By Here is an interesting read in the Stars & Stripes from a chaplain that describes why the US Army discriminates:
Regarding the Dec. 21 letter “No bigoted policy should stand”: I would like to address the rabbi’s concern about bigoted policy.
We live and work in an environment where discriminatory policy already exists. It is discriminatory to send smokers outside to smoke. It is discriminatory to tell people they cannot display sexually titillating material in the workplace. It is discriminatory to tell white supremacists or gang members that they cannot “be who they are.” We have these “discriminatory” policies because smokers, porn addicts, supremacists and gang members don’t live in their own world. Their words and actions affect others and we have determined as a military and as a society that those effects are detrimental to the good of individuals and society.
The question isn’t whether we can discriminate against those with same-sex attraction, it’s whether we can justly discriminate against them. Do their words and actions have a detrimental effect on others and the good order and discipline of our military community? Based on the media coverage, the letters to the editor, and anecdotal evidence from many concerned faithful in my pastoral care, I conclude there is evidence the change in policy will have detrimental effects.
What those effects will be remains to be seen. I suspect we are just moving from a society and culture that has said we can justly discriminate against those with same-sex attraction to saying we can now justly discriminate against those who espouse the value of marital love in a one-man, one-woman union.
This policy shift is part of a larger social juggernaut to promote, teach and normalize in our society a behavior that biology, history and faith traditions have found to be contrary to the good of individuals and society. When the day comes that a commander, supervisor, chaplain or any military member is punished or loses his career for addressing this issue in a critical manner or desires not to expose his family to this newly imposed publicly proclaimed value, will there be an outcry over that “bigoted” policy?
Chaplain (Capt.) Eugene TheisenJoint Base Balad, Iraq
1:29 pm on December 31st, 2010 1
Detrimental effects?
Smokers -> lung cancer, heart disease
White supremacists -> hate speech, incitement to violence
Gang members -> violence, criminal activities
People who surf porn at work -> waste time
gays and lesbians -> ???
Funny how Chaplain Theisen vaguely suggests there will be "detrimental effects" and leaves us to infer what those might be. His letter is an embarrassment to his poor reasoning skills. He tries to smear gays and lesbians by lumping them together with gang members and porn addicts, LOL. I'm too lazy to look up the Latin name for this logical fallacy.
Biology? I cannot even imagine his thinking on that one. If he means that a gay or lesbian couple cannot procreate biologically, well, infertile heterosexuals and postmenopausal women can't either, so I guess we shouldn't let them get married. Homosexuality in history is very mixed, sometimes commonplace and sometimes persecuted. As far as I know, only the three major monotheistic religions explicitly forbid homosexual acts. I don't have a problem with Christian, Muslim, or Jewish chaplains teaching that homosexuality is against their particular religion. I do have a problem with Christian chaplains refusing to minister to gays and lesbians, not because it's discriminatory but because it goes against the teachings of Christianity as modeled by Jesus, who extended a loving hand to all sinners.
1:43 pm on December 31st, 2010 2
And gay marriage goes against biology? Well, human beings weren't born with wings, so flying goes against our biology, but we make and fly in airplanes anyway. And rockets to the moon? C'mon, if God wanted people on the moon, he would have given it an atmosphere. Hormonal contraception goes against biology. So does Botox and hair dye. Old, infertile people should look that way, so they can't trick others into having pointlessly unprocreating sex with them. Viagra, Cialis, and other ED meds go against biology. Infant formula goes against biology. Didn't God give us ladies lactating boobies for a reason?
1:45 pm on December 31st, 2010 3
Please rescue my rated PG-13 comment from moderation.
2:56 pm on December 31st, 2010 4
Sonagi has stepped out on his/her presuppositions when suggesting the chaplain would refuse to minister to anyone…
3:03 pm on December 31st, 2010 5
Since the good chaplain didn't clarify how he would "address this issue in a critical manner," one can only guess his intentions.
3:05 pm on December 31st, 2010 6
And reread Romans 1:18-32 to see that while homosexuality is a sin, it's also a punishment for disbelief. That doesn't justify "persecution"; but unrepentant actions that show one is not a believer (including every form of false pride and rebellion) can get a person excluded from any church.
There are consequences to every action.
6:01 pm on December 31st, 2010 7
I'm a Christian, not a Pauline.
Handing over the keys of the Church to the greatest persecutor of Christians up to that time simply because he said he had a vision on the road to Damascus was a colossal blunder.
I take Paul's teachings (and other teachings of the New Testament not from Christ) and run them by the "Would Jesus have said this?" test. That's my own personal Council of Nicaea.
Paul was a homophobe and a hypocrite — and possibly a closeted homosexual himself — who counseled others to do what he didn't. Moreover, he counseled others to do hateful things Christ did not and would not have said Himself.
6:56 pm on December 31st, 2010 8
Kushibo,
If I follow the teachings of Mary, does that make me a Marine?
6:59 pm on December 31st, 2010 9
Marionette.
4:02 am on January 1st, 2011 10
#1 Detrimental effects—of Gays?
