A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
As everyone knows, the bill to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that bars gays from serving openly in the military passed the Senate today. Naturally, President Obama will sign it into law and most likely within the five days he promised to give Americans prior to signing ANY legislation into law. And I’m in complete disagreement. The following are my opinions about the DADT repeal and why I think it was/is a bad idea. These thoughts are my own personal opinions and are not the opinions of any branch of government or unit in the military.
First of all, many Senators and Congressmen apparently changed their minds about the policy after the so-called poll was released in which the media and legislators claimed that 70% of troops supported repeal. But, if anyone actually read the report, they would have seen a different outcome:
Q41 Was the effect on the unit’s ability to work together (knowing a fellow troop was gay)…Mostly negative or equally negative/positive 84.1%. Positive 15.9%
Q43. Was the effect on the unit’s morale [having a gay leader]…Mostly neg 46.1% Mostly neg 9.1% Equal neg & pos %44.8%
Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact on unit’s performance.
Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust if DADT is repealed.
Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers with homosexuals. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don’t know or do “something else” [including violence]. NOTE: I don’t care how much a troop disagrees with gays, violence should NEVER be a part of the dialogue.
Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (One half million troops will QUIT the service early, destroying our national security.) NOTE: I don’t personally believe that this many troops would leave, but if it were only 5%, the military would lose 100,000 troops. I would be among the 5% if certain aspects of implementation take place.
Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don’t know about recommending military service to others. (Destroying recruiting efforts.)
Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.
Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about permitting open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 60% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.
Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don’t know.
Interestingly, I never read ANY of those stats in the media. I never heard Secretary Gates or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff quote them either. I didn’t hear the President or members of Congress panning this poll on us using these numbers. All we ever heard of was this mysterious number that 70% of troops thought repeal was a glorious and great idea.
I don’t appreciate the fact that military leaders and elected officials have misrepresented a study that wasn’t presented to Soldiers in a fair and open way. The “poll” that was conducted was not widely disseminated, contrary to what has been reported. As a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer I was never made aware of this poll and could not inform my troops of it either. As a matter of fact, I haven’t met ONE Soldier that took the survey either in support of or opposed to repeal. In my 16 years of military experience, I have only met a handful of people in support of gays serving openly in the military. I don’t know how the questions were posed and how the poll was conducted, but it is NOT representative of the military services in which I serve.
Where does it end? Where do we, as a country, draw the line to what is acceptable behavior in this country? If we legitimize homosexual behavior in a professional force, it will cause undue hardships on the NCOs and officers responsible for trying to make such a policy work. Think it’s just me saying this? Look at the questions above again. Will the next step be that we allow cross-dressers in the military? If a male shows up in a female uniform, how do we deal with that? Will we allow familiar relationships that are currently illegal (incest)? Will we allow polygamy? Who is our government to decide which forms of sexually deviant behavior are acceptable and which are not? If we allow homosexuals to serve openly, we should also allow polygamy, incest, and dare I say it, beastiality. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that one form of behavior leads to another, cause I’m not. What I’m saying is that if you legitimize one against the other, you have created turmoil.
Incidents of sexual harassment will go up. Leaders will have to deal with that and it will be a further distraction to our combat mission and pre-deployment activities. And yet, our benevolent leaders – instead of focusing on passing a budget to pay our troops and keep them supplied and trained – put this offensive policy at the forefront, holding vote after vote after vote until they get the results they want. In the meantime, the military is left trying to figure out to pay for training sorely needed in preparation of upcoming deployments. The shell game becomes a distraction to the mission because we want to play politics will sexual preferences.
This isn’t just a matter of disagreement with the activity. I personally have to shower in an open shower with other males every morning after PT. To say that it’s absurd that gay men won’t gawk at other naked men is saying that they aren’t normal. In “normal” sexual attractions, the sight of a naked body belonging to someone of the opposite sex is a natural thing to stare at. Are gays more capable of handling themselves than straights? I don’t think so. According to those trying to repeal this policy, gay behavior is just as “normal” as straight behavior. So, why can’t straight men and women shower together? Why can’t straight men and women dorm together the way gay and straight men will be forced? If it’s so natural and the “truth” being reported by proponents of repeal is that there is no way gays will care that they are surrounded with naked bodies of the sex to which they are attracted, then why are heterosexuals separated? Is it because heterosexuals aren’t normal? The argument is absurd in its context.
This report states that 24% of our troops would leave the military service immediately or sooner than expected if DADT is repealed. It isn’t because they (or I) find homosexuality wrong. It’s because the military will force all of us into accepting Homosexuals as normal. We will be forced to go along with a behavior we find immoral. If we express disagreement with a homosexuals lifestyle, we will be subjected to disciplinary actions under and new Equal Opportunity Program.
Frankly, I don’t care that I have to shower with other naked men. I’m secure in my masculinity and would find it flattering to be sexually attractive to both sexes. Talk about mojo! I don’t care that Gay Joe next to me brings his boyfriend to the company Christmas party. What I care about is that when I cringe seeing them kiss I would be subjected to EO complaints. And if that becomes the case, THAT is the day that I submit my discharge request – retirement eligible or not. I will not sacrifice my standards, morals, or beliefs for a politically correct, sacrosanct policy that just makes people feel good about themselves.
The Service Chiefs of three services, in an unprecedented break in service protocol, went over the heads of Mullen and Gates earlier this month and communicated directly to the Congress their concerns about changing this policy, saying that such a move could add unnecessary stress to the force. It is my hope that all four men would request retirement publicly in protest of this dangerous policy. Since these men will be directly responsible for sending our troops in harm’s way, their mass resignation would speak volumes about their concern for the men and women that they lead. Unfortunately, in today’s political environment, we probably won’t see that from them anytime soon. The General Boykins and General Sheehans of the Army are long gone.
The Department of Defense has been asking for Soldiers’ opinions on the policy. I am responding to their query. These are my personal opinions. As a leader, I will treat everyone based on performance and merit. I have personally known two gay Soldiers in my career. The latest was definitely not what the gay community should point to as a symbol of why repeal is a good idea. The other made a conscious decision NOT to act on his feelings and remained celibate and single for religious purposes.
[Author's Note: The OPINIONS expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent those of any agency of the United States Government, expressly including, but not limited to, the Department of Defense or the United States Army. This site is not designed, authorized, sanctioned, or affiliated, by or with, any agency of the United States Government, expressly including, but not limited to, the Department of Defense or the United States Army. This post is in accordance with DODD 1344.10, which expressly permits me to "express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces." Therefore, I hereby declare that I do not write this post as a representative of the Armed Forces. Since I no longer own this site, consider this post also in compliance with the provisions of paragraph 4.1.1.6 of DODD 1344.10.]
(94) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
to Anonn, thank you. i thought so. i just want a clear picture of his
Military Dating Scams (More Nigerian Scammers)
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
[UPDATE] The "Face" of Military Dating Scams - The Wall of Shame
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Sandra Lee Smith
The way this was presented to the troops who were polled was as if the repeal was already a done deal and asked how they’d deal with it. NOT how they felt about having it repealed to start with. When I was on active duty, as a nurse, I saw more than a few instances of what happens to homosexuals acting out among heterosexuals; it wasn’t pretty. Something that’s getting forgotten is that this is happening to women too. The statistics the DoD already has on the increased rates of same sex sexual assaults, which VICTIMS now won’t be able to report without facing disciplinary action based on the EO rules, had already been increasing since the inception of DADT which protected the homosexuals from summary discharge upon discovery. So has the incidence of STDs. Those figures will only get worse, with their behavioral dysfunctions protected even more. Further, according to a Chaplains’ page I’ve seen, there are serious concerns about Chaplains being able to fulfill their duties as officers and maintain their faith and obligations there as well, and the consensus among Christians, Jews, and Muslims is that the change would force them to opt out of the military. That means the guys and gals at the fronts won’t have spiritual or emotional comfort and support like they need there too. In short, the fallout from this decision is apt to be far worse than our “representatives” in DC have even begun to imagine.
Thomas
Sandra: It is estimated that 30% of female military personnel face sexual harassment, abuse and assault by fellow male soldiers. Don’t you think that is an even bigger problem that exists now than the theoretical 3% of gay soldiers who might be in the military? And why wouldn’t they be able to report sexual assault–whether the person committing it is either opposite or same sex? Sexual assault is a crime, period.
Do straight soldiers not get STDs? STDs are caused by viruses, not by specific sex acts. The military routinely tests soldiers for STDs.
