By I think the militant gay activists like Dan Choi have no one to blame but themselves for the failure of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:
Senate Republicans blocked the likely last chance this year for a repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” law Thursday, dealing a bitter defeat to gay rights advocates who may have to wait years for another chance.With the legislative calendar running down, the procedural 57-40 vote in the Senate fell three votes short of the tally needed to advance the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal, serving as a rebuke to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, both of whom had urged Congress to repeal the law.
The vote also virtually dooms chances of a legislative repeal of the controversial law for the rest of President Barack Obama’s first term in the White House. House Republicans, who will take over as the majority party next month, have already voiced their opposition to allowing openly gay troops to serve in the ranks, and Senate Republicans will also see their numbers increase next year. [Stars & Stripes]
Here is a quote from the article that is clueless as usual from Senator Reid:
“Despite the critical importance for our troops, for our nation, and for justice that we get this bill done, we have not been able to reach an agreement,” he said. “And I regret that it is our troops who will pay the price for our inability to overcome partisan political posturing.”
What price are we going to pay? Gays are a tiny minority of the military population and can already serve. The loss of overweight soldiers is a bigger problem than the few lost from Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Anyway in my opinion the repeal is being delayed because the militant gay groups are just using the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell debate as a springboard to their ultimate goal of a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. They will do this by claiming that gay soldiers have still not received equal treatment in the military because they can’t get the same benefits as married soldiers. The protests led by the clown Dan Choi will be out in force once again. As long as that remains their agenda the repeal won’t happen for some time.
6:31 pm on December 10th, 2010 1
Thank You Dan Choi!
7:25 pm on December 10th, 2010 2
"… the repeal is being delayed because the militant gay groups are just using the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell debate as a springboard to their ultimate goal of a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. They will do this by claiming that gay soldiers have still not received equal treatment in the military because they can’t get the same benefits as married soldiers."
I read this as saying, "They want one bigoted, probably unconstitutional law changed so they can change another bigoted, probably unconstitutional law." I don't know if that is their goal, but even if it isn't, it seems an honorable one.
12:30 am on December 11th, 2010 3
Nothing "honorable" about same sex desire. They are in now. They can do whatever they wish in the military now. Except be open about their perverted life style.
Seems fair to me.
2:56 am on December 11th, 2010 4
Q: How are straight soldiers and lesbian soldiers alike?
A: Straight and lesbian soldiers both like to get honor.
FYI: Gay soldiers like to get honim.
9:40 am on December 11th, 2010 5
I'm not eager to see _any_ couple's public displays of affection, but people should be able to, for example, name their partners without risking their job.
I can think of nothing "honorable" about bigotry, either.
—-
GI, I don't know anything about Dan Choi but I wonder at your tarring all homosexuals because of one man's behavior. I don't hate all conservatives because of Glenn Beck, all Christians because of Fred Phelps, all atheists because of Richard Dawkins, all environmentalists because of Greenpeace, or all global warming activists because of Al Gore but that kind of generalization is what I feel you are doing here.
Choi might be a jerk and worse, but I rather hear what kind of legal basis you have for your views on DADT. I am uncertain about your recent remarks on women serving in combat but those remarks seem very defensible and reasonable without any slurs toward individuals.
3:25 pm on December 11th, 2010 6
I don't think this is to be celebrated. DADT is going to go down one way or another, and this would have paved the way for it to be changed in an orderly and systemic way that brings in the concerns of various sides. Otherwise, it stands to be taken down by court order, and that can get much messier.
Irrespective of people like Choi, there are, from what I've been told by people in the military, good military personnel who get booted out despite trying to keep their orientation under wraps. And then, even for those who don't get kicked out, there is the inherent unfairness of forcing people to live secrets in public that anywhere else would not be illegal or get them kicked out of their job.
I share GI Korea's concerns about creating special privileges for homosexuals in the military, but that is a separate issue from DADT, and those politicians who are interested in getting rid of DADT, judging by their discussions on PBS and what not, seem to share that viewpoint.
3:36 pm on December 11th, 2010 7
#5 Right ON!!! Glenn Beck is BAD. He talks about self-sufficiency, the Constitution, personal responsibility. It doesn't get much more hateful than that!
Someone define "bigotry" please… Like "racist" and "racism", its meaning seems to be somewhat ethereal these days… Why is that?
5:08 pm on December 11th, 2010 8
#5 Don't put words (or anything else) in my mouth. I didn't tar all Homos. I am friends with a very nice "couple". On is very manly and the other is very un-manly.
I said: There is nothing "Honorable" about same sex desire. I stand by that. Nothing bigoted about it. There is nothing "honorable" about any form of sex. Unless you have found a way to do it that I haven't. If so, please explain!
Please show me the "slur" in #3. Same sex desire IS a perversion. It sure as H isn't the norm, now is it.
How about some "personal" experience. I have served with Homos, both male and female. They can do whatever they want in the military. The ones I knew were able to adapt quite easily. Without having to FORCE their life style on the rest of us. They are not the only group that can not talk about their sexual life style. I sure as H couldn't go around talking about tieing up my hookers on the weekend.
I don't want to hear about their sex life. None of my business. It shouldn't be my business. Why do they WANT to make it my business? I don't walk around telling other soldiers how many BJs I got last night. Unless we are doing the same hooker of course.
Which brings me to the only thing it could be about. MONEY.
I had it up to here (hand goes to above head) with married soldiers making more money than me. Simply because they found some trailer trash that would put up with them and spend their money.
Now YOU want to call be a bigot because I see the truth of all this. Sticks and stones. Life is filled with unfairness. The military has never been fair. Never will be fair. Not meant to be fair. It is the MILITARY. Not a social experiment.
Females were constantly pulling the sex card on supervisiors, leaders and other soldiers to get their way. Now YOU want to add yet ANOTHER card for soldiers to use to get over on the system.
