separation. My overwhelming experience, is that most of the fleet, in the words of one of my more eloquent blue shirts, "don't care if you eat a taco or lick a hot dog when you go home...just show up and do your job." Moreover, it allows
activist groups to take skewed numbers consisting largely of either people who are NOT gay, or people who were committing other misconduct, and then claim that the mean, homophobic, military has pushed people out. This is particularly infuriating as it is congress, not the military, that mandates DADT, yet we must remain silent and vilified while people in Washington
paint us as bigots to further their own agenda. It allows liberal politicians to vilify the military and we, thank to Article 88 of the UCMJ, are often all too silent in defending the truth...that it is CONGRESS, and the PRESIDENT, not the military, that says gays can't serve.

Again...your results may vary, but I have NEVER seen a good sailor who wanted to stay in kicked under DADT. I have seen commands bend over backwards to retain these sailors, even when everyone knew they were queer as a three dollar bill at an Elton John concert.

Repeal the policy. Treat sex offenders as sex offenders. Stop giving dirtbags an easy way to keep their benefits. And let those who do their job continue to do their job without fear in a time when we are fighting two wars.
UPDATE: OK, see what you people have done to my blog? Over 200 comments and all is great .... but are you happy now? If you haven't seen the add on the right - well, I saved URR the trouble and did a screen-cap. Click here. And no, I didn't pick it - google adsense did. If I did, there would be more chest hair.

FWIW - Byron saw it first.

253 comments:

1 – 200 of 253   Newer›   Newest»
Tugboat said...

Heh.  The good counsellor has it right, in my limited experience.  When I was on instructor duty at an NPTU, one of our students (after A-school, 6 months of nuke school, and a particularly gruelling 3 out of 6 months at prototype) walked into the office with the Shift CPO and I, and announced that he was gay.  The chief looked at me, looked back at the kid (who the Navy had by now spent several hundred thou training), and said. "And?"    Kid was unhappy, was gay, and figured it'd be an easy out.  He did go back to his studies and is somewhere in the fleet, hopefully working hard defending democracy.  While I'm not personally onboard with the behavior, it's not like I have any homosexuals lecturing ME on what to do at home, either.

Philo said...

What do commands do with gay officers?  Do they now allow gay partners to join the wives club, but just ignore the reality of the situation?  How does the fleet deal with Officers that are threatened to be outed by the troops?  What ability do gay people have to complain when harassed by those less tolerant, or should they just hope that they will be accepted by others?

I do enjoy that we now think ignoring regulations is strangely acceptable.  Perhaps it has to do with the erosion of integrity and the clear messages that tell the military to do something while really expecting something else.

MR T's Haircut said...

Um We are not supposed to know they are gay... did you read the law and policy?

And stop trying to make this class warfare between Officers and Enlisted.  The only double standard here is people trying to use their Gheyness to keep their benefits while proclaiming they like showtunes...

Byron said...

MTH: Wrestle.Pig.Mud.Philo.

MR T's Haircut said...

point taken.  going to get a towel...

LT B said...

I'd be happier if they tweaked it so sad sack troops couldn't get their benefits by "playing ghey."  I say again, I don't care about the taco or hot dog either, but I DO worry about this being used as yet ANOTHER diversity driveled skree brought upon the Fleet or another excuse for poor performance which is used to cry foul when the performance is written down on an eval/fitrep.  The senior leadership has shown ZERO intestinal fortitude and courage when it has come to tough political decisions and fights.  This will become yet another subject we lie about but in the end will be less poisonous than having females at sea.  At least when there is homosexual sexual interactions we are not making little Sailors and Marines and not pulling people off the line for pregnancy.  But, ya know, the senior leadership tells us that pregnancy is not an issue, so I guess when they tell us this will not be an issue we can believe them on that too.  Just set standards, hold standards and make certain it is in keeping w/ our Navy Core Values.  Everything else will work itself out.  Political genuflection and dare I say, fellating Congress is not serving the services well.  but at leas someone is getting serviced.  Grrrr

Philo said...

<span>We are not supposed to know they are gay</span>
***
Then stop asking what people do on the weekends, and keep your personal life out of the office.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

So then Philo, we change our military culture, personal relationships between service members, definitions of unit cohesion, and standards of behavior all to "seamlessly" accomodate gays serving openly.  Well, that sounds easy enough....

Mike said...

Excellent explanation.  Have seen it go this way many times.  Good Sailors who are gay and want to stay have been allowed to.  Our IOY was gay, outed by a mean-spirited partner and CO simply ignored it.

While I was a Flag Aide, the Admiral and I met one of his gay most senior officers in town with his gay partner and gay friends.  No consequences.

On the other hand, I have seen Sailors "out" themselves to get out of their service obligations.  I remember one Sailor in particular telling my Chief that he was gay.  The Chief challenged him to show him how gay he was.  The Sailor remained in the Navy after being unwilling to show the Chief.

Like so many other things, fairness across the board is always an issue.  Can everyone expect to get the same protection/prosecution based on their bahaviors?

DeltaBravo said...

The whole concept of gaming the system and running off with benefits after getting out of the service gives me the oogies.  That shouldn't be allowed.

cdrsalamander said...

Philo,
A little friendly advice; I don't know who started the "what did you do this weekend" line started - but it stopped being effective the 500th ... no, 2nd time I heard it.

It doesn't help the discussion much when responses from the anit-DADT side's arguments start to sound like a chain letter/seminar caller.

FWIW - when people ask what I did last weekend, I rarely start, "My female wife, with whom I have marital relations - behaved in an exceptionally heterosexual manner as we got the groceries and attempted to find the netflix envelope that the dog hid."

No, there are much better reasons.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Did he order a movie he didn't want you to know he was going to see?

Andrewdb said...

DB - on this we agree.

xformed said...

HAd one sailor want to talk with The Man.  I took his chit, sat him down n my cracker box of a (then) FFG's XO stateroom:  "The CO is a busy man.  Can I help? if not, then yes, we'll schedule it."  "I love a man."  OK...good guy, no problems, oh, except we were in GTMO for 5 weeks.  Between training and the "shore duty" JAGs never working after hours, we had to sit on it until we got to Home Port.  95% of his conversation, for the next 45 minutes did relate to the ghey, but not gory details.  I honestly felt he was one and needed out.  Request to BuPers, PERGRA received.  Paperwork done, shook hands sent him on his way.

Two week later, one of the two GMGs decided he was the ghey.  Wanted out.  95% of his 30 min was how the Nav sucked.  I told him nice try, now get back to work.  CO concurred.  He did, he did fine...oh, yes, there was another trip to the PG coming up shortly (before DS/DS and after the tanker wars...you know...when it was boring.

Follow up:  6 months later, BuPers sends msg:  "Hey, you weren't supposed to (do what we granted you permission to) do that!"  Water passed the transom....

LT B said...

What did the Chief say?  "Bl*w me!"  :-D

OnceAMarine said...

"... I say again, I don't care about the taco or hot dog either, but I DO worry about this being used as yet ANOTHER diversity driveled skree brought upon the Fleet or another excuse for poor performance which is used to cry foul when the performance is written down on an eval/fitrep."

Excellent point Lt B.  Point in case is the infamous Capt. Holly Graf.  The "sisterhood" are doing all they can to protect her  - exhibiting the double standard the entire fleet has come to expect when the Diversity Gods must be appeased. 

Perry said...

Two stories:

On the Big E, two NUB's in RT-div, who happened to be married, claimed they were gay.  "Are you going to get divorced?" "Oh, no, we plan on living together as a foursome."  I don't remember the type of discharge, but not many manage to get married BAQ/VHA  AND get processed for being gay.

Another story, probably apocryphal, was that in the early 90's, before women were allowed aboard anything besides AD's and the like, was that two Sailors went before the female XO of a Norfolk AD claiming to love each other. 

"You've had relations?"

"You betcha."

"You liked it?"

"You betcha."

To one: "What does his <blank> taste like?  Hmm, what does it taste like?  I know because I've tasted it.  If you can tell me, you're out.  If not, get back to work."

They could do nothing but stutter and turn-to.</blank>

Vigilis said...

"Case 1: A nuke sailor finishes his enlistment and re-enlists with a substantial bonus. A month later he says he's gay. He keeps the bonus, waives his board in exchange for an honorable, and goes to work for a power company.  ... Repeal the policy. Treat sex offenders as sex offenders. Stop giving dirtbags an easy way to keep their benefits. And let those who do their job continue to do their job without fear in a time when we are fighting two wars."

A fine explanation indeed, <span>Counselor.</span>

Yet, why do you fail to explain how a new process REALLY works any better with the same players in Washington? Would "slightly better" or "strong" yet openly G/L/B/etc. sailors be unable to charge discrimination in assignments/promotions "while people in Washington paint us as bigots to further their own agenda"?  Will liberal politicians not vilify the military for absence of housing assistance for support partners? 

Apparently, some are still missing an entire agenda as easily as others miss the proverbial forest for the trees (Cases 1 - 6). 

Andrewdb said...

>not many manage to get married BAQ/VHA  AND get processed for being gay

That is called benefit fraud and it can be prosecuted.

LT B said...

There was a discussion of her on www.militarycorruption.com.  It lays out a bit more about what she had done to earn her time before the Green Table and furthermore it discusses how she managed to keep her follow on job.  Pretty disgustingly un core value-ish.

C-dore 14 said...

Philo, If the law is repealed I'm sure they'll be as welcome at the Wive's...er "Spouses"...clubs as the male spouses are.