Don’t chaplains already help soldier’s whose beliefs are different from their own? Catholic and Protestant chaplains’ beliefs are very different, theologically. (Some Catholics and Protestants view each others’ beliefs as wrong and that they are not going to heaven). Yet chaplains of these faiths fill in for each other when there is an absence.
C
Chaplains serving people of other religions is not even comparable to them serving homosexuals. Homosexuality is in direct conflict with the majority of religions in this world. I guess if you were going to make this analogy, you could say a Christian chaplain who is counseling a Satanist would be comparable. I don’t think that happens very often and I don’t even know if our military accepts Satanism as a religion.
I am not even very religious, but I wholeheartedly agree with what CJ is saying. I am an infantryman and I know it will have a negative impact on us if homosexuals are allowed to openly serve. I also do not know a single person who has taken this survey.
Thomas
You say: “It isn’t because they (or I) find homosexuality wrong.”
But then a few sentences later you say: “We will be forced to go along with a behavior we find immoral.” Therefore, you DO find homosexuality wrong.
Where are you getting your data from? The DADT survey results, page 79, Table 4.44: Impact of Serving With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member: Unit Morale:
If unit member believed to be gay/lesbian is a Leader: Very good/Good: 67.9%, Neither good nor poor: 18.1%, Poor/Very poor: 14.1%.
Table 4.42: Impact of Serving With a Gay/Lesbian Service Member: Unit Cohesion. Percent of Service members rating unit’s ability to work together, If unit member believed to be gay/lesbian is a co-worker: Very Good/Good: 76.9%, Neither good nor poor: 14.8%, Poor/Very poor: 8.3%
Thomas
OK, found the actual data in the appendices…taking a look
Thomas
Q43 and only considers the 40% of respondents who answered ‘A lot’, Some’ or ‘Little’ to Q42. Q42 was asked to only the 43% who said they had worked in a unit with a leader who was believed to be gay .
That means, 46.1% of 40% of 43%. which is a total of 8% of the total respondents.
Q45 also was only “asked to respondents who said they served with a leader they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the leader to be gay or lesbian”. 91% of 40%= 36.4%. Also, about 45% of those answered “About equally positive and negative” which more or less means a neutral result, which leaves 20% “mostly negative” of the total respondents.
This is only after a cursory look at the results, so my numbers might be -slightly off, but you are misrepresenting the results by not indicating that the respondents to some of the questions were a sub-set of the total respondents, and by lumping in the neutral results in with the negative results.
I thank you so much for you service, BTW, and for all people who serve in the military. You guys, and girls, are very brave and important people.
Bob
Probably the best explanation I have read as to the real concerns about gays serving openly in the military. (For a detailed history see http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10E106.pdf)
The news media did not publish many, if any, opinions or articles that opposed repeal of DADT, especially in the last few weeks. The repeal was nothing other than political pandering to a small segment(<5%)of the population and their supporters who don't like the military or its principles in the first place. I hope that those who are serving let their outrage known, which I think will happen by resignations and non-reenlistments. Recruiting the best soldiers will be very difficult – I know that I would not want to serve for military leaders who consider their political careers more important than the soldiers.
Pingback: Why does the government constantly lie to the public? « Politicaldoc's Dx
Justin
Although we’ve already disagreed over much of this, I thank you for expressing your personal objection in a professional way.
I’d like to think I had a very tiny part in this (or at least in the accompanying legalese), but in my heart I know better. This is how I would expect ANY successful military professional in dissent to respond, instead of with offensive satirical jokes.
Thanks again, CJ. Truthfully.
Pingback: Tweets that mention DADT Repeal | A Soldier's Perspective -- Topsy.com
J.R.
I can’t seem to find the poll on the internet, and I’d like to read it. Can you provide a link?
Chance
“a male shows up in a female uniform, how do we deal with that?”
“MSG Grisham, go back upstairs and change.”
Bob
The whole report can be found at:
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf
The actual survey results are buried in Appendix C and Appendix D (spouse). The majority of the report is an attempt to justify how it was conducted.
Bob
I notice that links do not work. I will separate with words in brackets [ ] rather than punctuation marks. The report is at
http[colon,slash,slash]www[dot]defense[dot]gov[slash]home[slash]features[slash]2010[slash]0610[underline]gatesdadt[slash]DADTReport[underline]FINAL[underline]20101130(secure-hires)[dot]pdf
Dave J
I was in my eighth year of active duty in 1993 when DADT was implemented. I rarely agree with John McCain, but he is right on this one. This is indeed a sad day. Sad for our armed forces and sad for the proud traditions they were built on.
It is one thing to eliminate segregation of the armed forces based on race or gender — a person has no control over such things. However, homosexuality is a volitional behavior, a cognitive choice, and is not comparable to race or gender.
I can’t wait to see the new regulations for deciding which uniform the transgenders will have to wear. You reap what you sow.
Tara
First, obviously you have been asleep or maybe just to stupid to keep up with the news. The news is that churchs and science agree that people are born Gay. If Gay was choice then so is being straight. You cannot have it both ways either people are born stright/gay or it is choice, in which why should one choice have more rights then another.
Also since we are on choice then so is religion. People are not born a religion but are taught one and chose to either change or remain in that religion. This means that religion is a lifestyle choice and why should a religion be protected?
Also John McCain’s mind is going, he does not act nor sound like he did 10, 15 years ago. He should have retired a long time ago.
It is not a sad day but a great day for human rights. It is a great day for the United states because they are treating people equally under the law. It does not matter if you are gay or straight but if you want to server and protect your country you have the right to do so.
People like Dave and the owner of this blog are too blinded by their bigotry to see what they are doing.
This blog owner lied and twisted the facts to support his agenda.
The thing is that the world powers have been allowing gays to server openly for years and have not had anything happen as these so-call gentlemen have been harking about.
Next those same very comments were said about women, about non-white races servicing in the arm forces. It was not only blacks but people of irish decent, hispanic, and japanese.
Bigot alway try to justify their hatred by saying special rights. The problem is that they have all the special rights, and others just wanted to be treated equally, but they see it as taking power away from them.
Blog owner and Dave, get out of the army. We don’t need you or your type of bigots in it. You are obviously too weak to be able to work along side of a gay person that has been there all along. We don’t need bigots in the army so get out and good ridance.
CJ
You like that word – bigot – don’t you? I sure hope you aren’t in the Army then, because from everything I’ve read from you, I hear more bigotry than I can hope to aspire to.
Karen T.
So, we have four sexes now, that have to be separated! We separate men from women for obvious reasons. No man should have to dress, shower, etc. around another man that can be looking at him the same way a man looks at a woman. So, either have four sets of facilitires or bring the women on in to the same quarters that men live in and have no separation at all.
This is an attack on the finest military of the Greatest Nation on earth, by the Communists in power, temporarily of course. They know our military has Constitutional and Moral Authority to handcuff them that are dismantling the Republic.
Therefore, to demoralize and weaken our military into a chaotic mess is what they are doing. I find it beyond peculiar that the one at the top wants his own Civilian Security Force, AS powerful, as big and well-funded as our military forces, and is going about harming our military.
Will this bring back the draft? How many will refuse to join, now? How many fine folks will leave our military, now?
How can anyone Congressperson or Senator even sleep at night after voting for this?
Will the New, conservative power in our Legislative Branch, Repeal this thing?
Alan Day
Just because a gay man showers with a straight man, it doesn’t mean he will be looking. Proffesionalism is a very important aspect of the military, right? They gays, too, need to act professional. There will always be douchebags, no doubt. But then again there are more straight people in the military, hence more straight douchebags.
We all know “that guy”. And then we know that “high speed guy”. I have met a lot of high speed guys who happened to be gay, but they were professional.
Bottom line, if you disagree with gays serving openly, it just shows one of your best buds hasn’t come out to you yet.
CJ
“Just because a gay man showers with a straight man, it doesn’t mean he will be looking.” So gay men aren’t normal then? I mean, it would be normal for a straight man to look at female in the shower, I think. But, if it’s an issue of “professionalism,” I guess we should apply that same logic to separating men and women in showers, huh? Not buying your argument.
And I have gay friends and family members. You just won’t see me showering with them.
lance.hemmert
Hello,
I’m an active duty First Sergeant. I have no issues with Homosexuals serving openly. If they swear to uphold and defend our Constitution then I would love to serve with them… As an American.