You don't GET IT. The military only funtions well when the only "groups" are those of RANK.
Sergeants confide in other Sergeants. Soldiers bitch about sergeants to other soldiers. Officers confide with other officers. Sergeants Major drink coffee.
Females came in and now you have to watch your back. Gays start carring their CARD and there is yet ANOTHER sub-group, that you have to watch out for.
Information that we have to know about our soldiers increases. Address, cars driven, last physical, profile y/n, blood type, swimmer?, kids?, birthday/age, male/female, home town. Now YOU want to add another: gay or normal.
Then there will be the sensitivity training. I had to train them to shoot, to drive, PT, local regulation, military regulation, not to mention there Job.
When I was a young PFC I had a Black E-5 that took me under his wing (1986). He asked what color I was one day. I told him white. He asked what color he was and I said black. He told me I was WRONG. Then he told be that "we are both green. We leave that other chit at the gate for the civilians".
In the army today, he would be afraid to have had that conversation with me. And I would have lost out on that training.
You want to make it worse still by sub-dividing the fighting force into yet another group, separate, special and apart from the Larger military.
Because ending DADT will not be an inclusive action. Just the opposite. It will end. I have no doubt about it. And the military will suffer.
But in the end, that is what the Liberals want. If you don't agree with me, you are a bigot, racist, homophobic, liberal, woman hating, over compensating, pole smoking, carpet munching, funny dressing, Geek.
6:17 pm on December 11th, 2010 9
"The loss of overweight soldiers is a bigger problem than the few lost from Don’t Ask Don’t Tell."
Oh, right. Unless you're diabetic, being overweight is vastly a choice and, in some cases, a direct cause of problems(not many 350lbs submariners, I would imagine). Sexual preference, on the other hand, isn't.
1:43 am on December 12th, 2010 10
a GI lesbian lived right up stairs in the villa across from mine in haebong chong years ago and she would bring back korean chics all the time. it was nice to listen to during the summer months when all the windows were open
3:20 am on December 12th, 2010 11
Another way to look at it (thanks to #10 above) is this. When I went to the ville to play with the hookers—it was a diversion, something to do. Not my lifestyle. Not more important than being a Soldier.
The gay lifestyle is apparently more important than the Soldier lifestyle. If that were not true, they would do what the funny troops did when I was in…their Job. STFU about their sex life just as I STFU about the Hookers / Bondage and BJs I received during my off duty time.
But like I said, it is about the MONEY.
3:38 am on December 12th, 2010 12
Retired GI wrote:
You're conflating "being gay" with "the gay lifestyle." The former does not require the latter, but the former, if inadvertently revealed, can also get you booted out.
There's a difference between someone who wants to flaunt their orientation and someone who simply doesn't want to hide basic facts of their lives (e.g., who their significant other is, not what they do with them) that heterosexuals can openly discuss without fear of losing their livelihood. You, Retired GI, may not have described what you did with hookers, but if you even mentioned going to the ville, then you were openly stating your orientation. You're someone who claims they like to speak their mind, but you seem to be supporting a very asymmetrical system where others cannot do the basic things you do.
Really, the more I hear about this, the more I think anti-DADT people are a bunch of pushies who are such precious little lotus blossoms that they wilt when they see same-sex couples doing the same things heterosexual couples do in public, and therefore must be protected from such a visual assault. Are our military personnel that delicate? Is a gay person the American fighting man's kryptonite? If so, God help us.
3:40 am on December 12th, 2010 13
jslim wrote:a GI lesbian lived right up stairs in the villa across from mine in haebong chong years ago and she would bring back korean chics all the time. it was nice to listen to during the summer months when all the windows were openWere it not for DADT, she might have asked you to come up and join them.
3:41 am on December 12th, 2010 14
jslim wrote:
Were it not for DADT, she might have asked you to come up and join them.
4:46 am on December 12th, 2010 15
Kushibo, There are gay bars in the ville. Go to Itaewon and look for th "rainbows" over the bar.
You did some "selective" reading there. Gays can do the same as anyone in the military. They can even talk about their gayness…with other gays.
Just as I can talk about my whoremonger ways…with other whoremongers.
Gays are deprived of NOTHING. (It is all about the money.) Not that you would read or mention what does not fall into your neat little world.
Must be nice to have it all figured out, without having to live the life or bear the consequences.
All a social experiment to you.
5:18 am on December 12th, 2010 16
Retired GI wrote:
GI Korea, my views are informed by discussions with lots of active duty or recently retired military people, including a retired buddy who was quite a homophobe but thought that DADT was just as bad as before because it was being used to unfairly drum people out who were "discovered" not long before they would start collecting retirement pay (his description). Most of these people did not see it your way, that these folks are deprived of nothing. There's an inherent depriving of normalcy when you force people to keep quiet basic aspects of their life (e.g., who they are dating) for fear of losing their jobs. The ones I've talked to who actively support DADT really did seem to be trying to put a legal justification on their own prejudices and discomfort.
6:17 am on December 12th, 2010 17
They have a RIGHT to raunch each other up the fudge tunnel and prance around telling everyone about it.
6:23 am on December 12th, 2010 18
Vince wrote:
Um, well, not so sure about that in the military, at least not in a professional setting.
Homosexual military personnel should be able to do as much — or as little — as heterosexual military personnel are allowed to do in terms of talking about sexual matters. I vote for "as little," but I don't really want to hear my straight co-worker talking about banging his wife and/or girlfriend while we're on duty/at work either.
