Military

Up from Homophobia

It's time to let gays serve openly in the military.

|

I used to be a homophobe. I didn't dislike gays a little; I disliked them a lot. Growing up in Texas, I didn't know anyone who admitted to being gay, and I found the whole idea sick and repulsive.

On top of that, I was politically, religiously, and socially conservative. So if you'd told me 40 years ago that in 2010, I'd be in favor of letting gays serve in the military and get married, I'd have thought you were on some bad acid.

But one day of my junior year in college, I came back from class to find a note on my desk. It was from my roommate, a friend since my freshman year, informing me that he was gay.

I was stunned and confused. It had never once crossed my mind that he wasn't a fellow heterosexual, and I didn't know what to do. Having a friend who was gay was disturbing enough, but a roommate?

I discussed it with him. I discussed it with my pastor. I lay awake nights. I gave it a lot of thought. If I decided not to move out, would I be able to deal with being in close proximity with a homosexual? If I broke off the friendship, would I be doing him an injustice? I faced a dilemma, and I hated it.

In the end, I was forced to conclude, not without apprehension, that the revelation didn't change anything. We were good friends before, and we would stay good friends. And 35 years later, we still are.

I'm telling you this not to impress you with how broad-minded and tolerant I proved. I was neither. I just had to deal with reality.

Before, my notions about gays were uninformed. Confronted with an actual gay person whom I liked, respected and trusted, I was forced to reexamine my prejudices, and they began to crumble.

What happened to me, of course, has happened to millions of other Americans. It's easy to be homophobic if you don't know anyone who is openly gay. But that's true of fewer and fewer people. As gays have become forthright about their sexual orientation, the rest of us have had to assess them not as gays, but as whole human beings.

So I've had gay friends and gay co-workers. I've had lesbian neighbors. I've had gay and lesbian relatives. When one gay relative back in Texas had a wedding—in all but the legal sense—my wife and I attended and found it eerily similar to the straight version. All these experiences have impressed on me the obvious fact that homosexuals are not an alien species.

That's in keeping with our broad national experience. In 1985, only 22 percent of us said they had a friend who was gay. By 2008, 66 percent did. And attitudes have followed. In 1982, only 34 percent of Americans regarded "homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle." Today, it's 57 percent.

Familiarity, in this case, doesn't breed contempt. It breeds acceptance. Heterosexuals have always lived and worked with gays, but without knowing it. Once they find out, most learn they have more similarities than differences.

If the military's ban on open gays is repealed, a lot of people in uniform will soon come to the same realization. Many already have. The Pentagon's new report on "don't ask, don't tell" says that when it surveyed military personnel, two out of three said they've served alongside colleagues they believed to be gay.

Such experiences make a huge difference. In Army combat units, 48 percent of those responding said repeal of the ban would have a negative impact, and in Marine combat units, 58 percent agreed.

But among those who have served with someone they believe to be gay, 92 percent of service members found no negative effects on unit performance. Nine out of 10 of those in Army combat units, as well as 84 percent of those in Marine combat units, said the same thing.

Like any big change, the repeal will have its awkward moments, and it will take some adjustment. But in the end, it will turn out to be no big deal.

As one "special operations warfighter" quoted in the report said, "We have a gay guy. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay." I know the feeling.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Advertisement

NEXT: Are Conservatives Allowed to Amend the Constitution?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Excellent article. I predict it gets linked on a lot of Facebook pages this week.

  2. How bout this. How bout I give the pillowbiters just as much respect as I give the toesuckers, asspaddlers, furry-humpers and other assorted practicers of sexual dysfunction. When’s the last time anyone’s heard a homo advocate anything besides their own little narrow agenda.

    1. Last I checked, there was no law on the books preventing those folks from enlisting.

    2. Mmm, that’s tasty bigotry.

      1. Wait, maybe I’m just addled, but I don’t see anything bigoted in his post. He says he wants homosexuals to be as free to practice their sexuality as those who like toe-sucking, ass paddling, furries… sounds egalitarian to me. Everybody hump who you want in any way you’d both like…. Or was that not what he meant?

    3. Stupid troll is stupid.

      Care to let the class know what’s in your spank bank? I wonder if it includes any “sexual dysfunction” as arbitrarily defined by people on internet comment threads.

    4. The gay agenda:
      “2:00 PM
      1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,”
      http://www.commonplacebook.com…..genda.shtm
      Yep, we’re in bad trouble….

    5. Yes. God abhors all but passionless, resentful and apologetic missionary sex between husband and wife who will return to their separate beds after repenting for their lustful semi-enjoyment of an act which was only meant for reproductive purposes.

      There is a distinct kink to God’s voyeurism. The deranged ones are the one’s who don’t get him off. If by “dysfunction” you mean they do not function as good porn for the big guy, then you’re right and we shouldn’t respect them. They are the deviants, not you.

    6. Pssttt.. a lot of homos are libertarian..

      1. Re: Anonymous,

        Pssttt.. a lot of homos are libertarian..[.]

        Psst! No, they’re NOT.

        1. Trust me, I’ve checked.

          1. Re: OMC,

            Trust me, you didn’t.

    7. Hello? Gay soldiers are serving in the military to protect the U.S.A. That’s a lot wider agenda than you have.

    8. I remember distinctly some “homos” as you call them advocating (wisely, as it turns out) that we not invade Iraq in 2003. Would that count as being outside the gay agenda? Maybe you just discount or ignore everything any gay person advocates because you have some deep psychological problem with the issue? As the author points out, gay people are like everybody else. They have individual opinions on every subject just like everyone else does. It’s getting to the point where when an ‘ostensibly straight’ man expresses great dislike for gay people, one wonders what inner conflict must be going on in the guy’s head.

  3. “We have a gay guy. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”

    Rip Torn is in the special forces?!?

    1. Don’t you just love the anecdotal proof?

    2. Wait, Rip Torn is GAY?

    3. Yes, The crack Liberace Brigade.

      (kidding)

  4. Oh wow, that actually makes a LOT of sense when you think about it. Wow.

    http://www.privacy-resources.edu.tc

  5. “We have a gay guy. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”

    Imagine what a terror he must be when he gets his period.

    1. STEVEN USE CHUPACABRA HAIR TAMPON WHEN THAT TIME OF MONTH. KEEP STEVEN DRY AND FRESH.

  6. I served with several gay men in Combat Engineer units in Iraq. Serving with them wasn’t demoralizing; neither was finding out they were gay. Watching good Soldiers get kicked out of the Army after a year of honorably serving over seas was demoralizing.

    1. Re: Anthony,

      Watching good Soldiers get kicked out of the Army after a year of honorably serving over seas was demoralizing.

      They were lucky. Others that are NOT kicked out end up as fertilizer, for nothing.

    2. “I served with several gay men in Combat Engineer units in Iraq. Serving with them wasn’t demoralizing; neither was finding out they were gay.” Depends on how you find out!

  7. Yep, let homosexuals serve openly. They vote, pay taxes, and have the same rights under the Constitution as you and I.

    Just be smart enough on the front end to make sure the military regulations on dress, appearance, and PDA don’t change.

  8. Short of Liberace, I can’t pick a gay guy out. My gaydar’s busted. I don’t particularly loathe gay people either.

    But in the military? Gays in the military is a continuation of social-engineering policies in the armed forces I’m more and more in disagreement with.

