As I predicted, Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) is the one gay issue that has a chance of moving forward - Obama's State of the Union made no mention of pushing the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) or repealing/modifying the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). What if he had moved on legal equality last year when he and his party were riding high, instead of squandering his political capital on a massive expansion of government? Spilt milk.
On DADT, conservative pundit Jim Geraghty blogs:
I'm a bit of a squish on this issue. If you told me the guy who was the best pilot and who had the best shot of putting a J-DAM bomb on the Iranian nuclear program's main facility was Harvey Fierstein, I'd say get that goatee airborne over Persian skies pronto.
But the politics of this issue are pretty clear, and so after pledging to repeal DADT and pledging and promising and promising, Obama's big step on this issue for the gay community is to say, "Now is precisely the moment for all of you red state and red district Democrats to vote to end 'don't ask, don't tell,' nine months before an election that's already looking miserable for our side." Somehow, I suspect they'll be less than fully enthusiastic.
Geraghty links to the LGBT left site AMERICAblog, which posts:
The President needs to do more than call for gays to serve openly. He needs to announce he will insert repeal language in the defense authorization bill he will submit to Congress in the next few months. Then, he needs to actually go out and round up the votes like he's doing on health care.... You will tell how serious the President is about repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell not by a bland, fleeting mention, but by what he does to go out and get it done...
104 Comments for “Bad Timing”
posted by Amicus on
a massive expansion of government
—-
zzzz…teabag much?
Obama might not have to do anything on DADT, if the courts move – what’s next in the pending case, anyone know?
posted by Tom on
The only reason that DADT stands today is our own moral cowardice in the face of opposition by a small, virulent and determined minority.
We are led by moral cowards, Democrat and Republican and, at a time when 75-80% of Americans â including large majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans â polled in recent years responded that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military openly, we embrace and endorse injustice through our failure to insist that DADT be repealed.
Instead of hand-wringing about Obama’s tepid words, or the Republican’s latter-day version of “massive resistance”, get off your asses today and start leaning on your Senator and Congressman. If you are a veteran, as I am and about 20% of gay men in this country are, make sure that your voice is forcefully heard in the debate.
Our country does not deserve the sacrifice of gays and lesbians who serve. That is not my opinion. That is a simple fact.
posted by Debrah on
This offering from Conrad Black gives an overview of Obama’s problems…….
…….and Bringing Sexy Back from Dowd is not only annoyingly clever, but puts a few corner nails in this administration’s coffin thus far.
Unlike many, I want this administration to succeed; however, Obama has done almost exactly the opposite of what he promised on the campaign trail.
As Noonan opined, his eloquence has turned “vapid”.
Is he up to the task of real “change”?
We shall see.
posted by Bobby on
DADT stands today because Obama promised “jobs, jobs, jobs,” not “gays, gays, gays.” If the messiah wants to get reelected he’s gonna have to solve real world problems, our issues aren’t exactly on his top 10 list.
Either way, serving in the military is a priviledge, not a right. Take the Green Berets, they don’t accept women, it’s hard to get into their basic training because they reject most people, once you do your two weeks of hell you might still not get in. Get it? More than
50% of Green Beret candidates are not able to survive the two weeks of hell, and those who do survive don’t always make it.
Still, it would be nicer to be rejected for lack of athletic ability than sexual orientation. Well, there’s always the French Legion if you’re that desperate to serve.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Our country does not deserve the sacrifice of gays and lesbians who serve. That is not my opinion. That is a simple fact.
Then don’t. If you’re too good for the military, then, you shouldn’t have any problem with laws preventing you from serving in it in the first place. And don’t be surprised that, when you repeatedly treat the military with contempt as you are doing, they have no interest in having you serve in it.
You demonstrate exactly why DADT exists — because gays and lesbians like yourself repeatedly demonstrate that your sexual orientation is the first priority in your life and that all decisions, judgments, and beliefs are based on that. Battles are not fought on an affirmative-action basis. Afghanistan and the activities of the NATO forces there have demonstrated convincingly that enemies are not impressed by minority quotas. There are thirteen dead soldiers from Fort Hood because the military decided that diversity was more important than behavior.
Do you really understand why a military exists? Or do you just see it as another welfare employment program?
posted by Tom on
ND30: Do you really understand why a military exists?
I served for six years. I saw combat. I laid my blood on the ground. I do not forget.
I have no contempt for the military. I have contempt for political leadership and citizens — like you, specifically — who believe it is acceptable to send gay and lesbian men and women into combat while maintaining the fiction that they are not fit to serve, and hence, must remain hidden from sight.
You are correct in one, and only one, statement: “Battles are not fought on an affirmative-action basis.” That’s true. Battles are fought by ordinary men and women, of every kind and character, who are called upon to do extraordinary things, and who do them.
I doubt you are one of them.
posted by Jorge on
It’s distressing but entirely predictable for me to see yet another Democrat (after NY’s Gov. Patterson) embrase pro-gay legislation as a Plan B when he’s in political trouble. But at least it’s not too late this time.
Look, a big part of the State of the Union speech seemed to be offering a list of concessions to either side, things that can be used in the type of political horse-trading we should like to see in a two-party government. Not cash for votes, up-and-down votes for up-and-down votes. If most Senators and citizens support more nuclear plants and most Senators and citizens support repealing DADT, then lets agree not to block either and send them both up for a vote. Stacking the deck in the majority party’s favor works much better than trying to steal the whole deck. Because of Obama’s and the Democrats’ failed leadership, it may be too late and DADT may lose as a result.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I served for six years. I saw combat. I laid my blood on the ground.
And really, that’s what they all say.
I have contempt for political leadership and citizens — like you, specifically — who believe it is acceptable to send gay and lesbian men and women into combat while maintaining the fiction that they are not fit to serve, and hence, must remain hidden from sight.
Would you want this person as your commander, Tom?
And what was the response of the gay community when her behavior was called out? Screaming “homophobia” and “sexism”.
If you want to put your sexual orientation first, the military is not for you. It’s that simple.
posted by Debrah on
“You demonstrate exactly why DADT exists — because gays and lesbians like yourself repeatedly demonstrate that your sexual orientation is the first priority in your life and that all decisions, judgments, and beliefs are based on that. Battles are not fought on an affirmative-action basis. Afghanistan and the activities of the NATO forces there have demonstrated convincingly that enemies are not impressed by minority quotas. There are thirteen dead soldiers from Fort Hood because the military decided that diversity was more important than behavior“.
************************************************
The quote of the day.
And one of the best explanations I’ve read lately as to why Obama will screw up his own tenure if he doesn’t start being a president instead of just trying to act like one.
On another thread, Jorge has outlined some significant facts as to why, IMO, George W. Bush will go down as having had much more of a significant impact than any loose-lipped Lefty will ever admit.
Decades from now, history will smile on him.
posted by BobN on
because gays and lesbians like yourself repeatedly demonstrate that your sexual orientation is the first priority in your life
You know what’s really creepy, though? That stopping us is the first priority in your life.
Though, I do admire your filing skills.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You know what’s really creepy, though? That stopping us is the first priority in your life.
I’m sure you’d like to think so, BobN.
After all, that’s much easier on you than explaining why the gay community considers it “homophobic” and “sexist” to object to a leader demanding sex from their subordinates and discriminating against and harassing those who refuse to give it. Or how that behavior would be good for the military. Or why the gay and lesbian community is so supportive of “veterans” who fake their service records. Instead of actually dealing with the issue, just scream “homophobe” and try to make it go away.
After all, it’s worked elsewhere.
posted by BobN on
What?!?! No “you’re welcome” for my compliment about your filing skills?
Sheesh.
posted by Amicus on
If you want to put your sexual orientation first, the military is not for you. It’s that simple.
Who’s next on your list?
This has to be almost a completely vacant statement.
There is nothing – nothing – about country first that implies that individuals are erased.
Same inside companies. Anyone who comes to you and tells you nondiscrimination is a bad policy is selling snake oil. It’s good for business, it’s good for individuals, and it’s really a fundamental truth about what we stand for, even fight for sometimes.
posted by Bobby on
North Dallas, would you apply DADT to straight soldiers? Because if you do that means the following.
1. No kissing wives and girlfriends when they come home or when they leave.
2. No talking to wives/girlfriends on the phone or through videophones.
3. No heterosexual pornography on base.
4. No sexy cheerleaders performing for them in Iraq.
5. Immediate discharge for any soldier that expresses affection towards his opposite-sex partner in a private e-mail (which are always monitored, btw).
6. No going to straight bars or finding sex partners at opposite sex bars. (Gay soldiers can get discharged for what they do off base if their activityo is reported).
You and I know that will never happen because straight soldiers like most straight men not only discuss their girlfriends but their sexual encounters. In fact, they do what they accuse gays of doing, shoving their lifestyles down everyone’s faces.
So unless you support DADT for both straights and gays, you’re not being fair to gays.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Anyone who comes to you and tells you nondiscrimination is a bad policy is selling snake oil. It’s good for business, it’s good for individuals, and it’s really a fundamental truth about what we stand for, even fight for sometimes.
Really?
Because I recall Bobby pointing out something above:
Either way, serving in the military is a priviledge, not a right. Take the Green Berets, they don’t accept women, it’s hard to get into their basic training because they reject most people, once you do your two weeks of hell you might still not get in. Get it? More than 50% of Green Beret candidates are not able to survive the two weeks of hell, and those who do survive don’t always make it.
Sounds like they discriminate. Why is that OK, then?
And speaking of Bobby:
North Dallas, would you apply DADT to straight soldiers?
Of course not.
And Bobby, would you apply the same rules for straight military members as you would gays?
1. They are allowed to sleep with and share intimate space with the gender to which they are attracted.
2. They are allowed to use the same private facilities, i.e. bathrooms and showers, as the gender to which they are sexually attracted.
3. They are allowed to demand sex from their subordinates, discriminate against those who refuse to give it to them, and scream “heterophobe” and “sexist” when such behavior is disciplined.
4. If their behavior causes sexual tension or causes others to be uncomfortable, they can brand them as “bigots” and have them thrown out of the military for not respecting “diversity”.
We currently separate men and women except under extreme combat conditions to avoid those problems. Arguing that gay and lesbian people should be housed with others of their same gender is exactly the same as arguing that men and women should be housed together.
posted by Debrah on
“1. They are allowed to sleep with and share intimate space with the gender to which they are attracted.
2. They are allowed to use the same private facilities, i.e. bathrooms and showers, as the gender to which they are sexually attracted.
3. They are allowed to demand sex from their subordinates, discriminate against those who refuse to give it to them, and scream ‘heterophobe’ and ‘sexist’ when such behavior is disciplined.
4. If their behavior causes sexual tension or causes others to be uncomfortable, they can brand them as ‘bigots’ and have them thrown out of the military for not respecting ‘diversity’.
We currently separate men and women except under extreme combat conditions to avoid those problems. Arguing that gay and lesbian people should be housed with others of their same gender is exactly the same as arguing that men and women should be housed together.”
*******************************************
I have been waiting for someone to point this out.
It’s astonishing that anyone possessing even a modest degree of intelligence cannot understand this.
The military is an orbit all its own. Those men and women do not need yet another layer of daily life to negotiate.
This is why people who are lifetime members of the military like Colin Powell, as just one example, have always alluded to ND30’s list of comments when this subject arose.
This is life. Who among us can change it?
No one is concerned about anything other than the comfort zone of those who do are performing a life-and-death mission daily.
Yet so many little blowhards with a hard-on for “activism”—made possible by the sacrifice of others who put their lives on the line for the loud and oleaginous wimps among us—want to push the idea of combined living quarters of both gay and straight soldiers.
Combat-ready for a fight no doubt.
But only if the fight consists of lip service and public money….and the obligatory refrain—“taking away the rights of gay and lesbian citizens”.
Yeah, right.
posted by BobN on
I think to solution to questions about bunking, bathing, and toilets could be easily solved with separate facilities. One for the adults and one for the insecure.
posted by JimG on
So, when did the military become a friggin’ democracy? It didn’t!! If your commander tells you to bunk with someone, you do it! If you’re told to do exercises, drills, or maneuvers with someone, you do it!
If you’re joining the military to continue the comfort zone that you had in your civilian life, then you should be sent home.
If you are joining in order to protect your country and the values that you hold dear, then do you care if someone glances at your backside when you go to pick up the soap?
We all know that gays are there already! If it had been a problem in the past then I can see that some of the “he looked at my wanger” whiners would have a point. But it really hasn’t been.
But also let us remember that if the equal right that we are arguing for is ever abused, then the military may have the option of going back to kicking out the horny gays and then we would only have ourselves to blame.
posted by esurience on
Oh, for fuck sake. Ending DADT is not about having some coming out parade for gay soldiers. It’s about stopping stupid dismissals of qualified soldiers for a reason that has nothing to do with their ability to serve effectively.
The policy of segregating the sexes is not in place, and shouldn’t be in place, merely because most people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex. The policy of segregating the sexes is to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault — NOT because it might offend someone’s modesty or personal zone of comfort that someone might become titillated by looking at them. Nobody gives a fuck about your modesty in the military.
So, would ending DADT mean that gay soldiers start sexually harassing/sexually assaulting straight soldiers in the showers and in living quarters? I don’t see that happening… If there’s 1 gay guy and 10 straight guys in a shower together, who is the vulnerable one in that situation? Not the 10 straight soldiers, that’s for sure.
10 straight soldiers and 1 female? That would end in gang rape, that’s why we don’t have that.
posted by Amicus on
Sounds like they discriminate. Why is that OK, then?
posted by Amicus on
It’s about stopping stupid dismissals of qualified soldiers for a reason that has nothing to do with their ability to serve effectively.
====
Coulda fooled me.
I figure it’s about the showers (Colbert just had some Texas state someone on to say, ‘you know, I never turn my back on a gay’), homophobia on submarines, Southern military boys raised up right, and something nebulous called “military traditions”, which is code for homophobes implying that open gays bring dishonor to the corps, possibly…
posted by Jorge on
All these supposedly rational and pragmatic objections to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell pale in comparison to the need to enforce a basic fairness, dignity, and equality. We have seen in other settings–including the military, that after a lot of work and training, we can successfully reform a workplace culture to conform to new anti-discrimination and anti-harassment rules. So no excuses.
And before anyone says this, I reject the argument that the military isn’t an appropriate place for social experiements, too. As one of the last areas of social and professional life where gays are not integrated, ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is no longer a prospective social experiment.
posted by Tom on
esurience: “So, would ending DADT mean that gay soldiers start sexually harassing/sexually assaulting straight soldiers in the showers and in living quarters? I don’t see that happening… If there’s 1 gay guy and 10 straight guys in a shower together, who is the vulnerable one in that situation? Not the 10 straight soldiers, that’s for sure.”
Oh, you can never tell. If you listen to the DADT supporters in this thread, gay soldiers are like Kryptonite, with magical powers to instantly paralyze today’s straight soldiers, physically and mentally, and unman them to the point where they would not longer be able to protect themselves in a shower, let alone fight effectively, but if and only if the straight soldiers know about the existence of gay soldiers.
I’m glad that the straights I served with were made of sterner stuff than straights seem to be made of these days.
Look, people, gays and lesbians have been serving our country in the military since the beginning, without any significant problems. That was true before WWII, when there was no ban on gays serving; that was true during WWII, the Cold War, Vietnam and Desert Storm, when gays and lesbians were banned from military service; and that has been true since, when gays and lesbians have been permitted to serve, but only if they kept their orientation hidden from official view.
The bottom line is that about 20% of gay men are veterans, and we served, in almost all cases, capably and with honor. That is a simple, undeniable fact. DADT or no DADT, outright ban or no outright ban, that is not going to change. Gays and lesbians will continue to serve, and serve well, whether or not this country deserves their service.
So what is the big argument? And why the heat?
Listening to the debate in this thread, I get the impression that the argument over DADT is about the necessity of coddling a minority of straights who would be “uncomfortable” with the thought of serving with gays and lesbians.
I don’t think that makes any sense.
I’m still in touch with a few of the men from my unit, and none were surprised to find out that I am gay. The uniform response was “Yeah, well, we all pretty much knew that …” I think that’s generally the case for most gays who served; John McCain acknowledged, back in the dark ages, that soldiers generally “knew” who was gay and who was straight in their units. I think that McCain was right, for all the derision took about the remark, and “knowing” wasn’t a problem when he and I served.
So why would it be a problem today?
I don’t see any evidence that it would. If polling of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is correct, the “uncomfortable” argument no longer holds much force. About 75% of the enlisted men polled said “no problem”. That’s a lower percentage than the number of white soldiers who objected to integration of the military when Harry Truman bit that bullet. Most soldiers would have “no problem” and almost all of the rest would adapt.
So what’s going on?
The argument over DADT purports to be about the horrors that will happen if a gay or lesbian soldier is permitted to continue to serve after the military finds out officially what is known unofficially — breakdown of morale, breakdown of military justice, breakdown of “military culture”. But that is, for the most part, just craziness.
I think that the “uncomfortable” argument is a smokescreen, just as “protecting marriage” is a smokescreen in the SSM debate. As we’ve found out in Wisconsin recently, any official recognition of SS relationships, however minor, sets off the “protect marriage” crowd and drives them into a frenzy. We’ve learned that what the “protect marriage” argument is less about marriage than it is about a determination to prevent the government from “normalizing” SS relationships by acknowledging and recognizing SS relationships.
Similarly, I believe that the real driver in the DADT debate is unspoken, a fear and a realization:
(1) the fear by a minority that they will be forced to abandon the idea that the qualities that make for a good soldier are found only in “real” (that is, straight) men, and an understanding, however dim, that is we allow gay men to openly serve, that acknowledgement would give lie to the cultural shibboleth; and
(2) a realization by a minority that “you aren’t entitled to equal treatment” is a hard argument to make, in a culture that honors the service of veterans, after it has been acknowledged that whoever is the subject of the argument has served right along with everyone else, and just as well.
Well, shit. Too bad.
posted by Bobby on
Hey North Dallas,
1. They are allowed to sleep with and share intimate space with the gender to which they are attracted.
2. They are allowed to use the same private facilities, i.e. bathrooms and showers, as the gender to which they are sexually attracted.
—That was my reality in high school. I often took showers alone, the same in summer camp. Of course, back then I was more afraid of being ridiculed for being fat than of my emerging homosexual feelings. Either way, eventually you learn to control those feelings, the fact that many gays serve in the military with distinction proves that they don’t get a boner everytime they see a naked guy in the shower.
3. They are allowed to demand sex from their subordinates, discriminate against those who refuse to give it to them, and scream “heterophobe” and “sexist” when such behavior is disciplined.
—Who says they are? Gays have been sued, beaten and killed for sexual advances. And unless a subordinate is having sex at gun point, they are consenting to something they know its wrong. Basically, Monica Lewinsky is just as guilty as Bill Clinton. Besides, most sexual harassment occurs between men and women. It’s straight men that have to learn to be professional with the opposite sex, gay men on the other hand are used to living in a world that’s 90% straight, that’s why before we make an advance we have to be damn sure our intended target is one of us. Besides, who the hell is in the mood for sex after all the physical demands the military puts on you? When soldiers have sex is with hookers off base, during their free time. It’s rare to hear of any sex taking place on base.
“4. If their behavior causes sexual tension or causes others to be uncomfortable, they can brand them as “bigots” and have them thrown out of the military for not respecting “diversity”.”
—The military already mixes people from opposite backgrounds. You got southern rednecks serving with ghetto blacks, Muslims and Hispanics and anti-semites serving with Christians and Jews. People don’t always get rid of their prejudices but they learn to work together for the most part.
Besides, allowing gays in the military doesn’t mean you have to allow every single gay in the world. If you’re effeminate you’re probably not getting in, if you’re lazy or too overweight, the same. Before you join the military they look at several aspects, including your psychological background.
Explain the following to me. Pagan religions like wicca are offensive to most Americans, yet did you know Pagans in the military are allowed to have their own church services just like Christians and jews? Did you know that pagans sued and won the right to bury their veterans with pagan symbols in federal cemeteries?
You think being openly gay is controversial? Try telling a bunch of rednecks that you are a witch who believes in the God and the Goddess. Paganism is clearly a choice yet when was the last time anyone was discharged for wearing a pagan symbol or discussing the pagan lifestyle? Where are all the Christians arguing that paganism hurts morale?
And one more thing, since when is the military about being comfortable anyway? That’s the excuse that shocks me the most, in the military you’re supposed to wake up early, work late, do grueling physical exercises, shower with strangers, take a crap without the privacy of a stall, yet we have to protect homophobes who don’t feel comfortable with gays?
posted by BobN on
And why the heat?
The heat is almost entirely politically motivated. The GOP decided back in the 70s that dragging us down would help raise them up. They were right. It worked on a lot, A LOT, of people.
No mystery there. We’re a proxy and a distraction.
posted by Debrah on
Although Bobby and Tom make some very good points—highlighting the fact that gays have always served in the military alongside heteros—I still wonder why the subject of sexual orientation even has to be discussed.
It’s the need and the incessant mission of some to put personal information into an arena such as the military that I think are overkill.