7:51 am on December 12th, 2010 19
Like Retired GI when I was active duty I was careful about what I said and around whom I said it. My hooker chasing, tiladon dropping, pot smoking, & soju drinking episodes were shared with like minded folks. I did not tell women or religious folks about my escapades because they would have been offended by such talk. A large amount of people in the military & in society at large consider homosexual behavior to be unnatural & immoral. You may not consider it that way & that is your business. We need to worry about getting heterosexual civilians to enlist and getting heterosexual troops to re-enlist. Homosexual troops CAN serve IF they just keep their sexual preferences PRIVATE, in other words Don't Ask-Don't Tell. If somebody feels they MUST TELL the whole f'ing world about their sex life then maybe the military is not the right career choice for them. IF this policy must change to satisfy the 3% of homosexuals rather than the 97% of heterosexuals can we at least wait until the TWO WARS that we are now fighting are over with? If the policy is changed & IF we end up with not enough troops in combat arms(the sodomite survey said most combat arm troops were OPPOSED to DADT repeal) THEN WHAT? Anyone old enough to remember Vietnam doesn't want a return to the violence in the streets fighting against the draft.
9:30 am on December 12th, 2010 20
Tom, I don't think you grasp that it's not merely telling people about your sex life but revealing even routine things about your life period, like that you're in a relationship with someone (who happens to be the same sex). What is innocuous and frequently traded information outside the military then becomes grounds for dismissal in the military. Right?
Assuming you're heterosexual, how hard would it be for you to avoid mentioning not just your spouse or girlfriend but ever mentioning they exist. "What are you doing this weekend?" necessitates lying or evasion. And all to protect the sensitivities of some precious little lotus blossoms who are supposed to be tough enough to kill but wilt when they come within earshot of a homosexual.
And I wouldn't say it's the 3% versus the 97%, because a lot of the 97% who see it as unfair or who themselves may have to dance around it regarding others they know, are also opposed to DADT.
Tom Langley wrote:
While many predict adverse, effects, in reality an overwhelming majority of those in combat who knowingly served with gay troops or believed they were serving with gay troops said it did not adversely affect the ability to work together.
From page 6 of the Pentagon study:
Unfamiliarity breeds contempt.
9:42 am on December 12th, 2010 21
Tom Langley, Yea I remember it. One of the reasons I joined at a later date was the distaste left over from that time. I sometimes regret that, but at least I spent most of my time before PC took over and made everyone sooo sensitive. I had a draft card, but it ended before my number came up. I often wish I had joined anyway. Oh well, it isn't the only regret I have.
My best time was in Honduras with the 101st TDY. Even with no whores around, it was still a good time. UH-1s landing with guys in civilian clothes and non-US issued weapons. Never knew exactly what was happening, but had some ideas.
9:44 am on December 12th, 2010 22
kushibo 16, you quote Retired GI and then address your reply to GI Korea. Is that what you intend?
9:48 am on December 12th, 2010 23
Glans wrote:
No, that was a mistake. I meant to address the reply to Retired GI.
10:52 am on December 12th, 2010 24
"There’s a difference between someone who wants to flaunt their orientation and someone who simply doesn’t want to hide basic facts of their lives (e.g., who their significant other is, not what they do with them) that heterosexuals can openly discuss without fear of losing their livelihood. You, Retired GI, may not have described what you did with hookers, but if you even mentioned going to the ville, then you were openly stating your orientation. You’re someone who claims they like to speak their mind, but you seem to be supporting a very asymmetrical system where others cannot do the basic things you do."
And that is an example of why Kushibo is one of the smartest chaps in the Korean blogosphere. Writes pretty darn well, too.
11:32 am on December 12th, 2010 25
Ah, shucks, atwork.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
2:38 pm on December 12th, 2010 26
See #18 Atwork.
But you're right. Kushibo does write "pretty darn well". Obviously smart and knows all things in the Korean blogosphere.
He should stick to what he knows and the Military is not in that AO.
Not trying to disparage you Kushibo. It seems you refuse to see an opposing side. I tried to explain as best I could. I know you can understand. I would not waste my time on you otherwse. You just don't want to understand.
You never did acknowledge that going to the ville did not mean you're a hetro, as I pointed out in #18. So, you don't want too.
So where is my "Ah, shucks" for saying your "smart and a good writer"?
4:13 pm on December 12th, 2010 27
I agree that DADT is going away. My point is that it works…as is.
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And if you do, be prepared for outcome.
My second is that it is all about the money.
I can see the steps. They lead to the military agreeing to recognize gay marriage. Fine. But then comes the allowances in extra pay. Then off post housing is OK ed.
Then all troops that want out out of the barracks (who doesn't) are claiming to be in a relationship.
Similar to attempting to take the 2nd amendment away. Baby steps. A push here, a nudge there.
Started with DADT. If you think DADT went well, you weren't paying attention. It didn't and still doesn't. DADT was the nudge. Ending it is the push.
You're much more involved it seems. So you tell me, what is the end game.
Don't even try to tell me it will be without problems. That would be insulting.
I can't help but smile about DADT. The gays wanted it. Now it is a hideous unfair program.
It seems that Bill clinton really didn't know what he was doing there.
4:28 pm on December 12th, 2010 28
Kushibo #27, You wrote that just mentioning that you're going to the ville is stating your sexual orientation. That's not necessarily so. I worked on the orthopedic ward at the 121 Evacuation Hospital in Yongsan when I was stationed in Korea. The headnurse was a female. If I had a couple of days off & if the headnurse asked me what I was going to do on my day off I might mention that I was going to go to Itaewon to do some shopping. I didn't tell her that I was going to 'shop' for hookers & to shop for soju or mockoley to get blind drunk. In other words I didn't reveal my sexual orientation by just saying that I was going to the ville. You also said that DADT is going to go away one way or another. With the current make up of the US Supreme Court who actually believe in what the founding fathers meant when they authored the constitution, I think & hope that you are wrong there. Like I said before IF the repeal of DADT is going to happen just to placate a group of large contributors to the Democratic party then at least let's wait until the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq have subsided. As I asked in post #19, if DADT is repealed & if we don't get adequate force numbers because of a lack of enlistments & re-enlistments THEN WHAT? Do we REINSTATE DADT or do we go to a draft? You may say that it won't happen but what if it does? Let's consider this AFTER the wars are over & cut out the PC BS. I served with homosexuals when I was on active duty but the number was so small that we could handle things like shower times or whatever. If a large amount enlist then problems WILL occur.