    Make love not war? Military kills, it don’t love. Integrating women into the military at combat level has been made to work when we take on enemies with no capacity to disrupt logistics (like flying ten or twenty pregnant ‘soldiers’ out of theater every month, his-and-her-bathrooms on-base, etc.). Not having any tactical capacity to inflict large numbers of casualties or take prisoners, our enemies in wars so far have been quite accommodating to our social experiment. But taking on the Nazis? Or in a modern context, the DRPK’s army or even the PLAN? Good luck with that. The Soviets – so grinded down in manpower by both Nazis and their own security ‘services’ – had lots of women in combat situations at end of WWII. They fought valiantly, blah-blah. But even going up against raw Germans the KIA ratio was worse then even normal for the Soviets, upwards of thirty-to-one (look it up) vs. the ‘normal’ 15-1. Guys can beat up chicks, sad fact of life but in a war that actually means something.

    Gay men are obviously still men. But the sexual-tension component with men-loving-men in theater is obvious.

    Given the experience with integrating women into the armed forces (an operational disaster papered over by brass, etc.). People who say ‘gay people have served for years’ make a good point, but also demonstrate the androgynous nature of those who serve by the don’t ask-don’t tell policy.

    I wish the military would become more asexual in practice. Women want to join in combat appointments? No prob, but you’ve got to pass the same tests, get shaved bald, etc. I would be that way with gay people in the military as well. Gay or hetero, don’t wanna know…don’t care. Getting knocked up in-theater gets you a dishonarable, ditto for fraternization.

    If the military could integrate that way, I’d be much more open to it. But the current integration scheme of PC accommodating and tinkering using the military as one vast social experiment for this tinkering? Screw that. We’ll inhibit our combat capability going down this road – this way – and then get a wake-up call when the People’s Liberation Army kicks our ass in Korea because we’re too busy having sex-harassment training instead of combat training.

    And if you think I’m just spouting off, go spend some time in the sandbox for awhile, see how that shit really works on the ground while getting shot at and I bet you’ll agree with me more if you don’t right now.

    1. I don’t think anyone’s pushing for special PC treatment or lower requirements for gays. I think they’re just trying to remove the policy of kicking people out for not lying about things which will definitely come up.

      1. I’m all agreeable to that. What I fear is the social engineers that accompany this kind of liberalization. They replace one kind of orthodoxy with another, one that damages combat effectiveness.

        I’m not homophobic, I’m social-engineer-o-phobic, and that baggage comes with the territory here.

        1. Sounds like the same argument we heard from the Right in 1948 when President Truman ordered the desegregation of the military.

          1. That’s bullshit. Gay ain’t the new black. That’s just a cop-out.

            1. Anyone who has to start with phrases like “I’m no homophobe, but…..” or “I’m not racist, but….” almost always means just the opposite. Yes, you are.

              1. It’s not homophobic to have concerns about how the removal of DADT is going to be implemented. I actually do have to deal with whatever decision is made by Congress on this issue. I don’t want them to fuck it up because it’s my Soldiers who will pay for a fuck-up.

                I don’t think for a second that our elected betters will be able to make this change without adding in some cluster-fuckingly stupid provisions.

                If my professional concern for the implementation of a policy renders my life of near total ambivalence about other people’s sexual orientation as the life of a homophobe, then I guess I’m a homophobe.

                1. …but your job isn’t to be professionally concerned about the implementation of a policy. It’s to follow the fucking orders laid out to you by your commanding officers. If you wanted to be part of a democratic organization where your concern was worth more than shit, you picked the wrong career.

                  1. No offense there, No offense, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. If “SFC” stands for “Sergeant First Class,” as I suspect it does, I guarantee you that the officers with whom he works do care about what he thinks. In fact, they probably routinely consult him on it.

                    That’s not to say that his concerns should necessarily be overriding, but they will absolutely matter in how any repeal gets implemented.

                  2. No offense,

                    That doesn’t make any sense. Any organization that succeeds relies on information from within the organization to judge how practical a given policy is. The U.S. military is a very successful organization.

              2. @Brian, don’t forget the “I have gay friends, but…” That’s one you hear *all* the from anti-gay bigots.

                I can guarantee you that if any gay person who knew what some of these people thought and said about them behind their backs, such a superfluous “friendship” would definitely go the way of the Dodo.

                Even bigots want to have their tokens.

                1. Even the most racist Southern slaveholder knew blacks could fight. That wasn’t the real reason they didn’t want them to serve. They knew that if they proved themselves in combat, they would be demanding equal rights.

        2. Give us a break with all the talk of “social engineering”. It’s the anti-gay crowd that are want to do the engineering. Gay people are accepted by business, government (except the military) and by their neighbors in suburban society. No good businessman fires a person simply for being gay. The anti-gay people hate this and want to go back to the old way where gays were totally shunned. This is no longer the case, too bad. Those who want to go back to that are the ones trying to engineer society back to the way it used to be.

    2. Good points. Actually, I have a problem with women in combat roles for the reasons you mentioned.

      Personally, I have no problems with gays in the military. Yes, I am a vet, not that it matters much. There were gays in the military when I was in, 1971. In fact, it seemed to me that most of the WACs were gay.

      In my opinion, the DADT policy should be ended.

    3. Obviously, you’re extremely misinformed and prejudiced–not only about gay people, but the fact that every other industrialized country in the world lets gays serve openly without “social-engineering (whatever that even means).” And, please, don’t even try to throw the “I have gay friends” crap, like the bigots always do. I, for one, would not like to have you as a friend, and I don’t know any other gay people who would, either.

      1. …but the fact that every other industrialized country in the world lets gays serve openly without “social-engineering (whatever that even means).”

        And every other industrialized country in the world, on a de facto basis, relies on the U.S. security umbrella for its national security policy.

        1. @Bill, if you’re marking the argument that we protect the world because we don’t allow the gays in the military talk about the fact that they’re gay, you’ve got a lot of facts to put on the table to convince me.

          1. Bill’s making the argument that other nations can–and do–play social engineer in their militaries because they have us to cover their asses if the shit hits the fan. It’s why our military budget is so high compared to other nations.

            They can play, we can’t. So when gays are given the okay to openly serve we better be damned sure it’s not gonna disrupt the services.

    4. I wish the military would become more asexual in practice. Women want to join in combat appointments? No prob, but you’ve got to pass the same tests, get shaved bald, etc. I would be that way with gay people in the military as well. Gay or hetero, don’t wanna know…don’t care. Getting knocked up in-theater gets you a dishonarable, ditto for fraternization

      This I like. Across the board, no one singled out, and a military where every soldier can do a guaranteed level of work or better.

    5. Dude, there’s gays in the MILITARY RIGHT NOW! They’re already fighting (and showering) along side non-gays right now. Most will not ‘come out’ even when they can, they just don’t want to be thrown out because someone finds out and rats them out. All the ‘problems’ that are listed by the anti-gay crowd are not problems right now with the current gay troops and they will continue to be non-issues after the policy change. & by the way, if some big brave straight soldier is afraid to pee in front of a gay guy, wouldn’t it be better for him to KNOW who is gay rather than to suspiciously be looking under the beds and in closets for them?? If he is homophobic, at least he might have a better chance of knowing who to be afraid of and thus who to avoid if gay people could be open.

  9. “As one ‘special operations warfighter’ quoted in the report said, ‘We have a gay guy. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys.”

    Sorta gives the term “snake eater” a whole new slant, no?

  10. Remind me again why people have to announce who they want to F before going into war?

    1. Soldiers talk about their personal lives when they’re off duty. Someone talking about his wife or girlfriend back home is spouting off about who they wanna F?

    2. Who’s saying anyone *has* to announce anything?

      1. You “announce” your sexuality by having a life. Every day is straight day, so you take it for granted. If your idea is that everyone should be completely banned from even MENTIONING who their partner is, you honestly don’t live in the real world.

