Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't Ever Apologize. It's a Sign of Weakness[*]

The AP reports that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "won't apologize for calling homosexuality immoral" in an interview yesterday with the Chicago Tribune:

Pace was asked about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and don't engage in homosexual acts.

Pace said he supports the policy, which became law in 1994 and prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace was quoted as saying in the newspaper interview. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."...

"As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," he said.

Pace didn't or wouldn't respond to a 2005 Government Accountability Report which found that 10,000 members of the military, including 750 whose specialities were "critical" to the war on terror, have been cashiered since Don't Ask, Don't Tell went into effect. Nor, apparently, did he comment on a December 2006 Zogby poll which found that almost three-quarters of military folks were "comfortable" serving with gays and lesbians. More on that here.

The AP article ends by noting that

John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.

"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.

The whole AP story here.

[*]: Headline allusion explained. Scroll down about 14 exchanges.

Comments

Zombie FinFangFoom | March 13, 2007, 1:12pm | #

Unfortunately, the brass is going to be way behind on the cultural curve in acceptance of gays (Pace graduated from Annapolis in 1967). Fortunately, they are probably professional enough that they'll accept it if the President or Congress tells them to suck it up. Unfortunately, this probably couldn't happen until 2009 at the earliest.

Shannon Chamberlain | March 13, 2007, 1:17pm | #

"'...just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,' he said."

We do?

de stijl | March 13, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Shannon Chamberlain,

The military does, yes.

I like the comparison of adultery with orientation, though. Pace didn't go for the obvious ones like polygamy and / or bestiality.

Lurker Kurt | March 13, 2007, 1:28pm | #

Yes Shannon, we do.

There was a case a few years ago where a female pilot, married I believe, was having an affair with the spouse of someone in her unit.

IIRC, they court martialed her and kicked her out of the service.

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 1:29pm | #

I like the comparison of adultery with orientation, though. Pace didn't go for the obvious ones like polygamy and / or bestiality.

Adultery is a choice made by an individual rather than the inherent nature of an individual.

This characterization of "immoral behavior" is particularly annoying because it treats homosexuality as a choice -- "these soldiers are choosing to engage in an immoral act". Cheating on a spouse is an immoral act. Taking a partner that you are attracted to is a natural action almost all human beings engage in.

jimmydageek | March 13, 2007, 1:32pm | #

One man taking another man's girl could cause dissension and squabbling within a unit, thus making the case for prosecuting adultery. The only way this could be vaguely related to gays is if one takes away another one's man...

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 1:33pm | #

a December 2006 Zogby poll which found that almost three-quarters of military folks were "comfortable" serving with gays and lesbians.

Doesn't that mean that over a quarter of our military folks don't feel comfortable serving with pubic homosexuals?

I hate to get all "half empty" on y'all, but isn't forcing 1 in 4 of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe with people they don't feel comfortable with asking a bit much?

Todd F | March 13, 2007, 1:35pm | #

I still don't get it though, they prosecute immoral behavior my ass. I remember visiting my brother on a base in Germany. Staying in his apartment, I was greeted with the joyful sounds of the downstairs neighbor beating his wife on a nightly basis. The wife across the hall had a different man with her every night, her husband was in Iraq I was told. Meanwhile my brother routinely drank himself unconscious when off duty.

Its a joke anyway, insisting that a group of 18-25 year olds (for the most part) living away from their parents for the first time with free housing and relatively large amounts of disposable income are going to be responsible or verging on saints. It's true that the majority of these men/women are nothing but professionals of the highest caliber on duty, and my brother and his colleagues have my deepest respect and gratitude. But to insist that they are the face of moral behavior off duty is a farce, as is the assertion that various types of moral failings get equal treatment in the military.

Penry | March 13, 2007, 1:35pm | #

"Cheating on a spouse is an immoral act. Taking a partner that you are attracted to is a natural action almost all human beings engage in."

More specifically, cheating on your spouse violates the marriage contract you freely entered into, whereas most gays have never taken vows of heterosexuality.

TomHynes | March 13, 2007, 1:36pm | #

How does the Navy feel about a married female Captain having an affair then driving across Texas in a diaper? She is out of NASA, but back on duty as a Naval officer.

Guy Montag | March 13, 2007, 1:37pm | #

This characterization of "immoral behavior" is particularly annoying because it treats homosexuality as a choice . . .

Currently, homosexuality is defined by behavior and behavior only.

Different item, same thread, yes I am with the others in knowing that adultry is currently still actively prosecuted. A General "plea-bargained" into a lesser command about 2 years ago for being charged with an adulterous act the day before his divorce was granted.

All sorts of other acts, that folks out on the street don't see as that big of a deal. Like the wife of a service member giving lap dances of other service members at a party.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 1:37pm | #

ChicagoTom,

You are right in saying that a homosexual does not choose his/her orientation. However, engaging in sexual acts is a choice, and since most heterosexuals are not serving with their spouses, it's a case where anyone engaging in sexaul activity while deployed is subject to prosecution.

de stijl | March 13, 2007, 1:37pm | #

ChicagoTom,

As a clarification, I don't actually "like" Pace's comparison and I agree with you that it's bullshit. It was just a novel argument that I hadn't seen before and hence my comment.(Although, in his favor I mischaracterized what he said slightly. He was comparing the behaviors not necessarily criticizing the orientation.)

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 1:38pm | #

I hate to get all "half empty" on y'all, but isn't forcing 1 in 4 of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe with people they don't feel comfortable with asking a bit much?

Not at all much. As a soldier, there are many things you don't "feel comfortable doing" but you suck it up and do it.

I'm sure there were lots of white soldiers that didn't feel comfortable serving with black soldiers in the same units at some point. They got over it.

Chris S. | March 13, 2007, 1:39pm | #

I hate to get all "half empty" on y'all, but isn't forcing 1 in 4 of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe with people they don't feel comfortable with asking a bit much?