Nope. That Fag outside my barracks door, that didn't understand that "no means no", had zero detrimental effects on good order and discipline Sonagi. But it seems Gays are all victims to you, just trying to live a "normal life". While I must be the bad guy for not welcoming them into mine. That about it?
Bottom line is this, you can attempt to call them normal all day long. I have known them and they are not. I don't care what they do with each other. I don't want to save them or change them. Their business, not mine.
What makes it right for them to interfere in my life? Justify it.
4:12 am on January 1st, 2011 11
I know plenty of gays and lesbians as do probably most people who comment here. How is that you know them better than we do, Retired GI? Hmmmm.
7:00 am on January 1st, 2011 12
Sonagi #1. Those of us who are pro DADT have been talking about the possible detrimental effects for months now. We are in the middle of TWO WARS & now the military will have to waste thousands of manhours in giving propaganda training to troops about the new policy, changing laws & regulations about housing, all sorts of things about dependents, sodomy laws, etc, etc. The recruiting command budget will have to go up because a huge percentage of troops come from the midwest & the south which are socially more conservative. It will take a lot of convincing & some huge enlistment bonuses to convince people to join the military where they might not only be killed or maimed, but now will forced to share close quarters with people who might find them to be sexually attractive. It sounds like Cpt Theisen has a pretty good grip on logic to me. IF we are going to change the DADT policy why don't we wait until the two wars that we are fighting have wound down? I guess logic doesn't apply went you are trying to placate your voting base & major campaign contributors. I HOPE that I am wrong & that this social engineering works because I care deeply about the defense of our nation. Also since I am retired but not yet 60 years old I don't want them recalling me to active duty as they could do. If they saw my fat a$$ they probably tell me to go home but that's another matter, lol. Anyway Happy New Year to all!
7:17 am on January 1st, 2011 13
The costs of implementing a repeal of DADT are a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I am gobsmacked that some men might feel more threatened by a gay soldier dozing in the next cot or washing up in an adjacent shower stall than IEDs buried along the roadside or a sniper on the roof of a building. As military commenters have made abundantly clear, there already ARE gays and lesbians in the military. Judging by the comments at the end of the linked Stripes opinion piece, many don't care one way or the other.
7:27 am on January 1st, 2011 14
Kushibo #6 Oftentimes when Jesus had an encounter with sinners such as with the loose woman who was going to be stoned or with the tax collector he would forgive them for their sins a & then tell them to GO & SIN NO MORE. I don't want to make this blog a religious discussion but religion has already been brought up. Paul was NEVER the head of the Church, he was certainly a pivotal figure but Jesus Christ made Peter the head of the Church when he knew that the passion was near. Peter & Paul had disagreements such as Peter's belief in the need for circumcision & over gentiles being saved. These disagreements were resolved in Paul's favor. 2 Timothy 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
8:05 am on January 1st, 2011 15
Yes, Jesus Christ made Peter head of the Church, yet somehow Paul wiggled his way into being the "Apostle to the Gentiles," and as attributed author to nearly half of the books of the New Testament, he dramatically eclipses Peter.
I am not entirely convinced that Paul's takeover of those he had persecuted was "an act" of the Apostle (ha ha), but even if his conversion on the road to Damascus was sincere, everything he says needs to be filtered through a "Would Jesus Have Said This?" filter. I do not take all Pauline writings to be, ahem, the gospel truth.
I am a Christian, not a Pauline.
8:07 am on January 1st, 2011 16
Sonagi wrote:
I am gobsmacked that (according to some of our retired military friends here) some soldiers will leave the post-DADT military because they think that they are less likely to encounter gay people in the civilian world.
8:10 am on January 1st, 2011 17
Retired GI wrote:
Doesn't "no means no" hold true regardless of the sexual orientation of the soldier? That is, wouldn't the same rules that block a male heterosexual soldier from doing this to you if you were were a female soldier, Retired GI, also hold true if it were a male homosexual soldier doing this to you if you were a male soldier still serving?
Asking, not saying.*
* I have to put this disclaimer in here because some folks here think that I'm asking questions that I think I already know the answer to, when in fact I'm asking questions. You know who you are.
8:15 am on January 1st, 2011 18
Tom Langley wrote:
Up until the repeal, were any manhours spent telling the new recruits how DADT worked? And how much is spent prosecuting anti-sodomy laws?
Asking, not saying.
That's right. They might decide that instead of joining the military they should just go to college, where the dormitories would provide a safe haven from being forced to share close quarters with people who might find them sexually attractive.
8:21 am on January 1st, 2011 19
Kushibo #15 There aren't too many jobs that I can think of in the civilian world where you need to dress/undress, sleep in the same room with, use the latrine with, or shower with homosexuals. There also aren't too many jobs where if I was wounded that I might have to receive an emergency blood transfusion. Male homosexuals have a much higher rate of HIV/AIDS than other groups, argue what you will, that's a medical fact.
