I think 3 would be sufficient for now and he can get around to 4 a bit later.

How many DADT military people are there with rare mission critical skills? How many have been excluded?

I would think one would be too many if it leads to the unnecessary death of one of our boys...

(1) Suspend enforcement of DADT in its entirety for the duration of the war, claiming ample constitutional and statutory authority.

Dale, could you make a separate post justifying your assertion of "ample authority" of the President to disregard plain statutory language passed by Congress pursuant to its exclusive authority to govern and regulate the armed forces (Art1 Sec8)?

I don't want to derail this thread, so I won't say anything more about it in here, but I'm rather surprised, to say the least.

The problem with your spiel, Maureen, is that it completely ignores hetero-normativity. If a male soldier wants to fuck a female whore, well that's no problem, heck he probably needs to blow off some steam. If a male soldier wants to fuck a male whore, he needs to leave the military.

If Obama does anything other than #5 I would be surprised. No saying anything on the merits or demerits of the options, just that when he has been faced with making a stand or waffling, Obama has a tendency to waffle.

Congress, not the President, controls the training of soldiers. The President is Commander-in-Chief, but the Commander-in-Chief cannot blantantly disobey Congress.

In Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F3rd 915 (1996) a total of 6 of the 13 judges in the en banc 4th Circuit -- just barely short of a majority -- signed on to a concurrence by Judge Luttig declaring that they would strike down the Clinton administrations "DADT" regulations as impermissably liberal interpretations of the authorizing statutes so far to the left of what Congress actually said as to exceed the President's authority to interpret an act of Congress. Although a bare majority held Clinton's interpretation consistent with Congress's objectives, the whole circuit agreed that if the President issued a regulation inconsistent with Congress' command on this subject, that regulation could be struck down.

I might be worth repeating what Judge Luttig said:

The statute governing homosexuals in the Armed Services that was

enacted by the Congress of the United States and signed by the Presi-

dent forbids known homosexuals from serving in the military. As Lt.

Thomasson has steadfastly maintained, the statute, and the policy it

embodies, is not at all conduct-based in the sense now argued by the

Executive Branch, assertedly on behalf of the Congress. The statute

requires the discharge of homosexual service members who merely

say that they are homosexual or otherwise evidence their homosexual-

ity, regardless of whether they have actually engaged in homosexual

conduct or are likely to engage in any such conduct.

The requirement that, in order to be discharged, one must at least

demonstrate a likelihood to engage in homosexual acts exists only in

a regulation promulgated by the Administration, ostensibly in imple-

mentation of the statute. That regulation redefines the statutory term

"propensity" so that only those homosexual service members who are

likely to engage in homosexual acts will be discharged. Through this

regulation the Administration has effectively secured the very policy

regarding military service by homosexuals that it was denied by the

Congress.

Rather than continue to indulge the politically expedient fiction

that the congressionally-mandated policy bars from service only those

known homosexuals who are likely to engage in homosexual acts --

a fiction that both of these parties urge upon us because it serves their

mutual interest in creating a sanctuary for homosexuals within the

military -- I would simply invalidate the Administration's regulation

as in excess of its statutory authority. Then, having done so, I would

sustain the policy that was actually enacted into law as a permissible

exercise of Congress' constitutional authority "To make Rules for the

Government and Regulation" of the military. U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8,

cl. 14. As the Solicitor General maintained at argument, and as the

courts have uniformly held in analogous contexts, it is well within the

plenary authority of the Congress to exclude homosexuals from mili-

tary service because of the deleterious effects that knowledge of their

attraction for members of the same sex has on unit cohesion and mili-

tary effectiveness.

The situation of gay people waiting for Obama to take the lead in securing their rights reminds me of Garrison Keillor's shy liberation movement (documented in his essay, "Shy Rights: Why Not Pretty Soon?")

The gay liberation movement stands about where the shy one did, as Keillor said to an interviewer some 25 years ago: "Well, the shy liberation movement is about where it's always been: in a state of waiting quietly back in the shadows for someone to step forward and take charge of it, which probably isn't going to be any one of us. So if you are volunteering to be maybe a national executive director or something like that—someone who would be willing to give out his phone number and be contacted by press people on behalf of shy persons—then you should speak up and say so right now."

What members of the military do in private is just that -- private. Should they make it an issue for their superiors, whether they are homosexual OR heterosexual, they need to be gone because it is NOT the role, purpose, or practice of the military to concern itself with the private sexual behavior of its members.

Maureen's policy would pretty much wipe out the military as we know it. Taking my cousin for an example: he was a career soldier with a wife and two kids. He made no attempt to conceal his heterosexuality, nor did he hide the fruits of his sex practices from his superiors. In fact, his sexuality was very much an issue for his superiors: they had to provide sufficient space for his sex partner to live, as well as rooms for the aforementioned results.

In contrast, the approach of President Obama is that of a community organizer.

You mean, lots of "organizing," but no actual accomplishments? Sounds about right, yes.