As Tom mentioned, most people who are around one another daily are going to pick up whether someone is gay or not.
At university one of my suite mates was very athletic, large, and quite muscular. I knew right away just from being in the same suite that she was a lesbian. Everyone got on swimmingly and did their own thing. There was no need to sit around and constantly talk about anyone’s sexual delights.
We had more important and more interesting things going on then.
This woman and her roommate were a few years older and went on to medical school. When everyone moved out of the suite toward other campus dwellings, I got a call from the former roommate of the gay suite mate screaming that she just found out that the roommate is gay!!!
It was ridiculous because this woman (the lesbian’s former roommate) constantly walked around in a night gown with her boobs and her butt hanging out.
The rest of us were of the opinion that she actually wanted to walk around half dressed—even though she had an awful body—in an attempt to excite her gay roommate.
People play all kinds of games among themselves.
Is the military a place that can afford such games?
And I’m talking about heterosexuals as well as gays.
posted by Lori Heine on
“[I]n the military you’re supposed to wake up early, work late, do grueling physical exercises, shower with strangers, take a crap without the privacy of a stall, yet we have to protect homophobes who don’t feel comfortable with gays?”
Exactly. If I want to ogle a naked woman, I certainly don’t need to travel thousands of miles away from home and get shot at or blown up for the privilege.
I find it beyond interesting that the same people who have no problem with the Crips and Bloods, the skinheads and neo-Nazis being in the military alongside the precious flower of our youth blow a gasket at the idea that gays might be.
We need reliable intelligence on the ground in the Middle East more now than ever, but skilled linguists are being discharged because somebody’s afraid they’ll flirt with them?
The whole concept is a violation of the American idea of justice. In this country, we do not punish people for things they haven’t even done yet — on the premise that someday, they MIGHT do them.
I happen to wear a few other hats in this country besides merely that of “lesbian.” I am also a tax-paying citizen. And I demand that this madness stop.
posted by DragonScorpion on
It is interesting how various other countries around the world don’t have a problem with homosexuals serving openly in their military. This includes 20 member-nations of NATO, and nations with some of the finest fighting forces in the world: Germany, France, Israel, and the United Kingdom.
We can count ourselves alongside China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Saudi Arabia in nations that DO NOT allow homosexuals to serve openly.
I find it particularly insulting to our military personnel to suggest they are so immature, so unprofessional, that they cannot complete their duties because of some supposed discomfort with the sexual-orientation of their fellow soldiers.
I’ve always preferred judging folks on an individual basis by merit, not blanket generalities. I notice that in so many of these military discharges of homosexuals, this was done not out of inappropriate conduct, not because the soldier was lacking of merit or unable to complete his or her duties, rather it was simply because their sexual-orientation had become known. And this, alone, is forbidden.
The unfairness, unreasonableness, and lack of necessity could probably not be made more obvious than by this fact. There is no legitimate case against homosexuals serving in the military, only prejudiced assumptions that somehow we won’t be able to complete our tasks, or that we won’t be able to keep our hands off of each other, or that we’ll cause some sort of disruptive incident.
Those who like to claim they believe in judging people by merit, not quotas or affirmative-action, should stand by such principles and judge homosexuals on a CASE BY CASE basis. That goes especially for those here who have repeatedly REFUSED to do this.
Lastly, as some have pointed out here already, ending DADT â removing the system in which simply BEING a known homosexual qualifies one for discharge â has nothing to do with ending policies against sexual conduct among soldiers. These policies should be enforced, regardless the orientation or gender of those involved, period.
posted by DragonScorpion on
âI served for six years. I saw combat. I laid my blood on the ground. I do not forget.â ~ Tom
Thank you for your service, Tom. Sincerely. This doesn’t get said enough from those of us who haven’t laid our lives on the line, to those who have.
And excellent comments, by the way.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, would ending DADT mean that gay soldiers start sexually harassing/sexually assaulting straight soldiers in the showers and in living quarters? I don’t see that happening… If there’s 1 gay guy and 10 straight guys in a shower together, who is the vulnerable one in that situation? Not the 10 straight soldiers, that’s for sure.”
Oh, you can never tell. If you listen to the DADT supporters in this thread, gay soldiers are like Kryptonite, with magical powers to instantly paralyze today’s straight soldiers, physically and mentally, and unman them to the point where they would not longer be able to protect themselves in a shower, let alone fight effectively, but if and only if the straight soldiers know about the existence of gay soldiers.
Let’s put a different perspective on that.
So, would ending separation of the sexes mean that male soldiers start sexually harassing/sexually assaulting female soldiers in the showers and in living quarters? I don’t see that happening… If there’s 1 female and 10 males in a shower together, who is the vulnerable one in that situation? Not the males, that’s for sure.”
Oh, you can never tell. If you listen to the separation-of-sexes supporters in this thread, males are like Kryptonite, with magical powers to instantly paralyze today’s females, physically and mentally, and unnerve them to the point where they would not longer be able to protect themselves in a shower, let alone fight effectively.
Then consider this bit of correct information from above:
The policy of segregating the sexes is to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault
And then think of this if it were said about women in the armed forces.
So, when did the military become a friggin’ democracy? It didn’t!! If your commander tells you to bunk with someone, you do it! If you’re told to do exercises, drills, or maneuvers with someone, you do it!
If you’re joining the military to continue the comfort zone that you had in your civilian life, then you should be sent home.
If you are joining in order to protect your country and the values that you hold dear, then do you care if someone glances at your backside when you go to pick up the soap?
Do gays and lesbians support this sort of attitude when it comes to women complaining about men? If not, then why do you support it when it comes to men? Don’t you believe in equality? Why should men be required to put themselves in compromising positions when women would not be?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I find it beyond interesting that the same people who have no problem with the Crips and Bloods, the skinheads and neo-Nazis being in the military alongside the precious flower of our youth blow a gasket at the idea that gays might be.
Hardly. I have an immense problem with “Crips and Bloods, the skinheads and neo-Nazis” being in the military, and believe that these should be screened out and, if found, immediately dismissed.
In this country, we do not punish people for things they haven’t even done yet — on the premise that someday, they MIGHT do them.
Actually, we do.
The policy of segregating the sexes is to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault
Next:
We need reliable intelligence on the ground in the Middle East more now than ever, but skilled linguists are being discharged because somebody’s afraid they’ll flirt with them?
One, intelligence-gathering is not the military’s primary function. That is why we have a CIA and so forth — which does allow gay people to be linguists, primarily because there is no need to share living quarters with your coworkers.
Two, I am endlessly amused that the gay and lesbian community is arguing that we need linguists for translation of enemy communications when the vast majority of the gay and lesbian community is opposed to intercepting and tracking such communications in the first place as a violation of terrorists’ “constitutional rights”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I find it particularly insulting to our military personnel to suggest they are so immature, so unprofessional, that they cannot complete their duties because of some supposed discomfort with the sexual-orientation of their fellow soldiers.
And I’m sure that you also are against the segregation of the sexes in the military because it suggests that women are so immature, so unprofessional that they cannot complete their duties because of some supposed discomfort with men seeing them naked, showering with them, sleeping with them, etc.
Next:
There is no legitimate case against homosexuals serving in the military, only prejudiced assumptions that somehow we won’t be able to complete our tasks, or that we won’t be able to keep our hands off of each other, or that we’ll cause some sort of disruptive incident.
Put differently:
There is no legitimate case for segregation of the sexes in the military, only prejudiced assumptions that somehow we won’t be able to complete our tasks, or that we won’t be able to keep our hands off of each other, or that we’ll cause some sort of disruptive incident.
If you are going to segregate the sexes out of concern for what men and women might do together due to potential sexual attraction, you should treat other instances of potential sexual attraction similarly. That is equality.
Finally:
Lastly, as some have pointed out here already, ending DADT â removing the system in which simply BEING a known homosexual qualifies one for discharge â has nothing to do with ending policies against sexual conduct among soldiers. These policies should be enforced, regardless the orientation or gender of those involved, period.
And, as we’ve seen, enforcement of workplace policies against sexual harassment and demanding sex from one’s coworkers are met with cries of “homophobia” and “sexism”.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “I still wonder why the subject of sexual orientation even has to be discussed. It’s the need and the incessant mission of some to put personal information into an arena such as the military that I think are overkill. As Tom mentioned, most people who are around one another daily are going to pick up whether someone is gay or not.”
Few, if any, gays and lesbians, in currently serving or veterans, are on an “incessant mission to put personal information into an arena such as the military”, and few gays and lesbians, currently in service or veterans, think that the military is a forum in which to discuss “the subject of sexual orientation”. Although everyone has one, I guess, sexual orientation is not relevant to military service. The experience of other nations who allow gays and lesbians to serve openly aren’t having problems with this kind of thing, and DADT isn’t going to lead to a massive “coming out”, believe me. Gays and lesbians in service will simply be able to live without fear of discharge, and that will be about it.
The problem with DADT has several dimensions:
First, DADT is destructive because DADT requires gays and lesbians in service, particularly those who are making the service a career, to maintain an impossible standard of guardedness about themselves, to hide any and all information whatsoever about their sexual orientation from everyone.
It is a violation of DADT if a service member “has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect”.
To comply with DADT, accordingly, a service member may never slip up and say anything direct about his or her sexual orientation, or say anything that even hints about his or her sexual orientation, whether the slip occurs while on duty or entirely outside outside the service. It doesn’t make any difference, in terms of DADT prosecution, whether the disclosure occurs on duty or off, or whether the disclosure is to another service member or someone outside the service.
And note that DADT covers pre-service disclosures, disclosures that occurred before the man or woman joined the service.
Think about that for a second.
A gay or lesbian service member who discloses his sexual orientation to his mother or father, or a brother, or a close friend, or a teacher, or a counselor, or a clergyman, or anyone else, before or during his or her military service, violates DADT.
DADT requires that gay and lesbian service members maintain an impossible level of guardedness and silence.
The level of guardedness means, of course, that within a unit, the gay or lesbian service member has to be a person without a past or a present, a person who never talks about their personal life, past or present, period, a person who never brings anything hinting at their sexual orientation to men and women who work closely with them and often live with together in quarters. Nobody can do that, of course, and that’s why most people in the military usually “know” who is gay and straight in their unit.
I invite you to think about what that means in terms of small unit cohesion. Because everyone “knows” but nobody can acknowledge that they “know”, sexual orientation becomes the elephant under the table. An entire unit becomes involved in the preserving DADT, the gays and lesbians on the “don’t tell” side, and the straights on the “don’t ask” side, or more accurately, âdon’t noticeâ side. Most everyone in the unit becomes, sooner or later, involved in a tacit cover up about what they know. Bluntly put, the entire unit has to deny and be silent about what they know. That is destructive to small unit cohesion and to the military culture of forthrightness about matters of military life, which is essential to combat effectiveness.
Second, DADT is destructive because DADT requires gays and lesbians in service to refrain from having an intimate life off duty, no matter how far removed from the notice of the military. It is a violation of DADT if a service member “has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act”. I note that while DADT covers “homosexual acts” performed with other service members, on or off duty, sexual “fraternization” is prohibited between service members by the UMCJ, a policy that applies equally to straights and gays/lesbians, so DADT is redundant in this respect. What DADT adds is the requirement that gay and lesbian service be entirely celibate off duty while in service. Worse yet, “homosexual act” is interpreted broadly for the purposes of prosecution, so “homosexual act” can cover something as harmless has walking down the street, off duty, far away from a military base, without maintaining the straight-guy 2.5 foot separation, even in a gay neighborhood, where nobody would even notice. It is absurd to require service members, particularly career service members, to live like cloistered monks off-duty. Few do, and the covering up and denial, on the part of the gay and lesbian service member and others in his or her unit, becomes deeper.
I want you to notice, too, that DADT covers periods of the service member’s life prior to induction, just as the “don’t tell” non-disclosure requirement covers periods prior to service. If the military discovers, for example, that a gay or lesbian service member had sex in high school or college (and who doesn’t, these days), DADT raises its ugly head. So even if a gay or lesbian service member elects to remain celibate during their military career, the threat of discharge remains unless they have led a spotless, celibate life since birth.
Third, DADT is destructive because it forces gays and lesbians to lie, evade or refuse to answer innocent questions from members of their units. When asked “What did you do this weekend?”, assuming that a gay or lesbian service member hasn’t spent all weekend alone sitting in a room reading a book, the service member almost certainly will have to evade, tell half-truths or change pronouns, or otherwise hide the truth about his or her weekend activities. If asked a more direct question, say, “Are you gay?”, the service member has to flat out lie or face discharge, because a truthful answer will violate DADT. Think about how that fits with a military culture that stresses honesty and forthrightness.
Fourth, DADT is destructive because it hurts our military preparedness and effectiveness by depriving the military of good service members through required separation of existing service members who violate DADT, most of whom have good records and necessary skills.
Fifth, DADT costs a lot of money, almost all of it wasted. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law estimates that the cost of enforcing DADT has been about $500 million since 1994. It is absurd to be wasting that kind of money.
Sixth, DADT is no longer supported within the military nor in civilian society. Roughly 75% of Americans now support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, including large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents Even 57% of self-identified Evangelical Christians support open service. A Zogby Poll of recently discharged service members demonstrated that about 75% responded “no problem”. A significant number of senior members of the military, too, no longer believe that DADT is needed. General John Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the âDonât Ask, Donât Tellâ policy was enacted, no longer supports the policy, for example, and quite a number of retired Admirals and Generals have been public about their own change in attitude.
DADT is, in short, a loser of a law.
posted by Tom on
DragonScorpian: “It is interesting how various other countries around the world don’t have a problem with homosexuals serving openly in their military. This includes 20 member-nations of NATO, and nations with some of the finest fighting forces in the world: Germany, France, Israel, and the United Kingdom.”
Repeal of DADT will be a huge non-event.
posted by JimG on
NDT asks “do gays and lesbians support this sort of attitude when it comes to women complaining about men?” You make a fair point. I was the one making the original statment. I think the cross-gender issue IS a very different one. And it is an issue of privacy and dignity, etc. What if, for example, I am using a public restroom, I would object if a woman entered the facility. But as far as I’m concerned it’s too bad if I don’t approve of the guy who has come in. That’s just part of the bargain.
I also think that if there was a critical situation where the guys and girls had to share intimate situations the commander would order them to do so and everyone would have to “man” and “woman” up as they need to.
But most of the time that is not necessary.
I think what disputes your point the most is that gays and lesbian HAVE been serving and there has been no problem. That’s the bottom line.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Debrah,
“I still wonder why the subject of sexual orientation even has to be discussed.”
—Let me tell you about men. Men discuss stuff among themselves, they talk about their wives, the women they have had sex with, the things they like to do in bed, their favorite sports teams, favorite music, favorite Playboy Playmate, the letter they published in penthouse, etc, etc, etc. This is regardless of how much professionalism is expected, eventually the boys will be at the barracks and they will talk about these things.
Whenever I’m in a workplace where I have to hide my sexual orientation, I cannot participate in those discussions, I have to be careful not to say too much, thus others get the perception that I’m anti-social when in reality I simply don’t want to out myself. But when I allow myself to come out of the closet, it’s like a heavy burden has been lifted and rather than being a listener I can join the conversation with the best of them.
“As Tom mentioned, most people who are around one another daily are going to pick up whether someone is gay or not.”
—But unless you come out, they’re gonna tell homophobic jokes in front of you and you’re gonna have to smile and take it.
“Is the military a place that can afford such games?
And I’m talking about heterosexuals as well as gays.”
—Well, other than the usual carousing between men, such as the fist fights, wrestling, name calling, etc, I don’t think the military is really a place for games. I mean, would a bunch of straights really tolerate a soldier who walks naked on purpose? The military is famous for “blanket parties,” that is when a soldier is held down under a blanket and the platton takes turns beating him with soaps inside a sock.
The reason to end DADT isn’t to change military culture but to avoid the expense and drama of discharging needed people. In fact, I read that some CO’s have actually ignored DADT and have chosen not to report gay soldiers to the chain of command. Why does the military tolerate former gangsters, neo-nazis, and other controversial members? Simple, the military isn’t in the business of training people to discharge them quickly. It’s a better investment to have a neo-nazi either see a psychologist to change his mindset or die fighting for his country than to discharge him and waste the $10k to $20k that it costs to train him.
Look for example at the case of the doctor in California who got his medical education thanks to Uncle Sam but decided to violate DADT to avoid serving his country. I forgot how the lawsuit ended, the military certainly wanted to pay for the education they had already paid for him with the expectation that he served the military as a doctor.
My only concern is this, most people who join the military tend to be conservative, I heard about 70% of them. Will ending DADT hurt recruitment rates? If you tell me that 1,000 homophobes won’t join but 3,000 gays will, we’ll make up our losses and end up with a gain, but if 10,000 homophobes won’t join and only 500 gays join, then we have something to worry about. I personally think that straight people who love their country and want to serve will continue serving with or without DADT, but well never know until we abolish this evil policy.
posted by Amicus on
Why should men be required to put themselves in compromising positions when women would not be?
I keep losing posts on the website, so I’ll have to shorthand this reply.
1. Nongay men looking at gay men just as they would any of their male rivals. OTTH, all nongay men and women looking at each other. Part of the reason why the problem is not the same for two groups.
2. Men in the military probably have more in common with other men than they do with women. They hang out together, etc. Idea that people are “forced” to see each other as just sexual objects for each other is false and reason we see seamless integration already, with everyone knowing who in their unit is gay or lesbian.
3. Military is one size fits all. Too costly to build different barracks for every gripe.
posted by Lori Heine on
“The policy of segregating the sexes is to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault.”
One of my best friends is a combat veteran of Vietnam. He managed, somehow, to finish his tour there without raping or harassing any of the other guys in his unit. It is an insult to him, and to every other man (or woman) who has served to suggest that they’re all just a bunch of pervs out on a lewd lark.
The right way to deal with the situation would be to institute a zero-tolerance policy toward sexual misconduct — regardless of the orientation of the soldiers or sailors involved. This would focus on behavior, instead of impugning an entire group of people.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! This is so hilarious. ND30 is SO unoriginal, SO predictable, I KNEW he was going to post that tired old link about the fire chief. So much so that I was going to post the following earlier, but decided to wait until I received a more direct response:
And my response was to be: Simple, the âgay communityâ doesn’t consider objections to an employer or leader demanding sex from their subordinates as âhomophobicâ or âsexistâ. ND30 will likely now repost the overused link of his about the lesbian fire chief and HER claims that the case against her was based on homophobia and sexism, and, as usual, in doing so will utterly FAIL to back up his factually incorrect premise that SHE or anyone ONE of us equals the âgay communityâ.
And, sure enough, he did.
To the remark: âIn this country, we do not punish people for things they haven’t even done yet — on the premise that someday, they MIGHT do them.â
ND30 claims: âActually, we do.â
Examples?
ND30 jumps the shark:
So now homosexuals {the âgay and lesbian community} are not only all hedonistic, promiscuous, disease carrying, only vote Democrat, dress our children like sex-slaves and condone child-molestation, but we all believe that intercepting and tracking communications between known terrorists is a violation of âconstitutional rightsâ.
One certainly should distrust the motives of someone who finds it so easy to lump a disparate group of people, like homosexuals, into one depraved, politically uniform monolith.
Let’s see, as someone pointed out before, 10 men vs. one woman… 1 homosexual vs. 10 heterosexual guys… I’d say one is justified, the other is just some bigot trying to rationalize why it’s okay to exclude homosexuals from the U.S. military, in spite of the fact it isn’t a problem in some 31 world countries. . .
To the rational person this would be enough. But to the so-called homosexual homophobe, instead, he invents whatever excuse he can come up with to exclude homosexuals from equality, yet again…..
posted by DragonScorpion on
Tom knocked this one out of the park. Notice that ND30 will have no answers. Just more flimsy excuses why homosexuals aren’t fit to serve, or why those poor heterosexuals should not have to deal with us.
Maybe the coward will just resort to accusing Tom of being a liar about his military background again…
posted by Tom on
ND30: “The policy of segregating the sexes is to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault.”
Lori Heine, in response: “One of my best friends is a combat veteran of Vietnam. He managed, somehow, to finish his tour there without raping or harassing any of the other guys in his unit. It is an insult to him, and to every other man (or woman) who has served to suggest that they’re all just a bunch of pervs out on a lewd lark.”
The fact that Elaine Donnelly had to dig back to 1974 in her 2008 testimony before House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee to find an incident supporting her assertion that straights would be in danger of sexual assault and harassment if DADT were repealed is a good indication of how empty the “sexual harassment and sexual assault” argument is, in fact.
Gay men are no more angels than straight men, I suppose, but we learn, usually by the time we are 11 or 12, how to handle ourselves in a straight world, especially in “intimate” settings like gyms, showers and bathrooms. The fear that gays and lesbians, who appear to comprise about 3-4% of the military population just as they do the civilian population, are going to suddenly go wild and start sexually harassing and sexually assaulting straight servicemen and women if DADT is repealed, to the point where straights would have to be segregated for their own protection, is unrealistic, verging on hysteria, at least to my mind.