C-dore 14 said...

Great explanation of the reality of the situation, which parallels my experience.

My favorite story involved an O-6 commanding a mixed gender, Mayport-based AD who was approached on the eve of deployment by two young women who claimed they were lesbians.  He stared at them across his desk and simply said "Pictures...I want to see pictures."  Everyone deployed as scheduled.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

C-dore,

I am sure the follow-on will be that Officers will be judged not by their abilities to lead men in combat, but how accepting they are of Tom and Bill slow-dancing and smooching (in uniform) at the Birthday Ball....

USAF Mike said...

"<span>I am sure the follow-on will be that Officers will be judged not by their abilities to lead men in combat, but how accepting they are of Tom and Bill slow-dancing and smooching (in uniform) at the Birthday Ball...."</span>

Accepting?  No.  But if they're going to be a bigot about it and allow their personal opinions to taint their professional judgment of aforementioned individuals, then yes, they should be held accountable, just as a racist should be held accountable for his actions.

You're free to hold whatever views you want and serve in the U.S. military, but if those views impact the way you lead your troops then you need to get the hell out.

C-dore 14 said...

URR, my comment was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Kristen said...

I know that I'm in the minority here, but it feels like time to express my opinion. 

I'm against repeal for a lot of reasons, but first and foremost is that my active-duty husband and brother-in-law both believe that it will be detrimental.  I also completely agree with LT B that gays would become a new preferred and protected class, and the unintended consequences would cascade going forward. 

Another one of your commenters mentioned a while back that homosexuality isn't just a matter of where you put what, it is also an objective disorder that manifests itself in other ways that would not be good for military service.  It's not PC to say so, but in my experience it's true.

Grumpy Old Ham said...

Bonus points for style *and* creative leadership.

cdrsalamander said...

"....<span>tongue-in-cheek.<span>"</span></span>

The fact that none of my readers has made the appropriate joke here makes me sad.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

C'mon Sal!  I was eating dinner! 

Ready?  Wait for it.....

"Whose tongue in whose cheek?"

Ba dum bum.  Try the veal.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

USAF Mike,

Your presumption to tell me my fitness to serve is remarkable.  I have been a Marine for a bit longer than you have been alive.  I suggest that perhaps you climb out of your maintenance shop, grab a service rifle, and get to the pointy end of things. Then maybe you can wax authoritative about "the way you lead troops".

Again, you equate behavior with race.  And disagreement with your views, you attribute to bigotry.  Watch that "intolerance" launcher.  It has a hell of a backblast area.

LT B said...

I was doing yard work so missed that one. 

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

We don't make jokes like that because we are Gentlemen. Such behavior might get us kicked of your porch. 

Anonymous said...

Kristen, never be afraid of being in the minority, especially when you are right.

I saw nothing the JAG's post that was convincing. In fact, the ending was just an emotional outburst that didn't follow from his post. His anecdotes are really just a list of poor leadership and demonstrations of unwillingness to stand up a fly straight. The only good example is in a comment below from the female XO. Most in the JAG's list should have been court martialled. At least one ended up with OTH discharge. In my day they could be charged with fraudulent enlistment, although I never of one getting that charge a the rot started much earlier than a year ago Novermber.

So DADT doesn't get adminstered right? Well Whooooopee! Tell me what does go right in this Navy these days. We have A CJCS who blows 200 years of tradition out the window supporting something that will tear the service apart, and a CNO that won't stand up against the nonsense going on in the Academy. That just scratches the surface of the nonsense on stilts that 'Phib has commented on here. And, we want to add more nonsense on stilts by repealing DADT? Get real.

Byron said...

There were just SO many, I couldn't decide. Besides, every one I could think of WOULD get me a temp ban off the porch :)

Andrewdb said...

A friend has handled a number of CMs - her comment is "what is it about boys and cell phone cameras?  Do they realize how hard that makes my job as a defense lawyer?"

USAF Mike said...

"<span> And disagreement with your views, you attribute to bigotry.  Watch that "intolerance" launcher."</span>

Reread what I said.  Disagreement with my views is not bigotry; as I clearly stated people in the military are free to hold whatever views they like.  However, judging someone on the basis of their sexual orientation AFTER a decision has been made to repeal DADT (which was the presumption made in your original comment) would in fact be bigotry and wholly inappropriate for a merit based military.  I get that there will more than likely be issues with "protected classes" just like there is for race and gender now.  That's a separate issue that needs to (and I fear won't) be addressed.  However, IF (and that's only an if) the decision is made to repeal DADT, people serving gay openly need to be treated the same in a professional environment just like any other individual.  If you can't do that, then you need to get out of the military, just like someone who allowed racism or sexism to intrude upon their professional behavior.  There is a HUGE difference with not being personally (morally, religiously, etc.) okay with something and allowing that personal holdup to impact the way you treat others professionally.

"<span>I suggest that perhaps you climb out of your maintenance shop, grab a service rifle, and get to the pointy end of things. Then maybe you can wax authoritative about "the way you lead troops"."</span>

Alright Col. Jessup.  Seriously, that canard gets old.  Apparently, in your world, the only people fit to disagree with you are those who have pretty much won the GWOT all by themselves.  However, if they agree with you, you don't give a shit about their military record (which is the way it should be, assuming no one is claiming professional knowledge).  For the record, troops wasn't intended to imply combat troops...it was used in a generic sense to describe military members.  I refer to the individuals I lead as AMMO troops.

MR T's Haircut said...

uuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I 'm tellin.............................................

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Again you equate conduct with race.  That is the thread of your entire chain of logic.  For anyone to disagree is not permitted. 

Yes, that canard is old.  The oldest in the profession of arms.  The predominant consideration is that of the ones doing the fighting.  When it comes to discussing leadership, the NCO or Officer at the front of his men, exhibiting tactical competence and physical courage while attacking through the objective, that is the guy who has the big chair. 

MR T's Haircut said...

EEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

MR T's Haircut said...

A red herring, the real battle is the women on Subs that is making its way to congress via the navy proposition papers and is the news story today....

MR T's Haircut said...

Andrew, yes boys is a good term.. a shame they were not men...

sobersubmrnr said...

Amen to that. If that is allowed to go through, the Submarine Force will suffer in ways the surface fleet can't imagine. All this....gays, women in combat, quotas, sex scandals....is causing the Navy serious structural damage. We WILL pay for this in the long run if it's not turned around.

USAF Mike said...

"<span>Again you equate conduct with race.  That is the thread of your entire chain of logic.  For anyone to disagree is not permitted."</span>

That's because it IS like race...being gay is not a choice.  I'm not saying that it is genetic, or even solely biological (experiences in the first few years of life may have an impact, for example).  However, you don't just one day wake up at age 25 and decide...well, before I was a straight up god fearing woman banging Christian male, now I'm gay.  This is a scientific fact; you might as well declare the Earth to be flat. 

Can you disagree about repealing DADT?  Of course.  Can you feel that homosexuality is a sin, abomination before God, etc.?  Sure.  But to deny a basic fact means you're just sticking your head in the sand.

"<span>Yes, that canard is old.  The oldest in the profession of arms.  The predominant consideration is that of the ones doing the fighting.  When it comes to discussing leadership, the NCO or Officer at the front of his men, exhibiting tactical competence and physical courage while attacking through the objective, that is the guy who has the big chair."</span>

So...basically anyone who isn't an infantryman (or a Marine) can go suck a fat one when it comes to having an opinion about ANYTHING related to the military?  Awesome.  I'm sure you really are a fan of that whole "civilian control of the military" thing, especially when said civilians haven't served.

sobersubmrnr said...

Being a homosexual is NOT like race. Race is about skin color and facial features....totally irrelevant to anything. Homosexuality is about SEX, something that affects everyone at the most basic level. Go tell one of the Tuskeegee Airmen that the effort to repeal DADT is the same as what they had to do back in their day. Get ready to get an earful if you do.

DeltaBravo said...

I can't imagine the headache of the xo on the sub that has to deal with the fallout from fraternization at 20 Leagues under the sea.

Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.... should be a good time had by all.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"<span>But to deny a basic fact means you're just sticking your head in the sand."  </span>

<span>Sounds like Al Gore talking about global warming.    </span>

<span>"So...basically anyone who isn't an infantryman (or a Marine) can go suck a fat one when it comes to having an opinion about ANYTHING related to the military?"</span>

<span>Nope.  But when you are talking about leadership and combat effectiveness, that is where you start.  The fact that you labeled such a "canard" shows how much you have to learn.   Like I said, they get the big chair.  Not the only one, but the big one.
</span>

<span>"I'm sure you really are a fan of that whole "civilian control of the military" thing, especially when said civilians haven't served."</span>

You are sure of an awful lot.  What is too bad is that you are quite sure of so much that isn't so. 

Hint: Don't try to assume you know all a person thinks, nor especially why he might think it.  Young as you are, you should know that by now. 

'Nother Hint:  Don't presume to belittle someone's dedication to support and defend the Constitution, especially when he has boot socks older than you.  It's bad form.

USAF Mike said...

"<span>Go tell one of the Tuskeegee Airmen that the effort to repeal DADT is the same as what they had to do back in their day. Get ready to get an earful if you do."</span>

I don't think that anyone in their right mind would argue that the repeal of DADT is anywhere close to what the Tuskegee Airmen had to fight against.  Nor would anyone (certainly not me) argue that the first women military pilots faced anything close to the barrier that the Red Tailed Devils faced.