I wonder what percentage of soldiers in WWII and Korea felt the same way about sleeping and serving with black soldiers, and does it really matter? We segregated our military in those conflicts to accommodate the sensibilities of bigots. That was a mistake.

Todd F | March 13, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Regardless the morality of it should be weighed against the pragmatic implications.

Personally I don't care if 1/4 of service men feel uncomfortable with gays in certain positions. Don't they feel more uncomfortable that we've fired their translators and have lost out on intelligence that could keep them alive on the battlefield or help to find terrorists.

Guy Montag | March 13, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Staying in his apartment, I was greeted with the joyful sounds of the downstairs neighbor beating his wife on a nightly basis. The wife across the hall had a different man with her every night, her husband was in Iraq I was told. Meanwhile my brother routinely drank himself unconscious when off duty.

All of that is actionable. What is your point? I agree that not enough of this is reported and handled properly, if that is your point.

John | March 13, 2007, 1:40pm | #

If people disagree with Pace, they should say so. But what does the guy have to apologize for? A lot of people believe homosexuality is immoral. They may not be right, but it is a free country and they have every right to believe that and say that. Either we have a free country where people can express their opinions or not. Pace doesn't owe anyone an apology anymore than the people who disgree with him owe Pace an apology for calling him an idiot. I hate this "you must apologize for every non-PC opinion you ever express" environment. Bullshit. You say something, you run the risk of people calling you out for it, but there is nothing that says you should have to apologize for what you believe.

Chris S. (slower typer than ChicagoTom) | March 13, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Damn.

NotThatDavid | March 13, 2007, 1:41pm | #

I hate to get all "half empty" on y'all, but isn't forcing 1 in 4 of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe with people they don't feel comfortable with asking a bit much?

Substitute "black people" or "ethnic minorities" for "homosexuals." Would anybody argue for a segregated army based on that poll?

NotThatDavid | March 13, 2007, 1:41pm | #

Okay, I just really suck.

Guy Montag | March 13, 2007, 1:42pm | #

I wonder what percentage of soldiers in WWII and Korea felt the same way about sleeping and serving with black soldiers, and does it really matter? We segregated our military in those conflicts to accommodate the sensibilities of bigots. That was a mistake.

It was already segregated then. Perhaps I missed your meaning.

Barry Goldwater got the Arizona Air Guard desegregated before Truman did anything like that with the active forces.

Shannon Chamberlain | March 13, 2007, 1:42pm | #

All right, now I'm kind of stuck on the fact that we court martial people for adultery. How is that right--or, for that matter, justified vis a vis the purpose of the military?

jimmydageek | March 13, 2007, 1:44pm | #

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 1:33pm | #
a December 2006 Zogby poll which found that almost three-quarters of military folks were "comfortable" serving with gays and lesbians.

Doesn't that mean that over a quarter of our military folks don't feel comfortable serving with pubic homosexuals?

I hate to get all "half empty" on y'all, but isn't forcing 1 in 4 of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe with people they don't feel comfortable with asking a bit much?

Crimethink, Do you think that forcing atheists to say the pledge of allegiance is asking a bit much?

Do you think that forcing them to use money that contains the words "in god we trust" a bit much?

I have no facts, but I'm sure the military does not discriminate against atheists, right? What of the people that feel uncomfortable serving with atheists? With women for that matter? With blacks?

If that 1/4 doesn't like it, they can stay at home. There's still another 3/4 that will proudly serve with them.

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 1:44pm | #

However, engaging in sexual acts is a choice, and since most heterosexuals are not serving with their spouses, it's a case where anyone engaging in sexaul activity while deployed is subject to prosecution.

stop it crimethink. That isn't what is happening. The policy of the army isn't "no sex allowed" is it? Pace isn't saying that its wrong for anyone in the army to be having sex. They are throwing out people who are found to have significant others waiting for them who happen to be of the same sex.

Single heterosexual soldiers aren't banned from having sex on leave or whatnot. In fact many hetero soldiers even form relationships with the locals where they are deployed and marry them or whatever. None of that is punished. Nor is it considered "immoral" -- So please spare us the bullshit

Guy Montag | March 13, 2007, 1:47pm | #

Single heterosexual soldiers aren't banned from having sex on leave or whatnot.

Ahem, it depends on where you do it.

Penry | March 13, 2007, 1:47pm | #

"isn't forcing 1 in 4 of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe with people they don't feel comfortable with asking a bit much?"

Whereas asking them to get their nuts blown off in Iraq is a perfectly reasonable request.

I'm perplexed by the idea that the American fighting men who valiantly battle Iraqi insurgents are in dread terror of someone fruity in the shower.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 1:47pm | #

This is quite different from racial segregation. Despite our enlightened views of gender equality, we still segregate bathrooms and dressing rooms between men and women, so as to avoid forcing people to expose themselves in view of those who may be sexually aroused by one's naked body. I don't know how more enlightened men feel, but if I'm in a locker room shower with a guy I know is homosexual, I won't feel comfortable, just like I wouldn't feel comfortable with a random woman next to me.

Les | March 13, 2007, 1:47pm | #

However, engaging in sexual acts is a choice, and since most heterosexuals are not serving with their spouses, it's a case where anyone engaging in sexaul activity while deployed is subject to prosecution.

That assumes that all the heterosexuals serving are married or that the military routinely prosecutes married soldiers who discreetly visit prostitutes, neither of which is true.

de stijl | March 13, 2007, 1:48pm | #

John,

People are free to ask for the apology. He is free to do so or not.

Frankly he was an idiot for saying what he believed about the morality of gay sex when he had a perfectly acceptable response in the form of "Our civilian leadership sets the policy for acceptable behavior within Constitutional bounds. My job is to implement that policy."