Bobby: “Whenever I’m in a workplace where I have to hide my sexual orientation, I cannot participate in those discussions, I have to be careful not to say too much, thus others get the perception that I’m anti-social when in reality I simply don’t want to out myself. But when I allow myself to come out of the closet, it’s like a heavy burden has been lifted and rather than being a listener I can join the conversation with the best of them.”
Exactly. I have no idea how old you are, Bobby, but I am 63. During most of my adult life, I lived and worked in a culture where keeping my sexual orientation to myself was prudent 90% of the time, and I was luckly enough to work in a legal environment that was high-powered enough so that nobody had much time for “men talk” around work, so I didn’t have to deal with the situation you describe too often. But when I did, you are dead on about how it felt.
During my time in the military, every gay soldier I knew hid their sexual orientation, which, of course, separated us from the straights in all sorts of subtle ways. The method of camouflage varied from soldier to soldier. I was cross-trained as a medic and demolitions and had automatic camouflage because medics are expected to be outside the norm. Others I knew adopted the camouflage of being “bookish” or “intellectual”, and managed to stay outside the discussions that way. Others I knew, including a man who became the CSM of one of the Armies before he retired, were “all soldier, all the time”, making it clear that they had no time for such foolishness. I suppose that there are as many forms of camouflage as there are gay men, and we all know how to use the ones that work for us.
What I find interesting, and why I’m commenting, is that since I retired some years ago and Michael and I came back to my home ground, a rural Wisconsin town with about 2,000 people, I’ve been able to enjoy the pleasures of just being out to all and sundry.
Everybody knows Michael and I are a couple, and treats us as a couple, with very little fuss or bother. I am free to join in the male joking and idiocy — male bonding, really — as freely as the straight men. The guys I hang around with are my age for the most part, raised up in a time when gays were considered dangerous deviants. With some, it was awkward for a bit, because most of them weren’t used to “knowing that they know someone” and didn’t seem to know how to handle such an open environment. But it didn’t take long before they got over it. Late last year, after the fact that Michael and I had become domestic partners was published in the local paper alongside the marriage announcements, a bunch of these guys and their wives showed up with a Walmart “Congratulations” cake topped — get this — with two roosters. It was hilarious.
Its not all roses, of course. We’ve got a local “Bible” church in town, and these folks took a run at us a couple of years ago, complaining that they didn’t feel “comfortable” around us, and were going to have to drop out of a local group that Michael and I belong to unless the group, I guess, expelled us. The group took them up on their offer, to the group’s credit, telling them to get over it. But that kind of open attack is rare these days, even from the so-called “Christians”. Mostly they just mutter and fume, writing letters to the newspaper claiming that AIDS is God’s vengence on our hopelessly immoral nation and other such nonsense.
For most younger folks, the twenty-somethings who are the age of Michael’s and my kids, it doesn’t even seem to be an issue. Just about all of them seem to know gays and lesbians, and think nothing much of it. That’s why I don’t think it will be much of a problem in terms of military culture if DADT is repealed. Repealing DADT will raise issues — how, for example, the military will handle SSM in light of the potential conflict between military policy and DOMA — but the issues can be worked out.
I noticed in this morning’s online Washington Post that the DOD and JCS are initiating a study to determine how to implement DADT repeal. Not “if”, but “how”. The study is, I think, important, because the military, not the politicians, will look at the issues that DADT repeal will raise within the military, and come up with solutions. I don’t have much use for politicians on this issue, but I do trust the military to work this out.
Most important, though, the fact that Admiral Mullen is backing the study is a sign that DADT is in its death throes, at long last. Mullen, of course, has been signaling the military’s readiness to repeal DADT for the last 18 months, so I’m not surprised. But I’m heartened that the military seems to be ready to get rid of the DADT albatross.
posted by Jorge on
I notice that North Dallas Thirty didn’t respond to Bobby’s question about why Wiccans are good enough to be buried under the symbols of their religion but gays aren’t good enough to serve.
Since he couldn’t find a smart link for it, Bobby’s question just does not compute.
I agree with most of what Bobby and Tom said. I’ve said his before, but I have one co-worker who rather constantly talks about his personal life. He had very good news yesterday. Shall I tell him I don’t want to hear about his sex life?
posted by Jorge on
I noticed in this morning’s online Washington Post that the DOD and JCS are initiating a study to determine how to implement DADT repeal. Not “if”, but “how”. The study is, I think, important, because the military, not the politicians, will look at the issues that DADT repeal will raise within the military, and come up with solutions. I don’t have much use for politicians on this issue, but I do trust the military to work this out.
Most important, though, the fact that Admiral Mullen is backing the study is a sign that DADT is in its death throes, at long last. Mullen, of course, has been signaling the military’s readiness to repeal DADT for the last 18 months, so I’m not surprised. But I’m heartened that the military seems to be ready to get rid of the DADT albatross.
Well, the President is their commander-in-chief, and they do have certain oaths to fulfil. I think it’s appropriate to ask what is the best way to go about this.
It is also written that Defense Secretary Gates was one of those who gave a standing ovation when Obama committed to repealing DA/DT. What does that mean???
Now, I have no idea who Gates is in conservative/Republican circles, but he is a holdover from the previous administration. The article I read attributed Gates as once saying any revision should be slow, citing that it took five years (!) to implement the executive order integrating blacks into the military. Does Gates have clout among congressional Republicans and the trust of our military? Is he going to testify in front of them (and hopefully do a better job in front of the Armed Services Committee than Eric Holder did in front of the Judiciary Committee)?
posted by Debrah on
“And note that DADT covers pre-service disclosures, disclosures that occurred before the man or woman joined the service.
Think about that for a second.
A gay or lesbian service member who discloses his sexual orientation to his mother or father, or a brother, or a close friend, or a teacher, or a counselor, or a clergyman, or anyone else, before or during his or her military service, violates DADT.
DADT requires that gay and lesbian service members maintain an impossible level of guardedness and silence.”
***********************************************
Coming from someone like you, Tom—a real grownup, obviously— and someone who has had myriad first-hand experiences regarding this issue, it’s easy to see all your points and agree.
However, I doubt that on a day-to-day basis these strict rules are really put to use in the literal sense. I have no doubt that both gay and straight soldiers talk among themselves privately about a whole host of things and this would, necessarily, include their private lives.
And as Bobby or someone else here mentioned, many of their fellow soldiers would provide a defense for such strict measures if they are enforced without some overt violation.
The problem is that an inordinate number of gay men seem to revel in an ostentation of being gay. That’s why they will never criticize a freak of nature like Perez Hilton.
You do not see the same type of grotesque video exhibitions from lesbians or from straight men and women unless it’s on the edge of society and inside a gutter with some troglodyte like Larry Flynt.
It strikes me that this larger reality—behavior of gay men outside the military—filters into the views and the opinions of the powers-that-be inside the military.
I agree with Bobby that men—both gay and straight—discuss their sexual habits among themselves more than do women; however, it’s the whole “gay man” in-your-face culture that creates much of the push-back, for better or worse.
Tom, if only men like you were their role models instead of grotesque YouTube networks, etc….. that really undermine all the good that men like you represent.
We can criticize hetero sexual mania, but G/d help anyone who dares to criticize men with “homosexual tendencies”.
I’ve witnessed it here, myself, from one particular commenter who uses cowardice and anonymity.
These are the things that people witness from those who are allegedly “men”, and they will never be criticized by the gay community in general.
But there are legal measures one can take against such people and I will not hesitate to exercise every one of them.
Ironic cowardly behavior coming from the same people who scream for their own self-designed “civil rights”.
These things are what people see and synthesize internally when discussing so-called “gay rights”.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “The problem is that an inordinate number of gay men seem to revel in an ostentation of being gay. That’s why they will never criticize a freak of nature like Perez Hilton.”
Well, it is fun to do the boa feather schtick once in a while, just to watch the horrified reaction from straights.
Gay men aren’t the only folks who are “ostentatious” in their flamboyance.
Elvis, who was straight enough I think, outdid Liberace half the time in the last decade of his career. Are you old enough to remember the outfits that President Nixon imposed on the White House police? The commander of the unit I served with in Vietnam used to refer to his Dress Blue uniform, adorned with so many medals that practically covered him from head to waist, as “military drag”. Perez Hilton may be a walking bad satori cal joke, but so was John Wayne, an overblown cartoon of a bad stereotype, somehow morphing a game leg into a swagger. And Dolly Parton, bless her heart, is living proof that you don’t have to be a guy to do good drag, an inspiration to us all.
I don’t see the harm in it. Over-the-top costumes are just dress up, the gay equivalent of all those ridiculous super-camo hunting outfits that straight men seem to wear around here in October and November, tromping through Walmart looking like the Black Helicopters are in the air and on the way. The difference is that most gay men know they are play-acting, and most straight men don’t seem to be as aware of it.
Having said that, I don’t think that gay reluctance to criticize the likes of Elton John or Perez Hilton or Adam Lambert or, for that matter, Liberace or Clay Aiken, stems from some-sort of misdirected love of the “ostentation of being gay”.
I suspect that the reluctance stems more from our own experience, a lifetime of hearing remarks like Garrison Keillor’s now infamous description of same-sex marriage (“The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men â sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. Thatâs for the kids. Itâs their show.“). Keillor later apologized, saying that his remarks were just satire, all teary-eyed about the wonderful gay friends he had in his artsy-fartsy New York bubble, and I suppose I believe him. But his remarks are the kind of thing we’ve heard until we are blue in the face.
As far as I’m concerned, straights put down folks like Elton John and Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert to put us down. I think that most gay men know it and won’t buy into it. So while many of us may think that Perez and Adam and Elton look ridiculous, and would only dress like that on Halloween, if then, we’ll be damned we are going to help the straights put us down by joining the chorus.
“Debrah: It strikes me that this larger reality — behavior of gay men outside the military — filters into the views and the opinions of the powers-that-be inside the military.”
Oh, I suppose it does, but military men have their own experience of gay and lesbian service members, and are much more likely, it seems to me, to trust their own perceptions and experience inside the military to form their views than to pay undue attention to the civilian world. The powers-that-be inside the military, like Colin Powell, for example, have been generally quick to say that gay and lesbian service members have served as well as straight service members, whatever their personal attitudes toward homosexuality might be.
So, all in all, I doubt that Perez Hilton et al have much influence within the higher levels of command.
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
LOL!!!
Don’t get me started on the over-the-top hetero grotesquerie.
Bobby, of all people, knows that I do not give the straight ones a pass, either.
That Elvis-Nixon scenario was just covered on some cable news channel the other day. A former Nixon aid….cum….author was reliving the White House Elvis visits for an audience.
Such an oxymoronic coupling.
Both Elton John and Elvis have contributed to our music hagiography; however, that’s about it.
Dolly Parton is hilarious. She makes fun of herself.
Didn’t she once say…..”It takes a lot of money to look this cheap.”….?
That’s self-actualization.
Clay Aiken doesn’t rate. He couldn’t even be flamboyant in his “gayness” when it would have counted.
Aiken is a type of male Renée Zelleweger. Looks as though he’s always sucking on a lemon. White-bread. Milquetoast. Boring.
Adam Lambert has a great voice. Having a background in Fine Arts, I acknowledge true, raw talent when I see it.
He’s also a good looking guy who wears too much make-up and will have very bad skin by age 40 if he doesn’t cut out some of the build-up.
I’d like to see Lambert shed some of the Vegas glitz for a clean, handsome look and I think he’d ensure his longevity.
Right now, his style is too much like a souped-up version of Wayne Newton, who makes my skin crawl.
Gay or straight, only women can get away with studied glitz, but even then, talent has to eclipse everything.
No one appreciates flamboyance more than I; however, it can’t be your trademark—-offstage.
Tom, I don’t know how much influence walking herpes viruses like Perez Hilton have on the military powers-that-be.
But I do know the impact they have on the views and the opinions of the general population.
posted by Tom on
Jorge: “The article I read attributed Gates as once saying any revision should be slow, citing that it took five years (!) to implement the executive order integrating blacks into the military.”
It looks like it actually took even longer than that, according to a “MILITARY INTEGRATION TIMELINE” I found on the DOD website.
Although DADT, once repealed, can be given immediate effect — the military can stop discharging gay and lesbian service members for identifying themselves as gay or lesbian or engaging in “homosexual acts” off duty the day after DADT is repealed — the implications of allowing gays and lesbians to serve on an equal footing will require Congress and the military to look at a complex and often interlocking set of laws, policies and procedures, and figure out what to do about individually and in the aggregate.
A quick example of the kind of thing I’m thinking about:
DADT currently prohibits gay and lesbian service members from marrying, even if they marry in one of the five states where SSM is now legal. Repeal of DADT will end the prohibition.
I have to believe that some percentage of gay and lesbian service members will marry when permitted to do so, since, as many have pointed out, the military tends to attract the more conservative elements of our society, and that is as true of gay and lesbian service members as it is of straight service members.
So the military is going to have to look at a whole series of questions involving spouse and dependent benefits, and figure out what to do in light of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing SSM for federal purposes.
Among the questions that will need to be settled, just off the top of my head are:
(1) Military medical/dental care;
(2) Overseas duty housing and/or housing allowances;
(3) Subsistence allowances;
(4) Schooling for minor dependents;
(5) Taxation of housing, subsistence and other family allowances;
(6) JAG-provided legal assistance;
(7) Life insurance;
(8) Pensions and retirement benefits;
(9) Death benefits and allowances; and
(10) Spousal burial in military cemeteries
Those questions just brush the surface of a single area of concern, the question of dependent families. I imagine that there are thousands of issues that need to be worked out. It is going to take time to sort through it all. So I’m with Gates, if he was suggesting was that the military move deliberately in implementing the changes required by DADT repeal.
But I don’t expect implementation of DADT repeal to take as long as desegregation did. As you can see from the DOD timeline, desegregation involved military restructuring, moving a lot of military personnel between units, and commissioning and decommissioning units to make it all work. That won’t be involved with DADT repeal, because gays and lesbians are already integrated with straights, serving in place. The military won’t have to move personnel or equipment around to implement DADT repeal. So a big, time consuming chunk of the job that was required to implement desegregation won’t need to be done.
However long it is going to take, the important thing to me is to get on with the job, instead of just dithering about it, which is what the politicians have been doing for years.
I don’t think anyone should kid themselves about how hard this is going to be to get through Congress. Repealing DADT is going to be a brawl from beginning to end, and social conservatives are going to fight tooth and nail, up and down the line, inch by inch and yard by yard, on every issue that surfaces, not to mention a shitpot of non-issues that don’t have any substance, once examined, but make good sound bites.
Social conservatives might be total assholes, but they aren’t stupid. They know that DADT repeal is the critical battle in the fight for equal treatment under the law. The American people respect the military and respect veterans. The American people will not long tolerate unequal treatment for men and women who put their lives on the line for our country. Social conservatives know this as well as you and I do.
Social conservatives know, too, that DADT repeal will bring the issue of legal discrimination against gays and lesbians into the sunlight, sooner rather than later, in a new context and with a greater urgency. So expect a brawl and lots of hysteria between now and the day on which the President signs DADT repeal into law.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Tom, I’m glad you joined the debate. I’m 34 by the way. I’m shocked that there was no time for “men talk” in the law firm, but then again, I come from an advertising background which isn’t representative of the average workplace. Yet I’m still surprised because I’ve heard of lawyers entertaining themselves and clients at strip clubs. You never saw anything like that?
“The problem is that an inordinate number of gay men seem to revel in an ostentation of being gay. That’s why they will never criticize a freak of nature like Perez Hilton.”
—Hey Debrah, freaks of nature like Perez Hilton will not join the army even if they’re invited to join. I admit I’m one of the gays that gives Perez a pass, the reason I do that is because he’s a gossip columnist and they tend to be outlandish. I also think that since celebrities tend to crooked, hypocritical, and irresponsible, the gossip columnist and the paparazzi are heroes because they remind society not to worship those fallen idols. Remember, if it wasn’t for The National Inquirer we would have never found out about John Edwards’s love child.
“It strikes me that this larger reality—behavior of gay men outside the military—filters into the views and the opinions of the powers-that-be inside the military.”
—That’s true, a straight-acting gay doesn’t stand out, a stereotypical gay does, which is why we’re often judged on the basis of stereotypes rather than reality. Yet if straight people simply took a look at the 10,000+ gays that get discharged they would realized that we’re just as normal as they are.
“I agree with Bobby that men—both gay and straight—discuss their sexual habits among themselves more than do women; however, it’s the whole “gay man” in-your-face culture that creates much of the push-back, for better or worse.”
—Fine, but don’t you think there are plenty of in your face stuff the average person has to deal with already? Tattoos are a great example, the military recently prohibited tattoos in certain body parts because the soldiers were getting out of hand and the tattoos were showing even when the soldier was wearing his uniform.
“We can criticize hetero sexual mania, but G/d help anyone who dares to criticize men with “homosexual tendencies”.
—But nobody criticizes straight men for being straight, we only criticize them for getting girls pregnant and sexual harassment. The media has been critical of gay men who engage in barebacking, of course, I don’t think barebacking is a national story because lets face it, it’s not a topic most Americans care to discuss.
Getting back to this topic, I found an interesting article about pagans in the military.
http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/yourlegalrights/a/Mil_Pagans.htm
Apparently there’s 4,000 of them, they have their own groups on base, and I saw only one case of discrimination.
“In 2006, Army chaplain Don Larsen applied to become the Army’s first Wiccan chaplain. Not only was his request denied, but he was also removed from the chaplaincy program.”
Where are the arguments that pagans hurt morale? That pagans are weird? That they seek to recruit? That they are perverted?
Here’s some things that will shock you:
“Twice, [Bob] Barr and his supporters attempted to legislate against religious accommodations for military Pagans, and both attempts failed.”
http://www.milpagan.org/media/may_20_2004.html
Pat Robertson Accepts Witches in the Military: says “I am firmly in support of religious freedom”
Pat Robertson Accepts Witches in the Military: says “I am firmly in support of religious freedom”
Ellicott City, MD – July 1, 1999 [Revised]: After viewing a 700 Club report on a rally held by the Military Pagan Network in support of religious freedom in the military, the Reverend Pat Robertson gave the following endorsement: “I’m not worried about a little coven of Witches…Rather than suppress us all, we might give them freedom.”
http://www.milpagan.org/media/july_1_1999.html
So North Dallas, why are openly gay soldiers a bad thing when openly pagan soldiers get away with it?
posted by Tom on
Bobby, I’m glad you are part of the thread. You are helping keep the discussion reasonable and rational. Too often discussions about gay issues degenerate into really ugly back-and-forth.
Bobby: “Hey Tom, I’m glad you joined the debate. I’m 34 by the way. I’m shocked that there was no time for “men talk” in the law firm, but then again, I come from an advertising background which isn’t representative of the average workplace. Yet I’m still surprised because I’ve heard of lawyers entertaining themselves and clients at strip clubs. You never saw anything like that?”
Not in our firm, but I don’t doubt that it happens in smaller, more relaxed firms.
I was in a megafirm that does real high-end legal work. In a firm like that, the work is relentless and the climb to partnership brutal. The lawyers who make it are focused on law to the virtual exclusion of anything else, and those that aren’t fall by the wayside.
Lawyers in the firm typically bill about 2,800 hours a year. I considered it a normal day if I was working at 7am, left the office about 7pm, and worked at home another hour or two in the evenings. I don’t think my workload was unusual; in fact I know it wasn’t because I sat on the Associate Review Committee for a number of years after I became a partner, and anyone who didn’t bill at least 2,500 hours was looked at very, very carefully. Nobody has any time for hanging out.
It sounds, as I think about it, like a living hell. But it wasn’t, because the work was so interesting and challenging. It also paid beyond anything I ever thought I’d see in my lifetime.
I retired at 55. I spend my time wolunteering at a 15″ gauge railroad museum north of town, helping with the maintenance of the steam engines, rolling stock and track. Most of the guys are retired machinists, tool and die makers, mechanics and similar skilled tradesmen. I really enjoy spending time with them. I thought I was going to have a hard time fitting in, but I grew up on a farm working on machinery, so I fit in just fine once they got over my jaded past as a lawyer.
The “guy talk” goes both ways, and I join right in. But when they decide on a night out at one of the “Gentlemen’s Clubs”, I take a pass. I tell them that I’ll come with them — once — if they’ll come with me to the Chippendales show at the Casino deer hunting season. No takers so far. Chicken straight boys!
posted by Bobby on
Hey Tom, you certainly worked crazy hours, crazier than advertising where it could be 9 to 6, 9 to 7, 9 to 9, or worse. I admit my knowledge of lawyers is limited to the biography of Bobby Simone, Oscar Goodman, and obviously unrealistic shows like Boston Legal.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Few, if any, gays and lesbians, in currently serving or veterans, are on an “incessant mission to put personal information into an arena such as the military”, and few gays and lesbians, currently in service or veterans, think that the military is a forum in which to discuss “the subject of sexual orientation”.
But then what does Tom repeatedly whine about? The fact that he can’t talk about his sexual orientation and his personal information in the military.