8:25 am on January 1st, 2011 20
Kushibo #17, My 20 year old son is going to college. He has some beautiful looking 18-20 year old female friends. If I could room with them I'd sure consider going back to college, lol.
8:38 am on January 1st, 2011 21
Tom Langley wrote:
Perhaps not, but in the 18-to-22 age category, one of the main activities is going to college, where you might easily find yourself needing to dress/undress, sleep in the same room with, use the latrine with, or shower with homosexuals. And going to college is the pathway to most of the jobs where you don't do that.
Of course, after you get one of those jobs, you might end up joining a gym, where you will be back to dressing/undressing, using the latrine with, or showering with homosexuals.
I live on the all-male floor of a dormitory, and I would guess that some ten to twenty percent of the people on this floor are gay. I'm not gay, and frankly I am repulsed by what gay people do behind closed doors, but cheese and rice, I'm not so obsessed with it that I get the Eddie Murphy arse-burn whenever a gay person walks by me in the
latrinepublic bathroom.You do realize that's not how it works, right? You end up with male roommates, and the odds of them being gay are probably about as high as in the military. And even if your roommate is not, in the public-use toilets/showers, you are likely to encounter some there as well.
Seriously, do you really believe that people will not join the military so they can avoid gay people seeing them in a towel or their shorts?
10:15 am on January 1st, 2011 22
Kushibo #20. You asked me "Seriously, do you really believe that people will not join the military so they can avoid gay people seeing them in a towel or their shorts"? I don't know the answer to that but let's look at what the sodomite survey said about combat arms troops when asked about re-enlistment which I'm sure sheds light on whether civilian will join the service: Army combat arms troops, 21.4% said they would leave sooner than planned, & 14.6% would think about leaving. The total is 36% which is over one third of those troops. As to the Marines 32% would leave earlier than planned, & 16.2% would consider an early end to their careers (DADT Survey Appendix L, p. 47). If the "only 12%" of families likely to decline re-enlistment decline re-enlistment that could put other troops in danger & break the all-volunteer force. It is true that with heterosexual troops who served with perceived homosexual troops that the numbers weren't as bad but these numbers are especially troubling now that we are fighting TWO WARS. Wouldn't it be more reasonable IF we are going to do this social engineering to WAIT until the wars are wound down. I hope I answered your question.
11:32 am on January 1st, 2011 23
#10 Sonagi, good tactic, diversion. Way to avoid answering the question.
11:43 am on January 1st, 2011 24
Yes, I see those results in the "sodomite survey" as you so colorfully put it. But what's also there is that among those in combat who know or believe they have actually served with a homosexual, that person's presence was positive or neutral in 92% of cases, higher than the 70% in general who answered that question about a hypothetical:
I point that out because actually knowing someone removes many of the question marks of uncertainty when dealing with a hypothetical, and I suspect that many who are turned off by the "image" of a gay serving with them might feel differently if their negative stereotypes do not come to pass.
And I still gotta wonder about people who think if they just get out of the military they won't be around gays looking at them when showering at the gym or going to the beach or in the office, or especially while living in a dorm in college.
11:44 am on January 1st, 2011 25
#12 Sonagi, You either are unable or not willing to understanding the ISSUE of Gays in the MILITARY. You are obviously educated, so I place my money on you not wanting to understand.
I assure you there have always been gays in the military and we have always known who they were. The issue is not one of fear. Very uneducated of you to think that is the issue. But you are educated so it must be something else. Could it be some sort of Prejudice on your part, I wonder. I'm absolutly Godsmacked that you are unable to figure it out.
12:11 pm on January 1st, 2011 26
23 Kushibo. Buddy, listen it isn't the issue of gays serving. They always have.
Got it? Do you require that this be explained in more detail?
One helped me plant a tree last year. Didn't bother me, happy for the help.
Didn't care what his personal life was. I didn't live with him. I didn't depend on him.
I didn't have to worry about the trouble he might cause by being a member of a "special interest group".
I didn't need to be concerned about the next promotion being given to him rather than me, because of his sexuality, and the need of the Command to show their compliance
You and those like you, simply do not want to understand the military issues.
Sonagi likes to think Gays are feared. Only shows her lack of desire to understand.
You do the same. You do not want to understand, so I know that you will reject any points I will make. Perhaps you will ask for further explanation. As is your nature. Go ahead please.
12:17 pm on January 1st, 2011 27
I don't need to reject your points, Retired GI. You keep doing it for me because you keep running away from things you said earlier in order to find new reasons to justify imposing your bigotry on others.
Got it? Do you require that this be explained in more detail?
As for your homosexual friend who helped you plant a tree, did he offer and then you refused? But he stayed there on your front porch persisting until you finally gave in? Is he "that Fag outside my barracks door, that didn’t understand that 'no means no'"?
And is tree-planting a euphemism for something else?
12:25 pm on January 1st, 2011 28
@RetiredGI #23:
What question did you want me to answer?
3:04 pm on January 1st, 2011 29
I'm seeing a trend.
Those most defending open homosexuals in the military are those who never served in the military… while those most against it did 20 years.