Something I forgot to add:
One effect to repealing DADT immediately is that it may catch a number of freeriders and trap them into serving several years in the military that they never intended. So obviously there would be at least a short-term boost in the number of soldiers with that training, even if they didn't really want to be there. Whether or not that is an advantage is debatable.

I should add that service in the military is not a right. THe military may reject applicants for many reasons, including minor health issues, bad credit, or behavior records. Homosexuality, acted out in any way, is logically a criteria which they may fin significant, just as is hypertension.

Maureen: Do you think it appropriate for soldiers to discuss the girlfriends back home, perhaps show photos to their fellows? Do you think it is inappropriate for (male) soldiers to discuss the boyfriends they left at home, and show their photos around? If you condone one behaviour but not the other, please explain why.

You assert that the sexual lives should be private, yet soldiers are not normally disciplined for discussing their (hetero) sexual life with each other. Certainly no man has ever been discharged from the army simply for letting on that he desires to date women, and let alone stating that he is currently dating one.

I think Obama may be using his community organizer technique of making the base push for something hard. By holding back, he has prompted the civil rights community to fight with an intensity and strength we haven't seen before.

At least that's what I hope. If so, it appears to be working. Time after time, we hear reminders of the promise on which he was elected. Anti-gay voices sound increasingly shrill. And the coverage is more and more about when Obama will end this stupid and unfair law.

First let me apologize if someone already brought this up (I do not have the liberty of time to read all of the comments). I am a 1st Lt. in the Marine Corps. As I understand DADT, there is ample room for discretion among commanders in the field to choose to enforce DADT. Now, I'm not claiming that these commanders are under no pressure from above to act in a certain way, however, in my opinion, it is clear that DADT can be discretionarily enforced.

Take for instance, 10 USC 654(e)(2)
"Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that... separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces."

Now, I'm not sure if Obama is going to do this, but it would seem to me that it would be acceptable to suspend enforcement of DADT under that last statement: if the "separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces."

but being a lowly field grade officer

Of course I meant company grade, not field grade. There I go giving myself unwarranted promotions.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that Obama has once more reneged on an apparent campaign promise.

Why are so many linguists gay?

I believe the more accepted number is around 10%.

There is no chance that 10% of the population is gay. None.

As a former military officer with 25 years of service I would suggest that John Moore's and Military Reader's comments square with my experience and perceptions.

Gay service members, IMO, simply are not much of a threat to good order and discipline; the ones I have served with have served honorably, and as long as the regulations concerning fraternization (irrespective of gender) are observed, I don't see a problem.

The Linguist thing is just pure BS--The president has his ass in a crack with the Gays and this is just a sop to them. Politics pure and simple. Fortunately, the military that Obama commands is much better than the commander in chief.

Of course there are parts of the military that attract more gay men than others and linguists may be one of them. The medical corps is one for sure.

When I was in (late 60s through 1995) the HIV rate was highest amongst Puerto Ricans and medical corps enlisted men. I am not sure about PR, but I know that if there was 100% gaydar in the Army that the medical corps could not function. And these soldiers were not there to gain a skill and then leave (I don't see any proof for that allegation, either.) Rather they were often career soldiers keeping their sexuality to themselves.

As General/Senator Goldwater said,"I don't care if you are straight, just as long as you can shoot straight."

It seems to me that the logical and libertarian position on this is "Don't ask, don't care", otherwise it is simple gut based prejudice. What is the policy advantage in training and then dismissing willing service members for reasons that don't effect capability, motivation, or (as has been shown in surveys) unit cohesion?

Then consider that many gay teenagers were less likely to be out chasing girls, and more likely to be hiding at home doing their homework, learning foreign languages, tinkering with computers, and otherwise developing critical skills.

This is ridiculous stereotyping.

I am willing to bet that gays aren't represented at a higher rate among linguist as straights, but the discharges of linguists, because they are in an area of high need gets more attention. I figure you would be able to find homosexuals among all ratings and all branches of the military.

I also think it is pretty much time for DADT to go. I think Obama's handling of this issue has been pretty wimpy. But then I sometimes have the feeling that Obama isn't nearly the friend of the gays they want him to be.

As for concerns with social experimentations, pretty much any concern about sexual behavior that would be inappropriate or a danger to moral could be handled with the UCMJ. fraternization rules already exist.

David M. Nieporent:

In contrast, the approach of President Obama is that of a community organizer.

You mean, lots of "organizing," but no actual accomplishments? Sounds about right, yes.

That's totally unfair, David.

Please remember that Obama was heavily involved in community organizing for many years with ACORN, and they played a major role in forcing those red-lining, racist financial institutions into lending to those who were unfairly discriminated against because they, like, you know, were never going to pay the loans back and stuff.

He and community organizers everywhere can proudly take substantial credit for where our economy is today. No accomplishments, indeed.

Having never been at the proverbial tip of the spear, how much of the issue with gays (and women) relates to sexual tension between service members on the battlefield?

Hannibal Lector said:

Current reputable research suggests that somewhat less than 3% of males in developed countries (where studies of sexual preference are invariably done) have a primarily homosexual orientation.

Is that "reputable research" from the American Family Institute? I believe their numbers as much as I would believe a gay advocacy group saying 20%.