This does not change the fact that you do not choose your gender just like you do not choose your race just like you do not choose to be gay.  I am in no way trying to equivocate breaking the color barrier with repealing DADT...repealing DADT doesn't even begin to compare to what they faced.  Regardless of what a given characteristic affects, you can't choose to be gay.  Period.

DeltaBravo said...

And ladies.  Plus I was too busy reaching for the smelling salts after reading "So...basically anyone who isn't an infantryman (or a Marine) can go suck a fat one when it comes to having an opinion about ANYTHING related to the military?"

Note to AMMOMike, no one here has ever made me feel unwelcome with my opinions even though I have not personally served. 

(Though I could come up with some jokes that would make y'all blush, because I was raised around sailors and Marines.  But I have an image to uphold.  ;)  

Philo said...

<span>"My female wife, with whom I have marital relations - behaved in an exceptionally heterosexual manner as we got the groceries and attempted to find the netflix envelope that the dog hid." </span>
****
Do you have a photo of your wife on your desk?  Do you say "my wife and I" ever?  Are you worried that someone will ask a follow up question if you tell someone you went skiing?  "Really?  Who'd you go with?"

UltimaRatioRegis said...

DB, your forebearance is admirable. 

Besides, if you "go suck a big fat one", and you are a male, you can be processed under DADT.  ;)

Philo said...

<span>Go tell one of the Tuskeegee Airmen that the effort to repeal DADT is the same as what they had to do back in their day.</span>
***
I wonder how the Tuskeegee Airmen would feel about the CJCS telling them that he wanted to take an opinion survey to decide if the services should be integrated.

Philo said...

<span>I don't know who started the "what did you do this weekend" line started - but it stopped being effective the 500th ... no, 2nd time I heard it. </span>
****
My point is simply that DADT affects gay people in more ways that just keeping their private life private.  It means they can't talk about what they did on the weekend.  It means they are subject to leverage about security matters, and potentially blackmail.  It's about more than sex and the "heterosexual wife" being mentioned.  It is about missing out on all the casual conversations that build camaraderie for fear of the conversation going in an uncomfortable direction.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Philo,

I imagine a Tuskegee Airman would also wonder about being told that two men having anal sex have no more control over such activity than he does about his skin color.

DM05 said...

Very interesting perspective from the Counselor. I'm 51/49% against changing DADT. Nothing personal - show up & do you job, but the whole gay pride month/mess deck celebration/special flags & piping/Special Asst for diversity & gheyness gives me the willies and is decidely non-military.

Philo said...

<span>I'm against repeal for a lot of reasons, but first and foremost is that my active-duty husband and brother-in-law both believe that it will be detrimental. </span>
***
So you're against something because someone else is against it?  Brilliant logic.  I'm sorry, but what's wrong with protecting people from active discrimination?  If we believe in equal opportunity, people shouldn't have to deal with being discriminated against based on attributes that have nothing to do with performance.  How would you like to be fired, just because you're a woman?

USAF Mike said...

"<span>I imagine a Tuskegee Airman would also wonder about being told that two men having anal sex have no more control over such activity than he does about his skin color."</span>

Probably get up in arms about it, because they're from an older generation.  I personally would see nothing wrong with someone telling me that two men having anal sex, as you put it, have no more control over their desire to do that than I do over the fact that I'm a male.

DeltaBravo said...

State Department has seen it too.  Remember back in the day when homosexuality was a cause to have a security clearance revoked?  (Seems there was a perception that there were other issues going on too that bespoke of instability and emotional and psychological vulnerabilities.  No, I didn't make this up.  See John Barron's THE KGB).  Anyhow, now they have open BGLT-whatever pride weeks and open parties at embassies overseas celebrating things that are NOT openly paraded in other cultures.  Gives us a bit of a diplomatic black eye.  Gee, let's do that with our military also!  Give other cultures a disinformation stick to beat our military with.    

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Ammo, I think you win the circuitous logic award. 

You weren't equating sexual orientation with sexual orientation, or even gender.  You were equating it with skin color.  And yes, they would probably be up in arms.

The generation I serve with is not so old, and many of the black Marines and Sailors I serve with have expressed similar anger at the notion.

Grumpy Old Ham said...

I need some help with:

"The problem with DADT is that is primarily a vehicle through which poor performers can get an easy out, and good sailors live in fear of separation."

and

"Again...your results may vary, but I have NEVER seen a good sailor who wanted to stay in kicked under DADT."

Good sailors live in fear of being separated, yet good sailors who want to stay in (almost?) never get kicked out under DADT.

If the latter is true, then their fears are unfounded -- which leads one to question why the policy needs to be changed.

I must be missing some key aspect of the JAG's reasoning.

USAF Mike said...

"<span><span>Sounds like Al Gore talking about global warming."</span></span>

Yes, precisely, because there isn't, you know, a preponderance of scientific evidence that being gay is not, in fact, a choice.

"<span><span>Nope.  But when you are talking about leadership and combat effectiveness, that is where you start.  The fact that you labeled such a "canard" shows how much you have to learn.   Like I said, they get the big chair.  Not the only one, but the big one."</span></span>

Ah, sorry, I missed the memo where the entire military is comprised of infantrymen.  I'm sure that a maintenance officer, or a SWO, or any one of the myraid of specialties in the U.S. military doesn't have ANY insight into that particular career field that an infantryman doesn't already know.

As for the rest of it, don't lecture me about what is and isn't bad form.  As soon as I disagreed with you, you implied that because I am not an infantryman (or a Marine) my opinion was automatically worth less (both here and in the other thread).

USAF Mike said...

Fine, same goes for me being white.  Point is that sexual orientation isn't something you can change. 

As for the black Marines and Sailors, were they upset at the comparison, or were they upset at the repeal of DADT?  The Black community (in general) is much less tolerant of homosexuality in general compared to the population at large.  This was something that the anti-Prop 8 folks were surprised at, but really shouldn't have been if they had done their homework.

USAF Mike said...

"<span>Note to AMMOMike, no one here has ever made me feel unwelcome with my opinions even though I have not personally served."</span>

Have you ever disagreed with URR?  That seems to be a favorite tactic of his.

MR T's Haircut said...

Hey I thought our recruiting numbers were good.... hmmm no ?  well at least I am not the last picked in this dodge ball cluster f(*(@

MR T's Haircut said...

Philo... See Dick?  See Jane?  See politeness?  Dont be a Dick.....

DeltaBravo said...

Philo, you tell them "I went with a bunch of friends"  Or "I went with some friends from college."  "I went with my church group."  "The guys from the neighborhood decided to road trip it to the Poconos."  Do you not know that they really don't care who you went with?  It's idle chatter.  No one wants name, rank and serial number.  Y'all keep using these supposed interrogations as a reason to repeal DADT.  If they ask why you aren't married, you just say "I haven't found the right girl yet."  It's true.  She'd have to have really hairy legs and a prominent Adam's apple. But you don't need to fill that part in.

Or do you really WANT to be able to loudly proclaim you went with your lover and the other guys from Lambda Tau so that someone may overhear and KNOW, and then you don't have that awkward wondering if he's interested or not, or if you approach him it will get really hostile really fast? 

You seem really really eager to be able to talk about your weekends in great detail with the guys at work.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Of course, being a Badger, I am happier UNDER the porch.

USAF Mike said...

"<span> (Seems there was a perception that there were other issues going on too that bespoke of instability and emotional and psychological vulnerabilities.  No, I didn't make this up.  See John Barron's THE KGB)."</span>

That simply isn't true.  The biggest concern was that people could be blackmailed due to their homosexuality, given the nature of society at the time.  Same logic as being in debt...it isn't the circumstances (your fault or otherwise) that led to the situation, it's the fact that being in financial troubles makes you more susceptible to sell secrets.

USAF Mike said...

Assuming that Barron was right, why did we stop denying security clearances to homosexuals?  Political correctness?  Really?  That might play in other areas but they don't screw around when it comes to clearances.

DeltaBravo said...

Ahhh... but it does have to do with performance.  And I'll say that as a female.  I've seen embassy functioning torn apart by tandem couples and by people getting engaged and then someone stepping on toes and it turns a whole work relationship and boss/underling thing into an emotional minefield for third parties.  Try that on a ship where lives are at stake.  Anywhere where cabals can arise and make one group and in group and another an out group does cause performance issues.  And yes, I think females who play off those emotional attractions can mess up an office too and I'd remove them. 

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Ammo Mike, your opinion IS worth less than that of an infantryman.  So's mine.  I am a Field Artilleryman.  Don't you get it? 

Back in the late 80s, something called "field artillery commander's intent" started to creep into staff teachings.  Another symptom of peacetime crap being codified in an OPORD. 

One of my bosses, the Artillery Regimental Commander, was asked by some foolish but well-meaning staff officer writing the OPORD what his "field artillery commander's intent" was. 

He responded, very nearly, if not verbatim, "Intent?  To try like hell to give the supported commander every last thing he needs!  That is <span>always</span> my intent, and better be everybody else's, so don't ever ask me that again!"

The guy behind the bayonet.  He goes first, therefore he comes first.  Verstehen sie?  If you don't, shame on you.

USAF Mike said...

Haha, that "field artillery commander's intent" story was fairly amusing.  Of course, I wouldn't know anything about supporting, because after all, without AMMO, the AF is just the world's most expensive flying club.  Kidding, kidding...well, not about the world's most expensive flying club part, but the AF exists to support the trigger puller on the ground.  Period.  I've said this before.  The only exception to this, of course, is one of the very few instances there is no trigger puller on the ground...like a theoretical conflict with China, for example, or Allied Force.  (Please no comments about the relative success or lack thereof regarding Allied Force...I get just as annoyed as you when the AF tries to play that off like an airpower "success.")