Hmmm. There might be something to that.
If only there was some sort of program which allowed homosexuals to serve in the military yet insured they were known for their service rather than their sexuality.
6:02 pm on January 1st, 2011 30
Similar S&S post, same answer.
First I'm certainly not a big fan of gays in the military. I think it's going to cause problems. That said, a post like this always reminds me: Let's end federal tax dollars going to the chaplain corps! If they truly do provide a valuable service to the troops, let's employ properly educated and trained counselors. Shaking chicken feet at a soldier with PTSD or telling a soldier his next life will be better after his legs are blown off is not helping. Ancient faerie tales are no longer the answer.
Leaching off taxpayers is tantamount to fraud. If the various cults and sects want to provide chaplains to the US Army at THEIR expense then so be it. I bet it won't be as important anymore if they have to pay their own way. Also, they certainly shouldn't be commissioned officers. Perhaps they could be NCO's or not have a rank, just "chaplain" would be sufficient.
/Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings.
//I think mages, sorcerers and wizards would be much more useful.
6:25 pm on January 1st, 2011 31
Come on, Leon…
Without the chaplains' corps, where would all the closeted-yet-trying-to-self-reform homosexuals go to be chaplain's assistants?
Did anybody else notice that?
2:26 am on January 2nd, 2011 32
28 ChickenHead, you clever man.
As for a program to allow gays to serve and be know for their service rather than their sexuality.
That is what *I* want. But it is not what the supporters of (open) sexuality want.
For, by definition, to serve AS an openly gay troop, means that their sexuality is of more importance than their service. That is the problem.
My time spent whore Mongering was important—to me. But never more important than the day to day mission or service.
On Mondays (those of like mind) would compare our adventures. Of course I would never FORCE my mind set on those that were not of like thinking. Happily married GI Joe would never be bothered my me telling him or her of my whore mongering adventures. Or me demanding that he or she accept my life-style.
2:30 am on January 2nd, 2011 33
Kushibo, so you do have a sence of humor! Now I'm impressed.
2:51 am on January 2nd, 2011 34
27 Sonagi, the question was this: Justify it. Meaning,how is it that the Gays have a right to impose their life-style onto my everyday existence? I don't impose my lifestyle onto them.
How is it that they have any right to demand that I accept their sexual life? Why is it important to them that little ole me know who does what with whom, and that I not only know of, but accept their sexuality?
How is it at all fair to hold one group above another? Justify it.
The Military IS a group that is different and functions differently from the civilian world. This is required because of what they train to do. When you divide such a group into sub-groups with a different mission (to serve "openly"), it will cause problems.
But I suspect this is know. It is an old tactic. Divide and conquer from within.
One thing is sure. If it is more important to serve Openly, than to simply serve, your top priority is your sexuality, not your duty as a soldier.
3:09 am on January 2nd, 2011 35
Wow, GI, I am floored by your questions.
You don't have to "accept their lifestyle." You do have to obey federal, state, and local laws and workplace regulations. You do not have to like gay people or any other kind of people. You do have to obey regulations against harassment like the rest of us. People in the military and in other group settings already know who does what with whom because heterosexual people, too, talk about their private lives. Closet gays in the military have long had to accept your lifestyle, which by your own admission on previous threads includes having sex with prostitutes, an act that is illegal in both Korea and the US and an act that many people (but not me) find morally repugnant. Now it's your turn to MYOB.
3:34 am on January 2nd, 2011 36
For years you regaled like-minded colleagues with lewd tales yet think gay people should not be afforded the same privilege. There is a really easy solution if someone initiates a sexually-oriented conversation that you don't want to hear. Got a pencil and paper handy? Ask the person to stop. I'll repeat that for you one more time: Ask. The. Person. To. Stop. In most workplaces, a person who repeatedly engages in sexually-oriented speech in the presence of others who don't want to hear would be subject to a sexual harassment complaint.
5:39 am on January 2nd, 2011 37
35 AMAZING! You're wrong AGAIN Sonagi. Gays regaled their like-minded colleagues with THEIR lewd tales just as I did. It is beyond belief that you couldn't understand that and needed little ole me to point out something so obvious.
As for claiming sexual harassment on gays. I'm sure that will be met with open arms by a Command that wants this to go well. (sarcasm)
I still remember careers ended by females calling rape rather than fess up to cheating on their boyfriend. Or not getting their way. Or not wanting to be given duties that were a pain. Basically not wanting to be treated equal to males. They are a special interest group. Now we have another special interest group.
The overt Prejudice that you demonstrate toward heterosexuals that see the problems this will cause is something that I thought you were above. I was wrong. As you clearly demonstrate by attempting to project fear of gays on those of us who do not blindly agree with you. You demonstrate so well, the persecution has begun.
No individual has ever had to accept my life-style Sonagi. I never FORCED IT on anyone. As is now going to be done in the name of Gays.
Gays had to accept the MILITARY life-style, just as I did.
See how well you divide us. It was never an (us against them) as you so enjoy portraying it.