Perhaps you would like to state your "reputable" sources, rather than "some researcher". "reputable researchers", etc.

In my 8 years in the military, I have never seen anyone kicked out under DADT who didn't raise their hand, volunteer that they were gay, and ask to be kicked out.

I did see some who complained loudly when their commander refused to kick them out until their deployment to Iraq was finished.

honest question: I have been at the tip of the spear, and honestly I cannot answer your question--when you are at the "tip of the spear" survivability becomes your operational goal. I fear what evidence there is tends to be anecdotal--Military researchers like Janowitz and Moskos, simply did not go into those kinds of issues in any detail. We are left with Achilles and Patrocles, and Alexander and his lieutenants to extrapolate into the present. My impression is that people in combat dont much concern themselves with sexual orientation. But, of course, as one commenter astutely noted above--the plural of anecdotal is not evidence.

"Current reputable research suggests that somewhat less than 3% of males in developed countries (where studies of sexual preference are invariably done) have a primarily homosexual orientation. It's probable that the proportion of women with a primarily lesbian orientation is less."

That's because it includes only those people who self-proclaim themselves as a homosexual. It doesn't account for the Larry Craig's of this world who have sex with other men but insist that they are not gay.

Here's an anecdote. My friend is a top oncologist in the Washington area. IN order to get an accurate medical history of his patients, his practice and his hospital would ask if they are gay or homosexual. That got a certain percentage, fairly low. He suspected that wasn't right, so they started asking if you have sex with other men. That raised the numbers significantly. Still, he wasn't sure it was accurate, so now they ask, do you fuck other men? The numbers went up quite a bit from there. And that still doesn't account for the men who claim that what they do with men isn't really sex, it's just 'fooling around.'

All you need to do is go to Craigslist in the M4M rooms, and you will find quite a few married men looking for sex with other guys, or are 'curious.' I'm sure none of them would say they are homosexual, but they are having sex with guys nonetheless. Do they count or don't they?

So any survey that asks men if they are gay is going to be a very low number. There is too much social stigma attached to it, and the 3% number is way too low. The truth is that various surveys have shown the numbers from as low as 3% to as high as 20%. Since 3% is the very low end, I would have a hard time believing that that's the real number. It likely falls somewhere in between.

Randy R.:

The majority of them did NOT raise their hand and proclaim themselves gay to get out of the military, as the military has indeed actively investigates sexual activity, in violation of DADT. The problem is that the military cannot be held accountable for their actions

The "military" may not be accountable, but its members are. The individual ordering or conducting the investigation may be in violation of orders, thus of the UCMJ. That's a chargeable offense. Any service member can prefer charges under the UCMJ, although it is a command decision, whether those charges will proceed.

What would be necessary, in a case like this would be a good, aggressive lawyer and a good publicist. There is a good chance the service member involved would lose, but if enough publicity is generated, the officer ordering the investigation's career could be ruined. Enough lost cases, and it could become too dangerous to pursue gays.

I'm not a great fan of obstructionist legal tactics, but when you're being attacked, you've gotta fight back.

John Moore: "That's because, whatever one wants to believe, hetero is normal and homo is abnormal."

And, any serviceman who believes that should not be allowed to serve alongside any other serviceman who is either gay, or has no problems with any gay people. Homophobia is what's abnormal -- the thinking that some servicemen are some sort of a 'problem' -- and that would be disruptive to morale and unit cohesion. Sort of like any serviceman who thinks that any dark skinned person is 'abnormal' doesn't deserve to be in the military.

Which is exactly where the military is going anyway.

Thales (mail) (www):

The argument asserted by some of the comments above that forcing social change on the military leads to bad events, such as Tailhook, should be recast as giving orders that some soldiers don't like (because of their irrational prejudices) will result in some soldiers being insubordinate. The failure of a few to act professionally is not a good argument for admitting actual professionals. And if it had been accepted by President Truman (it was certainly voiced to him), we would still have a racially segregated military.

Unlike myself, Thales has clearly never been in Naval Air. Tail Hook had a long tradition and had always been characterized by just the sort of sexual antics that one gets from the better fighter pilots. If you don't know any fighter pilots, you may not understand the specific personality traits that separate them from the rest of us - but risk taking and aggression in all areas are included.

The "scandal" was a result of females participating in an event known for this fact, and then complaining about it. The consequence was a destruction of many millions of dollars worth of training (as the culprits=victims were pushed out) and significant damage to pilot morale. The only reason this didn't cause greater damage was the state of world events at the time, where we didn't need a lot of highly skilled Navy aviators. Yes, some aviators went over the line - but they only did what they had been doing for years, and their fathers before them.

Boys will be boys (as the tales about use of prostitutes near military bases show). This is a tradition as old as the written record. Olangapo (and to a much lesser extent, Cavite City), were notorious Philippine sex cities attached to Naval bases (as is Tijuana to some extent). Those liberals who believe that they can re-orient the sexual behavior of soldiers are as rational as those church members who change sexual orientation of gays through exorcism.

John Moore: "That's because, whatever one wants to believe, hetero is normal and homo is abnormal."