        1. I get this war movie image…it’s the end of the day, a bunch of soldiers are sitting around, drinking some whiskey, and exchanging stories about whatever. With no women around the conversation turns to what the guys are missing. It gets a bit off color. Dirty jokes, stories that would make John Stagliano blush, comparisons of girlfriends and wives boobs, asses and assets in stories and photos–and then a screeching halt when the gay guy speaks up about missing his boyfriend. Not because you didn’t know he was gay–you did. And he’s a great buddy–and a good soldier(avoided the phrase ‘a good man to have at your back’ a bit uncomfortably there). But dear god you do not want to hear how he misses his boyfriends….anything. You know it’s wrong, that he’s a great guy, but man–not here, not out in the woods when you’re all talking about being horny enough that you could fuck a tree because there’s no women around….he doesn’t need women…..did he just look at my crotch?

          That’s real homophobia. The irrational fear that a gay man will look at you and like what he sees–maybe even want to do something to you–and worse, you won’t be able to stop him(or won’t want to). That’s what ‘homophobia’ actually is. And most straight men suffer from it to some extent, it’s how they’re built.

          And that’s what you’re fighting. Not a desire to criminalise sodomy. Not marriage or housing issue. Not job discrimination. You’re fighting that weird instinctive drawing back that happens to most men–even some who ARE gay.

          Don’t think we’ll ever get completely rid of it, but we can work to get to the point where it’s nothing more than a nervous pause.

          1. I find there’s an inverse relationship between the attractiveness of the man and his level of fear that other men will be attracted to him.

            I’m a woman, but every man I’ve ever heard audibly worry that a man might be attracted to him would have nothing to fear from me if I were a gay dude.

            1. Perhaps. But that’s why I labeled it ‘irrational’.

              And, since you’re not a gay dude, you’re not really an ideal judge here.

              Ever see a bear? There’s a big, hairy, chubby subculture, so maybe gay men are looking for something you’re not, no?

              Plus, we’re talking about young men in the military. Men who have physical training as part of their job description. Ever see Drew Carey’s military photos? Chubby slob Drew Carey from the show looked like Dolph Lundgren when he was a marine.

        2. You misunderstood me. People accuse those who want DADT repealed of having alterior motives because “what’s the big deal? you shouldn’t go around announcing who you want to F when there’s a war to fight.” Only they leave out that they think gays should get kicked out for it while the others were just a little innapropriate.

  11. But one day of my junior year in college, I came back from class to find a note on my desk. It was from my roommate, a friend since my freshman year, informing me that he was gay.

    As long as the note did not come with a little box from Zales, all is well in my book.

    Having a friend who was gay was disturbing enough, but a roommate?

    Yes, it would make ‘masturbation night’ that more awkward.

    1. You had a masturbation night with your roommates?

  12. It’s time to let gays serve openly in the military.

    Let’s have all-gay batallions – the subsequent Last Stands would be something to remember, like King Leonidas’ 300.

    1. Let’s give these all-gay battalions their own showers, barracks, and mess halls, too. Because segregation not only works, but it’s a great way to show off that awesome libertarian stance on freedom. Because seriously, fuck everyone who’s different than you.

      1. Let’s give these all-gay battalions their own showers, barracks, and mess halls, too. Because segregation not only works, but it’s a great way to show off that awesome libertarian stance on freedom. Because seriously, fuck everyone who’s different than you.

        Yeah, why should gays be any more segregated than women are?

      2. Re: Separate But Equal,

        Let’s give these all-gay battalions their own showers, barracks, and mess halls, too.

        Only if YOU pay for them. Not me.

        Because segregation not only works, but it’s a great way to show off that awesome libertarian stance on freedom.

        Seriously, you could not be more right – segregation (not FORCED, but voluntary) IS a manifestation of people’s freedom. YOU have NO right to tell ME who I should or should not associate with.

        Because seriously, fuck everyone who’s different than you.

        As long as they fuck in their own bedrooms and on their penny, fine with me.

    2. Important ammunition for the gay-lib crowd is ancient combat experience. Alexander the Great and his army? It wasn’t a denizen for gays, that was way too tame. It was NAMBLA with fucking swords (no pun intended!).

      1. History…it hurts the stupid…

        1. Huh? Its all quite true. Oh Hephaestion, eros of Alexander, badass with dead Persians all around.

          I bring up a great example of a very successful warrior culture (even operating in the exact same real estate as US-MIL today) with a utterly different pathology of sex in said culture’s DNA including very overt homosexual relationships…and I’m still a gay basher.

          You just can’t win with these criers. Where’d I put my violin? Anybody wanna start a Paypal account to get Bret Michaels singing these oppressed fucks a ballad or what? Cry me a river…

  13. “As one ‘special operations warfighter’ quoted in the report said, ‘We have a gay guy. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.'”

    Not until he decides he wants a special operation, anyway.

  14. Let ’em serve, but they will probably have to change the rank of “rear admiral” to something else.

  15. “You don’t have to be straight to serve in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.” – Barry Goldwater

  16. This all goes back to the whole “nurture vs nature” thing.
    If you think nature, you’re cool with gay being the new black.
    If you think nurture, then you’re not.

    For me it all comes back to one question: if it’s genetic, then how can you have identical twins where one is gay and one is not?

    I view the gays way more like I view the Goths. Are they born that way? No. Do they CHOOSE to be socially targeted rejects? Not exactly. There’s safety within groups of likeminded people. And if you’ve already been rejected by the mainstream (especially when you’re a child or adolescent) you’re going to jump into the first group that accepts you.

    Talk to any girl that’s thought she might be a lesbian at one point (ie: all of them) and they’ll explain the whole thing to you in greater depth…

    1. *sniff* I smell a closet case.

      Not to mention a small bit of misogyny as well. I happen to know quite a few girls who’ve NEVER been attracted to other girls. That’s your own personal prefrences getting in the way of reality.

      1. Oh – it’s the old “if you don’t agree with it, you must be it” argument.

        I hear the Government is going to use this to find out if you like terrorists (and thus are one) or dislike terrorists (in which case you are one).

    2. I’ve never heard of one twin being gay and another one being hetero. I would be interested in the social circumstances there.

      Overall, I think – especially with men – the gay spectrum is not digital, but gaussian. The majority of gay men are hard-wired gay, but you’ll find a smattering of lifestyle-choosers on the far end of that graph.

      Women are different then men. Look at the way too (totally hetero) female friend greet each other, with hugs and kisses etc. For the most part, guys – even gay guys – are not nearly that comfortable with casual physical contact in normal discourse.

      Its that kind of physical flexibility that lets girls I think be more “experimentive” with their sexuality, and be comfortable with that, than guys. But a hard-wired lesbian is pretty obvious.

      For instance, let’s start a little guessing game based on a butch-lesbian trope with some truth to it: Bull dykes and dogs.

      Rachel Maddow is good example here. The haircut alone screams Butch, but a peculiar, perky Butch. But I bet she’s got a dog. Big stupid one, one that is both surrogate for no penis and no kids.

      Who wants to take bets on that contention? I say she owns a Rottweiler, quite popular dog in the Bull Dyke set. Anyone know for sure?

      1. You sound like a classic example of a closet case self-loather to me. Another Larry Craig.

      2. In every post you’ve made thus far you’ve done nothing but reveal your own prejudices and demonstrate an unending capacity for generalization and stereotype.

        1. Wow. Look at all the criers here. So far my arguments about dibilitating social engineering (in the name of equality) of combat forces have not had any contentions to the contrary.

          First order:

          1. Equating relative powder-puff issues of gay advocacy – marriage, military, whatever, in any context – to the experience of black America and slavery and Jim Crow is a fucking joke. Don’t believe little ol’ racist me? Go ask some black people, see what they say…you’ll find ‘closet Larry Craigs’ all over the place. Note to gay advocates everywhere when it comes to comparative civil rights with the black experience: Don’t flatter yourself.