It was the Military way. Something you clearly do not understand. Everyone has to adapt to it. It is not a (natural) state. It is a Military state.
5:41 am on January 2nd, 2011 38
Sonagi, You still haven't justified the preferential treatment of gays.
But you really can't, so it was unfair of me to ask.
6:36 am on January 2nd, 2011 39
Sonagi…
I see the problem.
People who have never served don't… no… CAN'T understand the military lifestyle… so the argument goes in circles of misunderstanding.
Unlike pumping gas or serving coffee in the civilian-world-standard that non-military social do-gooders base their thinking on, the military requires a certain type of VERY close non-sexual male bonding… which is, in current American culture of masculinity, highly incompatable with open homosexuality.
This may not be socially just and it may not be ethically correct… but that's the way it is… and forced change in a time of war to fit the political agenda of groups who are generally proud to be against the military, gets nothing but resentment from those focused on the mission rather than satisfying yet another special interest group that identifies themselves as something other than soldiers.
If you can't wrap your head around these concepts, the fault is not entirely yours… as a civilian with no military experience.
The military just isn't like normal life…
…so it can't be expected to work/act/think in the same way.
Most of congress does't understand this either.
7:49 am on January 2nd, 2011 40
What preferential treatment of gays would you like me to justify, GI?
Chickenhead, you articulate the problem in clear and nonbiased language. Could not the arguments you make have applied back when the armed forces were segregated? Many whites who had not lived in close contact with blacks did not want to share bunks and showers or bond closely with them, either. Desegregation of the armed forces happened between WWII and the Korean Conflict, not during full-scale war, but if we wait, then for how long? Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. all ordered out troops to fight on foreign soil, and I wouldn't it past Mr. Hope-and-Change or a successful Republican challenger not surnamed Palin to find a new and exotic foreign setting for our next entanglement, preferably a place where people speak at least three dozen languages for which we have few qualified interpreters. There's no shortage of enemies and no shortage of reasons to engage our military overseas. Combat troops are finally out of Iraq, but I do not trust our military, our government, and the defense industry to accept a strategically and fiscally necessary downsizing.
My family did not have a lot of money, so every year in August, my mom would squeeze the budget to buy each of us children a couple new school outfits. Every year she would promise us that she would buy us more clothes later, but she never kept that promise because there was never extra money in the household budget. To my parents' credit, they always lived within their means and never went into debt, unlike our federal government, which keeps borrowing from China to buy guns and butter.
Wait? Till when? Pffft.
8:30 am on January 2nd, 2011 41
So how does the repeal of DADT change this?
Interesting that you complain about false allegations of rape as a problem, rather than real sexual harassment and rape.
I'll give you one last chance, RetiredGI. Please explain clearly how the repeal of DADT will result in gays forcing their lifestyle on everyone while the lifestyles of heterosexuals aren't.
Chickenhead succeeds where you fail because Chickenhead acknowledges that the root of the problem is that many American heterosexual males are uncomfortable about being in close contact with gay men.
10:04 am on January 2nd, 2011 42
You're a TEACHER for Crying out load! If you don't understand by now, you are either unable too, as ChickenHead stated, or don't wish to understand, as it goes against your social engineering project. My vote is that you don't wish to understand. But perhaps ChickenHead is correct and you are simply Unable to grasp the issue.
A very closed minded attitude, but one that is common among those that believe they know better than the "little people".
Totally amazing that you believe there is anything in common with the race issue and the gay issue. Just amazing. Safe to say that I would not want you teaching my kids. That is not an attack on you by the way. But you have no understanding of the social issue of gays in the military when you compare it to the race issue OR the females in the military situation. At a VERY basic level, the three can not be compared as they are completely different situations requiring different solution. As the problems caused are different.
The typical response from you and those others that believe you know better than the "little people" is that we all should be treated equal. The reality is that no one is equal to anyone else. We are all different. We are not a collective of ants, each interchangeable with the next. Not even in the Military, even if that would make it easier.
You said, "the root of the problem is that many American heterosexual males are uncomfortable about being in close contact with gay men".
I'm smiling Sonagi
. Before I was in the Army, I was in the Memphis Opera. True, only as an extra. I have always liked to work out. One of the Strippers in the local topless bar at the time (black girl) that I spent time with, told me to stop wearing tight jeans, because my asss looked better than he did.
Back then I spent some time with the Males of the Memphis Opera. You would have loved my custom Sonagi. I wore a loin cloth. White body paint. Black wig. Eye paint was kind a like Egyptian. I still have a picture! The Director of the Memphis Opera back then — he has one too. The makeup lady had one of us on each side of her doing a single arm bicep pose. I kneeled down in front and did a double biceps pose. The individuals watching really liked my kneeling double biceps pose! I was pleased. The Director bought an 8X10 of little ole me, in that pose.
The nearly clear "tighty-whites" under the loin cloth, really made me look larger (down there) than I am.
So get over the "fear of gays" that you Push! I went to the after show Party. The only straight in a room of at least ten. I was really quite embarrassed to park my 69 Mustang among their expensive rides. But being the (young beauty) was really quite fun.