And, any serviceman who believes that should not be allowed to serve alongside any other serviceman who is either gay, or has no problems with any gay people. Homophobia is what's abnormal -- the thinking that some servicemen are some sort of a 'problem' -- and that would be disruptive to morale and unit cohesion. Sort of like any serviceman who thinks that any dark skinned person is 'abnormal' doesn't deserve to be in the military.

So any serviceman who believes that homosexuality is abnormal, even though statistically and biologically it clearly is, should be thrown out. That'll do wonders for our military readiness! Your willingness to trash the military for the small percentage of people who are gay and useful to the military is indicative of where your real priorities lie.

The "problem" of out homosexual soldiers should be obvious. Many of those soldiers will not cause trouble and service will adapt (in my day, they probably wouldn't have adapted,but times have changed). But those who flirt with other soldiers, gay OR straight, or otherwise take actions to make straight soldiers sexually uncomfortable will cause significant trouble - and due to the political climate, it will be very hard to bring sexual harassment charges against them.

Look at it very simply: if you are comfortable sharing your close sleeping quarters and communal shower with women, day after day, then the gays won't bother you. What percentage of our soldiers feel that way?

As for the tired comparison of gay behavior with skin color, well, we need a second Godwin's law about that.

John Moore;"So any serviceman who believes that homosexuality is abnormal, even though statistically and biologically it clearly is, should be thrown out. That'll do wonders for our military readiness! Your willingness to trash the military for the small percentage of people who are gay and useful to the military is indicative of where your real priorities lie."

No, the problem is with people like you. In the miitary, you are put with a lot of people you may not personally like -- they might be gays, or blacks, or jews, or whatever. Your job is to get along and do what is necessary for the duty at hand. If you can't overcome your prejudices and work for the greater good of the team, then you have no business in the military, correct?

You can think whatever you want about homosexuality, as you can think that blacks are goons or whatever. What you think doesn't really matter -- what matters is whether you are able you put aside your thoughts for the task at hand. Obviously, you cannot.

Furthermore, there are many, many units where gays are serving openly, and there is no problem.

"Look at it very simply: if you are comfortable sharing your close sleeping quarters and communal shower with women, day after day, then the gays won't bother you. What percentage of our soldiers feel that way?"

Seeing as how many military men already shower with gays and many of them are openly gay, and have no problem with it, then I don't see why you should. If you are so self-conscious about your body that you cannot shower with other men, again, that is your problem, but it certainly isn't the military's.

"But those who flirt with other soldiers, gay OR straight, or otherwise take actions to make straight soldiers sexually uncomfortable will cause significant trouble - and due to the political climate, it will be very hard to bring sexual harassment charges against them."

I see. So the military has no problem finding gays and expelling them. But once they are out and actually violate military code, they won't be expelled. That's a strange assumption, but even if it were true, the problem would be with the officers not willing to enforce simple discipline.

The bottom line is that the reason you are against open gays in the military is because it will make straight guys feel uncomfortable. I didn't know that the military's purpose was to make straight guys feel comfortable -- I thought it was to fight a war, but that's just my bias. And increasingly, contrary to your thoughts, most guys are perfectly comfortable around gay men even if you aren't.

"The same cannot be said regarding gays, except in specific circumstances."

The military has such a tough time filling quotas that it is now lowering standards to have people who have been convicted of crimes, didn't finish school, and so on. Meanwhile, 16,000 people have been dismissed due to DADT. Are you really going to say that the majority of these people are of no use to the military? I think that number would have lessened the number of rotations in our two wars considerably, which is what most soldiers would prefer. But again, I'm not worried about coddling the odd guy who just thinks gays are abnormal, I'm thinking about military readiness.

John Moore wrote, "homosexuality is abnormal . . . statistically and biologically it clearly is. . . ." Wrong on both counts. The fact that a trait is exhibited by only a minority does not make it "abnormal." Only a small minority of Americans have the skill, talent, initiative, drive, and patience to complete law school and pass the bar. Is being a lawyer "abnormal"? The fact that homosexual sex is not procreative also does not make it "abnormal." Homosexual behavior is widely observed among mammals, including bonobos, which are, along with chimps, our closest relative. There could be evolutionary advantages to having a small non-zero percentage of the population that is homosexual and not heterosexual. For example, homosexual men, without children of their own, would be in a position to take risks that fathers would not take to protect the tribe from predators.

Randy R

No, the problem is with people like you. In the miitary, you are put with a lot of people you may not personally like -- they might be gays, or blacks, or jews, or whatever. Your job is to get along and do what is necessary for the duty at hand. If you can't overcome your prejudices and work for the greater good of the team, then you have no business in the military, correct?

Randy, you clearly know nothing about the realities of living in the military - at least in enlisted units. It isn't a matter of dislike or disapproval, it is a matter of sexual issues. Maybe it has changed now, but when I was in the military, a lot of the young men were worried about being perceived as being homosexual, and worried about being looked at as potential sexual partners by gays. That was a *fact*. I gave the example of this involving showering with females, which you completely ignored, changing it to showering with men. That's a disingenuous attempt to avoid the issue.