V/R
1SG Lance V. Hemmert
CJ
So far, the first one I’ve met. It’s not about upholding and defending our Constitution. Otherwise, we’d allow flatfoots in. We’d allow women in combat arms. We’d allow those with mental issues (other than gays, that is). We’d allow convicted criminals who have served their time. We’d allow polygamists. I guess I could go on and on. It isn’t about “upholding and defending our Constitution”. There is no legal right to military service.
Since you signed with your official rank, is that the official position of your Company as a First Sergeant, or just a personal opinion?
Michele
Oh wait CJ!!! ” We’d allow convicted criminals who have served their time.” They Do!!!!
lance.hemmert
Hi CJ,
Obviously it’s my personal opinion, and it’s the opinion shared by the DoD (you didn’t get the letter in your NIPR today stating that we have a responsibility to be professional and show the same courtesy to gay servicemembers that we would like to be shown as DADT is repealed?).
Anyway, again with the non sequitors. You have a penchant to compare something to something completely unrelated in order to make a point.
Regardless of your personal sentiments, this is happening and again, as a leader, you have an obligation to ensure your people are treated professionally. I have a hard time believing what you’re posting will lend itself to a cohesive environment. Criminals, as you’ve put it, have served and served honorably. Women have served in combat roles, and done their job professionally. People with physical disabilities, serve and serve with distinction. I see no reason why homosexuals won’t serve our military tradition just as well as anyone else.
You’re a compassionate man, CJ. You also belong to a faith that, although it disagrees with homosexuality, has shown itself to be charitable and kind toward its fellow man. Focus on those things and build bridges, and I think you’ll find peace with this issue.
- Lance (still a 1SG)
Robert Boggs
Lance,
Question, are you Combat arms? You seem very passionate about repeal of this policy and I can find none of my colleages who are.
V/r
MSG R A Boggs
CJ
Robert, he’s not combat arms.
Karen T.
Here’s some interesting comments on this proposed law, and that it cannot and will not be implemented for one year after BO signs it, and that it can be repealed even after he does sign it into law.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=242265
Tara
Really WND???
Please they wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on the butt!
CJ
Point out one lie from WND! Don’t come here with your rhetoric without backing it up.
Karen T.
WND has integrity. In so very many years, I found them goofy ONE time….not idiots like MSNBC, liars like the White house, but ONE time….WND fell for a story from Canada? I think it was, that some lady broke a CFL and it was almost as bad as hazmat team to clean it up, and this was a couple of years ago when the CFLs were not very familiar to any of us.
I have had personal contact in the eighties with someone on on the editorial staff of WND, and they are as sincere and honest as humans like us come, but of course not infallible.
Now, any adhominem gonna be played with here, or shall our search for exposing truth, and all of it, continue?
Michele
Oh boo hoo hoo peeps. Its a done deal finally!! It was inevitable, its the right thing to do for all concerned….For the world to see that Americans are not mad after all. Sanity prevails and the Christian fanatics dont own the American people.
WOOT!!!!!!
Rob
Having served in the Marines (1968 to 1974) I would also opt out of service.
Being a ordain minister, if I was in the military chaplain service, I would opt of out of service.
My heart goes out to those services men (and women) who feel the same. This is a serious error of judgment and military combat readiness will pay a high price for it!
Thomas
I’m a little confused by the military chaplains who have threatened to pull out. Don’t chaplains minister to soldiers during very difficult times? And they want to abandon our soldiers because of their personal feelings about DADT?
Songbyrd
You would “opt out” being an ordained minister… well you may want to pick your bible up and read again. Because you want to D@^^ someone to hell and you arent even doing your job..
Karen T.
Is the bill online like BO claimed he would do, so that we could all comment and contact our representatives at least five days before it was voted on? He lied about so many things, but if the bill is online anywhere and we can read it, then we can find out if what the New York times claims, is true.
Reportedly, there is wording in it that the repeal “must be consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.”
This will be determined by apparently a large number of military commanders. Gotta read this bill because if true, then this thing is no way a done deal and probably will never be implemented, thank God.
It’s a nightmare of a mess if it is, but…if wording like this is in it then it’s clear what our Legislators did. They made themselves look good by bringing it to a vote but put wording in it that does NOT make it law when BO signs it, but he gets to look good, too…the ‘ole “smoke and mirrors” routine.
GySgt T
I have served for 21 years in the Marines. Yes, today is a very sad day on many levels. First of all, I took pride in the fact that, in our small sliver of society, we still recognized the gay lifestyle as aberrant behavoir. Secondly, sexual orientation does not merit the same standing as race or gender. Thirdly, it was passed with little or no transparency during a Congressional lame-duck session. This repeal will cause more persecution among gays and those who will now go out of their way to find other ways to weed them out. There are so many unintended consequences on the horizion…..However, the Uniform Code of Military Justice still defines intimacy between the same sex as sodomy. Once this honorary code is amended to reflect the acceptance of the gay lifestyle….we would have lost the last piece of legislation in the country that supports what the majority of men and women in uniform believe…….Openly gay men and women are not compatible with US military service.
Tara
Well GySgt T,
Well as a taxpayer, which pays your salary and who is also gay. Then get the hell out of the army. It is obvious that you are too week of mind and character to have been allowed in.
If sexual orientation is a choice then so is being straight. So why should your choice of being straight be given more rights then my choice in being gay? It should. Also since the majority of the world’s religions and science both agree people are BORN gay. Then it is obviuos that your inteligence is also lacking.
A bigot all ways try to justified their bigotry and try lying and twisting facts to suit themselves and their point of view.
Just to let you know Relgion is a choice. That’s right a choice and yet is protected, but why? Why should religion be protected? Since it is a choice.
As to you gloom and doom predictions, I have to say after 60 years you figured that you bigots will come up with something new. The same thing was said when minorities were allow to join. The same thing was said when Catholics were allowed to join. The same thing was said when women were allowed to join active combact troops. What happen? NOTHING but it sure brought out the bigots.
So get the hell out of the army and run away like a coward that all bigots are.
CJ
Tara, where are the studies that say homosexuality is normal? Where is YOUR proof?
“So why should your choice of being straight be given more rights then my choice in being gay?” Because homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. If man were meant to be homosexual by nature, we would not need but one sex to begin with. Show me ONE gay couple that has procreated amongst themselves! Just one. Show me ONE gay couple that has conceived and given birth to a child – survival of the species – between the two of them. When you can do that, I’ll concede that homosexuality is normal.
Linda
CJ, You go guy ! You have got this right 100%. I do not hate or discriminate against anyone. I however, do not like gay women hitting on me. Can anyone please tell me why some gay people are constantly looking for new recruits? If I was into that business, well then I would be all over it. But I am not, so please do not force my response; you may not like it.
I see three doors now.
1. Straight
2. Gay
3. Bi, confused, mixed sex or undecided.
Let me have my right not to be harassed or discriminated against for being straight.
GySgt T
Tara,
In 1979 when I came in the military, homosexuality was prohibited. In 1993, it became somewhat acceptable. I am retiring before it is required.
Obviously you have never served a day in the military and have no clue about what you are talking about. The military does not need people like you….. Thank you for not signing up.
Anyways, I was never in the Army if you read my blog correctly.
ognywogny
But you get to call people bigots-fag!
Capt. A
I, as a military member, feel that this is by no means the ordeal so many are making it out as. Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Republic of China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Bermuda, Uruguay, allow LGBT to serve, many openly, without issue. I do not believe that segregation of homosexuals from heterosexuals will be necessary by any means. In basic training (a situation that is a hot item in the repeal of DADT) the last thing on the mind of trainees is sex. Basic training is about cohesion as a unit. You are not individuals. You are the building blocks of a single organism. You live, eat, sleep and sweat together. It doesn’t matter who your mama is, where you came from, what color your skin is, and what the sex of the last person you slept with was. That’s not the focus. I couldn’t care less who the person beside me rubs one out to, Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, as long as he or she can hold their own, do their work, and do it well. You’ll find that this is the mentality of many military members, though perhaps they may not express it due to the stigma involved or in order to please supervision. Openly admitting to being homosexual doesn’t affect the way you shoot a weapon, turn a wrench, or save a life. I find it more than distasteful that individuals say they will opt out of the military after this is implemented. First and foremost I feel these individuals do not strongly believe in the core values of most military branches, such as “Service Before Self.” These individuals at least had the option to serve with their integrity intact, whereas a man or woman with a same sex preference must sacrifice their integrity in order to serve their nation’s military. But feel free to remove yourself from the service. I’m sure there is a LGBT individual with an greater dedication to their country that would be proud to serve in your place.