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 1:48pm | #

Either we have a free country where people can express their opinions or not. Pace doesn't owe anyone an apology anymore than the people who disgree with him owe Pace an apology for calling him an idiot.

I dunno if he should apologize, but the government should issue an apology. He was speaking as a government representative, not merely about his personal beliefs. The government should not be discriminating against homosexuals.

I don't care what Pace or anyone else personally believes. But when they are speaking in the capacity representing the government then they should keep their morality to themseleves. The government is supposed all Americans not just the "moral" ones, no?

Chris S. | March 13, 2007, 1:51pm | #

It was already segregated then.

So? Did I ever indicate that our troops weren't segregated prior to WWII, and why does that matter?

Perhaps I missed your meaning.

No kidding.

Barry Goldwater got the Arizona Air Guard desegregated before Truman did anything like that with the active forces.

No one said anything about Barry Goldwater or Truman. What the hell are you talking about, and why can't you ever make relevant comments?

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 1:51pm | #

we still segregate bathrooms and dressing rooms between men and women, so as to avoid forcing people to expose themselves in view of those who may be sexually aroused by one's naked body.

Uhmm..that's not true. There is no special locker room for gay men at the gym. That "segregation" happens based on which parts people have not who gets aroused by those parts.

Even in your own locker room example....you may not "feel comfortable" (poor baby) but there really isn't anything you can do about it right?? Either you can switch gyms and try to find one that has no gays (good luck) or you can suck it up

IMDB.com | March 13, 2007, 1:52pm | #

Captain Nathan Brittles: You're not quite "Army" yet, miss... or you'd know never to apologize... it's a sign of weakness.
Olivia Dandridge: Yes, but this was your last patrol and I'm to blame for it.
Captain Nathan Brittles: Only the man who commands can be blamed. It rests on me... mission failure!

shouldn't it be "mission akkomplishd". what with the liberul media 'n' all?

QuietReaderGirl | March 13, 2007, 1:52pm | #

It always amuses me when someone brings out the "it will make people uncomfortable to serve with gay people." Some members of the military are no doubt uncomfortable with:

The purpose of their missions
Being separated from their families from months on end
Serving alongside women
Serving alongside people of different racial, ethnic or religious groups

However, no one rushes in to say "Oh, you poor baby" to these.

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 1:52pm | #

The government is supposed all Americans not just the "moral" ones, no?


Should have read:

The government is supposed represent all Americans, not just the "moral" ones, no?

Chris S. | March 13, 2007, 1:53pm | #

This is quite different from racial segregation. Despite our enlightened views of gender equality, we still segregate bathrooms and dressing rooms between men and women, so as to avoid forcing people to expose themselves in view of those who may be sexually aroused by one's naked body. I don't know how more enlightened men feel, but if I'm in a locker room shower with a guy I know is homosexual, I won't feel comfortable, just like I wouldn't feel comfortable with a random woman next to me.

Do you feel better being naked in a locker room with closeted and repressed gays?

de stijl | March 13, 2007, 1:53pm | #

crimethink,

Get over it. He's not that into you.

damaged justice | March 13, 2007, 1:53pm | #

"I don't know how more enlightened men feel, but if I'm in a locker room shower with a guy I know is homosexual, I won't feel comfortable, just like I wouldn't feel comfortable with a random woman next to me."

Get over yourself. You're not that hot.

de stijl | March 13, 2007, 1:56pm | #

In your face, damaged justice! BTW, mine was funnier.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 1:57pm | #

The reason for separating on the basis of which parts you have, though, is because it is presumed that each gender is attracted to the other's parts. Obviously, the possible presence of homosexuals is going to screw up the implementation of that principle, but it remains the underlying principle.

The reason men are not allowed in women's locker rooms is not because their parts don't match, but because they are presumed to want to ogle at naked women.

jimmydageek | March 13, 2007, 1:57pm | #

I think Crimethink is just afraid these big muscular gay men are going to force him on his feeble, weak, pasty knees and...

'nuff said.

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 1:58pm | #

And everyone...make sure that no one brings up crimethink's religious beliefs.

They are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. His religious beliefs have no bearing on his position

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:00pm | #

de stijl / damaged justice,

All right, I'm a little chubby...and a little hairy...but you never know, there's some weird fetishes out there...

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 2:01pm | #

The reason men are not allowed in women's locker rooms is not because their parts don't match, but because they are presumed to want to ogle at naked women.

Maybe, but I think it's just as fair to assume that the reason we are segregated by sex and not sexual orientation is that people aren't as intriguied by the parts they currently have.

By your logic, you would be completely comfortable with lesbians in your locker room, right?

Rhywun | March 13, 2007, 2:01pm | #

John,

If Pace has any say in continuing or changing or eliminating "Don't ask, don't tell", then it's absolutely an issue if he's injecting his personal morality into the debate. Otherwise, yes, who gives a shit?

John | March 13, 2007, 2:03pm | #

I think this is really a generational thing. I know very few people under the age of 40 in the military who care if homosexuals are allowed to serve openly. In addition, this is much more of a female issue than a male issue. The percentage of gay men who want to serve in the military is very low. Gay men in the military are few and far between. Women on the other hand are a different story. There are a lot more gay women who want to join than gay men. If anyone is going to be effected by openly serving gays, it will be straight women not straight men.

As far as the morality of homosexuality, that has no bearing on the policy. Gambling, drinking and going to strip clubs is in many people's view just as immoral as homosexuality, yet we don't kick people out for that stuff. The issue is what would lifting the policy do to moral and readiness and I really can't see how it would make a dime's worth of difference to moral and readiness if you lifted the policy.

jimmydageek | March 13, 2007, 2:03pm | #

What about guys that claim to be heterosexual, and lead normal, heterosexual lives, but foray into homosexual acts on occasion. Surely, they might be turned on in the showers as well. What then, do you kick them out as well?