To comply with DADT, accordingly, a service member may never slip up and say anything direct about his or her sexual orientation, or say anything that even hints about his or her sexual orientation, whether the slip occurs while on duty or entirely outside outside the service.
And then for the others:
Fourth, DADT is destructive because it hurts our military preparedness and effectiveness by depriving the military of good service members through required separation of existing service members who violate DADT, most of whom have good records and necessary skills.
Why should the military keep people who can’t or don’t want to follow the rules?
Fifth, DADT costs a lot of money, almost all of it wasted. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law estimates that the cost of enforcing DADT has been about $500 million since 1994. It is absurd to be wasting that kind of money.
Not really. It also costs to get rid of other people who can’t follow the rules and whose behavior is not conducive to military service. By this argument, you might as well keep gang members, neo-Nazis, and the mentally ill because discharging them costs money.
But really, the biggest problem with Tom is this statement right here, which really exemplifies the attitude of the gay and lesbian community:
As far as I’m concerned, straights put down folks like Elton John and Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert to put us down. I think that most gay men know it and won’t buy into it. So while many of us may think that Perez and Adam and Elton look ridiculous, and would only dress like that on Halloween, if then, we’ll be damned we are going to help the straights put us down by joining the chorus.
Notice how Tom puts his sexual orientation ahead of everything else, including basic principles. He may know something is wrong, but he must do as his sexual orientation orders and refuse to criticize or condemn the wrong.
Sorry, but the military needs Tom and his fellow “veterans” to be thinking about country and military needs first. That is exactly why DADT exists; if Tom wants to put being gay first, he doesn’t belong in the military.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I notice that North Dallas Thirty didn’t respond to Bobby’s question about why Wiccans are good enough to be buried under the symbols of their religion but gays aren’t good enough to serve.
It’s that little thing about the difference of impact between a static gravestone in a field and a living, breathing individual carrying out this sort of behavior.
I’ve said his before, but I have one co-worker who rather constantly talks about his personal life. He had very good news yesterday. Shall I tell him I don’t want to hear about his sex life?
If you don’t want to hear about it, yes, you should tell him that. You’d probably be surprised how many people would privately thank you.
So North Dallas, why are openly gay soldiers a bad thing when openly pagan soldiers get away with it?
I’ve yet to see a pagan soldier stating that their religious beliefs require them to cover up for and refuse to criticize other pagans.
Simply put, Bobby, pagan beliefs are not incompatible with military culture. But the gay and lesbian community’s idea that criticism of one gay or lesbian person’s behavior is criticism of all gays and lesbians, as Tom stated above, leads to some highly incompatible attitudes and behaviors.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
To the remark: âIn this country, we do not punish people for things they haven’t even done yet — on the premise that someday, they MIGHT do them.â
ND30 claims: âActually, we do.â
Examples?
As quoted above from esurience:
The policy of segregating the sexes is to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault
So it’s automatically assumed that, if they were kept together, men and women would sexually harass and assault each other.
One certainly should distrust the motives of someone who finds it so easy to lump a disparate group of people, like homosexuals, into one depraved, politically uniform monolith.
And yet Tom makes it clear that criticism of one gay person means you hate all gay people.
As far as I’m concerned, straights put down folks like Elton John and Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert to put us down.
Just like his fellow gay and lesbian Bonnie Bleskachek insists that criticism of her behavior is due to “homophobia and sexism” and is all about trying to put down all gays.
And finally:
Maybe the coward will just resort to accusing Tom of being a liar about his military background again…
Gay and lesbian people have already faked military records on a regular basis for anti-DADT activity.
And especially, when you watch gay and lesbian leaders spit on and discredit the service of veterans, you figure out very quickly that they don’t really like the military and are just trying to use it to buy themselves credibility.
posted by Amicus on
Simply put, Bobby, pagan beliefs are not incompatible with military culture.
Six chapels on the West Point campus.
Just sayin’ I know it is ancillary, but just sayin’.
posted by Debrah on
“Notice how Tom puts his sexual orientation ahead of everything else, including basic principles. He may know something is wrong, but he must do as his sexual orientation orders and refuse to criticize or condemn the wrong.”
***************************************
ND30 never misses an angle.
A simply stupendous debater.
Tom is a gentleman, but the fundamental truth which ND30 illuminates is almost always present in any debate with gays.
I suppose it perplexes and saddens me more than it might other observers because I have never tethered myself to any “group”—ever—and just do not understand the mentality.
I’ve seen this mentality surface a lot lately perhaps because of the SSM issue.
Successful and respected men turn themselves into little girls in skirts and behave like children when gay issues arise. And THEY are the ones who usually bring these issues to the discussion.
Double standards emerge. Discussion is censored and cut off.
And why?
Because homosexual men—publicly out of the closet or not—carry that agenda around with them in everything that they do.
And it often destroys the professional environment and makes them look like petty little girls who can’t and won’t handle disagreement.
If anal sex and fellatio between men are such a great lifestyle, then why all the double standards and childishness when debating gay issues?
The really sad thing is that so many gays supported Obama mainly because they thought he’d legalize SSM for them.
I often wondered why some people whom I know looked over all the other aspects of “Obama the candidate” that would have sunk other candidates.
Turns out it was their own sexual orientation that ruled their decision.
Wonder why some might be wary of gay men in key positions?
Perhaps because they most often behave so unprofessionally when the issue of their sexual orientation emerges.
You have no idea how the opinion of someone changes when witnessing this.
And it’s very regrettable and sad.
posted by Jorge on
I’ve said his before, but I have one co-worker who rather constantly talks about his personal life. He had very good news yesterday. Shall I tell him I don’t want to hear about his sex life?
–If you don’t want to hear about it, yes, you should tell him that. You’d probably be surprised how many people would privately thank you.
Really?
Well, I’ll wait until I’ve confirmed that his two newborns are healthy before socking him with that.
It’s that little thing about the difference of impact between a static gravestone in a field and a living, breathing individual carrying out this sort of behavior.
Oh what a load of Bolshevik. You cannot tell me that in such a short amount of time, that you have learned everything there is to know about such an obscure topic as the Wicca community, both good and bad, so as to come to such a conclusion. You probably posted that without even knowing anything about the Wicca community and its worldview. Instead you just parroted what I said. What do you think about the Wiccan community, and why do you think it? You must explain this.
Assuming you actually looked for information on the Wiccan community on your own (which I doubt), the main reason you can’t find the same exceptionally rare negative behaviors among Wiccans in or out of the military that you have no trouble finding about gays outside of the military is not because those behaviors do not exist or are more rare. It is because your ability to gather information is limited.
You do not have access to the military gossip files that are necessary for you to understand the impact of Wiccans on the military. You do not have access to media stories about Wiccans because fewer media outlets know what Wicca is to be able to report on a subject. Your failure to understand this has caused you to embrace another bias without recognizing it exists, and put your foot in your mouth.
posted by Jorge on
Notice how Tom puts his sexual orientation ahead of everything else, including basic principles. He may know something is wrong, but he must do as his sexual orientation orders and refuse to criticize or condemn the wrong.
Incorrect. Tom is not putting his sexual orientation ahead of basic principles. He is adding his sexual orientation and the experiences gained from it to the melting pot. This skews or informs (depending on whether you are a liberal or a conservative) the results of his response to an ethical or factual question but is not an automatic change.
The distinction is important, and very common among subcultures as well as minority and majority communities of all types. Like when Whoppi Goldberg tried to explain Michael Vick’s animal abuse. The effect is to change a blanket condemnation to an “eh.”
And with the confirmation of Sonja “Wise Latina Woman” Sotomayor as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, this process has received approval at the highest levels of our government by a bipartisan vote. Gaze upon the inevitability of your defeat!
Simply put, Bobby, pagan beliefs are not incompatible with military culture.
I am pleased you have rejected the Bob Barr and others’ shameful and stereotypical tarring of the pagans’ belief systems. As you no doubt already know, the Wicca religion espouses essentially a pacifist mindset. Also one that is a benign do no harm philosophy (which as a Catholic I personally find some fault in). Despite these indicators, wise people have decided yeahwhateversowhat. Unfortunately I do not believe if the decision were in your hands that you would be one of them.
posted by Bobby on
“Simply put, Bobby, pagan beliefs are not incompatible with military culture.”
—Not everyone would agree, the Traditional Values Coalition certainly wanted to throw them out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBY99L4uG3U&feature=related
Some people think pagans worship Satan, others thing their practices are evil.
In fact, military culture is dominated for the most part by Christians, some non-Christians have complained of harassment, yet the military doesn’t say “let’s get rid of all the non-Christians for the sake of unit cohesion.”
I do not accept those generalities that gay men are a bunch of predatory sex machines seeking to have sex with all cute men. And even if they where, do you think one gay man can overpower an entire barrack? How exactly do you harass a straight soldier when he’s sorrounded by dozens of straight soldiers?
Yes, some gay men have fantasies, some gay men watch military-style porn movies, some straight men also watch “MANSWERS” which has topics like “how to seduce a lesbian.” So what? The fantasy and the reality don’t mix, the chances of a straight man responding in a positive manner to gay advances are almost zilch.
Fearing openly gay men in the military is totally ridiculous, no different than fearing blacks, jews, wiccans or pretty much anyone else. In fact, it’s gays that have the most to fear in that environment, which is why we’re never going to join in droves even after DADT ends.
posted by Tom on
I am bemused by recent posts in this thread.
I’ve put forth arguments — first, that gays in the military have served our country, on the whole, as well as straights have done, and second, that lifting bans on open service by gays and lesbians is not likely to have an adverse effect on military effectiveness — that are, I believe, baed on fact and reason, and my views are supported by serious research dating back before ND30 was born.
Major studies relating to sexual orientation and the US military — the Navy’s 1957 Crittenden study, the 1989 study by the Defense Personnel Security Research Center, the 1993 RAND Corporation study, for example — all found that sexual orientation is irrelevant to military performance.
Similarly, studies relating to the effect of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in allied military forces — the 1993 Government Accountability Office study, the 1994 assessment by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, the 2000 British Ministry of Defense study, academic studies by the Palm Center and other university think tanks that study the military, for example — conclude, invariably, that lifting bans on open service by gays and lesbians had no negative impact on military readiness, including recruitment and retention.
The US military leadership has been signaling their readiness to repeal DADT — JCS Chairman Mullen’s statements to that effect, statements by past JCS Chairmen, polls reported in Stars and Stripes, and recent articles concluding that having openly gay and lesbian service members will not have adverse effects on combat readiness that have been published in military internal journals, including an article published in the Joint Force Quarterly, an article reported to have been reviewed and approved by Mullen. The military does not enter the political debate directly, because that is not the tradition of the United States, but all of these things are signals that the military is ready to repeal.
Now, obviously, the fact that I am gay and a veteran, and have the acquaintance of other gay veterans, including a friend who goes back to my days in service and who ended a distinguished and decorated military career as a CSM, informs my views and enhances my understanding of the issues relating to DADT.
But everything I’ve said, except for a few personal observations, is supported by serious studies that reach the conclusions I’ve reached.
I acknowledge that my background shapes my views in one sense. If I were not who I am with the experience that I have had, I would probably be less aware of the destructiveness of DADT, and be less concerned about its repeal. If I were straight and not a veteran, I’d be one of the 75% of Americans who believe that DADT has outlived its usefulness, but not feel any particular sense of urgency about its repeal.
But ND30’s suggestion that the arguments I’ve put forth should be discounted, in whole or part, because of I’m gay, a veteran, and am concerned, accordingly, about DADT and its effect on the military, strikes me as being as nonsensical as the idea that straight service members will be in such danger of sexual harassment and sexual assault after DADT is repealed that they should be segregated from gays and lesbians.
And what appears to be Debrah’s agreement with that suggestion strikes me as even more odd and less supported, because her agreement seems to be based solely on experience with a few gays in her workplace, gays who she finds distasteful, experience from which she makes sweeping generalizations about gays in general. I’m not even sure where to start with that …
I guess the disconnect makes some sense, when you consider that Debrah seems to consider her animosity to Perez Hilton, a bubble headed gossip columnist with a nasty disposition and a sense of fashion that makes Truman Capote’s outfits look normal, is somehow relevant to the question of DADT. The idea that Perez Hilton is relevant to a serious discussion of DADT seems to me to be as silly as the idea that the mindless and embarrassing antics of female bubble heads like Carrie Prejean and Britney Spears have anything to do with the question of whether intelligent, serious women can be good business executives. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think that most Americans take any of these people seriously.
On the other hand, serious issues do surround the DADT debate, and serious arguments can be made in support of DADT. I don’t think that the arguments are persuasive, but they exist. Just not in this thread.
I would like to see ND30 and Debrah forth serious and supported arguments in favor of continuing DADT. Then, it seems to me, we could all have a serious discussion.
Otherwise the will be nothing to discuss, the thread will continue its slide into “Yes, you are!” and “No, you arent!”
DADT is going to be repealed, if not this year, then in stages over the next two or three years. The real questions are (1) how should the military effecutate the repeal, and (2) can Congress follow the lead of the military in this regard, planning for and effecuating the repeal in a way that enhances military readiness.
I don’t trust Congress to do the job. I do trust the military.
posted by Bobby on
I found this interesting article in Military Times, last year 100 ex- generals and admirals signed a petition for repealing DADT.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/11/ap_military_dadt_repeal_111708/
posted by DragonScorpion on
I see ND30 is off on yet another tangent of false comparisons again. And the inconsistencies are glaring. First he argues that homosexuals are incompatible with military service and pose some sort of risk to unit cohesion and the like. Yet, if that’s true, then homosexuals shouldn’t serve at all. And he should just state this more clearly. But he doesn’t.
And I say shouldn’t then serve at all because, as Tom has eloquently pointed out, allowing homosexuals to serve while keeping their sexual orientation hidden impedes unit cohesion, both among homosexual service members and heterosexuals in their units who know the truth but also value that soldier’s presence in their unit and don’t want to contribute to their removal.
Next, ND30 attempts to argue that we separate the sexes as much as possible because of what ‘might’ happen. And uses this justification, again, to argue against homosexuals serving at all (or at least openly).
So here we have the threat of sexual conduct among heterosexual men and women being housed together vs. some vague threat about homosexuals being housed with heterosexual members of the same-sex. He hasn’t been clear if it’s sexual conduct that is the supposed threat or harassment by the minority of homosexuals against the majority of heterosexuals.
It’s all so nonsensical it’s difficult to get the gist of it all, and certainly too ridiculous to take seriously… That is, if DADT wasn’t so real.
Next, ND30 uses a suggestion from another blogger that segregating the sexes is to prevent harassment and sexual conduct. Again, ND30 vaguely uses this as a justification against homosexuals serving in the military (or at least openly).
It seems to me that if he were being consistent about this, that men and women serving together more often than not creates undesirable situations the military shouldn’t have to deal with and therefore the military is justified in housing them separately, then he should argue that A) women simply shouldn’t serve in the military at all, or B) men and women should be housed separately.
Then too, if he is arguing that homosexuals serving together with heterosexuals more often than not creates undesirable situations the military shouldn’t have to deal with and is therefore justified to maintain DADT, then he should argue that A) homosexuals simply shouldn’t serve in the military at all, or B) homosexuals should be housed separately from heterosexuals.
Instead, he seems to simply be arguing in favor of DADT, which effectively states that homosexuals can serve in the military as long as their orientation is not known. Of course, as Tom pointed out and common sense could confirm, those who live and work in such close quarters with a homosexual usually knows or has very strong suspicions of such, and therefore, the discomfort and/or likelihood for harassment and sexual conduct that ND30 likes to pretend is inevitable among homosexuals in the military, would invariably be a problem under DADT.
Of course, all of this should require that ND30 cite actual examples of where men and women being housed together creates unacceptable situations, and then argue accordingly, to ban women or house them separately. He should do the same in regards to homosexuals serving in the military. Instead, he offers nothing but the same old worn out assumptions, sweeping generalizations, and false comparisons between all homosexual service members and something someone supposedly said or did once somewhere…
Alas, he never offers anything legitimate or substantive to justify his mass indictments of homosexuals and rationalizations for why we should be discriminated against en masse.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Tom, yes, you have made excellent arguments relying on personal experiences, reasonable explanations, detailed assessments, and citing studies or statistics to back these up. And you have obviously made it very difficult to counter them, as the opposition clearly is found in want of legitimate arguments to counter with.
North Dallas Thirty, for instance, relies exclusively on sweeping generalities, false comparisons, baseless assumptions, and indicting the innocent along with the guilty. As you can see, he even relies on ad hominem and character assassination when someone presents views that differ from his or when they offer their personal experiences which are distinctly pertinent to the issue at hand.
To him, such a person must be a liar because it doesn’t fit his prejudicial negative assumptions about homosexuals. And this in spite of the fact that nothing that person has presented is inconsistent, outrageous, or gives reason to suspect them as being dishonest.
He produces the same old tired links, often quite dated or outside the U.S., and attempts to link these handful of obscure, isolated incidents as reflective of ALL homosexuals or to some sort of monolithic gay & lesbian cabal in the U.S.
As for Debrah, she offers nothing but her personal disgust of homosexuals and reveals a rather prurient, even scatological obsession with, mostly, homosexual men. She often fills the purpose of being a loyal cheerleader to ND30 while offering weak attempts at witty banter to those who oppose ND30’s fallacious rhetoric.
I suspect, in fact, that she is nothing more than a troll, and more specifically, a ‘sock puppet’, in Internet vernacular. This is why I stopped reading her posts entirely several weeks ago.
You, on the other hand, offer highly articulate, fair, and substantive posts. I think you serve as a fine example as to how more of us should behave online. I don’t know if you’re a veteran here at the forum or new, but you have significantly increased the quality of discussions here as of late. I hope that rubs off on some of us, myself included.
By the way, a question for you. You say you don’t trust the Congress. Understandable. I’m cynical about what they’ll get done this year on DADT or much else. But isn’t it true that Congress will have to eliminate the policy whereas the military will need to discover the logistics of how to implement this change?
You seem to be suggesting that the military will take the lead by figuring out how to eliminate it and then wait for the Congress to actually figure out if they are going to do so. It appears to me that without facing genuine pressure of this policy being removed in the foreseeable future, that the military would not be likely to work out the logistics of how.
posted by Debrah on
The “Dragon Scorpion” has a peculiar habit of spewing the same molded rhetoric like some Perez Hilton assistant.
Even when no one has addressed him.
He seems to have diarrhea of the mouth with his incessant comments.
One only has to go back and read how he has treated Lori Heine—who has tried to be nice to him—to begin to suspect that he has great difficulty in getting along with women, in general.
I do SO hope that he can come on into the 21st century with the lame insults.
“Troll” went out of date a decade ago.
It’s not only jumped the shark. It’s packed the magnet.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It seems to me that if he were being consistent about this, that men and women serving together more often than not creates undesirable situations the military shouldn’t have to deal with and therefore the military is justified in housing them separately, then he should argue that A) women simply shouldn’t serve in the military at all, or B) men and women should be housed separately.
Option B is what is already being done, which I fully support.
The issue with that is that it is impossible to house gay and lesbian people without putting them with people to whom they are sexually attracted or of the opposite gender. The only option is to house them individually, which is not practicable or sensible for the tiny, tiny percentage of gays and lesbians who would actually serve.
We have a volunteer military and can afford to be picky. I fully endorse and support that, because it’s more important to me that we have the best military in the world than it is whether or not I can serve in it under conditions most conducive to my personal convenience. Furthermore, I do not need veteran status to make me a worthwhile person, and thus lack the motivation of more desperate gays and lesbians who think that their blatant and obvious attempts to co-opt our centuries of military tradition and honor to cover up for their support of publicly-idiotic behavior in the name of their sexual orientation are not noticed.
Instead, he seems to simply be arguing in favor of DADT, which effectively states that homosexuals can serve in the military as long as their orientation is not known.
Yup.
Of course, as Tom pointed out and common sense could confirm, those who live and work in such close quarters with a homosexual usually knows or has very strong suspicions of such, and therefore, the discomfort and/or likelihood for harassment and sexual conduct that ND30 likes to pretend is inevitable among homosexuals in the military, would invariably be a problem under DADT.
Not really. DADT ensures that gays and lesbians who can’t stop sharing the details of their personal lives and who refuse to criticize or discipline other gay and lesbian individuals because it’s “homophobic” are immediately and effectively removed.
Rules against sexual harassment don’t stop sexual harassment completely, but when it is made clear that the consequences can include termination, they do a great deal for reducing its incidence. DADT works the same way. The gay and lesbian community has spent years parading its promiscuity and refusing to develop any sense of responsibility for its behavior or ability to look past its sexual orientation in decision-making; DADT makes it clear that such behavior in the military is not acceptable, and eliminates those typical gay and lesbian people who put the values of the gay and lesbian community over what is important to the military and service to one’s country.