4:29 pm on December 12th, 2010 29
By legislating DADT away instead of having it removed by the court, there is a way to more effectively control what happens.
And I do understand your concerns, just as I understand (and agree with) GI Korea's concerns about special treatment and affirmative action.
It's very simple: Draw certain lines in the sand and stick to one side of them. For starters: what's good for the gooser (ha ha) is good for the gander. That is, if something is acceptable for heterosexuals, then the corresponding benefit, behavior, etc., must be acceptable for homosexuals. This is actually straightforward and easy, except that it requires thinking of heterosexuals as on par with homosexuals, and that's tough for some people.
That would likely mean that same-sex marriage would be recognized by the military. The military doesn't marry people, does it? They are subject to the laws of the state they are in or from, no? (If they're outside the country, what laws do they follow? Does the UCMJ have jurisdiction over marriage?) If they have gotten married in a state where it's legal, then the military recognizes it. Plain and simple. Without it, they don't get spousal benefits, such as extra pay. If they're married, they get it. Homosexuals and heterosexuals, on par with each other.
Do heterosexuals get off-post housing for non-married partners? If so, let gay troops have that, too. If not, then they don't. If they're not from a state where same-sex partners can marry, then they've got to work that out themselves.
And no, I don't expect it to go perfectly smoothly. And no, I don't think DADT did either. I'm not involved as much as someone actually in the military, but I have been connected to Yongsan in various capacities off and on since the 1990s and I've talked with a lot of people about this stuff, so I'm not completely naïve either.
No, the gays wanted full rights to serve in the military, not serve in the military while keeping many aspects of their personal life quiet for fear of losing their livelihood. DADT was a compromise that was as good as they would get at the time, and so they took it.
By way of analogy, gays wanted DADT like Obama wants tax cuts for income earned over $250K.
4:39 pm on December 12th, 2010 30
Tom Langley, what you're talking about is not the same as what I'm talking about. You're talking about choosing not to say you're going to the ville (and providing truthful follow-up questions about which clubs), even though you could without fear of repercussions. This is different from not being able to say where you're going without being forced to lie or be evasive for fear of repercussions. (Assuming you're not going to an off-limits bar… are some or all the gay bars off limits?)
Also, I'm not sure why you're laying this solely at the door of Democrats when it's the Log Cabin Republicans that are spearheading the lawsuit to take down DADT.
4:51 pm on December 12th, 2010 31
The Log Cabin Republicans are RINO's-Republicans In Name Only. Somebody else will have to answer the question if some or all of the 'gay' bars are off limits because there weren't any (at least to my knowledge) when I was in Korea in 1979-1980. Kushibo, please answer my question about WHAT IF adequate force levels can't be maintained, WHAT THEN?
5:00 pm on December 12th, 2010 32
What makes the Log Cabin Republicans RINOs (and yeah, I know what that means from listening to Rush Limbaugh on AFKN)?
As for your question, the numbers in your report simply don't seem to suggest there will be a failure to maintain force levels because of this. The high number who have served in combat with a gay person or person they believed to be gay was so high — 84% to 90% — that it really appears to be a non-issue once the veil of unfamiliarity is removed.
And like I said, if we are losing so many people that won't join or won't re-enlist because there might be a gay person nearby, then I would guess we have a problem with adequately tough troops to begin with.
5:21 pm on December 12th, 2010 33
I guess we'll just have to wait & see what the congress & the courts do.
5:45 pm on December 12th, 2010 34
Ok I have to stop Kushibo at his "discovered" comment. You or your friend is bull sh!ting and stretching the truth. There is actually no such thing is a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. Instead there is something called S.A.M. which stands of Statements, Acts, Marriage. In order for a soldier to be discharged from the service an investigating officer must find credible evidence (hearsay is explicitly listed as unacceptable) that the soldier in question did one of the following.
The soldier made a Statement to a commissioned office (NCO doesn't count here) that they are homosexual. This statement must be in writing and must be witnessed by said commissioned officers.
The soldier must of committed a homosexual Act, again hearsay isn't acceptable. The act must of been witnessed by a commissioned officer and the commissioned officer must make a written statement that he/she witnessed the homosexual act. What people have seen in the barracks doesn't count, no matter what was reported to happen in "the club" none of that counts for SAM purposes. Two males kissing / holding hands / expressing affection is explicitly listed as not a not a homosexual Act. Basically someone needs to be making sex tapes or taking lots of pictures of them corn-holing each other for Act to come into play.
The soldier in question must of entered into a homosexual marriage complete with the legal paperwork involved. This is more appropriate in the countries allowing same-sex marriage as most places in the USA don't allow for it. And again a commissioned officer must witness the legal paperwork and make a written statement that the witnessed that legal paperwork. Honestly if a homosexual soldier enters into a homosexual relationship its hard to hide.
Those are the ONLY ways to initiate the separation paperwork. Some arbitrary SGT / CSM can't come along and kick a soldier out. Someone who says they "saw" PFC Nuttard making out with SPC Yonker can do absolutely nothing to have either of those two investigated. Even if PFC nuttard makes a statement that SPC Yonker is homosexual and that they participated in homosexual acts together, absolutely nothing can be done unless SPC Yonker agrees to that statement with his/her own statement.
The investigation is done initiated by the soldiers commander, usually the company commander. Once finished its handed up through the chain of command to the first O6 for review. After the O6 reviews the investigation findings he either recommends separation or dismisses the investigation. The final approval / separation authority is the first general officer in the chain of command.