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:04pm | #

As for my personal feelings, it's not a matter of fear; I'm not worried about most women being able to harm me, for instance, but I still wouldn't expose myself in front of them. I don't really have a rational explanation for such inhibitions, but they're present in me (and in almost everyone else) just the same.

John | March 13, 2007, 2:04pm | #

"If Pace has any say in continuing or changing or eliminating "Don't ask, don't tell", then it's absolutely an issue if he's injecting his personal morality into the debate."

So no one can ever inject their moral thoughts into any law or policy? Would you apply this to other areas? Should a legislator who beleives gambling is immoral recuse himself from voting on gambling legislation? Are policy makers suppose to check their morality at the door when going to work? If so, how exactly are they supposed to make decisions?

Les | March 13, 2007, 2:06pm | #

The reason men are not allowed in women's locker rooms is not because their parts don't match, but because they are presumed to want to ogle at naked women.

I think one reason might be that lots of "moral" heterosexual men act abominably towards women, that sexual crimes by heterosexual servicemen against servicewomen is out of control, and that's without them even showering together.

Men who aren't comfortable showering with someone they know is gay will get over that discomfort after about the third or fourth shower in which nothing happens. I was uncomfortable showering with any guys before I got to junior high. The discomfort passed after a short time.

Army men are tough. If it takes a few uncomfortable showers to end the official bigotry against homosexuals, so be it.

jimmydageek | March 13, 2007, 2:09pm | #

John,

Most times they make decisions based on which lobbying group pays the most...morals be damned.

I am curious to know how many land based casinos backed the anti internet poker legislation. Surely not because of morals, even though that is what's claimed.

NotThatDavid | March 13, 2007, 2:09pm | #

By your logic, you would be completely comfortable with lesbians in your locker room, right?

Wouldn't you have to have a rule of one lesbian per room, though? Otherwise they'd get uncomfortable.

Rhywun | March 13, 2007, 2:09pm | #

it's not a matter of fear

Yes, in this case, the "phobia" refers to "hatred" or "disgust", not fear.

So no one can ever inject their moral thoughts into any law or policy?

Of course not. If the morality is wrong, they should be roundly and loudly condemned for it. That's what makes it an "issue".

de stijl | March 13, 2007, 2:10pm | #

I'm a little chubby...and a little hairy

Dude, you're a "bear!"

Dan T. | March 13, 2007, 2:10pm | #

"Don't ask don't tell" seems like a good compromise to me.

It disallows bigotry but maindates a certain set of behaviors - which is what the military is all about.

What's the problem?

Matt | March 13, 2007, 2:10pm | #

Didnt Churchill, a hero of Pace's I'll wager, say something like "Don't blather on about military tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash."

criemthink | March 13, 2007, 2:11pm | #

ChicagoTom,

I'm not so sure that asexual curiosity about other people's parts is as much a problem; even heterosexual guys look at each other to "compare" etc., and if a guy has something weird about his privates in a school locker room he might be made fun of for it, but these things aren't at the same level as someone with a sexual interest in your privates.

jimmydageek,

What about guys that claim to be heterosexual, and lead normal, heterosexual lives, but foray into homosexual acts on occasion. Surely, they might be turned on in the showers as well.

As long as no one else knows about it, they won't have reason to feel uncomfortable. Hence "don't ask, don't tell" works just fine in that regard.

Jeff P. | March 13, 2007, 2:14pm | #

If they reinstate the draft, we should all demand that gays be banned. Watch how many gays pop up then.

Gay will be the new Canada.

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 2:15pm | #

What's the problem?

There are lots of problems with it.


It institutionalizes bigotry. "Gays are bad so keep quiet about it" Now if the policy were expanded so that anyone who talks about their sexuality at all can get shit-canned then that would be more acceptable. making a groups of people lie/hide the truth about yourselves is discriminatory.

It forces gays to pretend to be something they are not. Not the best way to build relationships with people whose lives are in your hands and vice versa.

Also, if someone else outs you, despite your going to great lengths to conceal your homosexuality you still can get shit-canned

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:15pm | #

By your logic, you would be completely comfortable with lesbians in your locker room, right?

No, because if she's hot, I'd...I mean, the other guys would... be ogling her. And if she's unoglable, I definitely don't want to see her naked.

Anita Dickens-Hyde | March 13, 2007, 2:15pm | #

"I don't know how more enlightened men feel, but if I'm in a locker room shower with a guy I know is homosexual, I won't feel comfortable, just like I wouldn't feel comfortable with a random woman next to me."

Crimethink, would you feel more "comfortable" showering with someone who is openly gay, or with someone who was in fact gay but had not disclosed his orientation?

I for one worry that one who gets heebie jeebies at the thought of showering may lack the basic courage that society expects of its service members.

John | March 13, 2007, 2:15pm | #

"Most times they make decisions based on which lobbying group pays the most...morals be damned.

I am curious to know how many land based casinos backed the anti internet poker legislation. Surely not because of morals, even though that is what's claimed."

All of that is true. That doesn't mean that one's moral beliefs should never come into play.

"Of course not. If the morality is wrong, they should be roundly and loudly condemned for it. That's what makes it an "issue"."

Why don't you just admit the truth that you don't like what he said and drop the part about objecting to moralizing? You don't object to moralizing, you just object to moralizing you disagree with.

highnumber | March 13, 2007, 2:16pm | #

ChicagoTom, Chris S, NotThatDavid,

I was about to say, Damn, you're all faster than me, then I remembered.
Ha!

de stijl | March 13, 2007, 2:17pm | #

"Don't ask don't tell" seems like a good compromise to me.

It disallows bigotry but maindates a certain set of behaviors

Except for that whole "equal treatment under the law" dealie.

rum, sodomy and the lash

Plus, a hell of a good album by The Pogues.