The gay and lesbian community demands that sexual orientation trump every other concern. You yourself have stated that gays and lesbians must vote as single-issue voters and only concern themselves with gay and lesbian issues. This is fundamentally incompatible with military life and culture. DADT is a compromise that allows gays and lesbians to serve to the extent that they can do the exact opposite of what the gay and lesbian community demands they do.
posted by Tom on
DragonScorpian: “By the way, a question for you. You say you don’t trust the Congress. Understandable. I’m cynical about what they’ll get done this year on DADT or much else. But isn’t it true that Congress will have to eliminate the policy whereas the military will need to discover the logistics of how to implement this change?”
Congress created DADT and Congress will have to repeal DADT. That’s a given. The military cannot repeal DADT on its own.
When I say that “I don’t trust the Congress”, what I mean is that I don’t trust the Congress to think through a clear-headed path to implementation. I expect, instead, the usual food fight, driven by social conservatives, if Congress doesn’t get adult supervision from the military.
DragonScorpian: “You seem to be suggesting that the military will take the lead by figuring out how to eliminate it and then wait for the Congress to actually figure out if they are going to do so.”
Yes, I think that is how it is going to come down. I don’t think that Congress will repeal the law before the November elections, simply because of the food fight. What I think will happen is that DOD will go ahead with the study and recommendations, and prepare a plan for implementing DADT repeal during 2010, and Congress will pass the repeal in late 2010 or early 2011.
DragonScorpian: “It appears to me that without facing genuine pressure of this policy being removed in the foreseeable future, that the military would not be likely to work out the logistics of how.”
I don’t agree. I think that the military increasingly views DADT as an albatross. If the signals from Admiral Mullen and the military during the last 18 months mean anything, it looks like the military has been preparing for DADT repeal for some time, building support for repeal internally and beginning to think about effectuating repeal in an orderly and sensible way.
We’ll know more tomorrow after Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The session will be closed, but I think we can expect announcements from DOD after the session.
If news reports are accurate, here is what I expect:
(1) DOD will announce three adjustments to DADT policy, effective within a short period of time: The first is a change in DADT investigation procedure that will set a higher standard for what constitutes reliable sources and credible information, currently triggers to an investigation, setting a higher bar to initiate investigations. The second is a change in policy to limit discharges in cases based on third-party allegations. The third is a change in adjudication procedures for discharge, requiring a flag-level officer to sign off on a discharge before it can move forward. If this is what happens, the number of discharges under DADT should drop dramatically pending congressional action to repeal DADT.
(2) DOD will announce formation of a panel of military and civilian advisers to study DADT repeal and recommend changes that the military should take to implement DADT repeal. This, it seems to me, is a critical step in light of the complexity of policies and procedures that will need to be addressed to implement a repeal of DADT.
It is going to be almost impossible, I suspect, for Congress, politically, to avoid repealing DADT after the military has a plan in place. I think this because the American people are so overwhelmingly in favor of DADT repeal, and when the military reports “We can do this …” to Congress, what’s left to argue about?
I suppose that a number of Republicans will continue to hang on to DADT like a life raft rather than alienate “the base”, as John McCain seems to be doing this year so he can hang on in his upcoming primary, but once the military says “We are ready to go …” the steam will be out of the engine.
At that point, DADT is a dead duck.
posted by Bobby on
“The issue with that is that it is impossible to house gay and lesbian people without putting them with people to whom they are sexually attracted or of the opposite gender. The only option is to house them individually, which is not practicable or sensible for the tiny, tiny percentage of gays and lesbians who would actually serve.”
—It’s not impossible for gay men, I live in a world filled with straight men, some of them I’d really like to sleep with, yet I won’t hit on a man unless I already know he’s gay. As for housing men and women, the french don’t go crazy everytime they see a naked woman on the beach, perhaps in the future the sexes will be able to share barracks in the military without sexual tension. But that’s irrelevant, what is relevant is that gays should not have to stay in the closet just like Jews and Pagans don’t have to stay in the closet. Why do you excuse homophobic prejudice from straight soldiers when you don’t excuse racist prejudice or other prejudices?
“We have a volunteer military and can afford to be picky. I fully endorse and support that, because it’s more important to me that we have the best military in the world than it is whether or not I can serve in it under conditions most conducive to my personal convenience.”
—No offense to the US military, but I think Israel has one of the best armies in the world, how else could they survive the wars of ’48, ’67, and ’73? You try being attacked by four countries at the same time and survive that. Secondly, if we have the best military in the world it isn’t because we keep gays in the closet or because Woodrow Wilson resegregated the military, it is INSPITE of our flaws that we do great, not because of them. Thirdly, if we wanted to be picky we would not be recruiting former criminals, people without high school diplomas and others that were previously rejected. The reason those people are recruited is because the military knows they can be molded into perfect soldiers by the time they’re done with basic training.
Besides, you still haven’t said why is it ok for a black from the ghetto and a redneck of the south to serve together but not for gays and straight to serve together? Those two are polar opposites yet we don’t let racism dictate military policy, so why should heterosexism prevail?
Furthermore, I do not need veteran status to make me a worthwhile person, and thus lack the motivation of more desperate gays and lesbians who think that their blatant and obvious attempts to co-opt our centuries of military tradition and honor to cover up for their support of publicly-idiotic behavior in the name of their sexual orientation are not noticed.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why do you excuse homophobic prejudice from straight soldiers when you don’t excuse racist prejudice or other prejudices?
Question, Bobby; do you consider women being uncomfortable about men seeing them naked to be “male-phobic” and worthy of derision?
There is a significant amount of law and jurisprudence out there that states men do not have any less protection against sexual harassment or being put into uncomfortable situations than do women.
No offense to the US military, but I think Israel has one of the best armies in the world, how else could they survive the wars of ’48, ’67, and ’73?
I would agree. But Israel has two things the US does not in this case; one, since they are an extremely-small country by comparison, they practice conscription. Two, they have a far more ironclad system of discipline than does the US military, mainly because they essentially operate at all times on an at-war footing.
Thirdly, if we wanted to be picky we would not be recruiting former criminals, people without high school diplomas and others that were previously rejected.
That is a fair point, and we should be far more picky in this regard. But that involves putting in place a higher degree of screening to determine their level of commitment, not an outright ban.
Besides, you still haven’t said why is it ok for a black from the ghetto and a redneck of the south to serve together but not for gays and straight to serve together?
The question is not whether or not gays and straights can serve together, Bobby; under DADT, they can. As long as gays and lesbians are willing to put their commitment to the military and their country ahead of their sexual orientation and the normal values and behavior of the gay and lesbian community, they can serve. DADT ensures that gays and lesbians who act in a biased fashion and state that any criticism of the behavior of a gay or lesbian person is “homophobia” are removed.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
DOD will announce three adjustments to DADT policy, effective within a short period of time: The first is a change in DADT investigation procedure that will set a higher standard for what constitutes reliable sources and credible information, currently triggers to an investigation, setting a higher bar to initiate investigations. The second is a change in policy to limit discharges in cases based on third-party allegations. The third is a change in adjudication procedures for discharge, requiring a flag-level officer to sign off on a discharge before it can move forward.
This I FULLY support and endorse.
DADT is a policy of necessity. That being said, it has a rather poor track record of being applied in the way it should be, which is an equal emphasis on the “Don’t Ask” and “Don’t Pursue” portion.
The policy is there to ensure and enforce that gay and lesbian people act in accordance with the values of the military and the needs of the country. It is not to facilitate witch hunts or make it easy for disgruntled people to negatively affect another person’s career, and I would add that it be a dischargeable offense for anyone who makes or facilitates that sort of behavior.
posted by Debrah on
“…..they [Israel] have a far more ironclad system of discipline than does the US military, mainly because they essentially operate at all times on an at-war footing.”
*********************************
Most accurate….and the game-changer.
When you’re likely to be met with a brainwashed Islamo-fascist wearing an ignited cummerbund every time you walk outside your door, there’s not much time left for discord between the sexes—gay or straight.
“As long as gays and lesbians are willing to put their commitment to the military and their country ahead of their sexual orientation and the normal values and behavior of the gay and lesbian community, they can serve.”
**********************************
It cannot be emphasized enough that some gays enter into any given environment for the expressed purpose of creating discord and pushing their agenda.
Bobby, let me to give you a scenario outside the military, but one that has potential issues along these lines.
A few months ago I went for a physical—the usual annual thing that most of us do.
While there, it was decided between my internist—a black female—and I that we’d go ahead with the annual pap as well.
For this, every doctor must have an assistant in the room for obvious reasons having to do with professionalism.
My doctor’s assistant is a lesbian with all the overt mannerisms and characteristics…..down to a few tattoos on her arm.
This woman was the person who prepped me, took my height, weight, and general info before the exam. She was the utmost professional with a great sense of humor when I asked her the time of day (one of her tattoos is that of a watch on her wrist).
This woman was also the person who would be observing alongside the doctor while I was splayed on the stirrups for the exam.
A lot of women find the exam an horrendous one; however, I’ve always kept my body fit and have never been uncomfortable being undressed. LOL!
In addition, if the assistant had behaved unprofessionally, the fact that she happened to be a lesbian might have added to the discomfort for some hetero women.
I may not agree with some aspects of the gay agenda; however, in my daily life I don’t suffer these kinds of situations simply because I always treat everyone the same and am always able to go with the flow.
It does, however, bring up a larger point that if the idea of having an assistant alongside the doctor while doing a pap on a hetero female is supposed to ensure professionalism, the fact that an assistant is overtly lesbian might be a potential issue for some women.
Similarly to the military issue, as long as everyone conducts themselves in a highly professional manner—in word and deed—no problems arise.
However, when professionalism and devotion to task do not rule, there’s potential for all kinds of havoc.
In my case, I don’t really care who the people are and what they do in their private lives as long as they conduct themselves professionally.
And that woman certainly did.
posted by Bobby on
“Question, Bobby; do you consider women being uncomfortable about men seeing them naked to be “male-phobic” and worthy of derision?”
—Well, some women have no problems seeing a male gynecologist that will stick his fingers inside her, while others prefer a female gynecologist. My point is that the medical community doesn’t discriminate between gay or straight, male or female doctors. As for women being “male-phobic,” that prejudice deserves no special accommodation whatsoever. IF the military decided to integrate the barracks women are just gonna have to comply or quit the military.
“There is a significant amount of law and jurisprudence out there that states men do not have any less protection against sexual harassment or being put into uncomfortable situations than do women.”
—Yet straight men often make fun of other straight men if they have a small penis or a huge penis. I’ve read stories, as a 13 year old the locker room traumas I experienced had to do with the size of my penis and being fat. The same crap happens in the military, and if a soldier feels harassed, he can complaint unless he wishes to avoid the ridicule that comes from making such a complaint.
“I would agree. But Israel has two things the US does not in this case; one, since they are an extremely-small country by comparison, they practice conscription. Two, they have a far more ironclad system of discipline than does the US military, mainly because they essentially operate at all times on an at-war footing.”
—I don’t know about discipline, conscription certainly doesn’t attract people who want to serve, some Israelis are peaceniks who would rather not serve yet the military service integrate them all. Also, there is homophobia in the Israeli military and many gays there do not choose to come out. However, the ones that do come out and gain the respect from their peers are not going to be discharged. The worst that can happen is you might have a hard time earning a promotion, I’ve seen lawsuits about that.
“That is a fair point, and we should be far more picky in this regard. But that involves putting in place a higher degree of screening to determine their level of commitment, not an outright ban.”
—Thanks. My point is that the military isn’t about being comfortable and serving with people you like. The military is a multicultural mess and people have no choice but to adapt.
“The question is not whether or not gays and straights can serve together, Bobby; under DADT, they can. As long as gays and lesbians are willing to put their commitment to the military and their country ahead of their sexual orientation and the normal values and behavior of the gay and lesbian community, they can serve. DADT ensures that gays and lesbians who act in a biased fashion and state that any criticism of the behavior of a gay or lesbian person is “homophobia” are removed.”
—But they’re not really serving together if the straight soldiers can speak their minds while the gay soldiers can. I was listening to a conservative radio show and I laugh out loud when the host said he does not tolerate flagrant heterosexuality. Really? Are we gonna tell the straight boys not to talk about their girlfriends and wives?
DADT exist because a segment of society sees us as inferior, it is an unfair policy that creates a rule for one group of people while ignoring the other group. If straight people had to live in the Castro District of San Francisco, work at a mostly gay job, and keep their sexual orientations in the closet, then they would understand what is like to live in fear of being discovered.
And Debrah, I understand your point about conducting yourself professionally, but in the military you’re not just doing your job, you’re also sharing barracks, sharing meals, playing ping pong, and doing plenty of things on base or on the ship that have nothing to do with being professional. Nobody can be professional 24/7, people eventually relax, tell off-color jokes, talk about personal stuff.
Can you imagine the stress of people asking you all the time why you don’t have a girlfriend? Some gays in the military end up getting lesbian girlfriends or even marry lesbians to stop the questioning and secure career advancements.
Either way, this is a ridiculous policy. Making rules based on homophobic fears is just as silly as catering to racist or religious prejudices when it comes to military policy.
Supporters of DADT say “you can’t help being born black,” well, that excuse does not matter to a racist. A racist who doesn’t like blacks is not going to listen to logic, his views might only change after he is exposed to blacks and realizes they aren’t that different from him. And even if his views doesn’t change, tough, in the real world you often have to work with people you don’t like or particularly care for. I had an Indian art director, I hated his accent, hated his traditional attire, hated his personality, hated everything about him but I never told him “leave me alone, you goddamm ugly Indian.”
When gays in the military are allowed to be out, a lot of straight soldiers are going to realize that we have better things to do than leer at them all day long.
As long as DADT remains in place we’re simply going to be catering to homophobic prejudices.
posted by Tom on
The military is moving forward on DADT independent of Congress, and we can see down the road to come, I think:
(1) Secretary Gates announced that the changes in DADT enforcement that were signaled to the press yesterday are, in fact, going down. The number of DADT discharges are likely to go down as a result.
(2) Admiral Mullen announced that the military will (a) commission RAND to update its 1993 study to reflect relevant changes in the last 15-odd years, and (b) develop a plan to implement DADT repeal if and when Congress repeals the law.
The updated RAND study will almost certainly re-enforce the findings of the 1993 RAND study, which concluded that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would not have negative effect on military morale, combat effectiveness, recruiting or retention.
The implementation plan will almost certainly be solid and professional, as military planning at that level typically is, and leave little or no room for doubt that the military can implement DADT repeal without a negative effect on military morale, combat effectiveness, recruiting or retention.
At that point — late 2010 or early 2011 — the question will land in the lap of Congress, and we will have a food fight, pitting the military against hard-right social conservatives.
If initial reaction to today’s testimony is any indication of things to come, hard-right social conservatives will try to force a return to a total ban on service by gays and lesbians, and Admiral Mullen and other military leaders will be demeaned as incompetent dupes of the “homosexual lobby” seeking to “impose upon the young men and women who serve this country is the antithesis of the successful war-fighting culture.”
I do not know which side will prevail — the military or the hard-right social conservatives.
But I note, not entirely in passing, that Joe McCarthy’s anti-communist, anti-homosexual witch hunts moved forward unabated until McCarthy went after the military in the Army-McCarthy hearings. At that point, the American people finally had enough.
posted by Tom on
This is the text of Admiral Mullen’s statement today:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Sen. McCain. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss with you this very important matter.
The chiefs and I are in complete support of the approach that Secretary Gates has outlined. We believe that any implementation plan for a policy permitting gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces must be carefully derived, sufficiently through â sufficiently thorough, and thoughtfully executed.
Over these last few months, we have reviewed the fundamental premises behind donât ask, donât tell, as well as its application in practice over the last 16 years. We understand perfectly the presidentâs desire to see the law repealed, and we owe him our best military advice about the impact of such a repeal and the manner in which we would implement a change in policy.
The chiefs and I have not yet developed that advice, and would like to have the time to do so in the same thoughtful, deliberate fashion with which the president has made it clear he wants to proceed. The review â the review group Secretary Gates has ordered will no doubt give us that time and an even deeper level of understanding. We look forward to cooperating with and participating in this review to the maximum extent possible, and we applaud the selection of Mr. Johnson and Gen. Ham to lead it. Both are men of great integrity, great experience, and have our complete trust and confidence.
Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity â theirs as individuals and ours as an institution. I also believe that the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change. I never underestimate their ability to adapt.
But I do not know this for a fact, nor do I know for a fact how we would best make such a major policy change in a time of two wars. That there will be some disruption in the force I cannot deny. That there will be legal, social, and perhaps even infrastructure changes to be made certainly seem plausible. We would all like to have a better handle on these types of concerns, and this is what our review will offer.
We would also do well to remember that this is not an issue for the military leadership to decide. The American people have spoken on this subject through you, their elected officials, and the result is the law and the policy that we currently have.
We will continue to obey that law, and we will obey whatever legislative and executive decisions come out of this debate. The American people may yet have a different view. You may have a different view. I think thatâs important, and itâs important to have that discussion.
Frankly, there are those on both sides of this debate who speak as if there is no debate; as if thereâs nothing to be learned or reflected upon. I hope we can be more thoughtful than that. I expect that we will be more thoughtful than that.
The chiefs and I also recognize the stress our troops and families are under, and I have said many times before, should the law change, we need to move forward in a manner that does not add to that stress. Weâve got two wars going on, a new strategy in Afghanistan, and remaining security challenges in Iraq. Weâre about to move forward under a new Quadrennial Defense Review. We still have budget concerns in a struggling economy. And we have a host of other significant security commitments around the globe. Our plate is very full. And while I believe this is an important issue, I also believe we need to be mindful as we move forward of other pressing needs in our military.
What our young men and women and their families want â what they deserve â is that we listen to them and act in their best interests. What the citizens we defend want to know â what they deserve to know â is that their uniformed leadership will act in a way that absolutely does not place in peril the readiness and effectiveness of their military.
I can tell you that I am 100 percent committed to that. Balance, Mr. Chairman â balance and thoughtfulness is what we need most right now. Itâs what the president has promised us, and itâs what we ask of you in this body.
Thank you.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Not at all. Women already serve alongside men, and that’s already been a problem for some but the policies stand, women are allowed to serve, attempts are made to keep them from being harassed and there are rules against sexual conduct between soldiers no matter how close-quartered they are at times. The same should and would apply here with homosexuals.
I do find it quite revealing that for all the issues of women serving alongside men that come up, ND30 doesn’t seem bothered by this at all. In fact, while he claims that there would be all sorts of terrible trouble from homosexuals serving openly, in spite of their being no evidence of this, he isn’t so outspoken in favor of a blanket ban on women in the military. With women, apparently the military is supposed to deal with this on a case by case basis as problems come along, yet he conveniently manages to formulate a rationale as to why there should be a blanket ban on the presence of homosexuals {and it is a ban: when the policy is enforced, any outed homosexual is discharged}.
Though he feigns inconvenience at these policies, the reality is ND30 is not inconvenienced at all. Whether one chooses to actually believe the presumption that ND30 is a homosexual or not, his comments at the forum have not indicated any intentions of wanting to join the military nor get married nor adopt children and so, even if he were homosexual, he isn’t the least bit inconvenienced by homosexuals being denied adoption, marriage, nor service in the military.
This is why he finds it is so easy to dismiss any and all attempts to end discrimination against and the segregation of homosexuals.
And here, ND30 impugns the character of not just every homosexual who has ever voluntarily served or attempted to serve in the military. He also impugns the character of every person who has ever voluntarily served or attempted to serve in our military. According to ND30, they all did it merely for âveteran statusâ.
DADT also ensures that homosexuals cannot in any way shape or form acknowledge either their sexual orientation nor whether or not they have ever had a romantic or physical relationship with a member of the same sex. Meanwhile, there is no policy ensuring that heterosexuals are also forbidden from sharing these same sort of details about their personal lives. And, naturally, as human beings do, these details are often shared.
As usual, ND30 places special demands on homosexuals. In this case, that homosexual soldiers must keep their personal lives top secret. Yep, even when asked innocent enough questions like: ‘do you have a boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife back home’. We’re expected to either lie about the gender of our significant other or pretend we don’t have one at all or else risk discharge for being “disruptive”.
Wrong. DADT forces homosexuals to hide almost every aspect of their personal lives, to lie, and live under a constant fear of being discharged due solely to having a same-sex partner at home. It also creates tension and impedes unit cohesion among those heterosexuals who serve alongside those who they know or suspect are homosexuals.
While ND30 considers the mere acknowledgment of having a same-sex spouse as âharassmentâ which is too âdisruptiveâ for heterosexuals to possibly be able to function around and therefore any such âdisruptionâ must be punished by discharge, in actuality, there are policies in place (and could be added to for greater effectiveness), which are designed to prevent sexual harassment and sexual conduct among soldiers.
posted by DragonScorpion on
This is a lie. In reality, over the past few years I personally have began to base my voting decisions first upon the interests of protecting the civil rights of homosexuals because we’ve been under such assault from social conservatives including many Republicans.
Also, while I do advocate that homosexuals should support candidates who are the most supportive of us, even if they have some other ideological disagreements with the candidate, but I certainly do not demand this as any âmustâ do of homosexuals.