You can think whatever you want about homosexuality, as you can think that blacks are goons or whatever. What you think doesn't really matter -- what matters is whether you are able you put aside your thoughts for the task at hand. Obviously, you cannot.

First of all, as I said, it isn't a matter of prejudice, it is a matter of close-quarters living. Second, you merely assume my personal situation, so I'll tell you: it wouldn't bother me today, but when I was that age, it would have caused significant personal tension. Remember, lots of these servicemen are kids - I was 18 when I went in, for example.

Furthermore, there are many, many units where gays are serving openly, and there is no problem.

Fine, then let the leaders of those units look the other way, but reserve the DADT powers in case problems arise.

So the military has no problem finding gays and expelling them. But once they are out and actually violate military code, they won't be expelled. That's a strange assumption, but even if it were true, the problem would be with the officers not willing to enforce simple discipline.

Once again, your ignorance is showing. The effects of sexual harrassment rules with females caused a whole lot of problems. The military is a gigantic bureaucracy, and as such, its behavior in the face of such issues is far from optimal. Better to avoid the problem in the first place.

The bottom line is that the reason you are against open gays in the military is because it will make straight guys feel uncomfortable. I didn't know that the military's purpose was to make straight guys feel comfortable -- I thought it was to fight a war,

Anything that upsets unit cohesion goes against the military's purpose, and increasing interpersonal tensions, and the other issues that go along with same-sex cohabitation, do just that. Of course, it depends on the unit. A front line in-combat unit has bigger things to worry about. Put them back into a backup position, and things change dramatically - and remember, most of the military exists to support the front line units and is not itself in combat.

The military has such a tough time filling quotas that it is now lowering standards to have people who have been convicted of crimes, didn't finish school, and so on. Meanwhile, 16,000 people have been dismissed due to DADT. Are you really going to say that the majority of these people are of no use to the military?

The military has had little trouble filling quotas lately. Furthermore, based on current polls, a policy of accepting open gays would cause may more applicants to forego military service - so those 16000 people might drive off 100000 people.

Again, the military's job is to fight wars, not be a social policy battleground. Social policy meddling involving women in the military has caused severe problems, especially in the Navy. Had the military been allowed to pull in women into those roles where they were needed and which wouldn't have caused these issue, things would have been much better.

But again, I'm not worried about coddling the odd guy who just thinks gays are abnormal, I'm thinking about military readiness.

Nonsense. If you were worried about military readiness, you would let the military make its own decisions without political pressure from civilians. What you are worried about is allowing gays to join the military just like anyone else, and you are rationalizing away the difficulties

eyesay:

John Moore wrote, "homosexuality is abnormal . . . statistically and biologically it clearly is. . . ." Wrong on both counts. The fact that a trait is exhibited by only a minority does not make it "abnormal." Only a small minority of Americans have the skill, talent, initiative, drive, and patience to complete law school and pass the bar. Is being a lawyer "abnormal"? The fact that homosexual sex is not procreative also does not make it "abnormal." Homosexual behavior is widely observed among mammals, including bonobos, which are, along with chimps, our closest relative. There could be evolutionary advantages to having a small non-zero percentage of the population that is homosexual and not heterosexual. For example, homosexual men, without children of their own, would be in a position to take risks that fathers would not take to protect the tribe from predators.

Whatever floats your boat.

You would find the vast majority of humans consider homosexuality to be abnormal, for the simple reason that it is clearly a perversion of the reproductive drive, to the extent of defeating that drive, and it is a characteristic of a small minority.

The fact that homosexuals may provide unique advantages in some social arrangements does not negate that.

Finally, the abnormality of homosexuality does not mean that homosexuals are bad or evil or anything else. It is simply a fact, not a pejorative. The abnormality of homosexuality may have positive benefits to society - note the relatively high socioeconomic status of American gays, for example.

Even on your terms, then, what about Israel?

And I'm entirely comfortable with "allow gays to serve." Given that it is clear that gays have talents that the military could use, you need to justify the exclusion. And speculation about what horrible things could happen can be rebutted by the experience of services (including but not limited to Israel) that allow gays.

And this is why there is a UCMJ. Being disruptive, harassing fellow soldiers, or getting involved with other soldiers in opposition to fraternization rules are all things easily addressed with the UCMJ.

Initially, they're more likely to be dealt with at unit level, with a good old fashioned arse-kicking, if they make people uncomfortable.

But I think, in today's social climate, the problems are rapidly evaporating. Don't Ask, Don't Care is more likely Joe's attitude, and he doesn't much care about the odd things Officers and bureaucrats worry about.

John Moore: "Randy, you clearly know nothing about the realities of living in the military - at least in enlisted units. It isn't a matter of dislike or disapproval, it is a matter of sexual issues. Maybe it has changed now, but when I was in the military, a lot of the young men were worried about being perceived as being homosexual, and worried about being looked at as potential sexual partners by gays. That was a *fact*. I gave the example of this involving showering with females, which you completely ignored, changing it to showering with men. That's a disingenuous attempt to avoid the issue."