Guy Montag | March 13, 2007, 2:19pm | #

Chris S.,

Because this phrasing
We segregated our military in those conflicts to accommodate the sensibilities of bigots. reads like it was something special we did for those conflicts.

Tossing a little fit about this really does not help the discussion.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:19pm | #

A man can be absolutely stouthearted in battle and still not like the idea of a gay man staring at his naked rear end. The two are completely independent.

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 2:19pm | #

I'm not so sure that asexual curiosity about other people's parts is as much a problem; even heterosexual guys look at each other to "compare" etc., and if a guy has something weird about his privates in a school locker room he might be made fun of for it, but these things aren't at the same level as someone with a sexual interest in your privates.

Actually, to people who aren't homophobic, these things are exactly at the same level. In fact, I would be much more uncomfortable if I thought straight men were judging me for the size (or lack) of my pecker than a gay man looking at me and thinking "wow he's hot".

And I noticed you ignored my question about lesbian women in the male locker room.

Dan T. | March 13, 2007, 2:20pm | #

It institutionalizes bigotry. "Gays are bad so keep quiet about it" Now if the policy were expanded so that anyone who talks about their sexuality at all can get shit-canned then that would be more acceptable. making a groups of people lie/hide the truth about yourselves is discriminatory.

It forces gays to pretend to be something they are not. Not the best way to build relationships with people whose lives are in your hands and vice versa.

It's the military. The whole idea is to lose your individual identity and do what you're told. If you don't want to conform, find something else to do.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:21pm | #

Well you noticed wrong BITCH!!! ;-)

The Real Bill | March 13, 2007, 2:21pm | #

With all the money spent on the military, is it true that we still don't have separate shower stalls for the troops?

I don't want to shower with anyone (other than my wife). I don't give a crap whether they are gay, straight, or purple.

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 2:22pm | #

It's the military. The whole idea is to lose your individual identity and do what you're told. If you don't want to conform, find something else to do.

The point, trolly, is that only a small segment of the enlisted men are expected to lose their individuality. Like I said. If everyone had to conform to a don't ask don't tell that would be different. but singling out certain members of a class like that is problematic.

highnumber | March 13, 2007, 2:22pm | #

It's the military. The whole idea is to lose your individual identity and do what you're told. If you don't want to conform, find something else to do.

Dan T.,
It's our military. We can decide what kind of military we have.

brotherben | March 13, 2007, 2:22pm | #

The general must believe homosexuality to be a choice for him to believe it immoral. Every gay man and lesbian woman I have ever known, (about 25 total)were molested sexually as children. I tend to believe it is a chosen lifestyle as a result of a horrific experience as a child.
The general is entitled to his opinion, but is he entitled to express an opinion if it is contrary to army doctrine?

ChicagoTom | March 13, 2007, 2:23pm | #

crimethink,

my bad -- I missed that reply..

Col DuBois | March 13, 2007, 2:24pm | #

Can you also get a dishonorable discharge if caught masturbating?

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:25pm | #

Homosexual orientation is not a choice.

Engagement in sexual activity is, however, regardless of the genital combinations involved.

Hugh Akston | March 13, 2007, 2:26pm | #

"All right, now I'm kind of stuck on the fact that we court martial people for adultery. How is that right--or, for that matter, justified vis a vis the purpose of the military?"

The reasoning behind this, at least from my perspective, is that if you can't abide by the contract you swore to keep faithful to the one you love, your ability to abide by the oath to protectserve a country that sends you off to die in some godforsaken deathhole is suspect.

Frankly I think the military should consider the willingness to engage in marriage prior evidence that a recruit is unfit due to mental illness.

Rhywun | March 13, 2007, 2:26pm | #

Why don't you just admit the truth blah blah blah

Maybe I misspoke. When I said "of course not" I was rejecting your entire sentence, not agreeing with it. I DON'T object to moralizing in general.

joe | March 13, 2007, 2:28pm | #

Ooh, Bad General! Bad!!

You're supposed to pretend that discriminating against homosexuals has absolutely nothing to do with your personal beliefs. Repeat after me: "It's about unit cohesion and readiness. It's about unit cohesion and readiness."

jimmydageek | March 13, 2007, 2:29pm | #

Don't ask don't tell policy: While in battle, extremely homophobic man learns that one of his fellow servicemen is gay! Thoughts run through his head about how betrayed he feels after all the times he had to shower with that fudge-packer probably staring at his ass the whole time. Rage ensues, friendly fire at said homosexual, or fail to protect said homosexual as he should be doing.

No "don't ask don't tell" policy Everybody that really cares is aware of everybody else's sexual orientation. They either get used to it or they transfer units or they get ousted. No possible betrayal at the battle lines.

Extreme case scenario? Maybe. But I'd rather it not happen once.

brotherben | March 13, 2007, 2:29pm | #

"Frankly I think the military should consider the willingness to engage in marriage prior evidence that a recruit is unfit due to mental illness."


AMEN!

Hayekian Dreamer | March 13, 2007, 2:29pm | #

I wonder if crimethink's high school gym class segregated openly gay and straight students. It would seem since students are essentially forced to shower in that environment (and ALL the males are looking everywhere at that age and doing "comparisons") there is a fairly clear parallel.

In any case, on DADT generally I find it fascinating that Israel Italy, and Japan (among many other countries) allow open homosexuals to serve in the military. I don't believe studies in these or other countries have noted a signifigant drop in either morale or military service. Nor did I note any friction between gay soldiers from other countries such as Australia, Britain, Ireland etc. and American troops serving in Iraq. Perhaps I missed that story.

Rhywun | March 13, 2007, 2:32pm | #

Every gay man and lesbian woman I have ever known, (about 25 total)were molested sexually as children.

How is that anecdote even remotely relevant? (By the way, the implication your drawing is completely untrue.)

The Wine Commonsewer | March 13, 2007, 2:34pm | #

Frankly I think the military should consider the willingness to engage in marriage prior evidence that a recruit is unfit due to mental illness.