I fully understand how women feel. 
10:23 am on January 2nd, 2011 43
Sonagi, My FEAR of gays is SOOooo strong that I went to gay bars in Memphis (as a young tight body) with my gay friends down the road.
(the one who sold me the tree last year Kushibo)
They wanted to see if I (a straight) could tell the differance between the Real women and the Crossdressers. (I was correct about 70%).
I accepted a few drinks for the local gay guys. I was, quite HOT — Sonagi, in my 20s and 30s. At least the gay blades thought so.
Two or three said so! 
NOW— let me repeat, there should not be "open gayness" in the Military.
If you are so dense as to say gays are feared by straights — one — more — time —- I will know that you are simply a broken record with no THOUGHT in your head.
Go Green Bay!!!
11:10 am on January 2nd, 2011 44
Get ready for it: October Is GLBT History Month. That's right, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender history month. http://www.glbthistorymonth.com
What about gay "spouses"? Same benefits? Different rules? What's the answer?
I agree with GI and CH. One who has never served in the military can grasp the unique bonds and situations which are built and are necessary for the military to function.
11:32 am on January 2nd, 2011 45
Okay, RetiredGI, so as a young man, you occasionally socialized openly gay people, yet you wouldn't want to serve with openly gay soldiers. I got that. I never used the words "fear" or "afraid." I use the word "uncomfortable," which is not even close to being a synonym. "Uncomfortable" is a very mild word that is not laden with any value judgment. Check an online dictionary if you're unsure. I used the word "threatened" way back in comment #13 because you said that the military would have trouble recruiting people to fight if they had to fight alongside openly gay soldiers. The prospect of being blown up by an IED woudn't deter these recruits but the presence of openly gay soldiers would. "Threatened" is not a synonym for "afraid." People respond to various perceived threats with different emotions.
What I still don't get is how openly gay soldiers will force their lifestyle upon heterosexuals. That long, rambling post #142 did not answer the question. Leon Laporte gave one example, a GLBT history month in the military. Good try, Leon, but you'll need to do better than that. I see no value in women's history month, black history month, Hispanic history month, etc., but such token gestures to groups that were historically discriminated against are not a valid reason to deny people equality under the law.
Let's work towards getting all 50 states to recognize same-sex marriage; then there won't be any different rules.
2:00 pm on January 2nd, 2011 46
As we just got through the 2 year ordeal with the marine widow from Japan, it brings certain things to mind. The whole issue, apparently, was that the marriage was never consummated (even though they had a kid). So, lets say a gay and it's spouse adopts a kid under a similar situation and the gay service member dies in combat. What is the status of the marriage?
3:10 pm on January 2nd, 2011 47
Sonagi,
I once posted a link to a very good non-biased historical paper on military desegregation.
Many of the issues and concerns were the same… and they mostly resolved themselves… although a good deal of black-on-white racism is overlooked and there are unofficial quotas which promote lesser-qualified blacks… leading to justified speculation that homosexuals will get the same special treatment.
Interestingly, forced military desegregation was a first step to civilian desegregation.
After reading the paper, I commented that open homosexuals in the military will likely be more accepted than the current debate would indicate… and it may be the right thing to do in the long run… and it may lead to more acceptance, or appathy, of the "gay lifestyle" in the civilian world where there certainly is a "right" to be gay.
But… the black and homosexual example is not perfect because it lacks the element of sexuality… and, right or wrong, people get all funny when sexuality is introduced into a situation.
The type of professional and social disruption of women in the military is closer to what servicemembers are concerned about.
Women have been a real distraction and expense… and there is no clear answer if this has truly been offset by a contribution that male servicemembers could not have made.
These are real concerns that are not addressed by civilians pushing agendas, unrelated to winning wars, upon the military.
As for your crazy idea that we might be preparing for some sort of perpetual war… well… that sounds about right. Sadly.
7:34 pm on January 2nd, 2011 48
Sonagi, I have attempted repeatedly to explain. You have, what we called in the Army a "selective listening disorder". You, like Kushibo, ask that individuals explain to you over and over, with no intention of attempting to understand. It is a game to you. You are not Military and will not have to pay an individual price. You just might be one of those High-brows that really doesn't care about the Military and only care about the advancement of your Social engineering project.
While repeatedly asking me to explain, over and over, you have not yet explained how being one member of a Special Interest Group, is enough to push your values over the good order and discipline of the collective military interest. You haven't tried, because it isn't possible.
You desire to put one group (within a group) above another group. Then you want to say that now things are equal. It isn't. It is a lie. It simply is not true.
There was and I have no doubt still is much damage being done in the Military under the mask of equality.
I speak of course, of the foolish idea that males and females are equal. They are not. The military knows it. Don't believe me. Look at the current Physical training test. I would still have to do more push-ups than a female half my age. I would still get a lower point value, by doing MORE push-ups. I would lose promotion points by doing MORE than my so-called equal female soldier. That is not equal.