CJ
What a great idea! Let’s be exactly like all those inferior militaries!
Karen T.
Yet another facet to the huge mess this will become if it does make it to be implemented! Look at this approx. 3min. video of this Congressman clearly saying that he sees it as “discrimination” against gay men if they can’t shower with the other men in a command!
This is nuts. Bet he’s never said that it’s discrimination if the guys can’t shower with the girls in our military. It’s the same thing if any of our men, or women in uniform are forced to shower with gays that they know are gay, now.
Like I said, we’ve created 4 sexes that must be separated, but then I doubt this nutty law is going to pass muster and be implemented, especially with the conservative, sane Legislators about to take power away from the likes of this…Congress Critter.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/barney-frank-not-allowing-gays-and-straights-to-shower-together-is-discrimination/
Thomas
Karen: If you are as concerned about sexual harassment in the military as you say you are, then I am sure you are aware that 30% of women in the military have faced sexual harassment or abuse at the hands of fellow male soldiers.
With around 200,000 women in the military, that means there were 60,000 women sexually harassed or abused–by male, heterosexual soldiers. Hope you have called your congress-person and senators about that, because that is a real and serious problem that exists today.
And there are already gay people in the military. If someone is uncomfortable showering with a gay person, what better way to avoid them than to let the gays serve openly so you at least know WHO to avoid, right? Right now, they serve secretly, so you don’t know who might be checking you out or not.
Karen T.
This is THE best article no this subject that I have read, yet, and it’s written by a Chicago Attorney! what a cool surprise this is.
He’s been in combat and he’s got a very balanced view of this, in fact this is quite a presentation in wisdom.
http://www.contrariancommentary.com/community/Home/tabid/36/mid/364/newsid364/765/Default.aspx
Ironsides
Excellent. Professional and effective article.
CJ
Thomas, perhaps you should check the facts. First of all, not all of the sexual harassment charges filed by women were against men. Many were filed against other women, which leads to my next point. How do you know they were all heterosexual when they weren’t allowed to say otherwise? Quite the ignorant accusations you’re making there.
Tara
Seems CJ,
That you are pulling facts out of your ass. Where is your proof? Do you have studies to justify what you said? Talk about ignorant accusation. You are making up facts to back your statements but offer nothing but hot air.
We have men who sexual harrass women in the army threating to so-call out them if they don’t sleep with them. When they refuse these so-call men out them. Since the military cannot ask out these women go.
We have allow dishonorable men and women in the military to black-mail their fellow soilders and get away with it because of people like you CJ.
Talk about swing accusation around, be careful that you don’t paint yourself with the same brush.
Alexandra
One has to look at the big picture. A majority of the gays I have known seem to come from disruptive family backgrounds. The question could be to question if one is gay or suffers from some type of conduct disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder or such. Perhaps, it is a way to get back at the parents. The symptoms listed for conduct disorders are.
:Often very defiant. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring for as long as either childhood, or in the case of many who are influenced by environmental factors, around age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
8. promiscuity;
9. having shallow or seemingly nonexistent feeling.
The bottom line anyone with a conduct disorder is going have a tough time in the military.
One would hate to see the abuse of the term “gay” when the truth could be the person has a conduct disorder.
Tara
Excuse me but I have found that many straight soldiers come from disruptive family backgrounds. Broken homes, foster homes, etc just to name a few.
Since in 1970′s they have determine that being gay is NOT a disorder and that today both major religions and science both agree that people are born gay your argument doesn’t hold water. Now being a bigot is a disorder and you should probably seek help for it.
As your list then being a Republican can be considered a mental disorder and so can being a bigot. But anyways I will go through your list and show you why you need help:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; (Anti-choice groups have Bombing clinics, shot doctors including the one in his own church, we have bigots killing blacks and gays. We have the tea-party who avocates overthrowing the government. So so-call proof that being gay is a disorder, then so is being a teenager, anti-choice, and tea partyers fall under that. Plus since being gay is not illegal nor is having gay sex illegal then what is your point. )
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; (Republican using money from the party to go to a strip club and trying to deny it. Again this tpye of behaviour as is found among every group so again a straw agrument on your part.)
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead (REALLY!!! REALLY that is half of the teenager and at one time we have all done this so what? Are we all insane. Please come up with something better)
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; (On December 13, in the Bay Area city of Richmond, a lesbian woman was gang-raped by four men who used homophobic epithets as they violently assaulted her for almost an hour, before leaving her naked in the street. According to FBI Stats for 2009 17.8 percent were targeted because of a bias against a particular sexual orientation. You are trying to attribute this to gays when in reality this is across the board. Again you have used a straw argument that just does not hold up.)
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others; (Bigots Timothy McVey blowing up OK building not caring that he killed men, women and children, nor himself. A bigot, Christian and Republican. This behavior is for someone that is imbalance but you are saying that being gay is this while totally ignoring that the majority of this type of behaviour is amoung straights is twisted logic. Again yours aguments do not hold water.)
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations; (Really? Really? This type of behaviour is found in everyone both straight and gays and actually more in straights. We have dead beat dads who refuse to pay child support, we have people who cannot manage money. So really this is a requirement that gays are insane? Please)
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; (Really when in actually more straights do this then gays. Gangs, drug dealers, etc are straight and they commit the worst of these crimes.)
8. promiscuity;(Really, well I think the senior citizens have this. There is moe STDs in a nursing homes and high schools just proving that being promiscuity is both a straight and gay issue. Plus being promiscuity does not mean that you are imbalance or have a disorder. This is usually an agrument that someone who has issues with sexuality which is also a disorder.)
9. having shallow or seemingly nonexistent feeling.( Really! You think that all gays are this way, when in reality I have seen this in more straights. Men who dump their wives of 30 years to take up with a woman younger then their children. I have seen CEOs and Bank Execitives exibiting this same behavior. Actually the Republican party can all be painted with this brush. As you can see this behaviour is found in the majority of straights. Again your argument is full of hot water.)
CJ
Why do you assume just because we don’t believe in homosexuality, we’re all Republicans? I’m not a Republican. I know a lot of Democrats who also don’t believe in homosexuality. Maybe you should get off your high horse. Are you trying to say that homosexuality is a political issue?
Karen T.
“Since in 1970′s they have determine that being gay is NOT a disorder and that today both major religions and science both agree that people are born gay your argument doesn’t hold water. Now being a bigot is a disorder and you should probably seek help for it.”
Not so! since the early ’70′s “they” have not found out anything but have given into Political pressure to not call many things, not just homosexuality, the illness that they are.
So, “they” have looked for genes for even compulsive shopping disorder! That’s so beyond absurd, oh yeah, they have found a fat gene, etc.
I weighed 300lbs., but my parents nor did my siblings get grotestquely overweight, or very much at all.
I won’t accept the copout of a fat gene. I will dare to admit that something was eating me while I was overeating, and that when I found the Coping Stratgies that are now offered at http://www.patriotoutreach.org it was then that I began eating less.
We have a push for a “no fault” society in every way, with science eager to find excuses for all of our illnesses and faults, and govt. ready to mother us, “cradle to grave” so that absolutely nothing is “our fault” anymore. All lies~
Gregg
Once again the American people have been lied to regarding this poll and when our military starts crumbling, everyone will wonder what happened. Lately our government makes a royal mess of everything it lays its hands on. One of the positive things about our country has been the military. If it isn’t broke, why are they trying to fix it? I guess our government won’t be happy until they also destroy this.
Tara
Typical Republcan response. The government is trying to destroy the military! The government is trying to distroy the United States.
Please! Talk about chicken little here.
You think the polls are lying to you, the media is lying to you, the military is lying to you. Everyone is lying but you are telling the truth.
Too bad.
The army was broke because it allowed dishonorable men and women to so-call out people because they wouldn’t have sex with them, that they got the promotion they wanted, that the person slighted them somehow and use this broken system to allow good soliders to be discharge while keep those that dishonor the uniform they are wearing. But that is ok with Republicans because they like to black-mail, lie, and twist facts to support their views.
The thing is people like you Gregg use the same tiered old song and dance. It was said when the Catholics were allow to join, it was said when minorities were allowed to server with whites, it was said when women join the front lines. And what happen. Nothing. Everything function as it has been before and after except for a few bigots being dishonorably discharged.
CJ
Tara, again with the false premise. You pro-gay peeps are all the same, but I’ll call you out on it.