The USMC made it clear to us that wives weren't welcomed with open arms by the military. I heard this said by DI's more than once:

Private, if this Man's Marine Corps wanted you to have a wife, we would have issued you one.

Guy Montag | March 13, 2007, 2:35pm | #

And I noticed you ignored my question about lesbian women in the male locker room.

Many don't even want guys in "their" bars, what would they be doing in a guy's locker room?

Accidentally walk into "Phase 1" in DC if you don't believe that.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:36pm | #

I don't think any of my classmates were openly gay, for the simple reason that no one got beaten up in the showers. Not my doing, I merely foretell.

craig | March 13, 2007, 2:36pm | #

Homosexual orientation is not a choice.

Engagement in sexual activity is, however, regardless of the genital combinations involved.

So the military should regulate ALL sexual activities of ALL soldiers? How could this be accomplished?

Rhywun | March 13, 2007, 2:37pm | #

ALL the males are looking everywhere at that age and doing "comparisons"

Speak for yourself. I never once looked, for fear of getting the shit beat out of me.

Guy Montag | March 13, 2007, 2:38pm | #

How is that anecdote even remotely relevant? (By the way, the implication your drawing is completely untrue.)

Well, it does track with Loveline callers. But Drew and (when he was on ) Adam do caution that it was only from callers to their show and should not be assumed about the general population.

Hey! I think you two could put on a show! What is a catchy name for Libertarian . . .

jimmydageek | March 13, 2007, 2:39pm | #

Rhywun | March 13, 2007, 2:37pm | #
ALL the males are looking everywhere at that age and doing "comparisons"

Speak for yourself. I never once looked, for fear of getting the shit beat out of me.

I never looked because the sheer size of my package obstructed my view :)

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:39pm | #

Rhywun,

"It's like the sun. You don't stare, you just take a glimpse, get a general impression, and quickly look away."

Everything I know I learned from Seinfeld...

Guy Montag | March 13, 2007, 2:39pm | #

So the military should regulate ALL sexual activities of ALL soldiers? How could this be accomplished?

Page through the UCMJ sometime.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 2:42pm | #

crimethink,

Having sex is as much a part of our biology as taking a shit.

craig | March 13, 2007, 2:42pm | #

I never looked because the sheer size of my package obstructed my view :)

I think you're confusing yourself with me.

Rhywun | March 13, 2007, 2:42pm | #

I don't think any of my classmates were openly gay

None of mine were, either (this was 20 years ago). "Don't ask, don't tell" is basically the default childhood policy - and much as in the military, it's a way for the majority to pretend that the minority doesn't exist, while the minority either makes do in secret or not at all.

brotherben | March 13, 2007, 2:43pm | #

The relevance is this: it supports the argument that being gay is a choice. For something to be immoral, as the general said of homosexuality, it has to be a choice.

Does the general's statement contradict military code? If so, is he forbidden from issuing that opinion publicly? If so, then the action taken against him is justified.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:43pm | #

jimmydageek,

We don't want to hear about your locker room erections...

That, of course was the real fear of showering with other guys, since at that age they happen spontaneously a lot of the time. But the guy next to you might get the wrong idea.

dhex | March 13, 2007, 2:45pm | #

"If it takes a few uncomfortable showers to end the official bigotry against homosexuals, so be it."

i agree with your sentiment, but taken out of context this sentence is quite hilarious.

D.A. Ridgely | March 13, 2007, 2:45pm | #

Pace's greatest offense here is being dumb in a No-Dumb Zone. Contra John's comments -- and as any, oh, say, JAG officer would know -- there are all sorts of expressions of personal opinion commissioned officers are prohibited from expressing and an even larger number that general officers in particular are admonished against uttering publicly. As I have noted elsewhere, homosexuality is a political issue, whether Pace realizes it or not. Moreover, again contra John's comments, Pace was making the argument, at least implicitly, that it was the immorality of homosexuality that justified it being banned by the military. That he did so ineptly, comparing it to adultery, only makes matters worse because the best arguments the armed services have in opposition to such behavior (joe, note I am saying "best," not "sufficient" here) are pragmatic arguments, not moral ones.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 2:46pm | #

brotherben,

The more time goes on the more unsustainable the ban on gays in the military will be. Just as it has become less and less popular in our society for prejudice to be exhibited against gays.

joe | March 13, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Holy crap, Rhwuyn's a guy?!

Damn, this internet thing is hard. Next you'll tell me that that guy in Chicago isn't actually a moose.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Having sex is as much a part of our biology as taking a shit.

That's true as far as it goes, I guess. But is it normal to share the idiosyncracies of their defecation habits with others, as some homosexuals insist on sharing their sexuality?

SugarFree | March 13, 2007, 2:48pm | #

Um, how about some shower stalls?

Rhywun | March 13, 2007, 2:48pm | #

it supports the argument that being gay is a choice

Huh? Unless these people "chose" to be sexually abused, I'm not following your logic.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 2:49pm | #

crimethink,

The point of course is that sex often isn't about choice; it is often a response to various unthought out biological factors. The fact that most of the population masturbates without any sort of planning is evidence enough of this.

Rhywun | March 13, 2007, 2:50pm | #

Holy crap, Rhwuyn's a guy?!

Last I checked.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:51pm | #

Isaac Newton went his whole life without sex, but he defecated many times.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 2:53pm | #

crimethink,

Newton also suffered a mental breakdown. I wonder if it was because he didn't get some from time to time.

Anyway, asexuality is part of the continuum of human sexuality.

jimmydageek | March 13, 2007, 2:53pm | #

Grotius,

As a soon to be married man, I must say that masturbating when the future missus is on her inactive pill takes a lot of careful planning...so as to not let her know that this takes place...:/

Rhywun | March 13, 2007, 2:53pm | #

some homosexuals insist on sharing their sexuality

Those damn gays, always talking about sex and love. Why can't they be more like straights?