          2. I’m not against gay people serving in the military. I think that Air Force Col. who was F-15 pilot who got bounced because of inadvertent discolosure from spying on his personal communications is bullshit. He should be re-enstated with back-pay etc. He didn’t break the rules over DADT, someone else did and he’s paying for what someone else did. That shit’s wrong. I learned of him on Rachel Maddow’s show ironically. I don’t hate Rachel Maddow either, but she’s pretty bull-dykey and I’ve got a contention she’s got a big-ass dog because that’s a trope with butch lesbians. Where’d I pick up on that trope? My own cousin for Christsakes. Watch Animal Rescue on Animal Planet sometime for more examples of this trope. I am betting Rachel Maddow also has this trope. Prove me wrong.

          3. My primary argument (which all the nannies here miss) is the degradation of military effectiveness through engineered accommodation of different demographic groups, the integration of women being a prime example of how NOT to do something like that. The accommodation of women in the military the way we’ve been going about it as a society has debilitated our combat effectiveness. This isn’t apparent in low-level bush wars where we have a decisive logistics and firepower advantage with force protection at our liesure. When we take on a real military in a stand-up fight – just like the Soviets did in WWII – we’re going to run into that reality and lots of people will die as a result. We will magnify that problem if we double-down on that mistake with more manipulated social engineering to make it “work” the way the PC crowd wants to see it.

          If you have any arguments about that particular contention I would be interested in hearing them. But this labelling of me that I’m a homophobe, a racist, a closet self-loathing Larry Craig? That’s all you’ve got? I laugh.

          1. Oh, BTW…I rest my fucking case dickheads: http://www.peoplepets.com/news…..-city-life

          2. You call us “criers” while at the same time ridiculing us and calling us insulting names. Pot, meet kettle.

            1. One thing you can’t call me is wrong.

              1. You are wrong.

                1. I would like to know where I’ve been wrong anywhere on this thread.

      3. Well then – I invite you to look up the stats on gay twins. More often than not, if one twin is gay the other is straight.

        Also – I completely disagree that ANYBODY is hardwired with a sexual preference. I find that idea pretty ridiculous…

        You should check out the EBE theory (Exotic becomes Erotic). Which really plays up socialization (ie: as kids, boys play with boys and not girls. Thus they see girls as the “other” which they eventually sexualize through adolescence due to a lack of deep relational understanding through childhood).

        A very generalized summary – but I agree with the theory (except I think they don’t give nearly enough creedence to the impact of Fathers in creating gender identity and sexual orientation).

        1. There was a famous case of Siamese twins where one was gay and the other was not.

          ‘Twas a case of life’s crueltry. They were joined at the wiener.

          1. It would have been more interesting if they were gay Siamese male-female twins.

            1. Ahhh, then they would have been conjoined in the coital position. And at least one of them would have been happy.

        2. Also – I completely disagree that ANYBODY is hardwired with a sexual preference. I find that idea pretty ridiculous…

          truly one of the dumbest things I have read on H&R.

          1. Then you should have kept reading. This:

            “as kids, boys play with boys and not girls. Thus they see girls as the “other” which they eventually sexualize through adolescence due to a lack of deep relational understanding through childhood”

            …Is even dumber.

            1. as kids, boys play with boys and not girls. Thus they see girls as the “other” which they eventually sexualize through adolescence due to a lack of deep relational understanding through childhood

              Only people who can’t get laid – by guys or girls – make that shit up.

              It is these types of idiots I fear would be headlining any end of DADT and implementation of the new order at DoD.

          2. Then give an explanation, ass-hat.

            You were sexually attracted to someone when you were 3?

            1. Unless you’re sexually mature physiologically, you’re not going to be attracted to anything dumbass.

              You start figuring out who you like when you phsiologically turn on. Its why teenage years are so full of angst – and why people realize they’re gay ~12-16 yrs of age – because they’re human and that’s when humans start figuring out what they want to rub up and down on. Pretty simple, clown.

            2. Peenchy, who socializes cats? rats? spiders? ducks?

        3. “Also – I completely disagree that ANYBODY is hardwired with a sexual preference. I find that idea pretty ridiculous…”

          I have to ask, do you also believe in an invisible, omnipotent being that created the whole universe in seven days? Because seriously, that’s pretty ridiculous.

          1. If I did, wouldn’t I also believe that we were all born Hetero and that Gay was some kinda abomination?
            No, dickwad.

            If you took a second to think, rather than react, you’d realize that believing we’re born ingrained with sexual preferences is completely stupid.

            You seriously think something in Ethiopian men’s genetics makes them attracted to women with big-ass lip discs? Or, maybe, they’re attracted to women with big-ass lip discs because the women they’re around have big-ass lip discs.

            Perhaps, just maybe, you should think through my previous statement about sexual identity, rather than poopooing it as out of your box.

            1. “I view the gays way more like I view the Goths. Are they born that way? No. Do they CHOOSE to be socially targeted rejects? Not exactly. There’s safety within groups of likeminded people. And if you’ve already been rejected by the mainstream (especially when you’re a child or adolescent) you’re going to jump into the first group that accepts you.”

              And those gay folks that don’t exist in Iran choose to be stoned to death because they are social rejects?

              Perhaps Ethiopian men fuck women with big ass lip rings because that’s all that’s around. And perhaps some Ethiopian men fuck other Ethiopian men because they like big swinging black cock.

              You may not believe in the invisible man-god but you sure as shit are just as fucking arrogant in your absolute certainty that gay people choose to be outcasts in society as Christians are.

              Perhaps, just maybe, you should realize that no matter how you try to associate sexual identity as something inherently brought about by our surroundings and weather or not ones dad was in the home, some people are wired differently, instead of poopooing it as out of your box.

            2. The gender we are attracted to is ingrained but beyond that is all based on the social enviorment we are brought up in.

        4. @Peenchy: Identical twins correlate for sexual orientation 50/50%, this is widely published and you can look it up. Fraternal twins correlate similarly to other sibling pairs. So perhaps there is a genetic and environmental aspect, as there may be in handed-ness. I agree that sexuality is not provably only genetic, let-alone hard-wired (look at straight convicts having sex with men). But what does any of this have to do with ending DADT?

      4. Women are different then men. Look at the way too (totally hetero) female friend greet each other, with hugs and kisses etc.

        Go to France or Arabia, idiot.

        1. Arabia? You’re going to take that fucked up society and use it as a comparative illustration of natural human social interaction? Holy shit. Whatever.

          As far as France goes, yeah I’ll take that bet any day. Walk the Champ Elysees and people-watch. Show me a couple of dudes run up to each other and start screaming, hugging, and squealing in joy, talking how much they ‘love’ each other etc., I’ll show you a couple gay dudes in France, chump.

          1. A better example would be Israel, whose military allows gay soldiers to openly serve. If being openly gay was really such a considerable detriment to military readiness/effectiveness, Israel would have been wiped off the map decades ago. At that point, gays probably wouldn’t be an issue – I’m sure the Islamic Republic of Palestine would kill off any open homosexuals in the military, as dictated by Sharia law.

            1. The Israelis are a great example of how to effectively integrate a military and maintain it as an effective fighting force, which is something I haven’t ever advocated not doing. But I don’t have any illusions that’s what the United States will get. Different cultures, different problems, different motivations.

              And that cuts both ways. Something north of 10% of Israel’s citizens are of Arab descent and they are forbidden from the military if memory serves. Kinda Jim Crow-ish is the Arab-Israeli citizen’s lot actually.

              Everyone has their own problems and their own successes. I don’t think – especially with the current Administration running things in the midst of our current wars – that we would get anything like the successful integration of openly gay military personnel a’la Israel. For the last goddamned time I’m not some homophobe nutcase.

      5. Any more sweeping generalizations? Please, go on, tell me what kind of gay man I am. Where am I on the spectrum?

        Moroever, what is my “social-engineering agenda?”