And while ND30 will attempt to twist this into some selfish obsession with sexual orientation, the reality is, historically minorities under assault and discrimination tend to vote for those who are supportive of ending such assaults against them or at the very least are not contributing to them.
Now, as ND30 has shown himself to oppose ALL efforts to ensure that government respects the civil rights of homosexuals, there is no principle or inconvenience in him voting right-wing, quite the contrary it actually furthers his anti-homosexual agenda.
Incorrect description. Rather, homosexuals can serve alongside heterosexuals under DADT as long as homosexuals are willing to keep almost every aspect of their personal lives, including their sexual orientation and their relationship/marriage status, a total secret. Or else lie about it and pretend to be heterosexual.
To any fair-minded person, the solution here would be to discharge those homosexuals who create a situation of harassment or sexually inappropriate conduct. And the military more than has adequate policies and certainly the wherewithal to accomplish this.
The suggestion here is that since Israel is a small nation and relies on forced conscription, they can therefore justify homosexuals serving openly. I would suggest they do so out of a sense of fairness. They obviously don’t see any practical reason to discharge based on sexual orientation and the supposed “disruption” it causes…
Afterall, one would think even Israel isn’t desperate enough to allow homosexuals to be âdisruptiveâ to their unit cohesion. Surely those who are disruptive are removed. Those who are not, are permitted to serve with dignity and honor. Of course, ND30 believes our military isn’t professional enough to handle this.
In the end, as ND30 argues that homosexuals are âincompatible with military cultureâ, the reality is the effectiveness of various militaries around the world, including 20 NATO nations which allow homosexuals to serve openly, is not impeded.
There is no legitimate argument against allowing homosexuals to serve openly, only unreasonable prejudice.
Basically, DADT treats homosexuals the way ND30 does: as if we’re all one deviant, hedonistic monolith that is completely incapable of behaving in a civilized manner or possessing the ability to perform most of the tasks that heterosexuals can and do. It also, like ND30, is reflective of a rationale that our mere existence is too much an inconvenience for good heterosexual folk to have to be subjected to.
Of course, it’s also a very expensive policy. Clearly many homosexuals can’t operate under such secrecy at all times and one way or another are discovered and all the training they’ve undergone is a financial loss for the military.
It would be far more reasonable, fair, and cheaper to only discharge those who truly created a problem.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Tom:
Judging by the testimony yesterday, it looks like you pretty well summed up how this is going to go down. At least as it appears now. Of course, it still remains to be seen how it will all play out in the end but what you’ve suggested seems quite likely.
Incidentally, I know some are still hoping that President Obama will declare a stop-loss order to prevent homosexuals from being discharged solely because of having been outed, but I think this would be a mistake.
I think the more President Obama attempts to intervene in this matter, the more it will give fodder for social conservatives and opportunistic Republicans to create a narrative that the push for repealing DADT policy isn’t a genuine effort among military officials at all, and not necessary, but rather just some ‘leftist radical homosexual agenda’ being foisted on the military by President Obama and the Democrats…
posted by Tom on
DragonScorpian: “I think the more President Obama attempts to intervene in this matter, the more it will give fodder for social conservatives and opportunistic Republicans to create a narrative that the push for repealing DADT policy isn’t a genuine effort among military officials at all, and not necessary, but rather just some ‘leftist radical homosexual agenda’ being foisted on the military by President Obama and the Democrats …”
I agree.
It is time to let the military update the 1993 RAND study and develop a workable, rational plan to implement repeal, meanwhile adopting policies and practices that remove the worst of the abuses.
Congress created DADT, and ultimately Congress will have to make a decision about repealing DADT. Political preemption at this point is counterproductive.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Not at all. Women already serve alongside men, and that’s already been a problem for some but the policies stand, women are allowed to serve, attempts are made to keep them from being harassed and there are rules against sexual conduct between soldiers no matter how close-quartered they are at times.
Unfortunately for that attempt at propaganda, “serving with” is not equivalent to “being housed with”.
Please state, DragonScorpion, that you oppose separate housing for men and women, that you think women who would balk at being housed with men and vice versa are “male-phobic” or “female-phobic” and bigots, and that separate housing for the sexes is somehow insulting to our troops.
Next:
DADT also ensures that homosexuals cannot in any way shape or form acknowledge either their sexual orientation nor whether or not they have ever had a romantic or physical relationship with a member of the same sex.
Which directly contradicts the attempt at spin by gay activist Tom.
Few, if any, gays and lesbians, in currently serving or veterans, are on an “incessant mission to put personal information into an arena such as the military”, and few gays and lesbians, currently in service or veterans, think that the military is a forum in which to discuss “the subject of sexual orientation”. Although everyone has one, I guess, sexual orientation is not relevant to military service.
So here we have Tom trying to claim that gays and lesbians would never discuss their sexual orientation and personal lives in the military because it is irrelevant — and DragonScorpion whining that DADT is a bad policy because it directly discourages discussing these irrelevant topics.
And finally, this last piece of attempted smokescreen.
It would be far more reasonable, fair, and cheaper to only discharge those who truly created a problem.
Unfortunately, as gay activist Tom makes clear above, gay and lesbian people never create problems, and any attempt to say that someone has is just homophobia from straight people.
As far as I’m concerned, straights put down folks like Elton John and Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert to put us down. I think that most gay men know it and won’t buy into it. So while many of us may think that Perez and Adam and Elton look ridiculous, and would only dress like that on Halloween, if then, we’ll be damned we are going to help the straights put us down by joining the chorus.
So you’ve already made it clear that you will not discipline or criticize other gay and lesbian people, DragonScorpion. You and Tom have stated that any criticism of gay and lesbian people is wrong and just a matter of straight people trying to put all gays down.
In short, you won’t recognize a problem. You’ve already demonstrated that you’ll just scream “homophobe” and protect the gay or lesbian person, regardless of what they do.
posted by DragonScorpion on
As usual, North Dallas Thirty is defending the oh-so-inconvenienced heterosexuals for having to be exposed to our existence, whilst he demonizes homosexuals for ‘selfishly’ wanting to be treated fairly, judged by their merit, and serve their country…
I notice he’s having a difficult time formulating a rational argument against allowing homosexuals to serve and countering the fine case that Tom has made here against DADT, so instead he’s just focusing on minutia meant to distract. Smoke and mirrors, as he calls it.
Keeping women out of the military because presumably men and women soldiers wouldn’t be able to keep their hands off each other or it would be too disruptive or there would be harassment, would be insulting to our troops.
Keeping homosexuals out of the military because presumably in the presence of a homosexual male soldiers wouldn’t be able to keep their hands off each other or it would be too disruptive or there would be harassment, would be {is} insulting to our troops.
Again, the militaries of 20 other NATO nations don’t seem to have problems with unit cohesion by allowing homosexuals to serve openly. But ND30 has it worked out in his convoluted mind that our soldiers just couldn’t handle it… Like I said, insulting.
First I’d like to point out, that while ND30 implies here that he was responding to MY comment, in fact, he was not. The quote he provided was from Tom as I recall, not me.
Second, I’d also like to point out that ND30, is a liar. I have not in any way stated or suggested that any criticism of homosexuals is wrong. Not at all. As ND30 has seen by links I’ve provided, my comments, my blog, and has even quoted me on them, this liar knows full well that I have criticized homosexuals. This includes Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert. And I’ll do so again.
What I don’t do, unlike North Dallas Thirty, is portray homosexuals as a hedonistic, diseased, sex-crazed, child-molesting, morally depraved monolith which is some sort of danger to society and deserving of derision and discrimination.
Unfortunately for that attempt at propaganda, “sexual orientation” is not equivalent to “personal lives”.
The reality, of course, is that Tom mentioned “sexual orientation” not “personal lives” as being a topic homosexual soldiers don’t use the military as a forum for discussion of. And he stated that few homosexual soldiers, if any, are on an “incessant mission to put personal information into an arena such as the military”.
Of course, soldiers aren’t robots. Odd though it may be to some, like most human beings who work and live around each other 24/7, personal issues and information tends to come up at least once in a great while. Or, you know, daily.
Which is fine, of course, for the heterosexuals. They can talk all they want about their heterosexual spouses, lovers, exploits. The homosexuals, however, are expected to be robots, or perhaps asexual. Which, I suspect, as Tom has suggested above, is how many soldiers in a unit eventually figure out who the homosexuals are… And probably most of them don’t really care.
Now I haven’t been in the military, so I wouldn’t know. But it stands to reason, and it generally works that way in the non-military workplace, so…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The funny part here is watching DragonScorpion spin to avoid the obvious.
Keeping women out of the military because presumably men and women soldiers wouldn’t be able to keep their hands off each other or it would be too disruptive or there would be harassment, would be insulting to our troops.
Again, DragonScorpion, that is not relevant to what you were asked to do.
Please state, DragonScorpion, that you oppose separate housing for men and women, that you think women who would balk at being housed with men and vice versa are “male-phobic” or “female-phobic” and bigots, and that separate housing for the sexes is somehow insulting to our troops
The problem here is that you simply do not want to admit the double standard that you and your fellow “activists” are creating. You would never force a woman to undress, shower with, and sleep with a man, nor namecall her as “male-phobic” for being uncomfortable or refusing to do it, but you WILL namecall her if she does not wish to do so with a lesbian.
Again, the militaries of 20 other NATO nations don’t seem to have problems with unit cohesion by allowing homosexuals to serve openly.
Of course not. If you have lower standards, you don’t have as many problems. Or you do as Israel does and impose an iron discipline out of necessity and the need for people.
But ND30 has it worked out in his convoluted mind that our soldiers just couldn’t handle it… Like I said, insulting.
Oh, our soldiers can handle quite a lot of things. I have no doubt, for example, that they would be able to handle starvation and sleeping outside far better than your run-of-the-mill civilian. It’s simply a matter of removing as many barriers as possible so that they can perform their jobs most effectively.
You simply have the attitude that inconveniencing and hindering our soldiers’ ability to do their jobs is less important than your pushing the gay and lesbian community agenda, while I think that our soldiers should have inconveniences and hindrances removed so that they can do their job better. You put your sexual orientation first; I put our military’s readiness and capability first.
As usual, North Dallas Thirty is defending the oh-so-inconvenienced heterosexuals for having to be exposed to our existence, whilst he demonizes homosexuals for ‘selfishly’ wanting to be treated fairly, judged by their merit, and serve their country…
And again, DragonScorpion, you don’t believe in fair treatment and judgment by merit. You and your fellow gay activists like Tom have stated that any criticism of gay and lesbian people is wrong and just a matter of straight people trying to put all gays down.
As far as I’m concerned, straights put down folks like Elton John and Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert to put us down. I think that most gay men know it and won’t buy into it. So while many of us may think that Perez and Adam and Elton look ridiculous, and would only dress like that on Halloween, if then, we’ll be damned we are going to help the straights put us down by joining the chorus.
And Tom is supposedly a veteran. He is actually saying that, if he were in command, he would treat any and all complaints against the behavior of a gay or lesbian person as having no merit and being solely motivated by “homophobia”.
Again, it’s nothing we haven’t heard before. But why should our soldiers be forced to put up with that?
posted by Bobby on
“You simply have the attitude that inconveniencing and hindering our soldiers’ ability to do their jobs is less important than your pushing the gay and lesbian community agenda, while I think that our soldiers should have inconveniences and hindrances removed so that they can do their job better. You put your sexual orientation first; I put our military’s readiness and capability first.”
—Our military is more than ready, I don’t think most soldiers oppose lifting DADT. Sure, the homophobes make a lot of noise and other guys are simply afraid of being branded gay-sympathizers or whatever you call a straight man that supports gay rights, but military policy can’t be based on fear. Same-sex harassment is rare and its occurrence will continue with or without DADT.
“And again, DragonScorpion, you don’t believe in fair treatment and judgment by merit. You and your fellow gay activists like Tom have stated that any criticism of gay and lesbian people is wrong and just a matter of straight people trying to put all gays down.”
—Service in the military is never wrong, and neither is being honest about who you are. If you want to criticize gays for barebacking, drug use, Folsom Street Fair excesses, promiscuity, I can accept that. But service in the military? This is so different than same-sex marriage, in fact, this isn’t even a liberal issue since plenty of liberals hate the military, military recruiters, war, guns, and the last thing they want is to serve and die for their country.
posted by DragonScorpion on
As I stated before, keeping women out of the military because presumably men and women soldiers wouldn’t be able to keep their hands off each other or it would be too disruptive or there would be harassment, would be insulting to our troops.
Keeping homosexuals out of the military because presumably in the presence of a homosexual male soldiers wouldn’t be able to keep their hands off each other or it would be too disruptive or there would be harassment, would be {is} insulting to our troops.
And that’s what this is about. Not what the housing accommodations are, it’s about whether or not to maintain the status quo in which the existence of homosexuals in the military is not permitted. Upon official discovery, they’re discharged. Which is how ND30 wants it because he finds homosexual people to be incapable of serving in a military environment (just as he thinks we can’t function in any other).
All this is made especially clear as, while ND30 makes excuses for other countries who allow homosexuals to serve openly, he insists that our military is too unprofessional to deal with homosexuals serving openly.
To the contrary, it’s the military. If accommodations can’t be made, they won’t be made. The military is not a democracy, it’s not summer camp, modesty is not a priority or a practical consideration in many instances because some things, security and warfare, are priorities.
I suspect that the military isn’t nearly so concerned about the sensitivity of women being exposed to naked men and vice versa. Their concern is harassment, sexual conduct, and pregnancy. And all of these have been significant problems, but manageable ones.
Now while ND30 assumes that one homosexual is going to harass an entire unit, or suddenly the heterosexuals of the unit are going to become bi-curious which will lead to sexual conduct, the reality is these are not legitimate concerns at all.
There is really only one reason offered to house homosexuals separately from heterosexuals â heterosexuals might feel uncomfortable at being in close quarters with homosexuals.
Yet here is another reality that bigots like ND30 can ignore but can’t refute, heterosexual soldiers are sharing intimate spaces with homosexuals NOW, always have been, what’s more, many or most of them already know this… And it isn’t, so far as we can tell, having a detrimental effect on the military’s readiness and capability. ND30, and others who find it so easy to marginalize homosexuals as second-class, simply want to believe it will and stubbornly operate under the premise.
In summation, DADT doesn’t protect the comfort zones of heterosexual soldiers from being exposed to ‘the gay’. Even with DADT in place, their comfort levels are already being ‘violated’. There is really nothing that can be done to spare them their ‘modesty’, outside of every soldier getting their own separate housing…
posted by DragonScorpion on
As is all too typical, ND30 is forced to haul out the smoke and mirrors to distract from reality. He assumes that these other militaries have âlower standardsâ (conveniently, except for Israel, of course) and therefore homosexuals serving openly doesn’t affect their unit cohesion, preparedness, etc. but it inexplicably would ours, of course.
If ND30 didn’t have such an overpowering desire to marginalize homosexuals and treat us as the scum of society that should be kept as far apart as possible from (presumably) decent, upstanding hetero folk, he’d be advocating solutions for homosexuals in general to be treated fairly and with basic respect, whilst those who actually do create problems would be dealt with accordingly and consistently.
But ND30 doesn’t value merit. He doesn’t support holding people accountable for their actions. Instead, this supposed âhomosexualâ advocates denying us employment, adoption, marriage, and service in the military not on a case-by-case basis, but rather en masse… He refers to this as “equality”.
Yes, they can endure incredibly difficult situations, but according to ND30, they just can’t handle being around ‘the gay’… I’ve heard stories of course, but I really don’t think our military personnel, overall, are nearly as homophobic as ND30 is.
For now I’ll set aside the assumption that ND30 perpetually clings to in which heterosexuals exposed to homosexuals somehow interferes with their ability to complete their duties & meet their responsibilities.
What I find more revealing here is that according to ND30’s stance on this, women should never have been allowed to serve in the military and racial integration of the military should not have been instituted because of the tensions and disruptions these changes would have and in fact did lead to.
Of course, ND30, with his incessant prejudice against homosexuals will erroneously claim that allowing us to serve openly will cause massive problems, far worse than allowing women to serve or implementing integration did. He’ll provide no evidence of this, of course. Maybe a link to that lesbian fire chief again…
Ever the broken record, ND30 repeats the same lie as his last post… I’ll set the record straight, again:
I have not in any way stated or suggested that any criticism of homosexuals is wrong. Not at all. As ND30 has seen by links I’ve provided, my comments, my blog, and has even quoted me on them, this liar knows full well that I have criticized homosexuals. This includes Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert. And I’ll do so again.
What I don’t do, unlike North Dallas Thirty, is portray homosexuals as a hedonistic, diseased, sex-crazed, child-molesting, morally depraved monolith which is some sort of danger to society and deserving of derision and discrimination.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yet here is another reality that bigots like ND30 can ignore but can’t refute, heterosexual soldiers are sharing intimate spaces with homosexuals NOW, always have been, what’s more, many or most of them already know this
Oh, I’m aware of that fact. And I’m also aware of the fact that DADT puts an ironclad restraint on their behavior. If they act in a fashion that is typical for and endorsed and supported by the gay and lesbian community, i.e. public promiscuity, pushing their sexual agendas, harassing and demanding sex from their coworkers, they’re gone.
The basic problem here and the reason for DADT is that the gay and lesbian community sees nothing wrong with that behavior, adamantly refuses to correct or criticize it, and insists that any criticism of it is nothing but “homophobia”, as we see from gay veteran Tom:
As far as I’m concerned, straights put down folks like Elton John and Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert to put us down. I think that most gay men know it and won’t buy into it. So while many of us may think that Perez and Adam and Elton look ridiculous, and would only dress like that on Halloween, if then, we’ll be damned we are going to help the straights put us down by joining the chorus.
We should also note that DragonScorpion praised and supported this viewpoint.
Thank you for your service, Tom. Sincerely. This doesn’t get said enough from those of us who haven’t laid our lives on the line, to those who have.
And excellent comments, by the way.
Now, if a black officer were to say that the only reason behavior of black people was criticized was to “put blacks down” and that he “would be damned if he would help whitey put us down by joining the chorus”, I doubt anyone would try to argue that his attitude was acceptable, and he would likely be summarily discharged.
But gay and lesbian military persons? Gushing praise about their service and how “excellent” their statement was.
posted by Bobby on
“The basic problem here and the reason for DADT is that the gay and lesbian community sees nothing wrong with that behavior, adamantly refuses to correct or criticize it, and insists that any criticism of it is nothing but “homophobia”,”
—NDT, in the African-American community there are black supremacists, Malcom-X types, people who cry about racism when there’s no racism. Do you think they have overpowered the military? How much damage can a tiny minority of gays do in a mostly straight environment?
“Now, if a black officer were to say that the only reason behavior of black people was criticized was to “put blacks down” and that he “would be damned if he would help whitey put us down by joining the chorus”, I doubt anyone would try to argue that his attitude was acceptable, and he would likely be summarily discharged.”
—Exactly, and when DADT is overturned you can bet any gay that gets out of line will face serious consequences. Just like a straight man can’t approach a female co-worker and say “you have nice tits,” a gay soldier is not going to be allowed to behave in the same manner.
Another downside of DADT is that a straight soldier who doesn’t like the military can lie about being gay to get out of the services. Don’t you think that expelling someone for being gay should be a last resort? Based on actual harassment, actual morale problems, and not just merely saying “I’m gay” to the wrong person or having a scorned lover that calls the military to tell one someone?
posted by DragonScorpion on
There’s that lie again, depicting homosexuals as a monolith who all agree, all engage in the same behavior, all condone the same sort of activities, even though many of us don’t.
By âironclad restraintâ on âtypicalâ behaviors by homosexuals, ND30 means such things as acknowledging their sexual-orientation by referencing a same-sex partner in casual conversation. The reality of DADT that ND30 deliberately ignores is that regardless how one’s homosexual orientation becomes officially known, they’re gone, and that is completely unreasonable and unnecessary.
If ND30 was really concerned about merit, holding people accountable for their actions, and treating those who volunteer to serve their country with some fairness and equality, he’d support the same sort of policy that disciplines heterosexuals who engage in âpublic promiscuity, pushing their sexual agendas, harassing and demanding sex from their coworkersâ to be applied to homosexuals. Which, of course, they would be without a DADT policy, just as they are now.
(Note that ND30 was subtly referencing the lesbian fire chief allegation here, and in his next response he’ll probably repost the link for the 2 dozenth time.)
Not true, for instance, from my blog:
âMore knee-jerk over-reaction from some members of the homosexual community. Some are all fired up, invoking “bigotry” and “hypocrisy”, and ready to start a boycott. Soon to follow from the anti-homosexual crowd: more claims that the gay community yet again defends the indefensible. All this because Adam Lambert has been criticized to some degree and apparently censored by ABC for his lewd performance at the American Music Awards.