Everyone is waiting so let me jump on race equality. Damn fine idea! Too bad it didn't work as advertised. Every military man out there knows that if five males go to the promotion board and there are only three slots open, one slot will go to the African-American first, even if he has rocks in his head. Same case if one of the five is a white female.
The issue with "gays serving openly" will be the same. Just another sub-group within the sub-group known as the Military.
This is just the "nudge" stage. The military will be pushed toward excepting gay marriage. With the extra cash and housing advantages that come with it. While single straight Troops, such as I was, look on.
I once told (back to females) a troop that I would write him up for violating the EO program. He was carrying her tool box and his. SHE stated that he was just being a Gentleman. I told her that he was no gentleman and she was no lady. If she wanted to be a "lady" she was in the wrong business.
Try to be an NCO when you have to hand out duties after COB, and you have one African-American, one female, one gay, and one white straight guy. The only one that MIGHT not complain is the white-straight-guy. Because you are also a white-straight-guy. I know this is true because I had a similar experience.
I had two guys. One would have to stay late. One white the other black. Both were good troops. Both wanted to get out of there. One would have to stay. How to chose. I wrote a number on an index card and had them pick a number. Closest to mine stayed back. The black guy was the one. A trouble maker from another squad came over and said that he had to say back for clean-up. He was black. My troop said that he was also. He was black. So now the trouble maker from the other squad raises his eyebrows and says, "yea man, it's a black thing."
My troop states that we had done the number thing — and — I ESCAPED, being labeled a racist.
Now Sonagi, I know that you are quite unable to understand how the military functions. You have proven that. Perhaps it is too far below you.
It really doesn't matter to me anymore than it does to you. I'm retired and you're a civilian. But I do, so hate lies and the stench of lies. That is what the openly gay issue is, after all. Lies. The females being equal to males is also, nothing but lies. Pushed into the military by those who do not know and care even less.
Equality is a lie. If it is given by decree rather than earned. But that has never stopped the great social engineering project.
Please forgive any spelling mistakes. I no longer care much. Sleep does not come to me tonight. Other issues are of greater concern than gays.
7:51 pm on January 2nd, 2011 49
My father served in a commando unit, commissioned officer and all at a time when you could still get kicked in the head if you messed up. The guy was an excellent marksman. I've seen him shoot a dime from a long distance with a rifle with just the iron sights. Taught me more about weapons and survival in the field than the military ever could teach me (and I was also in an elite unit). To claim gays are a danger to the military is simply disrespectful to guys like my dad, guys who've been there and done that and simply detrimental to national defense. Yes, my dad was gay.
Don't bother trying to suck me into your circular arguments and whatnot, consider this a one time deal.
PS. Sonagi and Bushido, keep up the good fight. One day, some people will be eating their words. It may not be soon, but that day will come.
PPS. Not a religious man, but I think you really should pay attention to Kushibo's motto, What would Jesus do? If anything, Jesus fought against injustice and hatred.
8:04 pm on January 2nd, 2011 50
Enough with the prattle about Jesus being some kind of civil rights leader. He didn't "fight" for anything. If you believe, he died for your sins. But he didn't say "Leave the (fill in the blank sin of the day) practitioner alone." He did say, in the gospel of John, about an adulteress, that those who were without sin should cast the first stone. He then told the woman that her sins were forgiven, and told her to go and sin no more.
That's a far cry from condoning any previous misbehavior.
12:18 pm on January 3rd, 2011 51
This will put the chaplain corps in an ethical dilemma. Some may loose their ecclesiastical endorsements. It will be interesting how the various Protestant churches will handle this.
12:54 pm on January 3rd, 2011 52
Bubba #50, I'm a Southern Baptist. After the DADT repeal was passed, the next Sunday I had a brief word with my Pastor after the church service was over. I told him that Military Chaplains had a special place in my heart, in fact a Military Chaplain helped save my marriage. I told him that although I was totally opposed to DADT repeal that the overriding good that Chaplains do about ministering after deaths & horrendous injuries is far more important than any disagreement over DADT repeal. I asked my Pastor if any survey was sent to him about withdrawing ecclesiastical endorsement (I didn't know what to call it until I read your post) for Southern Baptist Chaplains because of DADT repeal if he would consider my comments. He said that he certainly would.
1:00 pm on January 3rd, 2011 53
#51 This is easy. Eliminate the chaplain corps and hire qualified (read scientifically educated) individuals to care for the troops. Most importantly, stop using taxpayer dollars to fund religious activities.
No officer commissions should ever be handed out to priests, preachers, imams, witch doctors, mages, wizards, rabbis, fortune tellers, oracles of delphi, cult leaders, etc. etc, as nauseum…
2:29 pm on January 3rd, 2011 54
#52 Leon, while I tend to agree with you, there are many troops of a religious faith who find comfort in the Chaplain Corps.
To end it would be about as practical has having gays serve openly, and state that Males are equal to Females — aah, well i guess Chaplains are NEXT.
But they might be saved because they will be needed to Marry same sex couples in the Military.