Then don't take my word for it. All major allies of the US, including Great Britian, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, most NATO countries, and even Israel allow gays to serve openly. But you are telling me that the sensibilities of the American male are so uniquely delicate that they just can't handle serving with an openly gay male? Please. You underestimate the professionalism of our servicement.

I naturally ignored your hypo regarding showering with women because that isn't done. When someone actually proposes it as a military code, then we can weigh in.

"First of all, as I said, it isn't a matter of prejudice, it is a matter of close-quarters living."

So what? They don't have close living quarters in any other militaries that allow gays to serve openly? Somehow, they have all adjusted quite well.

"Second, you merely assume my personal situation, so I'll tell you: it wouldn't bother me today, but when I was that age, it would have caused significant personal tension. Remember, lots of these servicemen are kids - I was 18 when I went in, for example."

So again, the problem isn't with an openly gay person, it's with you. How about this? Most gay men really don't want to have sex with every man they see. They aren't even attracted to most men. So unless you have this fabo body that is to die for, most gay men will treat you just like any other man treats you -- like a buddy, nothing more.

"Anything that upsets unit cohesion goes against the military's purpose, and increasing interpersonal tensions, and the other issues that go along with same-sex cohabitation, do just that. Of course, it depends on the unit. A front line in-combat unit has bigger things to worry about. Put them back into a backup position, and things change dramatically - and remember, most of the military exists to support the front line units and is not itself in combat."

Wrong again. None of the countries that integrated openly gay servicemen have reported any problems with unit cohesion. You will have to do more than merely speculate. Furthermore, many units currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have openly gay men and women serving, and there are no problems. The evidence is clear that there are no problems. But hey, if you have any actual evidence, I'd love to see it.

"If you were worried about military readiness, you would let the military make its own decisions without political pressure from civilians. What you are worried about is allowing gays to join the military just like anyone else, and you are rationalizing away the difficulties"

Getting rid of Arab linguists, who are in rare numbers, is NOT the way to operate a military. Getting rid of medics who are also in rare numbers is NOT the way to run a military. All your assumptions are based on a homophobic populace of American men and woman who just can't serve if a gay person is sitting next to them. Sorry, but times have changed, and even most military men today have no problems serving with gays.

Currently, every person entering the military knows that he might be serving with a gay man, and yet people still sign up. If they are as homophobic as you assume, then they wouldn't. Why? If gay men are such a threat to unit cohesion and create all this tension, then the military should ban all gays. But they don't.

All evidence has shown to the contrary -- in every case where gay men were openly allowed to serve, there has been no problems. None. Check the Army Navy War College report if you don't believe me, because they did an exhaustive report on this several years ago and concluded that integregration would have no issues. In fact, they concluded that the men and women who fight on our behalf would act as the professionals that we expect them to, and they would adjust.

IF you have any evidence to the contrary, let's hear. But so far, you have offered nothing more than speculation and your own insecurities about being around gay men.

The military is not a place for social activism. Forcing social policies on the military results in remarkably bad consequences, as was shown by the sexual harassment situations (like Tail-Hook) which clearly damaged the military's ability to defend us, and which loads the military down with excessive sensitivity, career risk, and paperwork and silliness training.

Please tell me you aren't blaming the women for the Tail-Hook fiasco?

Can you point out where in the world the sky has fallen in, in any of the nations that do allow openly-gay soldiers to serve? Including many of our allies, I might add?

John Moore:

My use of the second person in the above entry reads very awkwardly. It's not meant to be belligerent or to single you out. In fact, I was trying to avoid rudely talking about you in the third person, while you were 'in the room'. But tensions can run high here, so, I thought I'd preempt any misunderstanding.

John Moore wrote, "homosexuality is abnormal . . . statistically and biologically it clearly is. . . ." Wrong on both counts. The fact that a trait is exhibited by only a minority does not make it "abnormal."

"Abnormal" is a loaded term. As Mr. Moore, pointed out, we are dealing with statistics, not norms. In this sense homosexuality is abnormal like lefthandedness or red headedness. So why even use the term when you know some folks use it in a normative sense?

One thing that interests me about gays in the military is the effect it might have on situational homosexuality. I don't think that straight men can go gay. I do however believe that there is a large % of men who are more or less heterosexual but can use other men as "release" in the absence of women. We see this happening in prison, all boys schools, and I've heard stories about the Navy.

Given the military now has both genders serving together and strong amount of fornicating that occurs when off base, I'm not sure how much this might be a factor.

Likewise, if it's not disruptive (which it might not be; it could be helpful), I don't see the increase in situational homosexuality necessarily a problem.

Randy

So again, the problem isn't with an openly gay person, it's with you. How about this? Most gay men really don't want to have sex with every man they see. They aren't even attracted to most men. So unless you have this fabo body that is to die for, most gay men will treat you just like any other man treats you -- like a buddy, nothing more.

How about this: most women fit the same category. How many men want to take showers with them? Are we going to have gay only showers on military bases, or perhaps require the gays to shower with women.