However, I still disagree with your assertion that the infantryman comes first regarding EVERYTHING.  According to that logic, an 18 year old pfc has more authority to speak on pol/mil strategy in Iraq or Afghanistan than a subject matter expert who has studied the region for decades but who has never served in the military.  Nothing against the 18 year old pfc, but something tells me it might be a little wiser to give more weight to what the subject matter expert has to say.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Ammo, DB doesn't insist on expressing her opinions as somehow more learned than those who have considerable experience in uniform. 

Some of the people here have been living and watching DoD policy a long time.  Their fears regarding repeal of DADT should not be dismissed airliy as the bigoted rantings of an unenlightened rabble.  When you do, and base such dismissal on premises many here find highly questionable, you get what you get.

That is what happens on the porch.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

USAF Mike,

I didn't say the infantryman comes first in all things.  But in warfighting he does.  Not just the 18 year old, whose vista is necessarily limited to his immediate surroundings.  Infantry leaders, warfighters, who understand issues of combat leadership, doctrine, tactics, the operational arts.  They DO come first.  And those leaders range anywhere from junior NCOs to Corps command.  The country expert, like your AF dudes, are there for HIM and his boys (if a tactical AF outfit).  I am there for HIM and his boys as well.  When asking how certain policies and changes in doctrine will affect combat effectiveness and unit cohesion, they do indeed get the big chair. 

Haven't seen an Artilleryman as USMC Commandant in a long time, never an aviator.  They are and should be 0302 Infantry Officers.  That is as it should be.  CSTAFF of the Army should be an Infantry Officer, too, IMHO.  CNO should be SWO or SS.  CSTAFF of the Air Force should always be a combat pilot.

Philo said...

<span>whatever pride weeks and open parties at embassies overseas celebrating things that are NOT openly paraded in other cultures.  Gives us a bit of a diplomatic black eye. </span>
****
Is there an example of this, or just irrational fear?

Philo said...

<span>Philo... See Dick?  See Jane?  See politeness?  Dont be a Dick.....</span>
***
Jane?  I just saw a woman that couldn't make up her own mind, and then used false logic to justify someone else's position that she adopted as her own.

DeltaBravo said...

http://radioviceonline.com/state-department-gaffe-in-baghdad-gay-pride-theme-party-at-pub/

Philo said...

<span>I've seen embassy functioning torn apart by tandem couples and by people getting engaged and then someone stepping on toes and it turns a whole work relationship and boss/underling thing into an emotional minefield for third parties.  Try that on a ship where lives are at stake. </span>
****
What military command were you in where fraternization rules were ignored by leadership.  Frat is unacceptable, without regard to gender.  This is why we have those rules.  i don't think people are suggesting a repeal of fraternization rules.

Philo said...

<span>I imagine a Tuskegee Airman would also wonder about being told that two men having anal sex have no more control over such activity than he does about his skin color.</span>
****
You mistake sex for sexuality.  Go tell a Tuskegee Airman that he isn't allowed to have a relationship while in the service, because he's black.  You might get a lesson on freedom.

Philo said...

Regis,
<span> we change our military culture, personal relationships between service members, definitions of unit cohesion, and standards of behavior all to "seamlessly" accomodate gays serving openly.</span>
****
Just what exactly is changing about military culture, personal relationships between service members, definition of unit cohesion or standards of behavior, other than valuing performance more than sexuality?

DeltaBravo said...

Precisely, Philo.  And then there's the real world where everyone else lives.  The one Phib has been having discussions about where fraternization goes on and everyone is too scared to enforce good order and discipline for fear of offending anyone.  The world where the wimmens on the ships and in boat school create all sorts of problems and everyone is afraid to state the obvious.    But the funny thing about rules... you start tearing them down one by one... DADT goes... then married couples and engaged couples can sue for freedom of association and force the military to declare that okay... Don't start demanding rules be changed and then say the rules will protect us.  When all the rules have been blown down, and good order and discipline have been blown overboard, and nothing is unacceptable anymore, then what?

Have you missed all the discussions about the Luv Boats and the pregnant women sent home and the obvious fraternization and leadership problems resulting from it?  It's going on all over! 

Oh... we keep the rules YOU think are logical?  The ones that don't step on YOUR particular toes?  Your argument there is funny.

Philo said...

Regis,
If you have the impression that Officers are judged based on the date they bring to Birthday Ball, you should take a read through the MARCORPROMMAN Vol 1. Here's an essential part:

<p>Officers are selected for promotion for their potential to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the next higher grade based upon past performance as indicated in their official military personnel file. Promotions should not be considered a reward for past performance, but as incentive to excel in the next higher grade.
</p>

DeltaBravo said...

What say we put the gays and the women on subs together.  Kill two birds with one stone.

Andrewdb said...

Pleaes define "objective disorder."  I am only familiar with that term being used by the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Philo said...

DB it looks like that was inside the Embassy.  You are aware that there are activities on bases that aren't in accordance with religious laws in the middle east, right?  I don't see an open invitation to the Iraqis, am I missing something?

Anon said...

DB, are you seriously suggesting that we should let the cultural mores of countries like Iraq dictate who should and should not serve in our armed forces?  YOU never get to complain about political correctness again.

Philo said...

<span>The one Phib has been having discussions about where fraternization goes on and everyone is too scared to enforce good order and discipline for fear of offending anyone.  The world where the wimmens on the ships and in boat school create all sorts of problems and everyone is afraid to state the obvious. </span>
****
I don't know what everyone you're talking about.  I watched an O-5 get sent home early because of frat, don't know what happened to him.  I do know that leadership wasn't afraid to act.  I've never been too afraid to enforce frat regulations, just as I've never been afraid to discipline someone of another race or gender.  It's called leadership and adherence to standards.

Philo said...

<span>Oh... we keep the rules YOU think are logical?  The ones that don't step on YOUR particular toes?  Your argument there is funny.</span>
*****
Is it your position that I should be proposing that we keep rules that I think are illogical?  That's an interesting position. I don't recall proposing any rules or legislation that benefit me as an individual.  BTW, Love Boats, and pregnant women are leadership failures, nothing more, nothing less.  When leadership fails to enforce standards, the world falls apart.

DeltaBravo said...

No, that is NOT what I am saying.  Gays serve in our armed forces today.  I am saying if it becomes open and they become a protected class like every other "minority" has guaranteed, and it all goes overboard, it has repurcussions outside the barracks and the office.  I'm saying we can't blindly go through other countries where we're trying to win minds and hearts and bulldoze them with some people's avant garde notion of morality and then scratch our heads and wonder why the other side uses it as a propaganda tool against us. 

And believe me when I say so what if it went on "inside the embassy," I promise you the stories then got carried outside the embassy by foreign national workers and got magnified.  The other side is waging an information battle against us.  Play into their hands, why don't we?   Would you all have been surprised if such a site then got rocketed and they posted on their websites that they rid the town of a scene of infidel debauchery and filth?  Don't you get it?  So why have our men parade in there as Cher and Dolly Parton and gift wrap it for them?

DeltaBravo said...

For the thousandth time... the problem with repealing DADT is that leadership (based on previous behavior) will fail again.  Out of fear, weakness, desire to be politically correct, or whatever.   In your example about the 05... was he the only one sent home?  Or was SHE sent home too?  Was he a white male?  (Because it's okay to kick them out.  Everyone else can do what they want, it seems, right?) 

GBS said...

Like many, if not most government laws / policies, DADT has some perverse consequences.  Chief among them are the sailors that deliberately "out" themselves to leave the service.  On the flip side, the counselor twice admits that he has never seen a good sailor involuntarily separated.  I can personally attest to the same thing.  Can we say the same thing about some other policies...like the "zero tolerance" drug policy?  Mind you, I'm not saying that the drug policy should be changed, but let's not delude ourselves with the notion that anything in the Navy is perfect.

Repealing DADT and allowing gays to serve openly will no doubt have a different set of perverse consequences.  We can reasonably speculate on what some of those will be, but rest assured that there are surprises lurking. 

Look for a slow roll on this from the Chiefs.  When the Congressional demographics change later this year, my money says this gets pushed out even further.

ActusRhesus said...

I did get a kick out of the fact that the State department had a gay pride celebration at the Embassy in Iraq, but Joe Soldier can't have a budweiser because "it offends out muslim hosts"

I call bs on that.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Philo, you know the answer to that question.  It will be the forced infusion of a lifestyle and set of behaviors that run counter to good order and discipline.  We will be told that this generation is ready for that and they don't care.  But we have been told that before and it was a long way from the truth. 

Whatever studies and questionnaires being circulated will be construed to glean whatever Mullen wants them to, and soon the gay lifestyle will be on onstentatious display throghout the Armed Forces.  There will be no serving openly but quietly.  The advocates and activists will see to that.  You know it, I know it, THEY know it, and DoD leadership knows it, whether they admit it or not.  DoD leadership will be put into the role of de facto advocates themselves, as political pressure for "fairness and equality" will lead to the usual initiatives officially championing some service member over others.  (I am still waiting for Male Polish American Month) 

The counter arguments will be the usual "that won't happen" strain.  (Just like the corrosive issue of females at sea.  Never mind the colossally unwise concept of putting females among large numbers of males, both of sexual reproductive age,  in confined areas for long periods with little to do off duty.  The problem is people not following fraternization rules?  Right.)  And the argument will be put forward repeal of DADT is like integration in 1947. 