Do any of you guys actually know how fcking HARD it is to get a soldier separated for homosexual conduct? Its easier to get them on unable to adapt or patterns of misconduct (if their the type that gets art 15's alot) then it is to get them on homosexual conduct. Anyone who says soldiers are being "outed" is talking out their a$$, its simply not possible to "out" a homosexual soldier. Heck right before deployments you'd usually get a few soldiers trying to use "gay" to get out of the US Army. The homosexual soldiers must "out" themselves there really isn't any other way.
5:49 pm on December 12th, 2010 35
Now I see the problem Kushibo. You think it is a non-issue. You think there is a "veil of unfamiliarity".
How positively arrogant and condescending toward the fighting force you are. To speak of them as if they are a force of uneducated idiots.
I was wrong. You are a waste of my time. Just another condescending Liberal with the usual agenda.
Like Obama, you don't listen or learn. Only the agenda matters.
6:01 pm on December 12th, 2010 36
And before someone attempts to go down this line of reasoning. It is illegal for any officer, commissioned or not, to ask a soldiers sexual preference. A commanding officer can sit SPC Yonker down and ask lots of things, but the CO can not ask "SPC Yonker are you a homosexual?". If any of these illegal questions are asked the SPC can respond with "I'm not able to answer that question Sir" and immediately following this SPC Yonker should be going to JAG to get a statement then to IG to document that statement. This type of thing goes onto that CO's permanent record and will sideline any promotion past LTC and possibly MAJ. Most CO's know this and won't ever ask that question, though they may ask around it and hope that the soldier outs themselves. And again a NCO can't do squat, the most they can do is have a sideline conversation with the 1SG who then has a sideline conversation with the CO who then starts to look for something amiss. The CO can not start an investigation until the soldier in question violates S.A.M.
A homosexual soldier can have his/her entire chain of command after them and they still won't get "outed".
7:46 pm on December 12th, 2010 37
someotherguy wrote:
I am relaying things I've heard at various times from different people over about a ten-year period in the 1990s and 2000s. It's entirely possible people are bullsh¡tting me, but I am not bullsh¡tting about what I heard.
Not to be argumentative but out of genuine curiosity, is the situation you described how it should be or how it is? Has it changed over time (more severe or less severe)? Supposedly more people are removed for violating DADT than were removed for their orientation prior to DADT (is that oft-repeated claim false?), so it makes me wonder if something unintentional is not happening.
8:04 pm on December 12th, 2010 38
Retired GI wrote:
My view about the "veil of unfamiliarity" is taken straight out of the Defense Department report, on page 6 of the aforementioned link (#20). While I was not surprised that those in combat would be less inclined to end DADT, I was frankly surprised at such a high rate of those actually in combat with gays saying it was a non-issue.
That to me was a game-changer. It indicated that there was more hand-wringing about this from people not serving in combat with gays than with those actually serving in combat with gays.
And no, this is not a non-issue. I care enough about this issue to follow up on it and read the reports. I've had an argument or two with actual liberals about the need, should DADT end, to consider the feelings of those who may feel homosexuality is immoral or disgusting or whatever.
And no, I don't feel that "only the agenda matters" because I'm not part of the agenda you're trying to pin on me. I think I made it very clear several times now that I share GI Korea's stated opposition to giving gay soldiers, should DADT end, any special treatment that their heterosexual counterparts do not get, including any affirmative action consideration.
And no, I'm not condescending toward "the fighting force," and I don't see them as "a force of uneducated idiots," because unlike you, I see that most of the fighting force doesn't really seem to have a problem with ending DADT.
I do have a problem with the view that one's own prejudices should lead to others' lives being restricted. I think our society has evolved into enough of an acceptance of homosexuality — and the Defense Department report bolsters that view — that the protective framework of DADT is now an unnecessary liability.
I've been making a cogent and generally respectful argument about how and why to end DADT, one that addresses military personnel's actual experiences and concerns, as I've understood the through my own discussions and through things such as the Defense Department report. It is certainly not part of any "liberal agenda," but your sudden change of tone ("You are a waste of my time") seems to me that I've hit a bit too close for comfort.
9:54 pm on December 12th, 2010 39
Retired GI, it’s not that I don’t understand. I really do see your point (I’m from Orange County, so your POV is close to the default POV of those around me), but I’ve weighed it against a bunch of other points as well. DADT is going to go away one way or another, whether you or I or anybody likes it or not. The question is will it be dismantled proactively or reactively.
Actually, Retired GI, I talked about mentioning going to the ville as equivalent to openly stating your orientation, not going to the ville itself (yeah, I’m aware there are gay bars in the ville, being as how I would sometimes hang out with USFK personnel in Seoul and these subjects came up).
See, there’s a subtle but important distinction right there. If you mention going to the ville this past weekend or something, there’s a good chance someone asks you where. If you’re straight, you can say where. If you’re gay, would run the risk of revealing your orientation if you’re, ahem, straightforward, so you either (a) lie, (b) give an evasive answer, or (c) just keep your mouth shut about having gone to the ville in the first place.
That you can openly mention you’ve been to the ville without fear of being officially outed and losing your livelihood is something you can freely do but a homosexual cannot. So what I said…
… still stands (and yeah, I’m basing this in part on something I heard back in 2004 or 2005).
Back in 1993, when there was little in the way of wide acceptance of homosexuals, DADT was probably a necessary intermediate step. But now it is an albatross around the neck of a lot of people, in such a way that it leads to good people being drummed out and others being forced into evasion if not outright lying, all for a purpose that is outmoded half a generation later.
1:17 am on December 13th, 2010 40
Blah Blah blah, "prejudices" (forgets what I have written), blah blah blah. Blah "hit a nerve" (forgets what I've written), blah blah.
Typical agenda driven Liberal. Fell just short of calling me a bigot. (like that hasn't happened before) Payed no attention.
When trying to "nudge" you to his position doesn't work, he gently insinuates that Perhaps it is you that has the problem.
What a waste of time.