“It was said when the Catholics were allow to join…” What are you talking about? Catholics have always been allowed in the military. This wasn’t even a coherent thought.
“it was said when minorities were allowed to server with whites…” The failure to allow minorities to serve was always a wrong one. There is a genetic difference that causes someone to be a “minority.” It is inherent in their DNA and depends upon their parents. It is quite obvious that a person who is a minority can’t just one day decide “I’m not going to be a “minority” any longer.” They can’t change their skin tone, they can’t change their eye color. Same with women. So to compare homosexuality with “minorities” or women is another false premise of the pro-gay movement. It doesn’t fit in the same argument and is nowhere near a sane rallying cry.
Based on my experience, the biggest bigots seem to be the pro-gay movement labeling everyone that doesn’t agree with them. That is pure bigotry.
GySgt T
CJ,
You hit the nail right on the head. The last thing the military needs right now in a time of war is a social experiment…As a minority, I really do not like it when gays use the “minority analogy.”
So, what do we have here…..instead of getting booted for being gay, you get booted for sodomy. NET GAIN….zero.
JohnJohn63
When are the facts going to come out? When is the military going to get the apology they deserve? I’m sick and tired of EVERYONE, not just the gay community, accusing our beloved military of discrimination when it is they that have been discriminated against AGAIN!. They based their policies on the CDC’s FACTS…., yes, CDC’s FACTS, when they banned the gay folks from joining the military. These are the FACTS: CDC studies show that gay men are 44 times more at risk to contract the AIDS virus than ANY OTHER groups of people. Look it up because these facts REMAIN TODAY. What was the military suppose to do? I think that if they did not act they would be “run through the ringer” once again. Most reasonable people do not care if one is gay, ME INCLUDED, but the military has to maintain a strong and HEALTHY fighting force…..The STRONGEST AND FAIREST I might add. They have NOT discriminated against ANYONE. Now some compare this to the discrimination that occurred with the black community. Here’s another FACT for you: The military DID NOT put signs on water fountains or bathrooms with the words “WHITES ONLY”….It was the so called “CITIZENS” of America that did this EVIL EVIL act. When OUR CDC puts health risks out there, WE ALL must, and usually do, react in the best interests of ALL citizens, and rightfully so. Our military IS NOT exempt and MUST react. Their lives are on the line. Their living quarters are not of choice and usually VERY CLOSE. Their BLOOD SUPPLY during war time is their FELLOW soldiers/sailors/marines. They DO NOT have the luxury of ordering blood, if needed. To accuse our beloved military of carrying out a policy based on HEALTH reasons from OUR CDC and then call it discrimination IS ABSURD! The military did what it was suppose to do in an EPIDEMIC….Make a policy in a COMPASSIONATE way, not an EVIL, EVIL, way like the past. They should be COMMENDED and should NOT be CONDEMNED. FACTS ARE FACTS. I’m really not sure what is expected of them anymore since they have been “SLAMMED” by the very so called “CITIZENS” that they protect. I wish someone would get the facts out there……OUR BELOVED MILITARY DESERVE it. This IS NOT FAIR to them. Now they have been tasked to implement this while still MAINTAINING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY of OUR fighting forces. I will CONTINUE to pray for them while EXPECTING an apology on their behalf. Thank you for your time and Happy Holidays!
Very Respectfully,
John H. Ferguson
(USN, Retired)
Karen T.
No, not the whole govt. wishes to destroy the military, JUST the Communists in the White House wish to demoralize, insult, degrade and destroy the retention and enlistments in our military, The Finest in the world.
Why? because they know that our military has the Legal, Constitutional and Moral AUTHORITY to put handcuffs on our Communist-in-Chief and many of his CZARS and cabinet, for them all to await trial for their systematic and public
Dismantling of the Republic, as founded! BO said he was going to “Fundamentally Transform” our nation. I saw him say it, this isn’t up for debate.
WHAT are our fundamentals? Where can I find them listed and what authority do they have, and how so??
OUR CONSTITUTION is our list of Fundamentals and it is the Legally Binding “law of the land” that gives these fundamentals their power.
BO was saying, without letting the average sheeple realize it, that he was going to Destroy our Constitution per changing our fundamentals.
THIS truth, Dear Tara, is what you cannot negate at all.
SSgt Carlos Clarke
Hello all! I’m a Air Force Staff Sergeant who agrees with this article. I actually had to shower with a known sodomite on a deployment and for the first time I felt what it’s like violated with ones eyes. Now that congress has skewed the real feelings and concerns of service members ALL STRAIGHT SERVICE MEMBERS need to do what the sodomites have done…find a way to file law suits. We currently have no voice in this matter and cannot sue the DOD while serving, but we need to be very vocal and exercise our 1st amendment rights without fear of reprisal and considered “insubordinate”. I am on a contingency TDY right now, but I plan on rejecting any training or brainwashing regarding accepting immoral lifestyles and talking to the JAG and Chaplains to understand if I actually have the right to remain a moral and religious person without being disciplined. Subsequently, I have joined a couple of organizations which are currently working on legal actions in defense of heterosexual service members and our rights. Obama should be impeached for signing into law this policy for it will cost some openly gay men and women their lives and cause undue friction, tension and confusion amongst the ranks. We all have been beleaguered with deployments and stress for over 9 years and know many like me that are at our breaking point already. I also believe that if a openly gay male can have the pleasure of showering with me, wrapping the tape measure around my waist or observing me during a urinalysis, then I should either be able to shower with, observe women during UA testing and quarter with women. Also if benefits are extended to service members gay lovers, then every straight male in the barracks should be able to have benefits applied to his or her boyfriend/girlfriend. Why should we stand for anything less? Equality right!! Please lets assemble peacefully and start gathering our arguments outside of the FIXED pentagon questionnaire and consulting our legal rights as the majority of American service members and find clarity or any lawyer, politician, Officer, religious group ect… that will hear our voices!!! I know of a couple that I have consulted in and they are the FRC (family research council) and the center for military readiness. I also pray that the new Republican congress will be willing to revisit this matter before major damage it done to the best damn military in the history of this planet the U.S. Military
Karen T.
Amen to your closing statement here, Ssgt. Clarke! These extremists in the White House lost power in this last election clearly because of their Political Attacks on all that is good, just and common sense. Hang on for the new folks in Congress to be seated and go about fixing the Attacks on our Nation’s “Fundamentals.”
We will prevail because we have justice, truth and the Republic, As Founded, on our side.
Tara
Tara, you’re free to express your opinion all you want here as long as you refrain from profane and vulgar language. Try your comment again using some intelligence instead of rhetoric and name calling. – CJ
Kelsi Washington
First off I would like to state that the “poll” that you state “wasn’t presented openly” was sent to all technicians, AGR,and all full time military personnel. So I disagree that it was not sent out. Your unit may not have informed you that it was sent out, but it was. Secondly, Who are you to say whether the government and our leaders are wrong in allowing gays to serve openly in the military? It is not up to you to decide who serves alongside us. Thirdly, I strongly disagree with the sentiment that gays will be a distraction to the “combat mission and pre-deployment activities.” I am a soldier getting ready to deploy and my personal life and what I do within my personal life, do not distract me from my “pre-deployment” activities. Also, why are you sacrificing your morals if you accept homosexuality in the military? Homosexuals serve under the same constitution that you serve under. Homosexuals raised their right hand and swore an oath to protect the same country and fight for the same people that you did. I believe that it is wrong to presume that homosexuals cannot serve in the same military that you do simply because of their sexual orientation and it is ignorant to believe that homosexuals will be “distracted” when they are already serving they just have not been able to serve freely and openly without fear of punishment. We all serve under the same flag.
CJ
“first off I would like to state that the “poll” that you state “wasn’t presented openly” was sent to all technicians, AGR,and all full time military personnel. So I disagree that it was not sent out.” You can disagree all you want. I am active duty and didn’t get it. None of my peers in my shop got it. None of my Soldiers got it. And none of the officers got it. I run a shop with over 30 Soldiers in it and NOT ONE got the poll. So, YOU are the wrong one.
“Secondly, Who are you to say whether the government and our leaders are wrong in allowing gays to serve openly in the military?” Well, apparently I’m entitled to say since the military supposedly sent out a poll to “all technicians, AGR, and all full time military personnel,” right? If I have no say, why even ask?