Which of course brings the issue of the impact of all this on good order and discipline.  Particularly in the Victor units that do the fighting.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Philo, if it is "sexuality" and not gender or race, you are describing BEHAVIORS.  Were this a trial, this would be the point at which I would say "no further questions, your honor".

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Philo, rather than cherry-pick from the Promotion Manual, pick up a Marine Officer's Guide and start reading.  If you don't think an Officer is judged (rightly) on his personal and professional conduct at command-sponsored events such as birthday balls, dinings in or out, mess nights, etc., you are even sillier than the usual troll.  Such is very much a part of those duties and responsibilities. 

LT B said...

True that MTH.  I believe women at sea have been more corrosive to good order and discipline than gays have been.  Once again, it has been the double standard and cowardice of the senior leadership to apply standards across the board.  Look at CAPT Graff.  Allegedly grabbing a JO by the throat and spitting in a Sailor's face?  WTF?  If a dude did that to me, we'd be fighting.  What do you do when it's a female?  Another CDR fired for diddling a female officer.  Stupid of him.  Incredibly so, but what do we think will happen on subs if even senior officers can't keep their zippers up?  Train women up and give them their own subs and ships.  I know it smells of seperate but equal, but man, if we can't enforce standards, then why the hell do we have them?

LT B said...

Which of course brings to mind the pic Phib put up a few years ago of the Army Ball and the woman in what some might call a dress.  :)   I bet HE was judged by HER behavior!!

LT B said...

Are you kidding me?  Have you seen the personnel on the POTIS staff?  The Green Czar for instance?  Do you think they'd give Obama access to the SCIF if he had not been elected?  Hell yeah, the clearance game has changed. 

Grumpy Old Ham said...

Philo wrote:


<span>"If you have the impression that Officers are judged based on the date they bring to Birthday Ball, you should take a read through the MARCORPROMMAN Vol 1" (quotes assessment of potential and past performance as documented in OPR/OERs as determining factor for promotion)
</span>

URR responded:

<span>"If you don't think an Officer is judged (rightly) on his personal and professional conduct at command-sponsored events such as birthday balls, dinings in or out, mess nights, etc.,"</span>

I think I've figured out the breakdown of the DADT policy positions:

One side (I'll call them idealists) believe that the world operates strictly according to the letter of the laws, regulations, policies, and that such directives (including justice or corrective actions based upon them) always have the intended effect with few, if any, unintended side effects.

The other side (I'll call them realists) understand that the world doesn't always operate so cleanly, and that human nature nearly always guarantees that there will be second-order effects, unintended consequences, hidden agendas, and imperfect administration of laws, regulations, policies, etc.

Exercise for the reader:  determine who here on the porch falls into which camp.  ;)

I think I'll hang around the computer geek world, where there are 10 types of people:  those who understand binary, and those who don't.

LT B said...

That said DB, the Middle East is the weirdest place wrt gay activities.  All over the place there.  But they are not gay just because they have sex w/ boys.  WTF?!

Philo said...

Regis,

<span>"If you don't think an Officer is judged (rightly) on his personal and professional conduct at command-sponsored events such as birthday balls, dinings in or out, mess nights, etc., you are even sillier than the usual troll.  Such is very much a part of those duties and responsibilities." </span>
<span>****</span>
I disagree, but if you insist that is the criteria for performance, then how do gay Marine Officers get judged today if they can't bring a date to b<span>irthday balls, dinings in or out, mess nights?  If that's part of their duties, why can't they bring their date?  You basically argue that gay Officers shouldn't be allowed to perform part of their duties (as you put it) because they're gay.  Talk about discrimination.</span>

Philo said...

Regis,
"<span>rather than cherry-pick from the Promotion Manual"</span>
***
It isn't cherry picking, it's the intro to the manual.  When you find a part that says Marine Officers are judged on social abilities, feel free to quote it.  I'm betting they're judged on equal opportunity, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Philo said...

DB,
So now you ask gay people to lie?  Honor, Courage, Commitment.  I don't think gay people should be forced to lie for your social comfort.

Philo said...

"<span>You seem really really eager to be able to talk about your weekends in great detail with the guys at work."</span>
****
Really?  A photo on your desk, the ability to say "I love you" in a private letter or email while on deployment, and the ability to say "my boyfriend and I went skiing" are great detail?  You and I have a very different impression of "great detail."

UltimaRatioRegis said...

You disagree?  Huh.  I will stand advised.  Silly troll.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Philo,

When you find a Marine Officer who doesn't understand that his personal and professional conduct at all times are a reflection of his character and office as Leaders of Marines, let me know. 

Your lack of understanding of that concept shines a light on your other comments here.

Philo said...

"<span>Look for a slow roll on this from the Chiefs."</span>
*****
Sadly, real leadership is too much to ask for anymore.  I'd have loved to see the reaction if the military had done attitude surveys to see what peoples attitudes were towards black people before integration, or women before they were allowed to serve.  This theory that the military should only do something if it makes everyone happy, is perverted and only demonstrates the lack of real leadership.  Lie about something at an academy, well if you'll get upset, we'll keep you.  You're a good football player, no need to meet the other standards.  You know the Admiral, oh then it's ok for you to be gay in the military.  I was astonished to see Mullen so clear in his position, it's about time.  It's unfortunate that we don't have other leaders ready to stand by the principle of equal opportunity and honor in the face of challenges.

Philo said...

DM05, do you really not know how to spell "gay"?

Philo said...

<span>"Gays serve in our armed forces today.  I am saying if it becomes open and they become a protected class like every other "minority" has guaranteed, and it all goes overboard, it has repurcussions outside the barracks and the office."</span>
****
You're fine with them serving, so long as you can discriminate against them for doing so?

sobersubmrnr said...

I'm not from their generation and I have a big problem with two men having anal sex. As do most straight males, which is why the presence of an openly avowed Rump Ranger in a berthing compartment would be such a problem.

You also don't choose how tall or short you are, but the Armed Forces have standards there, too.

sobersubmrnr said...

<span>You mistake sex for sexuality.  Go tell a Tuskegee Airman that he isn't allowed to have a relationship while in the service, because he's black.  You might get a lesson on freedom.</span>

Sexuality leads to sex. Hence the 'sex' part of 'sexuality.' Nice try, no cee-gar.

sobersubmrnr said...

<span>Yes, precisely, because there isn't, you know, a preponderance of scientific evidence that being gay is not, in fact, a choice.  </span>

However, homosexual <span>conduct</span> is a choice.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

GOH,

"<span>I think I'll hang around the computer geek world, where there are 10 types of people:  those who understand binary, and those who don't."</span>

What a great line.  A related joke:  How can you tell you are talking to an extroverted programmer?  They're looking at YOUR shoes.

sobersubmrnr said...

<span>Though I could come up with some jokes that would make y'all blush, because I was raised around sailors and Marines.  But I have an image to uphold. </span>

Hey DB, can you sing the Barnacle Bill song?   :-D

GBS said...

It's called a difference of opinion.  I know it's a hard concept for you to get your head around.  Anyone who opposes this is a bigot, not only against gays, but racial minorities has well?  Heh.  Mullen may have expressed his personal desire to see the law changed, but I didn't hear him oppose careful study before that is done.  Your red herrings aside, my commentary had nothing to do with making people happy.  Your perspective is based on some notion of social justice...gays have some inherent "right" to serve, regardless of the consequences.  I disagree, and ask the more relevant question...will changing this make things better, or worse, or make no difference?  The Chiefs are going to take their time answering the question.  Sorry if that's not good enough for you.

gorilspi said...

<span><span>"I'm against repeal for a lot of reasons, but first and foremost is that my active-duty husband and brother-in-law both believe that it will be detrimental. </span> 
*** 
So you're against something because someone else is against it?  Brilliant logic.  I'm sorry, but what's wrong with protecting people from active discrimination?  If we believe in equal opportunity, people shouldn't have to deal with being discriminated against based on attributes that have nothing to do with performance.  How would you like to be fired, just because you're a woman?"</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>
<span>Philo,</span>
<span>Read her statement.  She said "first and foremeost" regarding her opinions on a military issue, but prefaced it by saying "<span><span>I'm against repeal for a lot of reasons"</span></span>.  She does have other personal reasons (as she alluded to) for her opinion, which, when combined with input from others, helps her form her complete opinion.  This is not a real new concept about formation of opinions/ideas, at least for people who do not live in isolation.  </span>
<span></span>
<span></span><span>Would you not think it is valid that her opinions, and society's as a whole, should be impacted by those a potential change would actually impact?  Or are you one of those who think sthat all opinions are equally valid, regardless of credibility or impact? I guess Congress should just start asking random people to testify as opposed to the service chiefs then.  Thanks for clearing it up.</span>
<span></span>
<span>Also...</span><span>Way to try to use the women's rights argument. Big tent mentality. Oppressed of the world unite...nice subtle (maybe not so subltle) attempt at manipulation.</span>

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Where are they being prevented from saying, " I love you", in a private letter.  Your pulling arguments out of the air, and passing them off as well thought out statements.  There has been a societal uneasieness with homosexuality for thousands of centuries, that cuts across cultures. There is usually a vaild, sound reason for a taboo of that scope and endurance. Just because certain parties "feel" that they have discovered that civilisation has been wrong, all these hundreds of years, doesn't mean they are right.