SugarFree | March 13, 2007, 2:54pm | #

What do you call a man masturbating on Valentine's Day?

Marriage.

jimmydageek | March 13, 2007, 2:54pm | #

I think 'crimethink' just wrote the funniest thing I've ever read on this forum...

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:51pm | #
Isaac Newton went his whole life without sex, but he defecated many times.

jimmydageek | March 13, 2007, 2:55pm | #

I still cant read that while keeping a straight face...omg...

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:56pm | #

Newton also suffered a mental breakdown. I wonder if it was because he didn't get some from time to time.

It's more likely he was just severely constipated.

The Real Bill | March 13, 2007, 2:56pm | #

"If it takes a few uncomfortable showers to end the official bigotry against homosexuals, so be it."

i agree with your sentiment, but taken out of context this sentence is quite hilarious.

I'm still laughing...

thoreau | March 13, 2007, 2:57pm | #

Isaac Newton went his whole life without sex, but he defecated many times.

Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode where George Costanza abstained and became a genius?

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 2:57pm | #

Rhywun,

Heh.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 2:58pm | #

thoreau,

I dunno, Abelard was a genius and he never abstained - well, until he was castrated.

mediageek | March 13, 2007, 2:59pm | #

"But is it normal to share the idiosyncracies of their defecation habits with others, as some homosexuals insist on sharing their sexuality?"

For some, evidently it is.

But then again, things are different on teh intartwebs vs. real life.

Loundry | March 13, 2007, 3:00pm | #

crimethink,

All right, I'm a little chubby...and a little hairy...but you never know, there's some weird fetishes out there...

What's weird about it? I like bears. They're manly! Twinks look like women, and women are disgusting.

The Real Bill | March 13, 2007, 3:01pm | #

What do you call a man masturbating on Valentine's Day?

Marriage.

I'm going to give my woman a big hug and kiss when she gets home. Not only does she think all the hype surrounding Valentine's Day is stupid, but she is almost never "not in the mood."

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:01pm | #

crimethink,

Anyway, I hate to break it to you; heterosexuals get their freak on with all manner of bodily fluids, etc.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode where George Costanza abstained and became a genius?

Heh, that's a whole nother topic. Denying your essence may not preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids, but I wouldn't be surprised if it allows your so-called "creative juices" to build up. Further study needs to be done.

The Real Bill | March 13, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Grotius,

You just made sex sound icky. Please don't do that.

Guy Montag | March 13, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode where George Costanza abstained and became a genius?

Yes, some fans call that episode "The Bet". Elaine was supposed to have a date with JohnJohn Kennedy, but he did Jerry's virgin girlfriend instead.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 3:04pm | #

Loundry,

You're a woman, right? ;-)

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:05pm | #

The Real Bill,

What is or isn't icky about sex depends on what two (or more) consenting adults think is cool and is not cool. Generally none of that is going to undermined military preparedness.

craig | March 13, 2007, 3:06pm | #

But is it normal to share the idiosyncracies of their defecation habits with others, as some homosexuals insist on sharing their sexuality?.

crimethink: Hey craig, what did you do this weekend?

craig: Not much. My boyfriend and I went to Pottery Barn to look for a new couch. Then we took the dog to the park for the afternoon. It was a beautiful day!

crimethink: Please don't share your sexuality with me.

The Real Bill | March 13, 2007, 3:07pm | #

Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode where George Costanza abstained and became a genius?

I read a short story once about a physics genius boy who was about to solve a great scientific question. He hooked up with a woman before it was completed and became dumb. It always made sense to me. Puberty hit me like a ton of bricks. I don't think I ever recovered. ; )

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:08pm | #

BTW, I'd like to note that wife swapping was common amongst the Greek Spartiates - the elite Spartan warrior citizens. Or so
Plutarch tells us.

Loundry | March 13, 2007, 3:08pm | #

crimethink,

No, I'm a man. But I'm not gay. I just like masturbating other guys with my mouth and my butthole. It's a hobby.

SugarFree | March 13, 2007, 3:08pm | #

Real Bill,

My wife has never made me see a movie I didn't want to see. Ever. Not one. She's awesome. And she laughed at that joke when I told her.

The Real Bill | March 13, 2007, 3:10pm | #

What is or isn't icky about sex depends on what two (or more) consenting adults think is cool and is not cool. Generally none of that is going to undermined military preparedness.

I agree. I didn't say sex was icky; I said that you made it sound icky. It's nothing to do with the military. I don't care if the soldiers have bisexual orgies; I just want them to be able to kick ass when necessary.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:12pm | #

The Real Bill,

Ok, how did I make it sound icky?

Hayekian Dreamer | March 13, 2007, 3:13pm | #

It is "sharing" your sexuality to hold your boyfriend's hand in public. It is NOT "sharing" your sexuality apparently to have a picture of your girlfriend on your desk at your office. It is not "sharing" your sexuality to wear a wedding ring. it is not "sharing" your sexuality to speak of marriage plans.

Notice anything? Its not that gays talk about their sexuality more than heterosexuals, its that any mention of normal intimate gay relationships in any context is considered promoting an agenda.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 3:13pm | #

Basically, I think that the creative abilities of humans are ultimately geared towards survival and reproduction, as all traits developed thru natural selection must be. The brain's activity is very expensive from an energy standpoint, so when these urges are satisfied, the body doesn't divert as much of its resources to the brain.

Of course, I have no evidence of this, but it seems like a fruitful area for someone to study.

The Real Bill | March 13, 2007, 3:13pm | #

My wife has never made me see a movie I didn't want to see. Ever. Not one. She's awesome. And she laughed at that joke when I told her.

Sweet, SugarFree!