        You should move your way on to a better online home, perhaps WND.com, Fox News, or the National Review. You hold much of the bigotry and prejudices of a conservative. Whatever your issue is, please don’t air it here.

        1. People are so reflexively insulted so easily they can’t perceive what I’m saying. Too many alarm-razing buzzwords in my earthy vernacular apparently.

          Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me…unless I’m named Ben on the HnR blog at reason. Sad.

          1. We have no intention of hurting you… just exposing you for the garbage-spewing Neanderthal-acting thug that you come across as.

          2. I’m not “hurt” by what you say. I am pointing out the fact that it’s obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You obviously don’t have any gay friends–and I can see why. Please, take your bigotry over to WorldNetDaily–they’d love you there.

            1. Cue the violin…

      6. “For the most part, guys – even gay guys – are not nearly that comfortable with casual physical contact in normal discourse.”

        This is by no means true in all cultures at all times and places. This is a product of, one, the hypersexualization/sentimentalization of physical contact, and two, homophobia.

        Also, whining about “social engineering” in an institution that is as pure a product as there ever was of social engineering, from top to bottom, is kind of stupid.

    3. Peenchy, you’re misunderstanding what “identical” twins are. They’re not 100% identical. If they were, then you wouldn’t have one twin becoming schizophrenic or getting leukemia, as sometimes happens.

      http://www.scientificamerican……-identical

      Also, your example doesn’t explain homosexuals who are gay, but have no groups of “likeminded” people to jump into.

    4. You misunderstand genetics, and you’re deriving flawed conclusions as a result. The fact that you can have twins of differing orientation simply means that sexuality is not 100% genetic. However, that does not therefore mean that it’s 0% genetic. Many complex human traits arise from the interaction of genetics with environmental factors, such as hormonal exposure levels and other environmental features of the womb (even twins may be exposed to distinct developmental conditions).

      Current scientific understanding of sexuality does indeed support such a mixed, pre-determined explanation for sexuality. And on the other hand, no science whatsoever supports your “choice” explanation.

      1. Many complex human traits arise from the interaction of genetics with environmental factors, such as hormonal exposure levels and other environmental features of the womb (even twins may be exposed to distinct developmental conditions).

        Exactly, which is why monozygotic (identical) twins have different fingerprints.

    5. “If it’s genetic, then how can you have identical twins where one [likes pizza] and one [that doesn’t like pizza.]”

  17. I love taking head from American and other invaders.

  18. GUY 1: I have no alterior motives, I just want gays to serve.

    GUY 2: Psst: They already do!

    GUY 1: But they have to lie!

    GUY 2: DADT. Done!

    GUY 1: But…but…I have no alterior motives, but…

    Really?

    1. Male Soldier 1: Hey man this weekend I took my girlfriend out for dinner then banged her good on the hood of my car in the parking lot.

      Male Soldier 2: That’s sweet man. I banged your girlfriend on the hood of your car too.

      Soldiers laugh and go about their business.
      ——–
      Male Soldier 1: Hey man this weekend I took my boyfriend out to dinner.

      Male Soldier 2: That’s cool. Is that the dude I met. He’s a cool dude.

      Unisex Soldier 3: (not part of this conversation but overhears and reports to his CO) Sir I overheard Male Soldier 1 talking to Male Soldier 2 and admitted being gay. This makes me uncomfortable because even though he has a boyfriend and has never shown an interest in me obviously he is going to try and dry hump my leg if shooting starts ’cause the gays can’t control their perverted sex urges.

      Commanding Officer: Soldier 1, I’m sorry son but you’re being dishonorably discharged for violating DADT in a casual conversation you had with someone that isn’t concerned with what goes on in your private life but because someone you never met overheard you. You were a valuable asset to the service in our world wide effort to kill ragheads whom we accuse of all sorts of nefarious deeds but can’t prove any of it.

      1. And that’s exactly how it happens. All it takes is an accusation.

  19. So, we’re all Ok with the armed services passing on guys under 5″5″, have eyesight that requires coke bottle glasses, are required to wear leg braces, have AIDS, are schizophrenic, have a felony conviction, are alcholic, are fixed on heroin, have flat feet, are morbidly obese or won’t swear allegiance to the U S of A, but we’re concerned when they pass on a queer????

    I can understand not being mean to the sissy, but shouldn’t the armed forces be free to enlist whomever they want??

    1. “passing on guys under 5″5”
      – you can be waived for that.

      “have eyesight that requires coke bottle glasses”
      – Only an issue in combat/critical MOS’s

      Being flat footed doesn’t deter you from enlisting either.

      Felony convictions can normally be waived.

      Drug history is almost always waived, so long as you pass your piss tests.

      Why would anyone feel bad for someone morbidly obese not being able to join the military? They’re told to get to a more manageable wait first, then they can enlist.

      Being openly gay? That’s a big negative, ghostrider. That’s what the fuss is about.

    2. Being gay is not a physical disability or an impairment. You can be gay and do anything that you’re capable of if trained properly, just like the straight soldiers.

      1. Being gay is not a physical disability or an impairment.

        But, the entire point of proponents of the status quo is that, organizationally, it is. You might not agree with them. Hell, I don’t think I agree with them. But, your argument would hold a lot more water if you addressed that claim.

        1. Please state the nature of this “impairment” so that we have an actual argument to refute.

          Because the moment you ask for specifics, the anti-gay argument starts sounding pretty fucking silly.

          1. The argument is that the presence of gay soldiers will be/is detrimental to unit cohesion and morale.

            Since the argument is based around this it’s hard to nail down specifics.

            But if you want to see what they’re talking about, take all the men you know that are just fine with gay people. The kind that have gay friends. Put them in a situation where other gay men are hitting on them–or they think they are. See how ‘fine’ they really are with homosexuality.

          2. Tara,

            Azathoth pretty much responds with my point. Whether you think discomfort with homosexuality is a legitimate emotional response or not, it is a reality among many of the troops. Or at least we have ample reason to believe it is. That emotional response has substantial negative consequences for the ability of the military to perform its core mission. Or, again, there’s ample reason to believe that it may have such consequences. The group dynamics of military unit matters. To say, “Well, those reactions aren’t legitimate.” may well win you kudos for moral discernment. But, those kudos will do little (well, actually, nothing) to offset the harm to troop morale and unit cohesion that proponents of the status quo suggest will result from a change in policy.

            By the way, Tara, before copping an attitude of presumptuous superiority, you might want to consider whether claims that views are “anti-gay” make you sound even fucking sillier.

  20. So you’re saying that gay guys are all such shrieking sissies that they should be considered disabled or unfit for service but that this handicap only afflicts them after someone learns that they are gay, at which point these formerly competent soldiers degenerate into little whimpering fairies? Does the guy with the coke bottle glasses have 20/20 vision until he tells you that he has bad eye sight and only then become blind as you are made aware of it? Trippy dude.

    1. @Loop|12.6.10 @ 2:01PM

    2. Noooooo, but they can and do bounce the guy with the fat roll, or the guy with the heroin issue, or the guy that develops flat feet, or the guy that becomes schitzy, or the guy that runs afoul of the SP’s. or….well, you get the idea, or at least half of it.

      1. Yeah, it sucks when conditions that actually have an effect on combat readiness are taken into account.

        1. It can suck, when you are actually there. Sometimes it can suck big time. Every now and again it can suck major big time.

          Which is why sucking can have an effect. Which is why some, some who are actually there I mean, think it’s a bad idea.

          1. and more who are there do not think it is, which is the point of the article.