2:29 am on December 13th, 2010 41
http://www.pinkbananaworld.com/content-detail.cfm…
This is a correction of a previous media report that said SMA Preston was on board with DADT repeal…
7:25 am on December 13th, 2010 42
The survey was a sham. It was clearly pushing an agenda.
8:11 am on December 13th, 2010 43
Vince wrote:
Up to a point, I think that's a fair response to what I've been saying (since I've been citing the report itself), but would it be possible to elaborate a little more on what you mean? It seems pretty clear to me that the authors knew what general conclusion they wanted to reach, but do you think the actual data itself is false, falsified, or misinterpreted?
"They have an agenda" is not a strong refutation of data and stats, though it might address the conclusions made or the methodology used. But even then, specifics are more helpful than a blanket statement. I'm genuinely interested in what specific ways you think the report was a sham.
I've heard complaints that they didn't ask the question point blank: "Do you want to end DADT?" The response I've heard to that is that it's inappropriate to take polls on major policy issues — how would continuing the war in Iraq or Afghanistan have fared? they point out. Even without knowing any specific examples, I would guess not asking opinions on some policy is an inconsistently applied policy.
9:09 am on December 13th, 2010 44
Kushibo #43. Let me respond to your points about polling military members about policy. I see a difference between asking what troops what American foreign policy should be because I don't think that the military should be involved in that AT ALL. Look at all the third world countries where the military runs the government, We DON'T want that here. Asking troops about how the military organization should be run I think is just a way to make the military more effective in its mission, of course the final decisions MUST rest with the civilian leadership including whether or not to repeal DADT. If DADT is repealed the military WILL obey orders & do their very best to make the new policy work whether they happen to believe in it or not or whether it is a good idea or not. I think that since President Obama, Secretary Gates, & Adm Mullen said they would talk about HOW to repeal rather than IF it should be repealed, anyway I'm sure the word was put out as to the expected results. Also the way in which some of the questions were asked indicated a bias. When polling companies do polls different results can happen depending on the WAY that a question is asked.
9:19 am on December 13th, 2010 45
Thanks for your reply, Tom. Yeah, I know the military will do it if they are ordered to do it, but it would be nice if it is done in a way that is least disruptive and as respectful as possible to the divergent opinions out there. If it is to be done at all (which, politically and socially, I do see as inevitable).
Also, I really do NOT want to see anything but the "on par with heterosexual counterparts" principle be applied, but no affirmative action of any kind. But frankly, I see that outcome as considerably less likely if DADT falls by a court decision than if removed by a Congressional bill.
Do you have any specific examples of that?
11:49 am on December 13th, 2010 46
@38 Kushibo,
Who ever "told" you someone was "outed" for being homosexual is either lying / BSing or stretching the truth to the extreme. As I mentioned above there is no such thing as DADT policy in the military. DADT was a catch phrase during the Clinton administration which described a set of policy's that would allow homosexuals to serve in the US Military while respecting the non-homosexuals desires / conservatives desire not to be exposed to homosexuality. Homosexuals have not in the past 30+ years been allowed to serve openly (I don't think they ever were). In the past they weren't even allowed to serve period.
DADT defined a set of policy's that were two parts. One is that it is illegal for any officer, commissions or not to ask a soldier their sexuality. It is actually illegal to tell a lie to a senior officer (commissioned or not) in the US Military, so prior to DADT if SFC Hardass sat down SPC Yonker and asked him "are you homosexual", SPC Yonker was in a pickle because he had to choose from either breaking the law (lie) or getting booted out of the US Military (truth). With DADT SFC Hardass can't even ask that question. The second part of this is that the wording was changed on the military regulations regarding homosexuals. Now it just says that you can't commit homosexual acts or show the propensity to commit homosexual acts while serving in the US Military. You can be homosexual, you just can't do homosexual things or tell others that your homosexual. It sounds screwed up because it is the result of a compromise. The conservatives wanted to keep the status quo of having a across the board bar for homosexuals, the liberals wanted to have homosexuals serve openly. You ended up with homosexuals being able to serve but not being able to talk about it.
Liberals with an agenda are demonizing DADT because they want to spread misinformation about it in an attempt to control public feeling. DADT did not bar homosexuals from serving, it did the exact opposite and allowed them to serve but under a condition. There are no packs of CSM's peeking into windows hunting for homosexuals, there are no witch hunts. SPC Yonker can walk into an office and yell "I'm a homosexual" and very little can be done about it unless an officer heard him. Then the officer must get him to write it down as a statement or the officer himself must write it down and it must be witnessed. And then begins the paperwork nightmare, all of which SPC Yonker can stop by simply saying "my bad, I was kidding yo".
[Not to be argumentative but out of genuine curiosity, is the situation you described how it should be or how it is?]
Neither, it takes a general officers signature to discharge someone for being a homosexual. Now maybe you don't know much about how general officers get to be general officers. Each service branch can promote up to the rank of O6 which is the highest grade field officer. In order to be promoted to O7 the House / Senate Armed Forces Committee must approve the promotion. General Officers are considered advisers / executives to the PoTUS, the exact same as cabinet members. In short congress gets to choose / promote General Officers. So no matter how hard ass the guy is, he'll never make GO rank unless he's political and makes congress happy. GO's don't get to become GO's by randomly signing pieces of paper that discharge soldiers, especially using a highly debated / politically charged mechanism. Nobody wants it on their record that they were over zealous or caused a "witch hunt". I mean look at the GO that was in charge of Abu'Gharib, she was many levels removed from the troopers that caused that sh!t yet they still pinned blame on her.
Not only that, but before the GO even gets to look at the discharge paperwork an O6 must go over it and recommend yay / nay. The investigating officer can't make ANY recommendations, they can only report the facts and those facts must be supported by signed statements. No COL wants their name attached to a witch hunt either, they'll NEVER make O7 if that happens, and will probably be forced to retire.
3:40 pm on December 13th, 2010 47
someotherguy, I appreciate your detailed description of how the system is supposed to work (or how it actually works — I'm still not sure which you are saying it is).