“Also, why are you sacrificing your morals if you accept homosexuality in the military?” Because I am morally opposed to homosexuality. If I am forced to accept it – which I won’t – I would have to sacrifice those morals. Pretty simple, if you ask me. Didn’t think that was open for debate.
“Homosexuals serve under the same constitution that you serve under. Homosexuals raised their right hand and swore an oath to protect the same country and fight for the same people that you did.” Please show me where in the Constitution anyone – homosexual or not – has the RIGHT to serve in the military. That’s a false premise and I can’t argue with false premise.
“We all serve under the same flag.” Then why prevent women from serving in the infantry? Why separate male and female latrines and quarters? I mean, we are all equal and serve under the same flag, right?
Karen T.
CJ, does this new article resonate with you? Others in the military saying the same types of things you are, about the survey, in principle even if not in detail.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=244653
lance.hemmert
@ MSG Boggs
Hello MSG Boggs,
I’m not Combat Arms. CJ isn’t, either, but apparently this cat is very passionate about his anti-Homosexual position. The bottom line is I don’t care enough to create a blog to comment on whatever is going on in the Armed Forces, but I do care enough to comment on something that I think is wrong. I commend CJ on his dedication to his political position, even if I disagree with his stance on Homosexual members within the Armed Forces.
That said, the majority of personnel I’ve encountered throughout my career simply don’t give a crap about this issue. Even though I’m not Infantry, I’ve served with all sorts of personnel within the military, and all I can tell you is they’re focused on the mission. The US Army is a total system, and ever component relies on each other (While I respect Combat Arms, they couldn’t do their job without ALL the men and women that support their branches.). Not on the person. They’d rather someone can do their job well than know if they’re straight or not.
The bottom line is, as someone who has served 15+ years in the military, if you swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That’s it. I don’t care if you’re this or that… Just that you honor that oath. If you truly believe in that oath then I support you 100%.
I hope CJ can get over this issue and drive on. I think he’s a charismatic guy, and could provide cohesiveness on this issue rather than divisiveness. However, if he disagrees then I respect him and his position. Ultimately, this is a political issue and I support our government however it comes out in the wash. Things are what they are. It is what it is.
V/R
Lance Hemmert
lance.hemmert
My apologies ref the grammar and spelling. Had a couple of Egg Nogs.
CJ
I’d like to take you take you up on that. I’d like to create a cohesive working atmosphere in which everyone agrees that no one should be forced to accept actions they don’t agree with, like homosexuality.
Oh wait! You mean be cohesive agreeing with YOU, don’t you? It’s divisive to take my position, but cohesive to take yours? If that is how we obtain cohesion, count me out.
lance.hemmert
Hey Brother,
I see where you’re coming from… I don’t like that you and I have had such a strong disagreement over one issue. I think you’re a great guy, and a good soldier. Politics.. Strong stuff, brother. No worries… Hope you’re well.
- Lance
CJ
It’s just a passionate disagreement. I don’t take any of this personally. These are my opinions and I doubt anyone will change them. But, let me reiterate that I have NO problem with gays serving in the military. What I have a problem with is:
1) as a Soldier, being forced to train or believe that homosexuality is normal and acceptable behavior
2) that the homosexual lifestyle is being elevated above other sexual lifestyles like the ones I mentioned before: polygamy, incest, heterosexual sodomy, beastiality, etc.
That’s it. I’m like you that I could not care less who is watching my six (militarily speaking) in a foxhole as long as they can shoot and kill the enemy. You know as well as I do that we will be forced to undergo at least annual acceptance training and probably Gay Awareness Month, and I refuse to go along with that social brain washing.
lance.hemmert
*fist pump*
Love ya, CJ..
Justin Moore
I was wondering if DADT could be brought back?
CJ
Yes, it can Justin. The trick is to repeal the law just passed before it is implemented. Once it is implemented, it would be nearly impossible to repeal without major military disruptions as a result of its passage.
Sam K.
I would say the only way after implementation would be if recruitment numbers are so low there’s no other choice. If you’re really passionate about repeal the only thing to do would be to avoid the military. I was set to attend Marine OCS this fall, which had been my dream for the last 10 years, but now I won’t. I’m not saying this “mass exodus” will actually happen and DADT reimplemented, but I’m standing for my values regardless.
Ned Flaherty
Everyone writing or reading here will benefit from reviewing Undersecretary of Defense Clifford Stanley’s 7-page bulletin dated 28 January, which confirms DoD policy:
(1) Sexual orientation is personal and private, and such data is not sought, collected, or saved.
(2) All members are treated with the same dignity and respect, whether straight, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
(3) Homosexuality is no reason to bar or end military service, and members previously discharged for homosexuality are eligible for re-entry.
(4) DoD policies apply uniformly, fairly, and consistently to all personnel.
(5) Rules for nepotism, conflict-of-interest, fraternization, appearance, conduct, and behavior are all orientation-neutral, and apply equally to everyone.
(6) DoD has zero tolerance for harassment, hazing, or abuse based on sexual orientation.
(7) DoD policies promote an environment that is free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent service members from rising to their highest potential.
(8) Although Service members hold different moral and religious values, they work, live, and fight together by treating each other with dignity and respect.
(9) Service members respect and serve all who hold different beliefs.
(10) Service members can not end their commitments simply because they oppose repeal of §654 or oppose serving with gay/lesbian personnel, but Service secretaries may issue discretionary discharges to benefit the Service.
Dangerously, GySgt T wrote that the repeal will cause “more persecution among gays” because others will “go out of their way to weed them out” and SSgt Carlos Clarke wrote that repeal “will cost some openly gay men and women their lives.” Both assumptions are false. But T and Clarke should beware, however, that anyone who harasses, hazes, or abuses any Service member based on sexual orientation will be subject to immediate discipline, punishment, reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, imprisonment, and/or discharge.
GySgt T wrote, incorrectly, that “we [the military] still recognized the gay lifestyle as aberrant behavoir [sic].” That’s untrue. Today’s service members, who average about 20 years of age, don’t see gays and lesbians as aberrant, and they don’t care who is or isn’t.
GySgt T wrote, also incorrectly, that “sexual orientation does not merit the same standing as race or gender.” That’s untrue. Actually, all three — orientation, race, gender — are equally immaterial and irrelevant. That’s why the citizens who fund the military and the Congressmen who make our laws removed all three as criteria for military service.
Bob incorrectly called DADT repeal “political pandering to a small segment (<5%) of the population and their supporters who don’t like the military or its principles in the first place.” That is untrue, on 4 counts. The various national surveys (CNN, NBC, ABC, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Gallup, Pew, McClatchy, Quinnipiac, and 108 retired generals/admirals) didn’t distinguish between the “small segment” and the “supporters,” nor did they distinguish between military-likers and military-haters. Instead, the polls simply counted Americans favoring repeal, which now stands at about 80% (67% – 92% among various groups). Most importantly, the majority of people in every group (age, education, geography, gender, religion, politics) favor repeal.
CJ imagined that repealing DADT might be unwise based on the survey answers from active duty personnel who now serve under DADT, but who have no experience serving after its repeal. But there’s no reason to worry. The wisdom of repeal can best be seen in what happened among 40 other nations, including our allies, some as long as 20 years ago. In those cases, recruitment, re-enlistment, morale, discipline, and combat-readiness all improved as soon as prohibitions on gay service ended.
CJ also imagined that U.S. armed forces personnel might leave “immediately or sooner” when DADT is repealed. But such turnover never occurred; treating military personnel fairly based on sexual orientation caused no detectable change in rates of enlistment, re-enlistment, or early discharge. The 40 other nations already proved that.
CJ also imagined that allowing gays and lesbians to serve might create the “turmoil” of “harassment, cross-dressing, incest, polygamy, and beastiality [sic].” It does not. The 40 other national militaries have already proved that.
CJ also imagined some problem with “legitimizing homosexual behavior in a professional force.” The problem he imagines doesn’t exist. Gays and lesbians have always served in the U.S. armed forces, and starting in 1993 were admitted officially. The legitimization that he fears is already 18 years old.
CJ also incorrectly assumed that all gays stare at colleagues with whom they shower. That is untrue. In fact, gays and lesbians have been showering with their U.S. armed forces colleagues for decades, with no difficulty. If CJ is unwilling to acknowledge the 65,000 gay/lesbian personnel currently serving — and showering — in the U.S. active duty and reserves, then he should check the 40 other national militaries for details about the ominously imagined “staring” of which he is so frightened. It doesn’t exist.