            1. Uh, more who are…where? Behind a polished desk in the Pentagon isn’t exactly the same as “there”.

      2. Right, because they fail to pass certain physical/psychological tests. DADT says that someone who passes all these tests *must* still be discharged if it is discovered that he/she is gay. Being gay is not the same as being crippled or strung out on drugs or crazy. It has nothing to do with physical or mental prowess. On the other hand I don’t want them to become some protected class who can’t be discharged.

        1. [Being gay is not the same as being crippled or strung out on drugs or crazy]

          Perhaps not, but then again, perhaps they bring other “issues” to the table. Issues that are difficult to deal with when you must handle many men (or women) within a group. Issues that may manifest themselves at awkward, sometimes perilous, times. Times when one could be dealing with far more important issues.

          When I served there were instances of homosexuality (or instances at least perceived as such) on occasion. These were generally handled, by the men themselves, sometimes quite harshly. I have no reason to believe it’s any different now.

          Regardless how those who are not effected like to impose rules, the situations will be handled. I simply wonder, as a supposed libertarian, to whom you think you are issuing a favor here.

          1. Let’s make gay people equal under the law, then they can decide if and when to come out. The tacit threats of straight bigot-apes ready to pounce might factor into their decision or it might not.

    3. Fiscal Meth,

      I think the claim is that the knowledge that the soldier is gay creates an organizational impairment.

      1. That is what the argument should be about but you should re-read the comment I was responding to.

  21. Don’t the Brits allow openly gay soldiers to serve? I seem to recall they have a pretty competent army.

    1. Not gay, just British.

      1. Well, I guess that explains it, thanks.

    2. If I remember correctly, Israel allows openly gay soldiers. Have you seen any damage to military readiness or effectiveness over there? Didn’t think so.

  22. Mr. Chapman:

    First of all, I applaud you sharing your story, which I think is significant and important. However, and I say this as both a veteran of the USMC in Desert Storm and the Navy in Iraq, that the big elephant in the room is HIV and Hepatitis. No article or survey that I have ever seen addresses what will happen when the openly gay man suffers a gunshot or other wound, is bleeding all over the place. Will his follow soldiers/Marines “not take the risk” and stand by or will they “dive in?” In other words, will I risk getting HIV and help or will I not take that risk (one that I can’t mitigate against). I don’t know, but I wish the conversation was happening…

    1. HIV isn’t a big question in this as anyone deploying is highly unlikely to have HIV. And given that other STDs are fairly evenly represented across gender orientation those first responders are taking the same risk with anyone, not just those wearing a Scarlet G.

    2. Doesn’t the military test for HIV?

      1. Every two years. And it’s not necessarily disqualifying; you could wind up stationed semi-permanently near one of the major military hospitals.

  23. We were good friends before, and we would stay good friends. And 35 years later, we still are.

    How does your wife feel about your extra-marital relationship, Steve?

  24. “No article or survey that I have ever seen addresses what will happen when the openly gay man suffers a gunshot or other wound, is bleeding all over the place.”
    It’s most important here to recognize that only openly gay men have HIV or AIDS. In fact, the act of telling another person that you’re gay is the most common method of disease transmission.

    1. +1

      That’s how Tom Cruise stays so healthy.

  25. How do you get identical twins who have the same genes but different expressions of them in different environments? Is this really that hard of a question to answer?

    1. 1. Not all in-born characteristics are based on genes. One twin could have a missing limb, or asperger’s syndrome, or any of a number of other physicial/psychological differences from the other.

      2. Just how common do you think this situation is?

      3. In what way does it have anything to do with anything? A gay man can’t bring himself to want to fuck women, any more than you can look at a man’s hairy ass and find love. Can’t you just wrap your head around the idea that some people are different for the simple reason that they are different? And that no amount of bullying on your part is going to change who they are?

  26. There’s a 50 percent chance that both identical male twins are gay.

  27. A Lt. Col.(retired, also a lesbian)told me the problem was that unit cohesiveness in the military is based on fraternal love and not romantic love. She worked hard to make sure her
    romantic interests were outside her unit and of like rank. “Imagine,” she said, “if the squad looie was romantically involved with one of his men, and showed favoritism every time he had to assign someone to a risky point position. In combat, everyone has to look out for the others in the unit; they can’t be wondering who’s fucking who.” In her opinion, DADT is better than the operational chaos that would result if everyone came out of the closet and the military had to quickly scramble to separate couples.

    1. Ahh, a kernel of wisdom, however stumbled upon.

    2. Why do so many people conflate “coming out of the closet” with “becoming a sex-crazed lunatic incapable of controlling oneself”?

      1. Why do so many people conflate “we’ll pass because you’re color blind, overweight, 5’1″, or gay” with “we are discriminating against you”?

        1. How is being gay a limitation on one’s ability to serve?

          1. It may not. But more importantly, it may (some in intermediate command positions swear that it DOES)introduce limitations on others ability to serve, at their best, in moments when one’s best service is critical. Yet another definition of “ability to serve”.

            1. You don’t think a strong case could be made that a closeted gay soldier is less able to serve than a soldier who doesn’t have to worry about being fired for telling the truth?

              1. I think the issue has nothing to do with the “closeted” gay person.

                Rather that which a gay person, closeted or out, often brings to the table certain issues that CAN and DO make the orderly function of units under stress unreliable. As unreliable say, as an artillary unit with a rangeman of 80/20 vision, or a foot soldier with flat feet on a forced march, or, ad infinitum.

                1. I don’t suppose you have any evidence that gay soldiers are inherently worse at their job…

                  1. You really aren’t listening, are you?

        2. Why do so many people conflate “we’ll pass because you’re color blind, overweight, 5’1″, or gay” with “we are discriminating against you”?

          You might want to check the definition of that word:

          Discriminate verb \dis-?kri-m?-?n?t\: to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object

          I suppose the intended context was “unfairly discriminate”, but still…

          Not being able to discern whether a flashing light is red or green might be disqualifying for some tasks. I’m not sure that a preference for Tab A over Slot B is similarly disqualifying for positions not involving Tab A or Slot B.

    3. “”Imagine,” she said, “if the squad looie was romantically involved with one of his men, and showed favoritism every time he had to assign someone to a risky point position.”

      We call that fraternization, and it’s already against the law for heterosexuals in language that would apply equally to improper homosexual relationships. No part of any proposed measure repealing DADT touches the regulation banning fraternization, so her entire line of reasoning is a non-starter.

      1. Here’s where the slippery slope with that shit starts. Frat is against the law, and everybody doesn’t care. Why do you think they’re flying all these chicks out of theater every month knocked up? And daddy isn’t Omar getting lucky, its fucking around (literally) in the barracks, in the showers, in the chow-hall at night. I walked in on that shit. Typical knock-ups (and knock-outs from deployment) in a CVN on typical WestPAC is over ten.

        Now, in late 2009 the theater commander in Iraq attempted to start court-martials on ladies in service who got knocked up (and their would-be baby-daddies), to crack down on this, which is utterly useless logistic headache for a goddamned warzone.

        This is where I fear the nannycrats. What happened next? Theater commander basically says he’s just kidding, only select court-martials on knocked up soldiers would go through. Couple days later he says ‘just kidding’ about the whole deal. Obviously there was crying down at the White House or brassy firmament at the Pentagon, bad PR, whatever. Either way, nannycrats put the kabosh on something that is sorely needed to solve personnel distractions in a fucking combat theater.

        Now what do you think is going to happen when DADT is ended, and then first gay guy comes up for CM on Frat charges? Double standard? I’d think so by that measure…and down the slope we go. Great example of where this is going.

        1. Sounds like a better reason to hammer COs who can’t get their shit together than to continue a ban on serving openly.

          It’s called leadership, and it’s what we pay the officers and non-coms for.