As I mentioned earlier, I admit that it's possible that people are bullsh¡tting me, but I do wonder if you can explain why (if it's true) that more homosexuals have been discharged since DADT than before. I'm not asking that as an argumentative point; based on what you're saying about how it's supposed to work (or how it actually works), I'm genuinely interested in how increased discharges can be true (if it is true).
I do appreciate your insight into the process, but at the same time, regardless of whether it's easy or hard to discharge open homosexuals from the armed services, the discrepancies in how a heterosexual soldier and a homosexual one can live their lives is one that, at this point, seems to not make any sense anymore and appears to be more trouble than it's worth (not to mention that such discrimination is decidedly un-American).
4:48 pm on December 13th, 2010 48
@48, Simple, because their keeping count now. Prior to DADT they would just boot then under a general discharge and let that be it, rarely was a record kept. You have a myriad of paths you can take, failure to adapt, something medical, or even the universal pasterns of misconduct if they get into trouble. Same situation happened with sexual assault and sexual harassment numbers, they went from rarely being reported to suddenly there. The key to remember is that regardless of what you personally believe, DADT was designed to allow homosexual soldiers to serve in the US Military without fear of being discharged.
There is no way around it, it is impossible to be forced out without pictures / videos made. Otherwise you self reported. All these people saying they were forced out are stretching the truth and trying to be dramatic with their agenda. If you start digging into the details of their discharge you ~always~ run into the part where they signed a fcking piece of paper saying they were homosexual or stood in front of an commissioned officer and told them they were gay. The absolute worst that can possibly happen is if you have an officer out to get you and you somehow screw up and openly admit your homosexual and that officer takes it and runs with it. In that situation the homosexual in question screwed himself over but could just as easily get out of it by saying "whoops my bad just kidding". You can't be forced out period.
This isn't about whether homosexuals can serve honorably or not, they have and already do. I've had the honor of serving with several homosexuals, one of which was a hard partying latina female that could drink everyone else under the table. Several times I saw her picking up other girls in the off base clubs. She later became an outstanding NCO that many soldiers look up to. I once had a KATUSA roommate who was homosexual, he never messed with me and didn't bring any of his "friends" to the room. No one had an issue with it at all. Homosexuals enjoy the ~exact~ same living standards as heterosexual soldiers. If you had ever served then you'd know the military is very good about setting standards and enforcing those standards. Outside of the married people getting free housing and what not, which is actually managed by on base family centers and not the unit itself, everything else is the exact same. Same food, same work, same uniforms, same discipline, same PT test, same medical, same UCMJ, same promotion system, same barracks and same deployments. There isn't any room for equality so don't make it out like its some travesty or human rights issue.
In the end the only limit DADT puts on soldiers it the above stated S.A.M. restrictions. The soldier can be *known* as gay, they can go to gay bars and hang out with other homosexuals, then can even have homosexual relationships, they simply can't parade around telling everyone their homosexual. They can't perform homosexual acts in front of others and they can't enter into homosexual marriages.
And finally to nail my point home let me introduce you to the UCMJ. The US Military has its own courts system that operate under title 10 authority. This means lots of the regular constitutional rights that citizens have are taken away or otherwise limited, ~very~ important to remember when dealing with this.
Art 125, Sodomy
ext.
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)
(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.
(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.
Explanation.
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.
Maximum punishment.
(1) By force and without consent. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.
(2) With a child who, at the time of the offense, has attained the age of 12 but is under the age of 16 years. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 20 years.
(3) With a child under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.
(4) Other cases. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.
That's correct, your wife giving you a BJ is considered sodomy and you can be tried for Art 125. Of course no CSM's are peeking through your windows, there are no sex police.
Art 117 Provoking speeches or gestures
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused wrongfully used words or gestures toward a certain person;
(2) That the words or gestures used were provoking or reproachful; and
(3) That the person toward whom the words or gestures were used was a person subject to the code.
Explanation.
(1) In general. As used in this article, “provoking” and “reproachful” describe those words or gestures which are used in the presence of the person to whom they are directed and which a reasonable person would expect to induce a breach of the peace under the circumstances. These words and gestures do not include reprimands, censures, re-proofs and the like which may properly be administered in the interests of training, efficiency, or discipline in the armed forces.
(2) Knowledge. It is not necessary that the accused have knowledge that the person toward whom the words or gestures are directed is a person subject to the code.
Maximum punishment. Confinement for 6 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 6 months.
Yeah free speech doesn't exist inside the US Military so that district judge was horribly out of line.
You can look up others
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a…
Kushibo as I've said in other threads, you've never served in the US Military and therefor don't know squat about it. Everything you know or protest to know is second, third or fourth hand information. This effectively makes you the peanut gallery. Now being in the peanut gallery is fine as long as one remembers their knowledge and perception on the matter is trivial.
5:03 pm on December 13th, 2010 49
someotherguy wrote:
Yeah, I keep hearing how I never served in the military… keep hearing myself saying it. I've pointed it out several times before you ever did.
Okay, I've worked on a military base and have had a number of military or former military personnel among my circle of friends/acquaintances, and I can read Defense Department reports on the issue. But yeah, that is different from actually being in the military, as I've qualified my statements time and time again. You may also notice that I've been asking stuff, not presuming to know something before I've been told by someone here. If you (or anyone else) thinks the questions are rhetorical, you're mistaken.
I sympathize with the feeling that busybodies not a part of your cohort are deciding policy for you, but like it or not, this is not just a military issue but a political and social one as well. Our courts and/or our elected representatives are deciding this, and all I'm trying to do is make sense of it and maybe give my opinion on what I think is a good direction. You seem to be coming at me with this "you don't know squat" hostility when all I'm trying to do is figure this out and give opinions on what I'm hearing.