  I weary of the sophisty of the Progressives on this subject. I think that the 200 plus year institutional memory of the USN can be relied upon more than  and pop culture beliefs to the contrary.  Homosexuals have been around for a long, long time, and if the Navy believes that it is not in thier best interest to have them serving openly, I am willing to accept that they have the experience to back up that claim.

Having ranted, I will now return to my burrow under the porch. 

Andrewdb said...

>not men - touche.  Most of her cases with cell pics seem to be junior enlisted.

Andrewdb said...

URR- I'll see you the Tuskeegee Airmen, and raise you Coretta Scott King (may she rest in peace).

http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_1B61644E-4221-4576-B468-A7A799CCDBB7.html

Andrewdb said...

URR - how about people with the Medal of Honor?  I think you are from the Northeast - maybe you know this guy? He doesn't seem to think it will be a problem.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20100207just_ask_him_hell_tell_you____gays_deserve__right_to_serve/srvc=home&position=1

Philo said...

GBS,

I don't pretend to understand why people insist that gay people lie.  Why do you insist that people lie to you, so that you're not uncomfortable?

Philo said...

<span>"Your perspective is based on some notion of social justice...gays have some inherent "right" to serve, regardless of the consequences."</span>
***
No greater "right to serve" than black people, white people, men or women.

DeltaBravo said...

Philo, I was talking to someone about this (from their USMC point of view.)  Let's take it your way for argument's sake.   This is how it will roll in all practicality:

Sgt. Smith:  This weekend we went out for beers and watched the game at the Sports Bar.  Good times.
Sgt. Jones:  The wife and I painted the nursery.
Sgt. Smith:  What color?
Sgt. Jones:  We're hedging our bets:  Mint green and canary yellow, the wife calls it.  Just green and yellow to me.
Sgt. Smith:  And what did you do, Sgt. Bruce?  WHAT DID YOU DO THIS WEEKEND AND WHO DID YOU GO WITH?  GIVE US ALL THE DETAILS!
Sgt. Bruce:  My boyfriend and I went furniture shopping and then to Flamingos for dinner and drinks.   It was a great time!  Then we made passionate love all night.  The way men do.  I'm so tired now.  Gosh, I love him.  It's great the Marines let me say that out loud now.
Sgt. Smith and Sgt. Jones:  (awkward silence)  Ummm...  Cool. 
Sgt. Smith:  Right....  I've got some papers to file for the Lt. 
Sgt. Jones:  Yeah.  Ummm.. I have to go PT.  Catch ya later, Smith.
Sgt. Smith:  Call me, Jones. 

Sgt. Bruce (left all alone).  

My point being:  Allowing the conversation to go in the direction YOU want it to go doesn't mean it won't be uncomfortable for the people who don't see life your way and in the long run, it won't build camaraderie.  It will increase isolation.  No one is preventing casual conversation.  And shoving the private details of what you do with your lover in someone else's line of sight isn't going to make them change their overall opinion about it.  It will segregate people into conversation and companionship zones the way people usually segregate themselves into their comfort zones.   THAT does NOT build espirit de corps. 

Mr. X said...

GBS, I don't automatically assume anyone who opposes repeal of DADT is a bigot, but I do notice that the vast majority of the concerns expressed by opponents of repeal sound a lot like arguments that were or could still be made to prevent women and minorities from serving.  That tells me a lot about who has the better of this argument.

I disagree with you that the relevant question is whether this will "make things better or worse".  The ONLY relevant question is what will best help us to accomplish the mission of the armed forces.  It was the right decision to allow women and minorities to join our ranks, even though in the short term that caused some problems and it still presents some problems today (e.g, sexual assault, the diversity bullies, etc.).  Is there anyone who really believes we could have handled Iraq and Afghanistan with an all-volunteer force comprised entirely of heterosexual white males?

There are valid logistical questions to be asked and answered, particularly with respect to living arrangements.  I do not begrudge anyone the right to ask those questions without being called a bigot.  However, the experience of our foreign allies and other federal agencies that have made this policy change strongly suggests that the logistical issues are not insurmountable.  When I see people discount such facts and warn of a parade of horribles that involves buying into pretty much every negative stereotype about homosexuals and/or complain about the manner in which the organization has integrated women and minorities, it does cause me to question what is truly driving the difficulty they seem to have with repeal.

DeltaBravo said...

Gonna highlight a comment by Ammo Mike buried far down the page:

Herein lies the genesis for a world of problems if DADT is repealed.  He's even laid it out for us.  Behold the battle plan and the first of a long order of unintended effects:


"However, judging someone on the basis of their sexual orientation AFTER a decision has been made to repeal DADT (which was the presumption made in your original comment) would in fact be bigotry and wholly inappropriate for a merit based military.  I get that there will more than likely be issues with "protected classes" just like there is for race and gender now.  That's a separate issue that needs to (and I fear won't) be addressed.  However, IF (and that's only an if) the decision is made to repeal DADT, people serving gay openly need to be treated the same in a professional environment just like any other individual.  If you can't do that, then you need to get out of the military, just like someone who allowed racism or sexism to intrude upon their professional behavior.  There is a HUGE difference with not being personally (morally, religiously, etc.) okay with something and allowing that personal holdup to impact the way you treat others professionally."

Well, we've all seen how that works with race and gender when you criticize performance. 

Translated:  If the Philos and Ammo Mikes of the world PERCEIVE that their treatment has "changed" after DADT is repealed and they don't FEEL they are treated the same as their heterosexual peers after they come out of the closet, then their solution is that anyone who can't adjust to the new order should get out of the service.    So if Ammo Mike FEELS someone else has a personal holdup against him, he'll run to the JAGs and start whining and filing charges, right?  Let's clog the system up with accusations of disparate treatment.  We've been warned!  (Might not have anything to do with his outing himself.  He may be a crappy worker, but it will all come down to charges of disparate treatment and everyone will have to defend their right to do their duties and prove it is NOT because they are a bigot and the guy has a stable of boyfriends he brags about every Monday morning but because he's a f-up on the job.)    Should be fun.  Better hire more JAGs.  Now.

DeltaBravo said...

Philo, as long as the military continues to attract by its nature uber-masculine, driven, Type-A men in its ranks, the homosexual population will find itself somewhat segregated.  Not volunteering unasked for information is not lying.  Throwing the full unvarnished truth about yourself into someone's line of sight who finds your lifestyle offensive or unnatural will not change his opinion about your lifestyle, but it will make him uncomfortable around you.  Are you going to drag him into court or demand powerpoint presentations every week to reeducate him till he cries "uncle?"  Why not just shut up and do your job?  Go ahead.  Shove your truth in people's faces.  Insist that they don't feel uncomfortable.  See how that works for you.   They have a saying down here... "Always tell the truth.  But don't always be tellin' the truth."  

As for Ammo Mike's comment way below that I won't repeat... once DADT is repealed, if he uses that language around a heterosexual co-worker, I'd LMAO if they hauled him in front of the CO and charged him with sexual harrassment.   That door swings BOTH ways!  

DeltaBravo said...

Mr. X, I believe you answered your own question.  Buried in your post is the term "diversity bullies."  The debate is whether the overall mission HAS been compromised, subverted or impinged on by their bullying agenda.  Do we hold up the bowl and ask "Can I have some more, please?" 

DeltaBravo said...

I didn't say they made sense.  I just said that was the environment we're operating in...  ;)

DeltaBravo said...

Ummm...  if they're allowed to serve, they're not being discriminated against.

DeltaBravo said...

I'll let Papa Bravo off the hook on this one and say he'd never have sung this song to the little ones.  Those are the kind of lyrics I'd have to learn elsewhere....

Andrewdb said...

DB - actually, when SGT Bruce said "my boyfreind and I went furniture shopping" he said enough to be thrown out under the current law.  He didn't need to say anything else.

C-dore 14 said...

URR, Back in the day you were judged on your wife's conduct and contributions as well.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"<span>No greater "right to serve" than black people, white people, men or women."</span>

If you are one for the truth, Mister Troll, then you are required to add the following caviat:

<span>IF</span> you believe homosexual conduct is the same as race or gender....

Gays self-describe as a "lifestyle".  Behaviors.  You said so yourself when you used the term "sexuality".

UltimaRatioRegis said...

C-dore,

Yeah, I remember.  Was not always terribly impressed with that, but one's OWN conduct (and the conduct of any guests one might invite to accompany) is indeed one's responsibility.  It reflects on judgment, maturity, and professionalism.

C-dore 14 said...

LT B, How do you handle a woman?  The same way you'd handle a male officer who assaulted you.  When I entered the Navy senior officers screaming, throwing things, and occasionally slapping JOs was not unheard of, especially on small boys.  Early on I resolved that if anyone ever struck me I'd take the action necessary to stop it and then tell them to their face that I would be filing assault charges against them under the UCMJ.  Fortunately all but one of my COs (he liked to yell and throw things) were professionals and I was never put in that situation.  

I can't believe in this day and age that an enlisted person would tolerate being spit on by an officer or that the senior enlisted leadership would allow that to pass.

USAF Mike said...

....wow.  Yup, that's exactly what I said, particularly the part about "<span>I get that there will more than likely be issues with "protected classes" just like there is for race and gender now.  That's a separate issue that needs to (and I fear won't) be addressed."</span>

Oh, wait...no, that's not what I said at all.  I acknowledged the protected class issue...I hate it just as much as everyone else here.  That's not what I'm talking about...I'm talking about people who allow their personal feelings to color how they deal with others professionally.  What you can't seem to understand is the concept of professional vs personal behavior.  If you act negatively towards someone on the basis of something they can't change (which homosexuality is...something you all can't seem to wrap your heads around here), that is wrong, and it has no place in the military.  I think we've seen that effectively when AR goes off on AM when he states his opposition to women in the military.