I know you continually ignore the "shower with women" analogy, but it is accurate and you shouldn't throw it out. It points to a critical part of the reason that the presence of gays can be openly disruptive.

Getting rid of Arab linguists, who are in rare numbers, is NOT the way to operate a military. Getting rid of medics who are also in rare numbers is NOT the way to run a military.

So LET THE MILITARY DECIDE! That's my whole point. It isn't up to you to decide for them that they are better off with gay linguists or not!

All your assumptions are based on a homophobic populace of American men and woman who just can't serve if a gay person is sitting next to them. Sorry, but times have changed, and even most military men today have no problems serving with gays.

As I have tried to explain, that is simply not true - and it depends strongly on the context. Working with gays - most today have no problem. Showering and sleeping with them - that is a tougher issue, which you keep dodging. Fighting with them in combat - I doubt anyone has a problem there.

Currently, every person entering the military knows that he might be serving with a gay man, and yet people still sign up.

Polls have shown that this would change significantly if the gay men were allowed to be "out."

John : ""allow gays to serve" is not the way to think about the military. "need gays" is the way to think about it!"'

Then you favor a ban on all gays, which the military currently does not support. Its funny that you say that I should allow the military to make policy, but you yourself don't want them to make policy.

Huh? I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

Owen Hutchins:

Please tell me you aren't blaming the women for the Tail-Hook fiasco?

I am blaming feminism, which turned a traditional, private celebration into a gigantic scandal, ruining many careers and causing, to this day, difficulties in relationships between male and female soldiers.

Naval Aviation is where my military experience lies.

hazemyth:

Homophobia stems from, in part, the idea that gay men represent, for straight men, the potential to be thus objectified -- a sudden change of role. What if he looks at me? What if he hits on me? It's a new world of worries.

That is what I observed, and I suspect has not changed. You have hit the nail on the head regarding that particular problem. I do not celebrate such fears, I simply recognize them - and compare them to the fear many in American society have of showering with the opposite sex - something Randy keeps failing to understand.

However, it was my understanding that the term "homophobia" was usually used to refer to a fear of one's own supposed repressed homosexuality triggered by interaction with gays - a definition I reject and find overly Freudian.

However, there are other issues with homosexual presence, for example actual relationships that develop between homosexuals. This has proven to be a significant problem with women, but at least they usually have separate berthing quarters. With homosexuals, it can be a lot more of an issue.

For those who continue to throw out the "well, let the UCMJ take care of that" or "the soldiers should act professionally," I respond that this is fantasy land. The "let the UCMJ take care of that" is what has led to the horrid mess about sexual harassment of female soldiers. Again, the military is not for social experiments. If they decide that recruiting gays is worth these problems, fine. My objection is to this being forced on them overtly, or more dangerously, forced on them through a non-judicial/non-legislative pressure for political correctness. The latter is something which badly corrodes organizations, especially bureaucracies.

Bob VB:

Changed long ago, and with the gays out that problem is solved - you aren't allowed to have relationships with people in your own unit. We split up the guys and gals, they will have on problem spitting up the rest of the couples.

See the bolded portion, because that is a significant difference between hetero and homo sexual relationships. Also recognize that the Army and Navy experiences are different. During the Gulf War, one ship become non-combat ready due to the number of pregnancies on board. At least gays won't get pregnant!
.

'Homophobia', even when taken literally, has been used quite broadly...

Like all baseless fears, it only grows if you give it credence. It can only be dispelled if its factuality is challenged. Catering to servicemen's putative anxieties is not only patronizing but counterproductive. Such indulgence is certainly the opposite of discipline.

In my opinion, claims about the impact on military preparedness are radically overblown. I can't credit that we're suffering in our current, mis-conceived wars because of the proportionately small number of dismissals that have resulted from DADT. Likewise, as Britain and Israel (our two foremost military/intelligence partners) demonstrate, integration is not going to cause the armed forces to collapse. The argument that normalizing homosexuality is some dangerous 'experiment' gets shabbier every year.

Lastly, I'm not buying this whole, pragmatism vs. principle trope that underlies a lot of the arguments here. While the military is exceptional, it does not exist in a microcosm. This is a policy of discrimination -- one that caters to phobia and animosity. That's not just a cause for shame, in that it compromises our government's moral standing. It legitimates and strengthens comparable discrimination elsewhere, to the detriment of us all.

Likewise, as Britain and Israel (our two foremost military/intelligence partners) demonstrate, integration is not going to cause the armed forces to collapse. The argument that normalizing homosexuality is some dangerous 'experiment' gets shabbier every year.

Yeah, Britain, the country that totally blew the occupation of southern Iraq, having to be bailed out by the Iraq Army!

You raise a straw man. Nobody said it would cause the armed forces to collapse. S

Lastly, I'm not buying this whole, pragmatism vs. principle trope that underlies a lot of the arguments here. While the military is exceptional, it does not exist in a microcosm. This is a policy of discrimination -- one that caters to phobia and animosity. That's not just a cause for shame, in that it compromises our government's moral standing. It legitimates and strengthens comparable discrimination elsewhere, to the detriment of us all.