And yeah, I'm keeping my ears open. GI Korea seems totally against ending DADT, but instead of just dismissing him (which is what I'd probably be doing if I were really following the liberal agenda) I'm agreeing with him on what seems to be one of his key points.
I appreciate you giving all the detail you're providing; it helps keep me informed on this issue and I'm grateful. But please don't come at me with a "shoot the messenger" attitude just because, after looking at this thing from as many sides as I can, I honestly feel that DADT is going down one way or another and for those who are worried about the disruption it will cause to unit cohesion and readiness, it's better if its removal goes in the hands of the Defense Department and a forward-thinking but sympathetic Congress instead of judicial fiat.
5:41 pm on December 13th, 2010 50
Probably unrelated to the current argument, CNN has a report on the number of soldiers discharged over DADT versus obesity.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/06/frum.ob…
"Yet even the relaxed 26% standard is too stringent for modern America. More than 9 million young Americans — about one in four — are too overweight to enlist, a recent report found.
So the military has adjusted its expectations.
Otherwise qualified young men with body fat of 30% (the boundary between "overweight" and "obese") can be conditionally recruited if they can perform a basic workout and then commit to reduce their weight within one year."
…
""Don't ask, don't tell" may have had its day. If so, it's time to replace it with a new motto. As one of my Twitter followers recently brilliantly quipped: "Don't Eat — Don't Swell.""
6:17 pm on December 13th, 2010 51
Kushibo, I was about to restate my position then decided it would be too much trouble. A day later, here I am catching up on what you have written and I see I don’t have to. I only need to say I agree with just about everything you said and wish i could have written it so well myself.
—–
Retired GI, I still see you as bigoted for the reasons Kushibo mentioned. To paraphrase him, ‘if a straight person is asked about his plans, he doesn’t have to worry about lying.’ It seems unanimous that nobody here wants to hear about sexual escapades from their coworkers, but, as Kushibo said, gays can’t even name their partners without taking a risk. I presume you are straight and have had girlfriends or spouses and were able to mention their names to coworkers. This is a right you have that gays do not.
You seem to want to keep that right and deny it to others. That is a pretty good definition of bigotry.
As you said in #40, this seems a waste of time. I wrote this to let Kushibo know he had some support. One last time:
We do seem to be talking past each other to some degree. I (and I think Kushibo) are describing this as a rights issue and you and Tom Langley are describing this in practical, how-it-will-work terms. I do not deny that allowing gays to serve openly will cause some disruption but, I still feel it is the right thing to do. Allowing blacks to serve in the military likely caused disruption as well but it was the right thing to do.
Your point about the extra money gays could be eligible for if they are completely accepted into the military might be a good one but it does not seem to be an anti-DADT point. You are upset that married GIs have benefits that single ones do not and I think you are right to be so upset. On the other hand, if there is any group that is known for sham marriages it is the gays. If two soldiers have the same employment history but one makes more money or has better benefits simply because he is married, that is not fair. Still, if those regulations exist, gays have no reason to not try to get them.
I agree that allowing gays to serve openly could cause retention and other problems. I agree -it came up on another post- that barracks arrangements could be messy and problematic. I agree that it is in bad taste to describe one’s sexual exploits except, possibly, with one’s closest friends.
Now, I have to ask, do you agree that gays deserve the same rights straights have? The right to name their significant other without worrying about their job? The right, when questioned, to provide honest answers to questions about plans for the weekend or what happened last weekend?
9:07 pm on December 13th, 2010 52
Many hide behind a thick mask
but it doesn't affect the task.
Do whores or smoke crack,
suck diick or hate blacks,
the answer's don't tell and don't ask
12:20 pm on December 14th, 2010 53
@Kushibo,
It wasn't my intention to offend but I really am getting tired of people who have never been in making comments and presuming stuff. You kept pulling the "is that how it happens or how it supposed to happen" line. Anyone who's been in knows there is lots of wiggle room / shady business going on on some things, but other things are iron cast set in stone. Getting discharged before the enlistment period ends is damn near impossible. Anyone who's been would know that there are lots of times when a soldier wants out and goes around telling people their gay, even acting the part. Because of that commanders, especially the O6 and above type are very discerning about any discharge paperwork. The Army REALLY doesn't like losing soldiers that way and will make it so painful to chapter a soldier that most people give up. That is one of those things you can't really understand until you've seen it happen before your eyes and you think "WTF is this sh!t".
It has absolutely nothing to do with someone making some decision, I'm not with the Retired GI crowd. My personal opinion on the matter is that its time for DADT to end. Its a policy that has out lived its usefulness. I side with neither liberals nor conservatives and I think the use of our US Military as a way to score political points by the liberals is disgusting. I'm happy to know that our PoTUS is at least intelligent enough to know he doesn't know sh!t about this and to trust his own Military leadership, much to the anger of his own party.
Bottom line is to not make any assumptions about how the US Military works. Its not just a job its a way of life. It has its own rules, expectations, taboo's and rules. Hell even is its own judicial system, one that is much harsher then anything else in the USA. To many assumptions about how things work without first hand knowledge of that culture, that way of life shows an all to common arrogance displayed by civilians. If you want to know that culture then I'd suggest the best place to start is the local recruiting office.
2:35 pm on December 14th, 2010 54
Many new soldiers are queer.
So the straight ones have something to fear.
With strategies sound,
and tactics profound,
they outflank and attack from the rear.
3:29 pm on December 14th, 2010 55
Chickenhead, The Master.
6:02 pm on December 14th, 2010 56
The nature of the questions asked and the wording of the questions were devised in such a way to not address all the tangible -and none of the intangible- reasons why open homosexuality would be wrong.
As for asking about what the average troop, NCO, or officer thought about either the Iraq or A'stan campaign… not sure where you are going with that.
I will tell you that whether they agree with our overall strategy on either front (we all have opinions) the ones of us who have been in combat have some pretty good ideas on what we think of our enemy, and how we should deal with him.