“I believe in calling out bad behavior when I see it, and that goes for my community as well. We take a lot of flak for being an “immoral” crowd. I believe in challenging both those who claim this, and those among us who make this portrayal seem an accurate description.â
From comments here at the forum:
âCount Adam Lambert’s lewd conduct at the AMA among those negative experiences, and loud-mouth thugs like Perez Hilton. Their behavior confuses and displeases me and I’m gay, so I can appreciate what it’s doing to non-gay folks, even the moderates.â
âAdam Lambert’s behavior is NOT reflective of our community; he wasn’t “being gay” he was being crude, period.â
âAs someone else pointed out to you here, there really wasn’t anything gay about a guy leading another guy around on a leash and shoving his face into his crotch. Also, if Adam Lamber was ‘being himself’, then I think that’s part of the problem, too.â
And at other forums:
“There is nothing in Adam Lambert’s behavior to defend here. But in doing so, some voices in our community are playing right into the narrative that we are an oversexed, anything goes, radical minority which has zero respect for decency.”
[…]
“If we want to be treated like everyone else then we need to earn it, show the world that we ARE like everyone else. We’re more alike than different.”
[…]
“We can’t control what Adam Lambert and Perez Hilton do, but we can choose whether or not we condone their behavior. Shall we take the high road and show the content of our character or shall we act like spoiled children in desperate need of recognition for our antics?”
[…]
“I know where I stand, I will point out bigotry and hypocrisy when I see it, but I will not toe-the-line and cry foul every time someone from our community is criticized for outrageous behavior.”
Like I’ve been saying for a couple of months now, ND30 is a total LIAR.
posted by DragonScorpion on
It is statements like this that I believe give credence to the suspicion of some here have that ND30 is clinically insane. There is just such a disconnect from reality, such an obvious distortion of the facts, that it suggests little if any awareness of what is going on around him…
For instance, because of my remark earlier that Tom had made excellent comments in general, not noting anything in particular, to ND30 this means that I agree with every viewpoint he has; every remark he’s made here. As if this would ever really be the case for anyone…?
But alas, since ND30 can’t actually find any remarks by me which support his outrageous claims, he simply invents them out of nothing.
Of course, this is has been a pattern with him here at the forum. If any homosexual anywhere offers a dubious or indefensible opinion about something, then this means the entire homosexual population (âgay and lesbian communityâ) agrees with that person and condones them.
Here’s the real kicker. Somehow, in ND30’s own personal reality, he’s gone from denying that Tom is a veteran, to using this presumed fact against him, to now equating Tom to an officer who should be âsummarily dischargedâ. Oh, and discharged for having an opinion, no less.
As for my opinion, yes, I think many homophobes (ND30 included) attack living caricatures of homosexual behavior like Elton John, Perez Hilton, Adam Lambert, et al. in an effort to insult homosexuals in general. There is a reason why these homophobes (ND30 included) insinuate and/or overtly claim that their behaviors are reflective of all homosexuals.
While I do and have criticized homosexuals for behaviors I find inappropriate, I don’t join in on gay-bashing by homophobes (including those by ND30). And I suspect that were I black I wouldn’t join in on the race-bating by racists, either. I don’t think any self-respecting person would.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT, in the African-American community there are black supremacists, Malcom-X types, people who cry about racism when there’s no racism. Do you think they have overpowered the military?
No — mainly because they haven’t overpowered the black mainstream completely. You still have racist claims being made about the military, i.e. Charles Rangel and his attempts to reinstate the draft, but they have no widespread support, except (ironically) among the extreme left and the gay and lesbian community.
Exactly, and when DADT is overturned you can bet any gay that gets out of line will face serious consequences. Just like a straight man can’t approach a female co-worker and say “you have nice tits,” a gay soldier is not going to be allowed to behave in the same manner.
California has fairly strict laws against lewd conduct, indecent exposure, and public sex, Bobby. You can also imagine that there’s not room for much interpretation in terms of doing any or all of the above in the presence of a minor, or deliberately exposing minors to such behavior for the purpose of “educating” them.
They aren’t enforced against gay and lesbian people.
Another downside of DADT is that a straight soldier who doesn’t like the military can lie about being gay to get out of the services. Don’t you think that expelling someone for being gay should be a last resort?
I believe I made my stance on that clear previously on this thread.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If ND30 was really concerned about merit, holding people accountable for their actions, and treating those who volunteer to serve their country with some fairness and equality, he’d support the same sort of policy that disciplines heterosexuals who engage in âpublic promiscuity, pushing their sexual agendas, harassing and demanding sex from their coworkersâ to be applied to homosexuals.
I would, but unfortunately, the gay community considers doing that to be “homophobia” and “sexism”, insists that it is done solely to “put gay people down”, and says, quote, “we’ll be damned we are going to help the straights put us down by joining the chorus”.
And that’s what you’ve nicely demonstrated, DragonScorpion. One of your favorite previous excuses for why you flatly refused to criticize the behavior of other gay and lesbian people while attacking those who pointed it out was that they were not “here”.
Now we have Tom here, flatly stating that he thinks any criticism of gay and lesbian people is wrong, that the only reason gay and lesbian people are criticized is to “put us down”, and that he would be “damned (if) we are going to help the straights put us down by joining the chorus” — and you can’t say a thing against it. In fact, ironically, you invoke it by claiming that anyone who would criticize Tom for it is a “bigot”.
Here’s the real kicker. Somehow, in ND30’s own personal reality, he’s gone from denying that Tom is a veteran, to using this presumed fact against him, to now equating Tom to an officer who should be âsummarily dischargedâ. Oh, and discharged for having an opinion, no less.
Actually, I pointed out that the gay and lesbian community has a habit of putting forth these false “veterans”, and then pointed out that Tom’s claims about his life in the military did not jibe with his belief that gay and lesbian people never did anything wrong.
Now let me show you another example of what you and Tom scream is nothing but “gay bashing by homophobes”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It is statements like this that I believe give credence to the suspicion of some here have that ND30 is clinically insane.
First, as before, I invite all of those who believe so to provide their professional credentials, i.e. their licenses to practice psychiatry and psychology, their memberships in various professional associations, and so forth.
For some reason, we’ve not had many takers. My guess is that these folks don’t want to have the fact that they are diagnosing someone that they have never met in a non-clinical setting and for the clear purpose of discrediting that individual, all of those being grounds for revocation of licenses and professional censuring.
Second, it is highly amusing that the gay and lesbian community insists that other people are insane while the community’s own psychologists state that dressing toddler-age children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair constitutes an “educational experience” and that those who disagree with doing so are “close-minded”.
What this makes rather obvious is that the gay and lesbian community is not interested in psychology or psychiatry for medical and scientific reasons, but purely as a means of normalizing their own pedophilic behavior and neutralizing those who dare to criticize it.
posted by DragonScorpion on
When challenging North Dallas Thirty to illustrate that he values merit, holding people accountable for their actions, and treating those who volunteer to serve their country some fairness and equality, he proves that he doesn’t value these things at all:
Rather than taking the egalitarian route by advocating that sexual conduct and harassment shall not be tolerated in the military regardless the gender or sexual orientation, ND30 finds it easier to just remove homosexuals from the equation all together.
Of course, the reality is, I don’t âattackâ those who criticize homosexuals, I âattackâ those who portray homosexuals as a hedonistic, diseased, sex-crazed, child-molesting, morally depraved monolith which is some sort of danger to society and deserving of derision and discrimination. ND30 is just such a person, as revealed by the massive number of gay-bashing posts he has made here, and continues to, daily.
Tom can speak for himself, but that’s not how I took his comment at all. Unlike ND30, who likes to twist the comments of others to fit his ‘homosexuals-as-morally-bankrupt’ narrative, I actually read Tom’s comment:
âAs far as I’m concerned, straights put down folks like Elton John and Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert to put us down. I think that most gay men know it and won’t buy into it. So while many of us may think that Perez and Adam and Elton look ridiculous, and would only dress like that on Halloween, if then, we’ll be damned we are going to help the straights put us down by joining the chorus.â
Other than Tom needing to use a few qualifiers here, like some or most in front of âstraights put down folks like Elton John and Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert to put us downâ, I agree with him. I think those three examples are rather ridiculous to varying degrees, but I am also well aware that many of the heterosexuals who cite those three as ridiculous do so to suggest that these three are reflective of the homosexual community and that we, all of us, are equally ridiculous, hedonistic, promiscuous, [fill in the blank].
Of course, as ND30 is someone who believes that homosexuals at large are all of those things and many more despicable things as well, he refuses to acknowledge this fact. To the contrary, he demands that all of us join in on his gay-bashing in which he demonizes the entire homosexual population â blaming all of us for the actions of some.
As usual, ND30 resorts to what appears to be his wholesale lying about the statements of others. I haven’t seen where Tom or anyone else here stated that âgay and lesbian people never did anything wrong.â That is, afterall, a rather declarative and completely outrageous statement. Now while ND30 is that broad in characterizing groups of people, I rather doubt that Tom stated such a thing.
Also, to set the record straight, unless there is another conversation prior to the one here that I am unaware of, ND30 insinuated that Tom was lying about his being a veteran. You see, that’s what it is when someone quotes another who wrote, âI served for six years. I saw combat. I laid my blood on the groundâ and replies with âAnd really, that’s what they all say.â
Lastly, though he tried to distract everyone, what I described before still stands: Somehow, in ND30’s own personal reality, he’s gone from denying that Tom is a veteran, to using this presumed fact against him, to now equating Tom to an officer who should be âsummarily dischargedâ. Oh, and discharged for having an opinion, no less.
There he goes, making shit up again. No where, NO WHERE have I claimed that homosexuals who are criticized for parading around as military personnel when they are in fact not military at all, is âgay bashingâ. Not even close.
What’s more, I must have missed the part where they mentioned this coward in the story is a homosexual. Apparently, according to ND30, not only are homosexuals collectively accountable for what each homosexual does, now we’re accountable for what heterosexuals do, too…
posted by DragonScorpion on
Like I mentioned some time back, one does not need a degree in psychology to recognize bat-shit crazy when you see it. And ND30 is so disconnected from reality, so pathologically dishonest, so ate up with animosity against homosexuals and so dysfunctional in his cognitive dissonance, one is left with really no other conclusion to reach.
There’s that link again, because, you know, we didn’t see it the first 3 dozen times… And just as before, this in no way implicates the homosexual community as agreeing with this quack. But to ND30, it’s all the evidence he needs to indict us and justify most any degree of scorn, derision, and discrimination against all homosexuals.
Lastly, he provided us one more example of this:
âWhat this makes rather obvious is that the gay and lesbian community is not interested in psychology or psychiatry for medical and scientific reasons, but purely as a means of normalizing their own pedophilic behavior and neutralizing those who dare to criticize it.â ~ North Dallas Thirty
See folks, the âgay and lesbian communityâ, that’s all of us homosexuals, by the way, use psychology to ânormalizeâ our âpedophilicâ behavior. Get that? We’re all pedophiles, according to ND30.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Rather than taking the egalitarian route by advocating that sexual conduct and harassment shall not be tolerated in the military regardless the gender or sexual orientation, ND30 finds it easier to just remove homosexuals from the equation all together.
But, as Tom has made it clear, sexual conduct and harassment WILL be tolerated by gays and lesbians like himself and you, DragonScorpion, because criticizing it is “putting down gays” and gays and lesbians like himself will not criticize gays.
As far as I’m concerned, straights put down folks like Elton John and Perez Hilton and Adam Lambert to put us down. I think that most gay men know it and won’t buy into it. So while many of us may think that Perez and Adam and Elton look ridiculous, and would only dress like that on Halloween, if then, we’ll be damned we are going to help the straights put us down by joining the chorus.
Since homosexuals are incapable of criticizing bad behavior by other homosexuals and indeed insist that criticism of such bad behavior is just “straights putting us down”, why on earth would the military want them? That’s like having a black officer who states that black people should be ashamed to investigate, publicly criticize, or make arrests of other black people for criminal conduct.
Then again, we should remember that the gay and lesbian community is steeped in Obama Party doctrine, which states, yes, black people SHOULD be ashamed to investigate, publicly criticize, or make arrests of other black people for criminal conduct. Minority status first.
And as a prime example of how the gay and lesbian community refuses to take any responsibility for its behavior, we have DragonScorpion trying to spin away again.
Apparently, according to ND30, not only are homosexuals collectively accountable for what each homosexual does, now we’re accountable for what heterosexuals do, too…
Next time, try referencing before you open your mouth.
After 20 years in the U.S. Army, I was forced to retire due to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that forbids gay men and women from serving openly in the US Military.
At the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) Equality Ball at the Mayflower Hotel, those of us who have been a vocal force against this damaging and unconstitutional policy are quite confident that our new Commander-in-Chief President Barack Obama will sign an Executive Order to abolish the “DADT” policy. Yes We Can!
Peace,
Michael Patrick McManus, Lieutenant Colonel, US Army, Retired
So let’s see; we have proof that he is gay, easily found proof, and also proof that he not only faked his service record, he openly lied about it to try to propagandize for DADT repeal. Furthermore, he is clearly FULLY endorsed and supported by the gay and lesbian community and appearing at their functions, run by their national organizations, and pushing their political agenda to CNN.
posted by DragonScorpion on
This is just another of ND30’s delusions. Always assuming the worst any time a homosexual is involved. This is what the homophobic bigot does, he clings to every isolated incident of bad behavior by a homosexual and attempts to superimpose this over the entire homosexual population of the human race.
Sexual conduct and harassment is NOT tolerated in the military by heterosexuals nor homosexuals, nor will it be tolerated once DADT is repealed. Nor should it be. ND30 is just tilting at windmills as usual.
And yet, as I have proven time and again with my posts here and elsewhere, I have criticized homosexuals and I continue to. But this doesn’t fit into ND30’s anti-homosexual narrative, so he just skates right on by it.
Actually it isn’t, considering that I’ve seen no one here suggest that homosexuals should be ashamed to investigate, criticize or arrest other homosexuals for criminal conduct, least of all myself. So, this is simply more made up bullshit from the lying homophobic bigot who depicts a world that existed only in his warped imaginations.
While this is obvious enough, it is worth noting that there is no such thing as an âObama partyâ, so this renders ND30’s rant moot, just as the last time he tried it.
Furthermore, it is very revealing that ND30’s bigotry includes racism, too. I see now the he is resorting to lumping all blacks in the same category also â of condoning criminal activity by invoking “minority status”…
posted by DragonScorpion on
Next time, ND30 should try citing ACTUAL evidence of his claims before referencing links that DO NOT back up his claims at all. Furthermore, he should not expect others to do his homework for him. Make the claim? Back it up. Otherwise, shut up.
To wit, originally ND30 made this claim:
âActually, I pointed out that the gay and lesbian community has a habit of putting forth these false “veterans”, and then pointed out that Tom’s claims about his life in the military did not jibe with his belief that gay and lesbian people never did anything wrong.â
And then provided this link:
âNow let me show you another example of what you and Tom scream is nothing but “gay bashing by homophobes”.
As anyone who bothers to read the story behind this link they will note the absence of any reference–zip, zero, zilch–to the impostor being a homosexual.
Clearly, given his whiny response, ND30 got his panties in a wad for being called out on claiming the lying coward with the suit of medals was a homosexual, when the link provided ZERO evidence of this. No doubt he’s pissed because I pointed this out which not only made him look like the liar that he is, but it caused him to have to go find some sort of evidence proving his previous claim.
And what does the bigot come back with? His âeasily found proofâ was an âiReportâ made by an âunclaimedâ person which was ânot vetted by CNNâ. STOP THE PRESSES! In other words, some anonymous Joe Blow posted this picture and alleged quote.
It’s worth noting, too, that the guy in the picture with the medals at the iReport does not even appear to be the same guy shown with medals at the other link that ND30 provided at the inauguration. Maybe they rented the coat out to others… Who knows?
My suggestion would be for ND30 to read the links before he posts them and then he could alleviate these sorts of issues in the future.
Naturally, as part of his crusade to demonize any and all homosexuals, ND30 assumes that the âgay and lesbianâ community âFULLY endorsed and supportedâ the impostor in question. Any evidence of this “endorsement and support”? Nope.
Of course, the bigot also assumes that the âgay and lesbian communityâ or those who hosted the event in question was fully aware that the man was a phony but they âFULLY endorsed and supportedâ him anyway believing that no one would bother to notice… Again, what support did they give? Unknown. Apparently it is because they didn’t escort him out of the building. Not sure on what grounds. Afterall, it was an event “open to the public” and though suspicious, he could have been an actual veteran. Apparently in his willful ignorance of homosexuals, ND30 must think “gaydar” means we can tell when people are lying, too…
Next I suppose we’re expected to disown Lt. Dan Choi because, according to ND30, he’s a homosexual and therefore not fit to serve in the military and therefore he’s probably just an impostor as well. As we can see by ND30’s treatment of Tom here, ND30 assumes this any time a homosexual claims he’s a veteran or active military…
I’d rather take people at their word until they give me good reason to suspect dishonesty. I also believe in holding individuals accountable for THEIR actions (like the coward who pretended to be a war hero), rather than holding an entire demographic accountable for what some individuals or segments of that demographic may or may not have done in the past, present or future.
I’ll leave it to everyone else here to decide which is the more fair, reasonable, and responsible way to treat people and groups of people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, DragonScorpion, the use of that one was to see whether or not you would reconsider your immediate screaming response that the person could not possibly be gay and then progress to condemning their behavior even with the knowledge that they were a gay and lesbian person.
But you, unfortunately, chose to double down on screaming.
Clearly, given his whiny response, ND30 got his panties in a wad for being called out on claiming the lying coward with the suit of medals was a homosexual, when the link provided ZERO evidence of this.
And thus, you get the information I had in reserve as well.
You see, real veterans take this sort of thing very seriously. It is a Federal crime to impersonate a military member in the fashion that this individual is doing.
With the full endorsement and support of the gay and lesbian community, as it turns out.
There’s your names, there’s your timing, there’s your organizations, there’s even your phone numbers and media contacts.
Next I suppose we’re expected to disown Lt. Dan Choi because, according to ND30, he’s a homosexual and therefore not fit to serve in the military and therefore he’s probably just an impostor as well.
As one sees from the milblogs cited, their response when someone is obviously faking their veteran status is swift and immediate. Seems that officers and enlisted personnel are extremely good at spotting fake decorations, ones that US troops could not possibly receive, wrong combinations, and the like — not to mention the fact that no officer or enlisted man is allowed to wear facial hair like that.
Now the interesting thing is that Dan Choi and indeed several other gay “veterans” were at these events where McManus was spotted wearing this outfit. Yet nothing happened. Even though this is a Federal crime, this is a huge attack on the code of honor, and so forth, all of these so-called “veterans” chose to cover up and say nothing for their fellow homosexual.
Then again, this is nothing new; gay community leaders like Jared Polis use fake veterans all the time. But it does demonstrate how “soldiers” like Choi let their sexual orientation get in the way of doing the right thing, even when it involves Federal crimes, and ends up making it obvious how the gay and lesbian community has no intention of following any law or military code of justice.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Furthermore, it is very revealing that ND30’s bigotry includes racism, too. I see now the he is resorting to lumping all blacks in the same category also â of condoning criminal activity by invoking “minority status”…
If I had meant “all blacks”, I would have said “all blacks”. Instead I clearly referred to the Obama Party, which includes, not surprisingly, Kwame Kilpatrick, the individual cited who stated that black people should be “ashamed” to investigate crimes by black people, and those who endorsed him, such as Barack Obama and the Obama Party’s Congressional Black Caucus, led by Kwame Kilpatrick’s mother.
But thank you for revealing that you think it’s “racist” to criticize black criminals and those who state that black people should be “ashamed” to investigate and prosecute crimes by other black people. It also adds a particular touch of irony, given that you and other gay-sex marriage supporters are out screaming “nigger” at black people who you think voted against you.
posted by DragonScorpion on
ND30 caught in yet another lie. Unfortunately for him, all my comments are right here for everyone to see. And so it’s apparent to everyone who has read them that I never claimed that the impostor in question âcould not possibly beâ a homosexual, nor would I EVER make such an absurdly irrational declarative statement.
As we can all see, in responding to ND30’s initial evidence claiming homosexuals âscreamâ that criticism of other homosexuals who wrongly dress up like veterans is nothing but “gay bashing by homophobes”, what I actually stated was:
âWhat’s more, I must have missed the part where they mentioned this coward in the story is a homosexual. Apparently, according to ND30, not only are homosexuals collectively accountable for what each homosexual does, now we’re accountable for what heterosexuals do, too…â
Of course, as I have pointed out multiple times now, to the chagrin of the bigot, the link that ND30 had provided as his evidence had made ZERO mention of this impostor being a homosexual. Absolutely none. I suspect that ND30 was merely very sloppy in coming up with âreserveâ information and found a link that did not support his claims.
He’s clearly upset about this bungle, given his petty reactions since.
Afterward he went scrambling for actual evidence that the impostor is a homosexual by providing an âunvettedâ CNN âiReportâ from an anonymous person who claimed that this same impostor had been at a different event in which he claimed he was kicked out of the military because of DADT. Could be true, but not exactly a smoking gun bit of evidence to hold as “reserve information”…
Still, if he would have used this link the first time, it would have at least made a point that some homosexuals have paraded as military veterans. A notion I don’t dispute. AT ALL. Valor is stolen far more often than most people realize, it stands to reason that a homosexual would have done so at least a couple of times by now… But alas, ND30 didn’t provide such evidence that this McManus nutcase was a homosexual. He merely wanted us all to assume â guy impersonates honored veteran = he must be a homo.