CJ says that his own standards, morals, and beliefs cause him to “cringe” when some other service members kiss. If he can’t avoid cringing, and can’t keep his beliefs to himself, then he won’t be compatible with military service. There are several categories of unsuitability under which he can request discharge, and there are several others under which he will be involuntarily discharged if he insists on cringing. Mysteriously, CJ also claims “As a leader, I will treat everyone based on performance and merit.” Well, if that is true, then he won’t be cringing after all.
C assumed that all religions view homosexuality the same way. That is untrue. They do not. In fact, within a given religion, there are wide ranges, with some believers and clergy from every faith who place tolerance, respect, and fairness above ancient teachings, written by dead priests, in other languages, about prohibitions on plaid, pork, and so on. Since the U.S. Constitution guarantees both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, all Service members are free to believe whatever they wish, and also must refrain from imposing their religious beliefs upon others.
CJ wrote, incorrectly, that “homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural.” That is untrue. Over three decades ago, the premier psychological/psychiatric professional organizations declared homosexuality to be a normal, recurring feature, and that the many and varied methods by which couples produce or adopt offspring, and even whether couples have children at all, has nothing to do with mental health, or with active duty military service.
Songbyrd
Thank you, from a real Amn.
Pingback: Restore DADT | A Soldier's Perspective
GySgt T
As a member of the Armed Forces, we all have to salute smartly and follow orders…and those who do will be wise to do so. However,the above post does not address the obvious…….sex between two members of the same sex will always be considered sodomy in the minds of some of our leaders and superiors. Punishable under ART. 125. (SODOMY) of the UCMJ. You can still be prosecuted for this. The repeal did not amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Sodomy also applies to straights as well, but rarely enforced.(Sorry about the double standard, but it exists) Where is the victory in the repeal, if you can still get booted for engaging in “unatural sex?”
Also, it is naive to compare the US military with other services from other countries with different social and moral values, not to mention different cultural norms and ethos. I lived in England for 11 years, and even between two very similiar societies there are very contrasting perspectives on many social issues.
One thing that fires me up is when people say “Don’t judge me because of who I love.” Sexual orientation is about physical attraction…let’s be real. The American Psychological Association states that sexual orientation “describes the pattern of sexual attraction.” Love is not mentioned in the definition of being either straight or gay.
Lastly, I really resent misrepresented facts. The average age of the total active duty for is 28 not 20. Please do your research and vet your sources before posting blogs merely to support your own personal beliefs.
I will support the implementation of the repeal of DADT to the letter of the law. But don’t be naive into thinking this changes our opinion and we now believe that homosexuality is acceptable/normal and will have no impact at all on unit cohesion.
Ned Flaherty
GySGT T mistakenly assumes that sodomy is “punishable under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice” and “you can still be prosecuted for this” and “you can still get booted.”
He’s wrong. That’s no longer true.
On 30 November 2010, the DoD wrote to remind everyone that “the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces found that private, consensual sexual activity, to include consensual sodomy, regardless of sexual orientation, is a protected liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Although any sexual act can sometimes still be a crime (for example, if it occurs in public, involves force, or a minor, etc.), the original Article 125 prohibiting sodomy was invalidated by the highest military and civilian courts. (See Implementation Support Plan, Department of Defense, 30 November 2010, page 74, §15.)
GySGT T also mistakenly assumes that the easy repeal in the militaries of other nations can’t be compared to the success of repeal in the U.S. military, and the reason that he argues against such comparison is that nations have different social and moral values.
Having different values not only is irrelevant, it actually disproves his argument.
Yes, every nation has its own values, but different values are not a reason why U.S. repeal wouldn’t work. In fact, the history of so many nations easily implementing fair, open service for gays and lesbians is proof that differing national values had no bearing on the process whatsoever; all these changes in each nation were successful, and uneventful. Moreover, the U.S. military’s superior organization and leadership are already showing the U.S. shift to be the most efficient and uneventful such change ever undertaken anywhere. In fact, the Marines, previously presumed to be the most resistant to this change, have already announced that they will be the first branch to finish repeal, by 30 April.
GySGT T notes that the average service member’s age is 28, not 20, and that is correct. When I referred to today’s members as an average age of 20, I was referring to the average new recruit, because of the oft repeated — but totally false — fear that enlistment might suffer if DADT is repealed. Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos addressed 12,000 Marines in late December, and this month he reported that, “everyone said, ‘Sir, we got it. We’re going to do this thing.’” On 18 February, Amos confirmed that he’s had no indication he will lose any personnel at all.
Most seriously, GySGT T writes that DADT repeal won’t make him view homosexuality as “acceptable.” Well, he and others with that attitude are headed for trouble, because DADT repeal does exactly that. Undersecretary of Defense confirmed last month that with DADT repeal, homosexual and bisexual orientation becomes acceptable, and DoD will prohibit harassment, hazing, abuse, lack of dignity/respect, and any institutional barriers that prevent gay/lesbian service members from rising to their highest potential.
Finally, GySGT T also repeats his determination “unit cohesion” will be impaired when DADT is repealed. Undersecretary Stanley has already confirmed that no one can end their commitment just because they oppose serving with gay/lesbian personnel, or just because they oppose repeal. Any service member who plans to impair his/her unit’s cohesion just because the gays and lesbians who have always been there now are suddenly identified is going to get a pretty quick course correction from the leadership.
GySgt T
So what you are saying is that…..we now have legalized sodomy in the US Armed Forces. Great!
After 50 years of Christian upbringing (which tells me the homosexuality is a sin)I am now reeducated to believe it is acceptable. You can preach tolerance all day long, but don’t try to alter my belief system. Thst’s called brainwashing.
ognywogny
ONLY 27.5% RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY!! FRAUDS!!
Luke N.
I stumbled upon this blog while doing research for a paper. I have to comment on what I know about and not what I don’t know about. I am not in the military so I won’t try to tell you how to conduct military business. However, I have to comment as a gay man. It is so hilarious how all you straight guys think we can’t take our eyes off you. Get over yourself! You don’t want to have sex with every female you meet do you? I do not want to have sex with the majority of males I see either. When I go to the locker room at the gym I rush in do my business and get out just like the other guys. I don’t look or make eye contact because I respect people. I am not a barbarian as I assume you aren’t. So I get that you fear what you don’t understand but know this your not that attractive. In my exerpience, those that are so worried about it are the ugliest and least attractive. So instead of thinking that your so unbelievably hot that everyone must want to jump your bones start thinking hey maybe I’m less attractive than I give myself credit for. Then maybe you won’t be so worried about the gay guys around you.
CJ
Luke, are you saying that a gay man won’t find ANY OTHER MAN in the military attractive? No one is saying you’re going to be all over me. No one is saying you’re going to be hitting on every man out there. But, the truth is that you will be looking at straight men the way straight men look at women. The fact is that men are constantly assessing their chances with other women (unless they’re married, hopefully). Even the “out of my league” women. If you’re saying that gay men don’t look at other men like that, you’re either lying or saying that homosexuality is not like normal attractions. And, yes, some men DO want to have sex with every woman they see, just as there are women who want to have sex with every man they see!
Ned Flaherty
DoD confirmed on 25 March that classes about allowing gay and lesbian personnel to serve openly are well underway, and armed forces recruiting/retention is exceeding its goals for active duty and reserve personnel. Long-time homophobes had predicted that the new law allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would cause mass resignations, make recruiting goals impossible to meet, ruin the all-volunteer military, and pose deadly distractions in battle. But, as in Canada and Britain, none of those fears were real. Even the U.S. Marine Corps, thought by some to be the most resistant to open service, has taken the lead on implementation, and is expected to finish training by 31 May, before any other branches.
Ned Flaherty
Six Congressional Representatives tried — but failed — yesterday to delay, de-fund, and de-rail the repeal of DADT. Pentagon officials rebuffed them at every step.
Six Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee pressed DoD officials about wasted funds, endangered troops, mass resignations, impaired missions, open service training for military children, and said that it’s a double standard to house and shower armed forces men separately from women.
Answers came from Joint Chiefs of Staff Director U.S. Navy Vice Admiral William Gortney and Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Dr. Clifford Stanley, who confirmed that repeal is necessary, training materials cost less than one cent per person, training calendar is quick but careful, no one’s resigned, soldiers aren’t at risk, and that there’s no double standard in keeping men’s showers and barracks separate from women’s. They confirmed that the roll-out is on target for completion this summer, with no negative effect on morale, readiness, cohesion, retention, or recruiting.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKDQwh1hQww
Sam K.