So how many soldiers' lives are you willing to exchange for your "principle?"

Furthermore, to use your form of argument, any form of discrimination is wrong and must be combated at any cost. That is rather silly, since there are in fact differences between gays and straights, and in some cases discrimination is quite rational (such as assessing HIV, Hep-C or giardia risk levels).

Let me add...

As someone who spent time in the military aviation community, I have lost my share of friends who were doing their duty. I really don't give a crap what people think about whether their off-duty behavior is politically correct. We risked our friggin lives so you idiots could pontificate about our failings.

Screw you.

John: "So how many soldiers' lives are you willing to exchange for your "principle?"

I don't know. Why don't you tell me how many lives were lost for lack of adequate translation? Or were lost for lack of adequate medical attention? How many lives did gay men save? You may not believe it, but many of the gay men discharged with DADT are highly decorated, and several of them have Purple Hearts and other honors.

"I really don't give a crap what people think about whether their off-duty behavior is politically correct."

But you of course do. If one of your comrades were gay (and you didn't know it), he no doubt risked his life so that we can have our freedoms. But you want to discharge him because of what he does off duty. Off-duty behavior that you don't approve of vs. off-duty behavior you don't care about, that's the difference.

We risked our friggin lives so you idiots could pontificate about our failings.

Hmmm... sounds like something gay service members might say.

All this talk about showering is missing something. Familiarity breeds, well, not contempt, but disinterest. Gay men showering with men isn't the same as hetero men showering with women, unless of course the hetero men have grown up in a society in which people shower with both sexes from childhood on.

John Moore:

While I respect your service, you have also made the most effective argument why McCain would have been a reckless and dangerous president.

Hate to break it to you, but war fighting is not like a bridge party. It requires tough and, in the case of fighter pilots, rather extreme personalities. The "guilty ones" were doing nothing more than they had done for many years. Yet one year, all of a sudden, all of Naval Air was turned upside down for that traditional behavior.

Sexual assault is "traditional"? First you blame the victims, then excuse the guilty.

Paglia is an idiot.

John: "No, I want him to not get in in the first place because his effect on-duty."

Then you are stating the no gays should be recuited at all, which is contrary to current military policy.

"Furthermore, if recruiting him benefits the military, then I don't object to them doing so, which I keep repeating and you keep ignoring."

And the military has no problems with gays, only openly gay people. So they have in deed decided that gays benefit the military. So if gays are a benefit, why are openly gays not?

Again, your position makes no sense. A closeted gay man can have no effect on-duty because you wouldn't know that he is gay. What he does off-duty has no effect upon you either, so long as you don't know about it. There is a high degree of likelihood that you in fact showered and slept very close to a gay man while in the service. And yet it had no effect upon you, did it? So, closeted gay men in the service have no effect on-duty. So why prohibit gays altogether?

Let's take this example: You have two buddies in the service, one's name is Gary the other is Steve. You get along great! You'r pals, you shower together, you slept together, you put your lives at risk for each other, you depend upon each other, and so on.

Later on, you find out that Gary is gay, and Steve is straight. Same guys, same situation, but now you have tension between Gary and you? Why? He's a friend of yours, it should make no difference. For some reason, he should be kicked out of the military, even though he risked his life just you and Steve did. What if you found out that one of your real buddies in the army really was gay? Would you stop talking to him? Disown him as a friend? Does it really bug you that much that he is now abnormal?

I just understand this position that it's okay to live and work with a guy if you assume he's straight, but the moment you find out he's gay, all these problems allegedly occur.

And BTW, you still haven't produced any evidence to back up your contentions, as we have asked repeatedly.

John Moore:

Re McCain: No, I don't think he has ever grown out of the reckless attitude he displayed up to and through his military aviation career and after. Fly recklessly, shoot first and ask questions later doesn't work.

Re your quoted comment on AG: "Note that Abu Ghraib is the sort of thing that results when unit discipline and readiness breaks down - so if you have units near the edge, additional stress may push it over."

That event and others like it in Afghanistan occurred because the soldiers followed orders and directions coming down from the SecDef, Gen. Miller (coming from Guantanamo), and so on. What occurred was the result of Rumsfeld's policy directives; it was a feature, not a bug, as they say, and the record, to be supplemented again by the CIA IG Report shortly, is becoming quite voluminous.

Are you even paying attention to your own words anymore?

Absolutely. Too bad you don't like them.

They were in a civilian context, a civilian location, and assaulted their fellow officers! Or do the laws of the land not apply to them at all?

The laws of the land should be applied judiciously - especially this law in this case.

Fixed. It made no sense the way you put it.

I bow to your superior argumentation. I bow low, very low. OK, I have to confess, I'm only bowing low so I can get a better look at your testicles. Nice...

I bow to your superior argumentation. I bow low, very low. OK, I have to confess, I'm only bowing low so I can get a better look at your testicles. Nice...

ROFLMAO

The fact that you think sexual assault should be viewed as just blowing off steam by men in a dangerous job, is nothing that anyone should like.

Im sorry you so accurately meet Paglia's definition. BTW, it was NOT sexual assault.