All this aside, almost hilariously but all too familiar of his modus operandi, ND30’s âexampleâ fails to make any case why it would be appropriate to blame all homosexuals {âthe gay and lesbian communityâ} for the behavior of this impostor or anyone like him.
Nor does it make any case whatsoever for why it is appropriate to continue DADT â punishing homosexuals in the military who ARE serving with distinction and who HAVE earned the respect and honor that comes with the uniform, without any sort of due process. Nothing but sheer prejudiced assumption which ND30 happily regurgitates ad nauseam.
North Dallas Thirty doesn’t understand the irrationality and unfairness of policies which discriminate against all homosexuals because he is blinded by total revulsion and contempt for us in general. And so we see when he is confronted with the irrationality of damning an entire group of individuals because of the actions of some, he hysterically produces one lame excuse after another, producing the same old worn out isolated incidents as evidence why his prejudices and sweeping indictments are justified.
Next:
~LMAO~ Oh man. This one was really good. It’s been a rough week, an unexpected laugh has been rare and this one very much needed.
ND30 now claims he has all this âinformationâ in âreserveâ… Which, of course, is why the original evidence of the âgay and lesbian communityâ supposedly âsupporting and endorsingâ homosexuals to dress up as war heroes was a link to a story about one guy who did so â sexual orientation unknown, no mention, whatsoever, in the story. Would it make any sense to do this? None. But I’m sure this excuse above sounded good to him at the time.
He is right about one thing, this latest material isn’t anything new, ND30 already posted this link at least once in this thread as part of his insinuations that Tom is lying about being a veteran.
posted by DragonScorpion on
No shit… I think he really believes he’s informing the forum of something most of us didn’t already know. Interesting it took him this long to get around to stating something most of us already knew.
âYour namesâ, âyour timingâ, âyour organizationsâ, he says. When in reality, these are not my names, not my âtimingâ, not my organizations. But of course, homosexuals are all part of one collective monolith in the warped, bigoted imagination of ND30, so those persons, their statements, their organizations are me and mine. It’s as if we’re the Borg or something.
I suppose I’ll have to point out the obvious, yet again. Contrary to the delusional lies of ND30, a few people or a few incidents, the âgay and lesbian communityâ does not make. That includes Bud Robbins (Alexander Hamilton Legion Post), and Jessea Greenman (GLAAD/SFBA Co-Chair), way back from 1993…
Also, as I’ve already pointed out multiple times now. As everyone here but the bigot already knows, the âgay and lesbian communityâ does NOT condone, endorse, or support homosexuals stealing valor; impersonating military personnel. This liar has nothing to back up his absurd claims, but he keeps repeating the same lie anyway. Further ruining his credibility. Which is good.
Really, it is delusional concoctions like those found in ND30’s last posts that makes it so apparent that he is literally unhinged, living in his own made up reality.
By the way, this sure was some old shit he pulled out this time. Dating from 1993 even. Apparently this pathological liar, McManus (something ND30 can relate to), has a real history of claiming all kinds of outrageous things. Military service, being a body guard, adviser to the President, confidant of the Dalai Lama…
I liked what one blogger at the military blog suggested: âfake spook, fake commando, fake general, fake PHD, fake monk⦠I wonder if he is really gay or if he is faking that too???â
It does make one wonder. I’m not sure why anyone would believe anything this freakshow claims… Serious multiple personality disorder. But to ND30 I’m sure he just attributes it to a dysfunction caused by homosexual orientation.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Oh look at how informed ND30 pretends to be all of the sudden. Of course, all these âfactsâ were pointed out in that KTRK story that he provided earlier. Still, ND30’s grasp of it all is very weak.
For instance, the impostor in question apparently never claimed he was an enlisted man nor officer at these events in question… In fact, according to ND30, he claimed he was discharged via DADT. If so, he would no longer be enlisted and he would no longer be an officer. But ND30 in his haste to look like an authority on the subject overlooked that rather obvious detail.
Furthermore, as it was stated in that story by retired U.S. Army Officer and teacher of military history, John Bradley, it isn’t that someone with a chest full of medals is not âallowed to wear facial hair like thatâ, rather, according to the article, âthe chin whiskers are a dead giveaway. He says no true serviceman would dishonor the uniform by appearing in public with facial hair.â Distinctions which, based on his history here at the forum, ND30 is mentally incapable of comprehending.
I found some of the remarks at the blog ND30 produced, and others I found on my own, to be telling. I’m sure ND30 enjoyed some of the insulting labels that some of these bloggers resorted to, terms like âballdusterâ and ârear tunnel ratâ. Unlike ND30, I will give most of those bloggers credit, most avoided attacking the impostor’s apparent sexual-orientation. No doubt because they have the decency, honor and intelligence to know that it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with his being a fraud and a liar.
As for the others… Criticizing this pathological coward for his despicable behavior isn’t the least bit homophobic, but some of the labels used to describe him most definitely were. But I’m sure ND30 has a ready made justification for that, too. Just wait and see…
And ND30 can prove this, of course, from his vast âreserve informationâ which he hasn’t produced yet… And prove, not only, that these active military and veteran {which ND30 disgustingly puts scare quotes around} homosexuals were not only at these same events but actually saw and interacted with this impostor but âchose to cover upâ for him…
Sure, sure, the same Jared Polis who condemned this faux veteran stating, âHis fraud is a slap in the face to veterans everywhere and a betrayal to us all”
Oh, but we can’t count that, of course. No, because he’s a Democrat, so according to ND30 whatever he does is simply wrong, whatever person around him who gets in trouble was an accomplice, and any apologies he makes are fake. Nevermind that, according to the article, this guy fooled a Republican candidate as well. That’s off limits, because he’s a Republican. Just an honest mistake, don’t ya know…
Except that it doesn’t as no such demonstration has been made… ND30 certainly wishes it did though, all the easier for him to condone demonizing and segregating homosexuals from the rest of society.
To sum all this up, as I’ve made it clear already, there is nothing acceptable or excusable about what the impostor, McManus, did. Stealing valor is not only illegal, it’s disgraceful. Does stating this matter? Nope, to ND30, homosexuals like me âFULLY endorse and supportâ this kind of activity. Why? Because we all supposedly put our âminority status firstâ by not accepting all the shame and blame that homophobes like ND30 try to foist on all of us.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Oh sure, just like he doesn’t mean all homosexuals when he references the “gay and lesbian community”…
First of all, I just wanted to point out that ND30’s link about the Congressional Black Caucus made no mention of how black people should be âashamedâ of investigating crimes by blacks…
Second, as I’ve pointed out multiple times now, there is no âObama partyâ, so what ND30 is tilting at here is a fictional entity that isn’t even worth acknowledging.
Third, I find it quite telling that ND30, in his mindless partisanship, is attempting to hold black Democrats accountable for Kwame Kilpatrick’s criminal conduct â Barack Obama for supporting the man prior to his conviction, and Kwame’s mother, of course, for giving birth to him…
It appears to be the same sort of reasoning behind the âpallin’ around with terrorists lineâ. But, of course, this only applies to Democrats. Republicans can “pal” around with whatever criminal or otherwise unscrupulous character they want and that doesn’t mean they were in any way linked to them. Of course not. But if a Democrat ever posed in a picture with the guy, LET’s HANG HIM!
So goes ND30’s pathetic partisan hypocrisy…
It really appears as though he just has an axe to grind here with blacks in addition to homosexuals. He operates under the assumption that they all just play the race card to get anything in life, just like supposedly homosexuals are incapable of achieving anything in life without relying on our âminority statusâ.
He made this very claim about me in another thread without knowing a goddamn thing about me or how my sexuality has never come up in my education, career or financial situation… He just assumes this to be the case, because he hates homosexuals and he has it all worked out in his warped little mind that we’re all evil.
And there he goes again, inventing things out of thin air. Everyone here who has read my comments knows fully that I have not stated nor suggested that it is âracistâ to criticize blacks for criminal conduct, just as I’ve never said or suggested it is âhomophobicâ to criticize homosexuals for criminal conduct. ND30 is just a pathetic pathological liar.
That said, it’s damn sure racist and homophobic to attempt to hold an entire demographic accountable for the actions of some or treat them like some collective monolith based on their ethnicity or sexual orientation.
And this is precisely what ND30 has done here in regards to homosexuals in particular on a nearly daily basis. And it is this, along with outright lies and total distortions of the statements of others, that I call him out on. What’s more, with all his twisting and turning and âscreamingâ he continues to prove this to be the case over and over and over again. Digging that hole ever deeper.
This fool has dug himself to a depth, given all he’s wrote for who knows how long, that he can probably never get himself out of.
He’s had every opportunity for months now, years perhaps, to correct himself, to narrow his indictments to those who are actually deserving, to single out those who actually engage in inappropriate, illegal or unethical behaviors. But he refuses to do so and thus proves how intellectually bankrupt and lacking of integrity he is.
Lastly, as we can all see, he will always take the side of denying homosexuals any degree of equality or basic respect as citizens. Whether it’s gross assaults on same-sex couples who seek marriage, homosexuals who seek to serve in the defense of their country, or those who believe that merit rather than one’s sexual orientation should decide who gets hired and fired, he has nothing but scorn and derision for ALL of us.
But obviously he’ll keep running his mouth, and turn more and more folks against him. That’s for the best. It’s just a shame the pissing contests that happen on this blog because of him. Such a massive waste of time, and it seriously detracts from the site.
Admittedly, I feel increasingly guilty for contributing to it by giving him someone to argue with in these threads, weeks at a time, beating that same old dead horse. He doesn’t deserve any acknowledgment. Trolls shouldn’t be fed. I just hate to see filth like him get away with disgusting, hateful lies.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, the point was, DragonScorpion, to show that gays and lesbians like yourself and Tom would not evaluate a situation involving a gay or lesbian person and review the evidence prior to making a judgment, but would immediately respond that such was a “homophobic attack”, a lie, and merely meant to tear down gay and lesbian people.
And you did so admirably.
First, when presented with the information, you screamed immediately that this wasn’t a homosexual, this was a heterosexual.
What’s more, I must have missed the part where they mentioned this coward in the story is a homosexual. Apparently, according to ND30, not only are homosexuals collectively accountable for what each homosexual does, now we’re accountable for what heterosexuals do, too…
Since you started down that path, I then thought I’d throw you a bit of additional information and see if you took the intelligent response, or if you tried to spin for your minority status. Of course, again, minority status won out; you started yelling that the source wasn’t accurate.
His âeasily found proofâ was an âiReportâ made by an âunclaimedâ person which was ânot vetted by CNNâ. STOP THE PRESSES! In other words, some anonymous Joe Blow posted this picture and alleged quote.
It’s worth noting, too, that the guy in the picture with the medals at the iReport does not even appear to be the same guy shown with medals at the other link that ND30 provided at the inauguration. Maybe they rented the coat out to others… Who knows?
And then we come to the point where you were presented with additional information; rather than acknowledging that your initial conclusions were wrong, you tried to attack me.
Absolutely none. I suspect that ND30 was merely very sloppy in coming up with âreserveâ information and found a link that did not support his claims.
He’s clearly upset about this bungle, given his petty reactions since.
Unfortunately, this attack was neatly contradicted by the fact you later acknowledged in the same post that I not only already had this conclusive information, but had already provided it over two weeks ago.
He is right about one thing, this latest material isn’t anything new, ND30 already posted this link at least once in this thread as part of his insinuations that Tom is lying about being a veteran.
Again, this was merely a matter of some basic research, a bit of curiosity, even just reading the links that had already provided to you. But, as expected your allegiance to your sexual orientation and your inability to criticize other gay and lesbian people for their behavior led you to ludicrous behavior.
And of course, you tried to rationalize your actions by blaming others.
ll, if he would have used this link the first time, it would have at least made a point that some homosexuals have paraded as military veterans. A notion I don’t dispute. AT ALL. Valor is stolen far more often than most people realize, it stands to reason that a homosexual would have done so at least a couple of times by now… But alas, ND30 didn’t provide such evidence that this McManus nutcase was a homosexual. He merely wanted us all to assume â guy impersonates honored veteran = he must be a homo.
And then, most amusingly, you tried to make excuses.
for the others… Criticizing this pathological coward for his despicable behavior isn’t the least bit homophobic, but some of the labels used to describe him most definitely were.
Again, the message is clear; criticism of one homosexual equals criticism of all homosexuals, and DragonScorpion opposes any criticism of homosexuals, regardless of what said homosexual did.
All in all, an excellent example of the problem. Gays and lesbians like yourself and Tom cannot be trusted to fairly evaluate situations involving gay and lesbian behavior. Your automatic response is to deny, then to delay, and then to ultimately attack the individual who brought it up, rather than to actually deal with the issue, and then try to rationalize your bigoted and irrational actions.
The ultimate question: why should any soldier who brings up an example of abusive behavior by a gay or lesbian person be subjected to what you’ve done in this thread? You and your fellow gay and lesbian “activists” have demonstrated clearly what happens — you call them a liar, you call them a homophobe, you say they’re out to get all gay and lesbian people, you say they’re mentally ill, and so forth. You don’t investigate, you don’t do any research, you just attack the person who brings up the issue.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sure, sure, the same Jared Polis who condemned this faux veteran stating, âHis fraud is a slap in the face to veterans everywhere and a betrayal to us all”
AFter Polis had trotted said “veteran” out to support his anti-military and anti-war views, of course.
Nevermind that, according to the article, this guy fooled a Republican candidate as well. That’s off limits, because he’s a Republican. Just an honest mistake, don’t ya know…
Well, let’s compare the situations.
Strandlof was on the veterans advisory board for Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs in 2007, and he resigned, saying he didn’t support the Republican administration’s stance on the war.
And, from another source:
And at least one Republican, Representative Doug Lamborn, was taken in by his story. In May 2007, Mr. Strandlof told an aide to Mr. Lamborn that he was forming an advocacy group for younger veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The aide, Dale Anderson, was so impressed that he asked Mr. Strandlof to join the congressmanâs veterans advisory committee.
Mr. Strandlof later quit the committee, saying he disagreed with Mr. Lambornâs support for the Iraq war, and in the 2008 election backed his opponent, Mr. Bidlack, who lost.
But with Polis:
Rick Strandlof, executive director of the Colorado Veterans Alliance and the man most colleagues knew as Rick Duncan, was front and center during the 2008 political campaigns in Colorado.
He spoke at a Barack Obama veterans rally in front of the Capitol in July, co-hosted several events with then- congressional candidate Jared Polis and attacked Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer in a TV ad paid for by the national group Votevets.org.
And the mostly Democratic candidates he supported â looking for credibility on veterans issues and the war â lapped it up appreciatively.
Let’s see; served on an advisory board from which he resigned for disagreeing with the Republican’s stance, versus co-hosting and promoting the Obama Party candidate, who embraced him so that said Obama Party candidate could try to get some credibility.
And of course, there was one other thing that made sure Polis would support and endorse his behavior:
A former Marine Corps captain who suffered brain trauma from a roadside bomb in Iraq and was at the Pentagon during the Sept. 11 attacks. An advocate for veterans rights who opposed the war. An Annapolis graduate who was proudly gay. With his gold-plated credentials, he commanded the respect and attention of not just politicians, but also police chiefs, reporters and veterans advocates for the better part of two years.
Another gay “veteran” with a forged record, put forward by the Obama Party to “prove” how bad DADT is and to try to give credibility to the anti-military Obama Party and gay and lesbian community. What. A. Surprise.
posted by DragonScorpion on
ND30 claims:
And then he goes on to cite proof that in fact I did not âscreamâ that the guy wasn’t a homosexual nor that criticisms of such individuals are âhomophobic attacksâ and âliesâ:
âWhat’s more, I must have missed the part where they mentioned this coward in the story is a homosexual. Apparently, according to ND30, not only are homosexuals collectively accountable for what each homosexual does, now we’re accountable for what heterosexuals do, too…â
As we’ve already seen multiple times now, I pointed out that the story he linked â which I’m sure he’s quite embarrassed about, obviously given his spitting and sputtering since â made absolutely, positively, no mention whatsoever of this impostor being a homosexual or pretending to be. Of course, I, like everyone else here, was supposed to merely go along with ND30 and take his source as proof that homosexuals are all liars who dress up as decorated military veterans or we were supposed to go do his homework for him and research this clown. Of course, it doesn’t work that way. If one wants to make an argument, provide the case and the evidence. Don’t expect the jury to become private investigators…
As his last posts illustrate, ND30, broken record that he is, continues to regurgitate the same old lines that have been hashed and rehashed over and over again. Even continuing to claim that he kept using dubious sources just to see what my response would be… I’m sure the forum can make up their own mind about the voracity of that claim.
For the record, ND30’s “reserve” evidence which he had posted early on was directed at Tom. What ND30 cited as ‘proof’ all homosexuals dress up like veterans to me was, again, a news story about a man who stole valor and zero, ZERO mention of his sexuality in any way, shape, or form. That’s the facts, and he knows it.
And yet, as the bigot’s own reposting of some of my comments here proves, I have in point of fact criticized those homosexuals, like this McManus coward who claims to be a homosexual, among a laundry list of other things. But ND30, outside of merely trying to score points and engage in pissing contests, demands that we all jump on the all-gays-are-evil bandwagon. I refuse to do so.
It is abundantly clear that ND30 is a pathological liar who deliberately distorts, omits or simply makes up what other people say all to further his disgusting narrative that homosexuals are a depraved monolith who should all be shunned and discriminated against by society and the government.
Finally, as predicted, there was no condemnation whatsoever from ND30 about the homophobic remarks that some have made on these military blogs about this McManus goon. As I stated quite clearly, criticizing his behavior was very appropriate, using derisive anti-homosexual slurs wasn’t. ND30 is trying to spin away from this, again claiming that I do not criticize these homosexuals who have engaged in despicable behavior, in spite of the proven record here and elsewhere which I have provided showing that I in fact do criticize homosexuals, I simply don’t join in on the gay-bashing.
Of course, ND30 has no problem with derisive labels against homosexuals. Why should he, he makes them himself and refuses to call out those heterosexuals who insult homosexuals simply for being homosexual. Again, given the expansive multitude of insults from him all over this forum, clearly this is because ND30 finds homosexual behavior and orientation to be morally wrong.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Rather than continue this exercise in futility with a pathological liar and inveterate homophobe, I’d like to finish with a closing argument.
Just as the racial integration of the military which took place under President Truman and lead to racial tensions in the military for decades afterward, and just as women were allowed to serve a more prominent role in the military (in fact, the Navy is now poised to end their policy of banning women from serving on submarines) which also lead to adjustments, tensions, and working solutions, the just and moral thing to do is to let those who are capable and willing to serve their country in uniform have the option to do so, and to do so with dignity, honesty.
This should include homosexuals. And homosexual soldiers should not be expected to lie as they are under DADT. This is completely inconsistent with military values. Being homosexually oriented is not inconsistent with military values.
Many of the finest NATO militaries in the world have already allowed homosexuals to serve openly. Our soldiers are serving with the soldiers of some of these nations in Iraq and Afghanistan. To clarify, our soldiers are serving in combat situations with militaries which allow homosexuals to serve openly. Our soldiers are serving alongside homosexuals today and have been for generations and yet rarely is it ever a problem.
Where accommodations can be made to make soldiers more comfortable, they are. Where they can’t be made, they’re not, and soldiers are expected to live with that. Doesn’t matter if it’s a racial issue, religious issue, gender issues, and in the future sexual orientation issues.
The military is not a boys and girls club. And for the most part, our soldiers are professional enough to handle a diverse, desegregated, co-ed military with minimal problems. Most have no problems serving alongside homosexual soldiers, ask around. The anecdotes about this are increasing as time goes on, and will continue to.
In a generation it will largely be a non-issue, and those who are wringing their hands about it today will be viewed as backward as those who insisted the same in regards to racial integration and allowing women to serve.
This will take a transition. It will not happen overnight or without adjustments. As has been pointed out countless times, the same was true of racial & gender integration, but the military became a more just and stronger entity from it.
I’m confident that the military brass is going to formulate a transition that will be very effective causing a minimal amount of disruption.
There are systems in place designed to minimize harassment and sexual conduct in the military and to punish those who disobey. After DADT is removed, these policies will still be in place and some new ones will likely be added as well. This will deal with incidents as they arise. And just as other militaries have PROVEN, there will be no adverse affects to the readiness of the military because of homosexuals serving openly.
Bigots can screech and moan about it all they want, but their chicken little antics will soon be added to the scrap pile of historical alarmism.
People should be held accountable for THEIR actions. Stigmatizing and penalizing an entire group of people because of the actions of some is completely unjust. Homosexuals are not intrinsically incapable of serving in the military with distinction, or incapable of much of anything else that we are routinely segregated from for that matter.
We should be treated fairly and judged by the content of OUR character as individuals. If one of us steps out of line, then we should pay the price for it, just as anyone else would. That’s justice. ND30 and his ilk do not stand for justice, not in the slightest.