          1. CO can’t babysit his whole goddamned command that way. Put a bunch of guys and gals together (lets pretend we’re all hetero for a second) and try making sure people don’t start humping unless there are SEVERE consequences for doing so. If its all on the commander, you’re going to see a commander going nuts dealing with people he can’t effectively reprimand (because someone at the top said No) who literally are screwing behind his back. After six months of that, we’re gonna need more CO’s dude.

            1. If a command-billeted officer thinks he’s stressed due to personnel issues, then I think it’s safe to say his resignation letter would come with great relief to everybody.

              1. Personnel issues, dude. Not personal issues, which is I think what you were thinking there.

                Next.

                1. Personnel issues, dude. Not personal issues, which is I think what you were thinking there.

                  Next.

                  Um, No ‘personnel’ issues is what I meant to say, “dude”.

            2. Take any group of 18-22 year old people of mixed gender and place together in large concentrations and you’ll get lots and lots of sex. And no, severe consequences will not make a massive dent.

              As evidence I point you toward any college campus, any large military base, any large navy ship (like an aircraft carrier). Young people like to have sex. They will find a way to have sex with each other if at all possible. This is not really in dispute, is it?

              If you want to hook up, just head to a naval base town. As soon as the fleet ships out, the local bars are “ass soup” because of all of the young wives who’s husbands are gone for the next 3-6 months. If the threat of divorce isn’t enough to keep these ladies chaste, what on earth makes you think that their husbands would remain chaste given equal opportunity?

              Not that any of that has anything at all to do with DADT. I’m just pointing out the obvious.

              1. Cyto,
                The key is to check for an upside down mop in front of the door at night 🙂

          2. But..but…. they’re gay… c’mon, man… you don’t REALLY expect them to be able to command troops when gays are around.. do you??

            1. I think gays can serve, should be able to serve. They are even serving right now…Dun! Dun! Dun!

              But where I see this going is not working. I don’t want to see command decisions and all the rest in the future being predicated on potential lawsuits about “not promoting enough gays” or endless culture wars about “not accommodating the special needs of the ‘Uniformed LGBT Community'” or whatever this new special interest will acquire in the current context of social development in the Armed Forces.

              Unless there is a clear plan on ‘official’ integration, one that does not repeat the mistakes of integrating women (and picks up on some of the successes…they’re out there for sure) in the front-line military, DADT is better than the alternative.

              1. Because special treatment for white, male heterosexuals is the perfectly acceptable default policy. Everyone else has to earn their right to be treated equally, and only if it doesn’t make anyone squeamish.

                1. If you balkanize the military into little demographic niches the same way we’re doing with society at large, you bet the honkeys will be their own little group – lawyers and criers along with it – amongst many little groups. In a social organization like the military with the goals of a military, that’s a disaster.

                  1. Huh? No, allowing them to serve openly and homogeneously with hetero’s is, I’m pretty fucking sure, the whole point of ending DADT. There would only be ‘balkanizing’ if any special exemptions went beyond that. As far as ‘lawsuits’ go, government property cannot sue the government. They would only be able to “request mast”.

                    1. You should examine the history of integrating women into the Armed Forces front-line units to get an idea of what I’m talking about. The idealization of integration is not what’s on the table here anymore than it was with women.

        2. The gay soldiers won’t get pregnant so that solves that problem

          1. Yes, but their “time of the month” often transcends the entire moth.

            1. To transcend the moth… is that kung-fu talk?

  28. How come the two things gays seem to want most, marriage and military service, are two things no rational person would ever want a part of???

    1. How come people always seem to implicitly define “rational” as “agreeing with my opinions?”

    2. I think voting is irrational but I’m glad we eventually dropped the even more irrational practice of denying it to chicks.

      1. I’m not. Female voters are terrible. Nanny-staters all

        1. The 19th Amendment. The beginning of the downfall and the Oprafication of a nation.

        2. Boortz, is that you?

        3. Hate to break it to you, but men vote terribly as well.

          1. Yes, but they are girlie men.

  29. The gay rights agenda isn’t about being free to be who they are, it is about forcing the rest of us to validate them, at all cost. Getting rid of DADT is all about opening the pandora’s box of gay rights in the military- the right to sue if you don’t get what you want, the right to have an excuse for poor performance, the right to really, really stick it to the straight Christians.

    1. How about treating people as individuals rather than tribes? It’s more demanding on the brain at first, but it’s worth it in the end.

  30. You folks need to check out the “up your alley” fair at zombietime. The gay rights crowd would create an environment where that behavior would be PROTECTED in situations where even Bible-reading isn’t.

    1. Where is Bible-reading outlawed?

  31. Interesting point of view here.

    Shiroi Neko

  32. I think, when you come right down to it I’m pretty reflective of the population. And I think there’s a relatively straightforward way to discuss this. Sure, being nice to gay people, respecting their right to come out of the closet, for example, is a good thing. But, when discussing the military and military policy, I really have one overriding consideration: I want people who aim to harm me DEAD. I want their families DEAD. I want their friends and allies DEAD. I want their second grade teachers DEAD. I want people who aim to harm me to be a non-entity in my mind because the moment they begin to act on their goals, I want to know that our military will kill them. This allows me to go about my fat, happy and stupid life in blissful unconcern. Maintaining that blissful unconcern is first, foremost and final in my mind. To the extent that this can be made to happen while allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, cool. Like I said, that’s a good thing. But, it’s important not to lose track of the one overriding goal, killing people who want to harm me. Now, honestly, I doubt that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly will interfere with this vital and critical mission. But, the fact that so many of the advocates of this policy seem almost cavalier about killing people who want to harm me and treat concerns that this might impede the military’s ability to kill people who want to harm me as beside the point doesn’t lend much confidence in their position.

    1. What did I ever do to you?

      1. Can’t do anything now…you’re dead.

      2. Entirely beside the point. You might legitimately claim that the invasion of Iraq was in error, that there was little reason to believe the Iraqis genuinely intended to harm us. That hardly invalidates the primary importance of killing those who aim to harm us. You might try to argue that collateral damage invalidates the legitimacy of killing those who aim to harm us. But, you’d probably be pretty lonely in doing so. I doubt I’d be alone in being quite happy trading 1,000 other people’s innocent lives for my own innocent life.

    2. I want their families DEAD. I want their friends and allies DEAD. I want their second grade teachers DEAD.

      Hezbollah and Hamas are looking to sign up guys just like you.

      1. And if they’ve decided it will be a gun fight, why should are agents bring knives?

  33. Miltary Chaplains have been disciplined for ending prayers with “In Jesus’s name”. The military has burned bibles sent to Afganistan. Try a reading of the Bible over the louspeaker on a military base or ship for Christmas (err, the “Holidays”). Then imagine the wailing and knashing of teeth (and lawsuits) if some poor homosexual was sensored for distributing a “how to fist” pamphlet.

    Another point, homosexual risky behavior leads to a much higher risk of communicable disease. If a GI gets AIDS in the military, would the military have to pay for lifetime treatments and pension?

    1. Is your name intentionally ironic?

    2. @smarty (ironic) name, your “argument” that letting gays in the military actually say that they’re gay without getting fired will lead to everyone getting AIDS shows your bigotry.

      Reason.com is a place for fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal individuals. If there’s any “infestation” here, it’s not AIDS: it’s Fox News, brainwashed misinformed and prejudiced people like you.

      I’m gay. I don’t have AIDS. I’m not promiscuousness. I don’t spread “fisting” manuals, and I’m not in the military. I’m glad I’m not under the military, because I’d be kicked out for evening writing the previous statement.

      1. Reason is a place for libertarians and libertarian ideas to be debated and talked about by libertarians and non-libertarians alike, Ben. It is not just a place for fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal individuals. If you wish to play in such a segregated playground, build your own, this isn’t it.