For the record, I'm not gay...as shocking as this may be for a red blooded God fearing American female like yourself, it is in fact possible to be in support of repealing DADT and still maintain your heterosexuality.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Yes, higher education.  Always a bastion of informed and reasoned opinion, particularly regarding military policy.  I am certain Mary Frances Berry is thoroughly versed on unit cohesion, espirit, fighting efficiency, and those things that build morale in a combat unit. 

I am sure as well that she is as outraged with the "diversity bullies" and the damage they have done in the name of "fairness" as the rest of us.

Andrewdb said...

URR - since you don't seem able to click on a link, I'll cut and paste for you:

"When Coretta Scott King was asked to support gays in the military, I agreed to go to Atlanta to stand with her while she made the announcement. ...Rev. Joseph Lowery came to stand with us"

Andrewdb said...

URR - sorry, I can't get the first link to work. 

The second goes to a bio piece that doesn't include anything about MG Livingston's position on DADT.

DeltaBravo said...

Thanks for verifying that the military hasn't dealt with the diversity b######t in the past and can't be counted on to deal with it in the future.  Which is why piling on another diversity issue is a mistake.  I understand professional and personal behavior.  Wait till people scream bigotry when they are passed over for promotion and claim it's because they are gay, when really it's because they are incompetent.  We've seen how it has worked with quotas for women and minorities.  Mark my words, there will be quotas for gays.  Unspoken quotas.  Unadmitted, but set in stone.  Have fun with that.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

<span>I do know Captain Kelley, as a matter of fact.  He is entitled to his views, certainly.  He is an intelligent gentleman whom I admire greatly. 
 
Two others I admire as well: 
 
This guy, and this guy.  Served with the latter.  Both oppose the repeal of DADT.</span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Try that.  MG Patrick Brady, USA.

Philo said...

DB,
As far as "<span>Philo, as long as the military continues to attract by its nature uber-masculine, driven, Type-A men in its ranks, the homosexual population will find itself somewhat segregated. "  <span>You're ability to stereotype is astonishing.  Perhaps you should go meet some gay people before you judge them.</span></span>

Philo said...

DB
"<span>That door swings BOTH ways!"  Really? do tell.</span>

DeltaBravo said...

Hahah.  You have no idea, Philo.   There is a difference between judging and observing.  Go take a poll among the heterosexual guys and find out how many of them really want to hear tales from the other side of the fence.  I've seen the self segregation in high school cafeterias and adult office spaces.  Human nature is what it is. 

GBS said...

<span>Mr. X</span>

<span>You would have to look long and hard to find a period in our history when<span>, in time of war, our</span> military was comprised "entirely of heterosexual white males".  I can see where those advancing this cause choose to cast it in terms of race.  It makes for good press copy, but like the integration of women on ships, it ignores some pretty fundamental issues.  That you choose to ignore them makes them no less real.  That you discount the "parade of horribles" doesn't mean that significant problems won't arise.  When I said "make things better or worse"...I WAS referring to the mission.  If you don't think those problems you admit to, such as sexual assault and the diversity bullies are minor issues, then you haven't been paying much attention to the Thursday edition of this blog.</span>

C-dore 14 said...

AR, I hope you're not buying the "offending Muslim culture" BS line about why they don't allow drinking in the CENTCOM AOR.  It has more to do with LCPL (or SPC) Timmy and his pals getting a snoot full and raising hell.  If we were really concerned about Muslim culture I'd doubt that they'd be serving a lot of pork products there.

Skippy-san said...

But were they good looking? :-P

Jay said...

Hey Phib -- I listened to a bit  to the recent Mid Rats re: same.  Are you planning a Part II?  How about one with a SLDN rep to offer an opposing viewpoint to that of Ms. Donnelly?

It will be interesting to see what recommendations the JCS come up with after their study period is complete.  I think you'll see some common sense ideas -- that will mainly focus on the fact that gays are already serving, the nation supports this (the numbers clearly show that -- especially if you compare them to attitude surveys of 10-20 years ago...) so let's be adults about it, quit kicking them out based on that fact alone, let the UCMJ deal with folks who absolutely can not deal with the change and treat their fellow servicemembers as professionals, move out & drive on...

I suspect this will be a non-issue very soon after it is repealed.  Will there be some problems?  Prob.  But none that a squared away command can't handle. 

It is long overdue.  We'll be better for it.

LT B said...

Better for it?  Doubtful.  Is it a doable thing?  Sure, but women in the ranks have not made us stronger.  Openly serving gays and the "protected class" as provided by DC will not help matters.  It will just be another reason for cynicism in the ranks.  Navy Core Values unless it becomes politically uncomfortable, but you Sailors should maintain Navy Core Values in everything you do.  We FOGOs have more important things to ponder and attend to.  Harumph!

LT B said...

Sir, I suspect I'd be much quicker to put a male in a hold or lash out than I would a female.  Certainly a verbal warning would come before any physical response.  With a male, probably not.

Byron said...

Observations from a disinterested observer:

1) It's a sure bet that gays will become a class in the military. Bet on it.
2) There will never be consensus on this issue by the people in this blog, save for those against, or those for.
3) The REAL problem with gays in the military, that being that gays will become a protected class, is not the gays problem. It's the damn gutless Navy that refuses to say, "These are the standards. Period. Farking Dot." Budget fighting has made the Navy so scared of pissing off an influential congress-person that they bend over backwards (with a couple of reverse pikes) taking care of whatever protected class is the flavor of the day.
4) The remedy's mentioned won't work today, not when Seaman X can fire up email and go crying to Senator Y. Sucks to be the Navy. It's the price you pay when your leaders sold their soul on the altar of budgets.
5) Philo is a troll, and why anyone would continue to wrestle in the mud with him is beyond me.

LT B said...

Good chance he'd be a FABULOUS decorator!  Ya never know. :)  

C-dore 14 said...

Jay, While I agree with you that repeal is long overdue, I think that you're underestimating the situation if you think it will be a "non-issue very soon after it is repealed".  The details that the JCS are now studying are going to be the ones that cause the most day to day concern among our personnel.  I'm not speaking about peripheral things like berthing arrangements but "paycheck issues" like housing allowances, medical care, and access to base housing for unmarried gay couples and what this will mean for unmarried heterosexual couples.  All of these issues are beyond the control of any "squared away command" and decisions that are perceived unfair by the majority will result in dissatisfaction and cynicism that may be lasting.

USAF Mike said...

"<span>2) There will never be consensus on this issue by the people in this blog, save for those against, or those for.  
3) The REAL problem with gays in the military, that being that gays will become a protected class, is not the gays problem. It's the damn gutless Navy that refuses to say, "These are the standards. Period. Farking Dot." Budget fighting has made the Navy so scared of pissing off an influential congress-person that they bend over backwards (with a couple of reverse pikes) taking care of whatever protected class is the flavor of the day. "</span>

Yup, couldn't agree more, particularly on point 3.

DeltaBravo said...

 "I'm not speaking about peripheral things like berthing arrangements but "paycheck issues" like housing allowances, medical care, and access to base housing for unmarried gay couples"

Tell me they wouldn't.   What kind of door does that open?  Sgt. Steve's BF finds out he's got AIDS/HIV and so applies for benefits for years of hugely expensive medical care?  Our VA healthcare is already taxed to the limit.  

Andrewdb said...

Actually that's the easiest part of this - the Defense of Mariage Act says the Feds don't recognize same-sex marriages, even if your state does.  Full Stop.  No benefits for your partner.  Period.  Given the way the votes keep going re same-sex marriage, I don't see that changing very soon.

C-dore 14 said...

DB, I think it would be more along the line of Sgt Steve's BF has access to TRICARE and Sgt Bill's long time live-in girlfriend does not.  Andrew makes a good point about the DMA but we shouldn't kid ourselves that this legislation will mean the end of pressure to expand benefits to gay partners.  I suspect that the JCS Study Group will be developing contingency plans about what level of commitment will be required.

C-dore 14 said...

LT B, That's because they don't consider you gay if you're "pitching"  ;)

C-dore 14 said...

MTH, The Seattle "Times" reported this AM that congressional Republicans are unlikely to spend much time and effort opposing women on subs because they are focused on preserving DADT.

C-dore 14 said...

Skippy, the two from the AD were not.

Andrewdb said...

Completely off topic, and I know you didn't want to make the change, CDR, but this comment thing sucks. 

This thread is not 100+ comments (AGAIN!) and I have to read every damn one of them to see if there is anything new, other than the 5 most recent that show on the side bar of the main page.

We now return you to the regualrly scheduled rants and raves.

Andrewdb said...

The CNO this morning called for The Survey re DADT to include not just Sailors, but also their families.  I would like to see the survey data re women on subs before he does that with DADT.

Andrewdb said...

We have that problem today - SGT Joe and his wife SGT Jane are deployed at the same time, to the same AO.  GO #1 says no whoopie, and we know that would never happen, right?  What do you tell SGT Sam, who only gets to see his wife on Skype?  Somehow we have figured out ho to handle that one (fair or not).

C-dore 14 said...