Thank you for posting this well written assessment. When I read the actual results of the DOD poll I couldn’t believe how horribly it had been misrepresented.
We disallow females in combat MOS’s not because the military is female-phobic, but because relationships will develope, and in a combat enviroment the resultant negative impact on good order and discipline will cost lives. When individuals, regardless of their orientation, get the aloofness and preocupation that comes with new sexual relationships, awareness will suffer, and people will get killed. The military under DADT was not attempting to be anti-homosexual, but as asexual as possible.
I joined the Marine Corps the month after 9/11 and served five years. I have spent the last four years in college with the intent to attend OCS this fall when I graduate. Now I will not. Homosexuals are a tiny minority within our society, and those actually wanting to serve in the military are also a small minority. To claim that we can replace the 25% of our military who say they will leave, from a pool of people taken from a minority within a minority, is asinine.
In the military we all were asked to sacrifice our personal desires for the good of the unit. Now that our government has shown that they will not ask homosexuals to do the same, many of us heterosexuals are leaving. The reasons are obvious, but instead of arguing the merits of DADT, those opponents of DADT would rather shout “bigot” repeatedly. It’s sad to realize that instead of cold logic, military policy is being dictated by emotional response.
Alex
NedFlaherty,
The point of this article was to point out the statistically proven evidence that those in Army and Marine combat arms and those soldiers who have served in a combat zone are against the DADT repeal.
Everyone knows that Army support, Marine support, and the entire AF and Navy already have many thousands of openly gay members serving. The cultures of those organizations accept the gay lifestyle as they are more like civilian cultures.
Combat arms, however, is an entirely different animal. It is a dog eat dog world, and people are made fun of for every single irregularity. If you have one tiny weakness, you will be harrassed until your skin grows thick enough to be able to handle abuse like a man…that is, not to care about the small stuff.
Now…gay soldiers in these units will be harrassed. FACT. I know you claim they will be disciplined and thrown out, etc…
But you can’t disband the entire unit. The cultures of these units are extremely conservative on average. Not necessarily religious, but socially very conservative. After all, these are warriors, not UC Berkeley educated lawyers. Or hedonistic fetish lifestyle advocates living in Boston, Mass. The ethos are very machismo, and the gay lifestyle plays no part in the character and cultural tone of these units. PERIOD.
Therefore, you should be more open minded and accepting of the reality that exists in the “real” military = combat arms. That is…the pink lifestyle has never been a part of it, and won’t be a part of it for anytime in the near future. FACT. I don’t care what DC policy wonks say. There’s policy, and then theirs the reality on the front lines. It will be years and decades before the warrior class in the US military openly accepts flamboyant gay people. FACT.
Derek
I’m not going to battle out policies and dadt repeal. I will say however that I am a gay male who wants to join AF intelligence. I myself would not stare at any person in a shower. It would be considered my job and I don’t mix pleasure with wok. Also I’m not so naive to think that me staring at guys would go unnoticed. I understand that straight men fear sexual harrasment from someone like me, what kind of person would I be to torture or test someone? I would go so far as to shower in the corner alone if that meant being respected as a part of the team. Further more I don’t like showering with a bunch of guys all that much anyways. All I want is to not be harassed over an assumption while trying to do my best as a member of a team or unit.
CJ
Derek, first of all to you and other gay people that want to join or are already serving, I appreciate your service or willingness to serve. That is what I wanted to talk to you about personally and also explain a little more clearly about why I’m “opposed” to gays serving in the military.
I’m not necessarily opposed to gays serving in the military, though I’m still opposed to homosexuality. I grew up with a gay uncle and still have gay family and friends (I know, cliche). I think they’d tell you that I’m never disrespectful towards them. In my mind there are two types of gay people. Those that live their life normally and don’t make a big deal and the activists that cram their sexual lifestyle and beliefs down everyone’s throats and force them to accept it. THAT is my opposition to the gay agenda coming into the military. I’m more than happy having people like you (making assumptions here) that just want to join to serve and go about your business.
I think what pushes most opposition to bringing in gays into the inner circles of mainstream life is this agenda. “Gay Pride Month”, gay pride parades, rainbow stickers, and everything else that shoves a particular lifestyle into my TV, on my radio, and in my movies. And the mentality that gays should be treated better than others that celebrate different sexual lifestyles. For example, why is homosexual conduct ok, but willing polygamists not? I’ve made all these arguments before so I won’t rehash old arguments.
Another option I have is the special status that gays will enjoy within the military. For example, while I know that gays won’t be jumping in the sack with every male roommate they have, the fact is that gays are permitted to room with someone they could potentially find attractive. Meanwhile, straight males and females will still be forced to be separate. The excuse is that gays wouldn’t be hitting on their roommates, but why can’t the same be said about straights? Are gays somehow more capable of self-restraint than straights? I’d like to see the study proving it.
So, until gays and straights can TRULY be treated equally within the military, I will continue to oppose their inclusion. Most of that I wasn’t going to talk about on the phone, just that I wanted to personally thank you for being the kind of gay person I’d be honored to serve next to. The problem is that activists in your midst are going to ruin it for you.
Derek
I can understand where you are coming from, I will say that for sure. I can’t however agree with everything you’re saying, but I can respect that you didn’t present it in a totally spiteful way. DADT being repealed is good in my eyes because there are mannerisms lets say that are just natural to who I am and if someone decides that i’m gay without me telling them and then maybe somehow i’m outed I would be banned without the repeal of DADT or maybe i’d be harassed by some douche bag who has an obsession. Those things I would have more protection from with repeal of DADT, I would of course avoid those things myself, but there should be no reason I should have to. And let’s face it… some people you just can’t avoid no matter how hard you try.
As far as the straights and GBL’s showering or sleeping in the same room and whatever else, I honestly don’t know how to make that any better or worse. I believe the military feels the same way on that situation. Maybe they will just end up being more strict on GBL people incase something like that were to happen considering that’s what they are trying to avoid in the living space between straight men and women. Other than that, unfortunately there is nothing that can be done really…short of grouping lesbian women and gay men together, but people might end up having a problem with that as well.
In the end sometimes you have to deal with crappy situations I suppose. Thanks for the respect, I appreciate it and I hope that more people view me that way because I really am only considering the AF because I want to be in the AF and no other ulterior reason. For me enlisting would just be like me filling out an application or putting in a resume for a job the only difference being this job has a hell of a lot higher commitment than other jobs haha.
Derek
Also as far as the rainbows and stickers and what not… I can’t say that i’m all for that. I mean idk, it seems unlike the military. And I’m definitely not looking for special treatment. I just want to be viewed the same as everyone else, if I bring more attention to myself I want it to be because of my performance not because i’m gay.
Pingback: D.A.D.T. | The Goose Report
Ned Flaherty
DADT Repeal 100% Successful
Jim Macdea of NBC News reports from Logar, Afghanistan reports that repealing DADT posed no danger and caused no problems.
Even after the nation, Congress, and President Obama agreed to lift the ban on gays, lesbians, and bisexuals serving openly in the military, some people said repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law would never work in the real world. They said that letting open gay and lesbian soldiers serve in close quarters would cause chaos, and that combat units would implode.
• In manpower, they predicted fewer recruits, more resignations, and a return to the draft.
• In units, they predicted harm to order, discipline, morale, and unit cohesion.
• In battle, they predicted disruption, distraction, mistakes, injuries, and casualties.
• Off hours, they predicted coercion, illicit activity, health issues, and sexual assaults.
• Overall, critics predicted high risks to property, freedom, national security, and the American way of life.
But despite all these things that critics imagined, none of them ever happened.
Today’s soldiers, from grunts to top brass, even U.S. Marines, have actively embraced the law, with no reports of incidents like hazing or gay bashing. Behind front lines at large bases like Bagram Airfield, groups of gays and lesbians now meet publicly, at coffee hours unheard of only months ago.
Hundreds — perhaps thousands — of gay soldiers have recently posted their own coming out videos on YouTube, often to their own families. A phone call home by Airman Randy Phillips, based in Germany, to tell his parents he’s gay, went viral, with more than 5 million hits. Even commanders like Marine General James Amos, once opposed to lifting the ban during wartime, now support it, allowing soldiers to excel, as they always have in war, but now, to do it freely.
Source: “No incidents reported since DADT repealed”
MSNBC Nightly News, 22-Dec-2011
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/45758539/#45758539
Pingback: Consolidated Gay Issue Thread