        For all smarty’s obtuseness, the idea that gays serving openly would lead to everyone getting AIDS is not what he said–he wondered if AIDS treatments would be covered if a soldier got AIDS while active. Two different things.

        1. (((he wondered if AIDS treatments would be covered if a soldier got AIDS while active)))

          Given all the talk about female soldiers getting pregnant on this thread, I’m sure it is an issue the military has faced plenty of times.

    3. “If a GI gets AIDS in the military, would the military have to pay for lifetime treatments and pension?”

      It depends. If a servicemember tests positive for HIV then they go through a medical evaluation board to determine if they are fit for duty. If they are found fit, then the military will continue to provide medical care just like every other service member. An infected troop is reevaluated once a year. If it is determined that they have developed AIDS, then they are medically separated (with severence pay if applicable) and are eligible for medical care through VA. If they have enough time in service to qualify for retirement, then they may retire with pay and medical benefits just like every other military retiree.

      There is already a policy in place, because…

      …wait for it…

      …straight people get HIV/AIDS too.

  34. the only semi-intelligent argument on here in favor of keeping gays out of the military seems to be that it would have some negative effect on actual military performance.

    yeah, it would be a shame if it was more difficult to defend karzai and his corrupt regime. john mccain knows it would make it harder to stay in iraq for 100 years.

    thank god the all-straight military wasn’t distracted by gays when they captured bin laden. oh wait…

    1. The discussion here isn’t over gays in the military. They already are in the military. There were gay soldiers in the army of the Continental Congress I’m sure.

      The debate here is the end of DADT, and the regime that replaces it. My contention is the regime of social governance that replaces DADT will in the long run be worse than maintaining DADT.

      Frankly, personal opinions of gay people or the gay ‘lifestyle’ are secondary considerations here. Some of the contentions I’ve seen about HIV and what not are frankly laughable.

      However, I’ve noticed that disagreeing with the elimination of DADT – at all costs – invites a particularly vituperative criticism that is of a severe ad hominem nature.

      In my own experience on this thread I’ve learned I share similar pathologies with disgraced former Senator and closet homo Larry Craig. I apparently watch Fox News although the cable news show I’ve admitted to watching is Rachel fucking Maddow. I also apparently should be chilling with the flat-earthers over at WorldNetNews or whatever the fuck its called.

      This criticism – of me and not DADT or anything else – all results from my own reservations regarding elimination of DADT and my conscious lack of PC. Given that response, I would not want to see a culture war like this, as displayed on this thread, ’embedded’ in the United States Armed Forces. As ex-USMC with sandbox time, they have enough shit to deal with. This thread alone is becoming argument against rescinding DADT.

      1. That’s a reasonable argument, but I would say that a) the recent survey pretty much shows that the armed forces are ready and b) you’re not showing much concern for what shit gay soldiers have to “deal with.”

        Surveys from the era show that soldiers were far, far less comfortable allowing racial integration of the armed forces. It didn’t cause chaos that I know of.

  35. Current surveys show a general tolerance for gays in the military because – I’ll say it again – Gays are already in the military. Anybody with a brain knows this. This is about DADT and what replaces it should it go, it is not about gays in the military per se.

    Look up the history of the Korean War, especially around the Pusan Perimeter. There were some snafus with integration alright. And a lot of people died in-theater as the Army had to re-write the books because all the things put in place in 1948 for integration fell apart once real bullets started flying in a real adverse military situation.

    And before the PC brigade jumps down my throat, I’m not saying integration was bad, or integrating gays or women is bad…but look at how you do it. History is littered with how not to do it in our armed forces. Just look it up.

  36. But in the end, it will turn out to be no big deal.

  37. Fascinating fact free discussion. Over 60% of the DADT discharges have been women. There apparently are more Lesbians in the military than Gay men. From what little we know about currently serving gay men, they are mainly in the Navy and Air Force. Most are in technical positions that require a lot of expensive training. Like translators, IT, high tech maintenence.

    For a discussion of why people are gay, check out John Barrowman’s The Making of Me at youtube.

    1. I would suspect that there are at least as many gay men as women in the military, its just that more women are ‘caught’ if you will.

      1. Purely anecdotal, but during my 12 years in the Army I’d estimate that about 1/3 of the females I served with were definitely lesbians; and as far as I know (or would venture to guess), about 1/100 of the males.

        There may be more gay men than lesbians in terms of pure numbers, but they’re more difficult to find.

  38. Instead of repealing DADT, let’s expand it to include heterosexuals. How can you possibly be properly concerned about defeating the enemy when you have non essential thoughts of sex, family, reproduction, and general humanity on your mind all the time? Besides, in 30 years it’s all going to be about who has the better software and death dealing hardware anyway as meatware becomes as antique as steam power. I look forward to red vs blue skynets battling it out for superiority for millions of years after all non machine life forms have been eradicated from the planet. Like a snail crawling along the edge of a straight razor, this is my dream, this is my nightmare.

  39. I’m willing to concede that a majority of leathernecks in the sandbox putting ordinance downrange are generally oversupplied with testosterone that makes this type of high risk activity seem reasonable as a career choice. Do I think that the average psych profile of these folks are currently socially conditioned to be homophobic? Yes. Will this cause a moderate percentage loss of unit cohesion and possibly cost some people their lives until being gay slowly becomes socially non-eventful? Sure. Look, everything could potentially cost lives. Consider this. What else could potentially cost people their lives? How about more qualified people choosing the more lucrative private sector instead of the military? Do you think if you doubled military salaries and considerably upped the qualifications to serve, would you end up with more qualified soldiers? Absolutely. Would those more qualified soldiers be less likely to make mistakes? Probably. Would there likely be situations where the entire ecosystem of smarter people looking at problems lend itself to a decreased mortality rate? I believe so. Every organization picks it’s own staff, numerical and talent cost / benefit ratio. That all said, I believe that having gays in the military is a net asset not a net liability, even with a small amount of unit cohesion trouble. There is a significantly large pool (numerically, of course not a large percentage of the population) of talent out there that could bring needed skills to the armed forces that are choosing other things because of the ban. These skills will save lives and improve outcomes over and above the transition costs.

  40. Allowing gays to serve openly is not an issue, however marriage is. It is called Holy matrimony God is the author of holliness not man. How can we let anything or anyone enter into said union that is not holy. In addition will this make it a crime to preach against sin!!! Civil Union is fine.

    1. So, athiests shouldn’t be allowed to marry either?

  41. A close friend of mine was raped (vaginally and anally) by a male soldier in her unit while we were deployed to Afghanistan. At first the rapist denied that he had sex with her, then changed his story to claim that the sex was consensual. For some reason the command believed the rapist, and punished them both for violating in theater fraternization rules; reducing him from SPC to PFC, and her from PFC to PV1. She had to spend the next 7 months working with her attacker everyday in a combat zone.

    What she could not tell the investigator, because of DADT, was the fact that she was, and still is, a lesbian. She has not had consensual sex with any male since she was 16 and “still trying to be straight,” as she phrased it.

    After redeployment her attacker raped a civilian woman. He was arrested and convicted in that case, and the trial transcript reads almost identical to my friend’s testimony about her rape.

    My point is, had it not been for DADT, the investigator may have seen cause to recommend charges in the earlier rape case. A conviction would have spared my friend from forced daily interaction with her rapist, and would have saved his later victim from being attacked entirely.

    If you support DADT, then you need to understand that there will be unintended consequences of forcing soldiers to be dishonest about who they are. Personally, I would rather serve with an open homosexual than a closet serial rapist any day.

  42. How about mbt kisumu sandals this one: there are X driving deaths a year- what % of driving deaths (or serious injuries) involve alcohol, or other intoxicating substances? kisumu 2 People are pretty darn good drivers when they are not impaired.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.