My wife loves sci-fi/action movies and cares less for chick-flicks than I do. (It's a personal shame of mine, but I like a good chick-flick from time to time.)

The Real Bill | March 13, 2007, 3:15pm | #

Grotius,

It may have been "freak on" and "bodily fluids" in the same sentence. I'm not sure. Now that I read it again, it doesn't seem that icky. Oh, no! I've been desensitized!

crimetink | March 13, 2007, 3:15pm | #

wife swapping was common amongst the Greek Spartiates - the elite Spartan warrior citizens

Yes, and burning homosexuals at the stake was common in the Middle Ages...that doesn't mean it's a good idea now.

Jose Ortega y Gasset | March 13, 2007, 3:17pm | #

Gays in the military fight for a country that does not recognize their right to marry. That reminds of the Tuskegee airmen... patriotism more authentic than that claimed by many.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:20pm | #

The brain's activity is very expensive from an energy standpoint, so when these urges are satisfied, the body doesn't divert as much of its resources to the brain.

Given the number of geniuses who gorged themselves on wine, women/men and song there have got to be at least a few major exceptions to that claim.

Anyway, the notion that going without sex leads to piety or some other good has a long history in human society. Indeed in the middle ages certain Christian monks monkeyed around with the idea of jerking off into various mixtures in order to create babies so as to cut women (and thus lust!) out of the picture.

David | March 13, 2007, 3:22pm | #

Basically, I think that the creative abilities of humans are ultimately geared towards survival and reproduction, as all traits developed thru natural selection must be. The brain's activity is very expensive from an energy standpoint, so when these urges are satisfied, the body doesn't divert as much of its resources to the brain.

I would assume the opposite. That it's very difficult to concentrate with an unfulfilled need for sex. Sort of like being hungry. Once the need is satisfied, you can attend to other things.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 3:23pm | #

Grotius,

Well, I think masturbation would "drain the batteries" in my theory just as much as sex with a partner. I don't see how the male body would even be able to tell the difference. Like I said, I'm just conjecturing, don't believe me until there's evidence.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:24pm | #

crimethink,

Yes, and burning homosexuals at the stake was common in the Middle Ages...that doesn't mean it's a good idea now.

I'm not quite sure why I should compare the two.

See, homosexuals were being burned by a bunch of ignorant, bigoted religiously motivated folks.

Wife-swapping today would be a voluntary practice (as it was I guess amongst the Spartiates).

The Real Bill,

One of the best things I think folks can do is desacralize sex. Look, we're animals. We screw.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:25pm | #

crimethink,

Actually I was trying to get at the fact that celibacy has often been as part of an effort to treat women like, well, depraved creatures.

Lamar | March 13, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Peter Pace is the guy's name? Guess I'll have to change my porn name.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:27pm | #

Personally I've always wonder what those monks were thinking about as they masturbated. It is almost too humorous to consider. ;)

de stijl | March 13, 2007, 3:27pm | #

I can't get over the Rate My Poo link. People are strange.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 3:27pm | #

One of the best things I think folks can do is desacralize sex. Look, we're animals. We screw.

That makes sense, as such a view of sex is conducive to your atheist materialism. For those of us who aren't of your ilk, such talk is disgusting.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 3:28pm | #

celibacy has often been as part of an effort to treat women like, well, depraved creatures.

What about female celibacy? Was that an effort to treat men like depraved creatures?

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:33pm | #

crimethink,

What about female celibacy?

Given that so many of the Christian fathers had so many really bad things to say about women that ought not be surprising.

Zombie FinFangFoom | March 13, 2007, 3:34pm | #

You know, ilk is another good word. Put me down in the pro-screwing ilk.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 3:34pm | #

What ought not be surprising?

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:36pm | #

Zombie FinFangFoom,

Heh. :)

Loundry | March 13, 2007, 3:36pm | #

That makes sense, as such a view of sex is conducive to your atheist materialism. For those of us who aren't of your ilk, such talk is disgusting.

I agree, treating humans as just another animal is disgusting. It's misanthropic.

That doesn't mean man on man sex is wrong though. In fact, it's teriffic fun. Plus, you never have to sit through one of those god-damned Hugh Grant movies.

joe | March 13, 2007, 3:36pm | #

"The fact that most of the population masturbates without any sort of planning is evidence enough of this."

Trust me on this one, G. They're not so far apart.

- | March 13, 2007, 3:37pm | #

"Yes, and burning homosexuals at the stake was common in the Middle Ages...that doesn't mean it's a good idea now."

Aha! So THAT'S why they're called faggots!

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:39pm | #

Loundry,

Well, we're not just another animal, we have our special traits just like giraffes, but it also the case that we likely aren't the only sentient critters with culture on this planet either.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:41pm | #

crimethink,

Read "Saint" Jerome on marraige and sex sometime.

The Real Bill | March 13, 2007, 3:41pm | #

One of the best things I think folks can do is desacralize sex. Look, we're animals. We screw.

Sacred sex always sounded horribly boring to me. It's also stupid. There ain't no way that bumpin' uglies is holy, ever. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with the "we're animals" statement.

I agree, treating humans as just another animal is disgusting. It's misanthropic.

No; it's honest. Also, it's only misanthropic if you hate all nonhuman animals.

crimethink | March 13, 2007, 3:43pm | #

Aha! So THAT'S why they're called faggots!

Ozzie, your team sucks. Screw you.

Zombie FinFangFoom | March 13, 2007, 3:46pm | #

I like the sacred sex in Ancient Greece, where the priests and priestesses doubled as prostitutes.

Zombie FinFangFoom | March 13, 2007, 3:46pm | #

I think it was tax deductible.

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:46pm | #

BTW, here's a question:

Do any religious organizations ever take away the sainthood from someone who was sainted for either something we consider to be vile today, or who led a life that was otherwise vile?

Grotius | March 13, 2007, 3:47pm |