Andrewdb, Sounds like the first steps down the road to the topics I raised above.  Re: Women on subs, I think he probably gets an ear full every time he goes near a sub base.  The topic is always a sure-fire conversation starter with every group of submarine force wives we've ever met.  Mrs. C-dore says it reminds her of the conversations she used to hear when her dad was a fire chief and they were discussing the idea of women fire fighters.

Anonymous said...

Second that motion

Philo said...

<span>Philo is a troll, and why anyone would continue to wrestle in the mud with him is beyond me.</span>
***
I'm sorry you can't handle being wrong. It's too bad you have to resort to personal attacks, but I guess that's what people do that are afraid of others and require laws to exclude people.

Philo said...

DB,
Why do you think that HIV is only with gay people.  You really need to get real about life.

Philo said...

DB,

Perhaps you should fight quotas instead of using the existence of quotas to justify blocking service by people that have not put the quotas in place.  Is it the quotas that you have a problem with, or are you just using quotas as a justification for exclusion?

Philo said...

<span>DB,</span>
<span>"I've seen the self segregation in high school cafeterias and adult office spaces.  Human nature is what it is."  Sure sounds like judging to me.  Do you know any gay people or do they just not tell you because they're aware that you place more value on sexuality than any other trait?</span>

Philo said...

Regis,

So you're saying sexuality is a choice?  When did you decide to be heterosexual, if you didn't decide, are you afraid that you might be gay?  Did you sample both options, before you chose? I mean if sex to you is just a behavior, and not part of your being, then I guess you could be happy with whatever, so long as you orgasm?

Philo said...

DB, you say "<span> Gays serve in our armed forces today."  How do you know?  If you believe they do, why do you insist they lie to preserve your sensibilities?</span>

Philo said...

DB,

You support that all American women wear a veil in the middle east?  Should rape be legal in middle eastern bases?  Perhaps the women should start being subservient, you know, to preserve the local customs.

Byron said...

With all due respect, Mr. Troll, I have never stated a position for or against. I base my judgment that you are a troll by the fact that you cherry pick statements to highlight and disagree with in such a manner as to evoke a response...much as you attempted to do with me, sir. My apologies if I've disappointed you by not engaging in vociferous arguments with you, alas, I have no desire to wrestle the pig.

Philo said...

<span>Ummm...  if they're allowed to serve, they're not being discriminated against.</span>
****
My favorite argument.  They're allowed to serve, so long as they don't have sex, at all.  I'd love to see that requirement placed on straight people.  You're logic is so flawed, it isn't even funny.  Women are allowed to serve, so long as they don't tell anyone that they're a woman.  Brilliant.

Philo said...

DB,
How would you know what it's like to be an XO, or even serve on a sub?

Philo said...

<span>"What say we put the gays and the women on subs together."</span>
Lesbians in a giant phallus, that'd be a bloody mess.

Philo said...

<span>"She said "first and foremeost" regarding her opinions on a military issue, but prefaced it by saying "<span><span>I'm against repeal for a lot of reasons"</span></span>.  She does have other personal reasons (as she alluded to) for her opinion"</span>
****
It's ok.  I don't expect women to be able to form their own opinions.

Philo said...

<span>"It will be the forced infusion of a lifestyle and set of behaviors that run counter to good order and discipline. "</span>

That's bulls**t, and you know it.

Philo said...

<span><span>You know what DB, it's pretty pathetic that you use straw man fake discussions to justify your stance on policy.  I can't tell you the number of times I've been over shared to by straight men.  I get tired of seeing men cheat on their wives, and then say that gay people shouldn't be allowed in the military for "moral" reasons.  Why do you assume that straight people don't share intimate details of their sexual lives with each other?  I'm guessing you've never been in the military?</span></span>

Philo said...

<span>Philo, if it is "sexuality" and not gender or race, you are describing BEHAVIORS. </span>
****
Oh, so you could be homosexual if that's what the regulations required of you?  Thanks for sharing.  I was beginning to suspect, thou doth protest too much.

Philo said...

Regis,

<span>"Your lack of understanding of that concept shines a light on your other comments here."</span>

***
Just so you know, I'm just as impressed by your attempt to lob personal insults instead of focusing on the issues.  I expect more from Marines.

Byron said...

Amazing...six replies, as it were, in as many minutes, and nary a soul to talk to. Sir Troll, you have outed yourself for what you are. Now, please go away, the porch needs a good sweeping.

Philo said...

Hey Byron,

Sir, Thanks for the reply, sir.  
Sir, I'm glad you think so highly of yourself that you self-congratulate as better than me for not feeling the need to respond so as to not "wrestle the pig," yet responded. Now that's comedy, sir.
Sir, may I suggest you argue the issues instead of degrading those with opposing views.  That, sir, is how gentlemen discuss issues.

sobersubmrnr said...

It's not what you say as much as the way you say it. Try polite debate instead of arguing. Otherwise, back under the bridge with you.

sobersubmrnr said...

<span>I suspect this will be a non-issue very soon after it is repealed.</span>

I doubt it. Women at sea/in combat zones is still a big issue. Gays in the open will be just as contentious.

Philo said...

<span>"Try polite debate instead of arguing. Otherwise, back under the bridge with you."</span>
***
How polite of you to put it that way.  It's not what you say..........

sobersubmrnr said...

<span>DB, 
Why do you think that HIV is only with gay people.  You really need to get real about life.</span>


Troll,

She didn't say it was only with gay people. What she meant was that gays are by far the most likely to contract HIV. The stats are from the CDC, you can argue with them.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure

Philo said...

<span>She didn't say it was only with gay people.</span>
***
Oh, she just wanted to stop VA spending on HIV for gay people.  Spend all you want for straight people.  If she has a problem with VA spending for HIV, perhaps she should argue against VA spending on HIV, and leave gay people out of it.

Philo said...

<span>The stats are from the CDC, you can argue with them.</span>
****
Will do.  Notice that the high number is for male-male sexual contact?  Not all men that have sex with men characterize themselves as gay.  Many are married with children.  Perhaps you should do some reading before you attribute stats to gay people that includes many "straight" men.  Sexuality is complex.  Sex between men is estimated to account for 10-15% of global HIV transmission.  I'll let you argue with the UN:
http://www.unaids.org/en/PolicyAndPractice/KeyPopulations/MenSexMen/default.asp

A nice quote: "<span>Vulnerability to HIV infection is increased where sex between men is criminalized, as men are either excluded from, or exclude themselves from, sexual health and welfare agencies out of fear. "  Perhaps we should be working to end the stigma and deal with reality, it might lower incidence of HIV transmission.</span>

Philo said...

Sober,

Would you like to exclude black men, the rates for HIV are higher amongst black men (and women) than white men and women.  Perhaps it would make the most sense to just prevent black people from joining the military, if you're using HIV infection rates as a justification.  From the CDC:  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5739a2.htm

The biggest demographic with HIV infection rates is black men that don't characterize themselves as, or identify as gay, but have sex with men.  Unfortunately, they often have sex with men without using condoms. There are a variety of causal factors associated with the incidence in the black population, not the least is the lack of support for committed relationships.  Given the incarceration rates for black men, one might also make attribution to the prison system where condoms aren't exactly available, and the sex may not be by choice.

DM05 said...

Philotroll, Oprah is calling; go be on her show.

DeltaBravo said...

Oh, great googly moogly.  You are obtuse, P.

I am not going to even try to clarify myself to you.  But thanks for giving CDC stats that give another reason why the military might not want to encourage homosexuality in the ranks so that its HIV-positive members can then retire on disability and drain the VA system paying for free meds.  Since you brought up the percentages of men who play both sides of the fence....  ask around and see how many would want an emergency battlefield transfusion of blood from the gay guy....  is that a chance they want to take....?

Now I will ignore you. 

DeltaBravo said...

I'll leave you to wonder that till your dying day.

Philo said...

<span>Since you brought up the percentages of men who play both sides of the fence....  ask around and see how many would want an emergency battlefield transfusion of blood from the gay guy....  is that a chance they want to take....? </span>
*****
Are you really that obtuse?

Grumpy Old Ham said...

On top of that, there are some comment sub-threads where the comments don't appear in chronological order, making it even more difficult to follow the lines of discussion.  Maybe that effect's just a Firefox thing, though..

Can't wait to see what tomorrow's DivThurs topic is going to be.  Betweeen these topics and the end-of-the-month Woot-off, it's a wonder I'm getting anything else done.

Philo said...

<span>"But thanks for giving CDC stats that give another reason why the military might not want to encourage homosexuality in the ranks so that its HIV-positive members can then retire on disability and drain the VA system paying for free meds."</span>
***
Actually the stats say that black people shouldn't be in the military based on rates of infection.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Great Googly Moogly? DELTA BRAVO reads Liberty Meadows! HUZZAH! Ralph is my hero!

cdrsalamander said...

My kingdom for a code monkey.  My kingdom for a code monkey....

cdrsalamander said...

Jay,
You need to listen to the ENTIRE Midrats episode.  If you do the math - Elaine and her side had about 30% of the airtime.  It wasn't even 30/70.  I don't think we need a Part II right now, if ever.

I've let comments here run far and wide - but one of the issues here is that, like I said here and on Midrats - good people can disagree on this subject.  This ain't easy.  I just wish we could all accept that fact - but that wouldn't give us 200 comments, would it?

DeltaBravo said...

Who can ignore someone who takes his inspiration from Walt Kelly!  Because as Pogo said...  "We have met the enemy and..."  well... you know.... :(


It takes a bold man to hijack everyone else's cartoon characters for his strip.  LOL!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 253   Newer› Newest»