Guess you're stuck with them.
Not to mention same sex divorce counselling. That will be a hoot.
2:36 pm on January 3rd, 2011 55
#53. I have no problem with chaplains per se. I have a problem with them being funded by federal tax dollars and holding commissioned officer rank.
As I've said before, if the individual sects and cults can fund the chaplains (room, board, health care, some sort of uniform, pay etc) AND they can follow rules then bring them on! Maybe along the lines of USO or MWR performers of some such.
4:28 pm on January 3rd, 2011 56
I view chaplains as counselors regardless or their religious orientation. They have a part in the service as do the psychologists, police, and lawyers. A good chaplain can help a troubled service member avoid those professions in that order.
5:35 pm on January 3rd, 2011 57
We agree, no snake oil required, hire professional counselors…
10:32 pm on January 3rd, 2011 58
I see is at as an attack on traditional culture. Chaplains and the church(es) have been with us forever.
We have rejected them. We have rejected "traditional" morals and exchanged it for open-ness – to everyone except those who are believers.
The homo. community is getting its way. Those who oppose it have no ground to protest- we have allowed every vile and cruel practice to thrive. The kind of language we hear on American prime time TV would have gotten me detention or suspension when I was a student. In my day, "shacking up" was considered unacceptable. If the boy down the street got the girl down the street "in trouble" he was a "bum" unless he did right by her (didn't work out well usually anyway).
We've decided to play relative morality with our formerly accepted standards. Dirty stuff went on, but discretion WAS the watchword.
The homosexual community wants to now do what they have always done in private in much the same manner as normal people have accepted bad behavior. All of this has serious consequences.
And no, harassing homosexuals is not the answer- they are people dealing with complex issues. Many are great people in general, and like one of the posters above put it, great soldiers and Dads. I can pretty much bet he didn't show off his gayness to his son in a glib take iit or leave it manner; more likely it was a horrible struggle. That his son loved him regardless is a wonderful testament to the love between them.
Doesn't change the fact that his lifestyle is morally repugnant to me- but not in a "burn him at the stake!" way, more of a WOW- I think I have problems, this guy has a real cross to bear.
Each day is a new day, and with it, we have choices to make.
I choose to be a "bigot", because I can't stand the condescension of those who are so much better than me. I might just be in the company of a gay friend, a person who makes choices I find harmful to him, but who might be my friend anyway.
9:22 am on January 4th, 2011 59
I see is at as an attack on traditional culture.
What tradition? Whose tradition? Oldest tradition? Original tradition? A tradition which has evolved or changed over the years? Who started this tradition? When did the tradition end and if so, who ended it? Tradition?
1:15 pm on January 4th, 2011 60
Leon LaPorte #53, #57, #59. Military Chaplains have been around since the Revolutionary War. While Psychologists, grief counselors, & other similar professions can be helpful to many there is one thing that they cannot do. They can't help with questions about the afterlife or about certain moral questions because the religious & moral dimension is missing. No military member is forced to go to a Chaplain but for those of us who do believe in God (or Allah, or other deity where there are Chaplains for their faith) but Chaplains are valuable & as for me personally seeing a Chaplain saved my marriage when something happened. It is good for morale to have Chaplains & thus good for the force. If you are an atheist or agnostic then the professionals that you listed would be better for you.
2:27 pm on January 4th, 2011 61
#60 They can’t help with questions about the afterlife
Neither can a chaplain, or any "man of the cloth" for that matter. They have no more an idea about the afterlife than anyone else who posts on rokdrop. As far as them helping you, that's great! However, no ones tax dollars, including yours, should go to support them.
4:09 pm on January 4th, 2011 62
A chaplain once did me a great service. He never once mentioned anything religious in the course of two days. I'm glad he was there. In fact, he used the "F" word in his third sentence. (probably thought it was the best way to reach me) He was correct.
5:18 pm on January 4th, 2011 63
Retired GI #62. For a while when I was stationed at Ft Leonard Wood, MO I worked in a troop medical clinic (TMC) that took care of basic trainees. There was a chaplain would sometimes come by and I swear that he used the GD word in almost every sentence. As I remember he was Filipino but he could have been Hispanic, it was many years ago. To show how stupid some of the recruits were at that time they had to fill out a 3 x 5 card with some information on it before they could get their medical records if they needed to go to the base hospital. Some recruit was reading the instructions & did his best to follow them. Where the instructions said "name", he wrote "name". Where they said "rank", he wrote "rank". He got a little confused where it said "social security number". He came up & showed us his card. I showed it to the medical records clerk who was a retired 1SG. We both laughed so f'ing hard I thought we were going to die, I swear this is the truth. Leon LaPorte #61, You may not think that a chaplain knows about the afterlife but those of faith do which I believe is good for morale & thus is good for the force. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Happy New Year all & God Bless! That goes for you too Leon!
7:55 pm on January 4th, 2011 64
Chaplains made themselves part of the debate. It just happened to bring to mind they shouldn't be sucking up federal tax dollars. You may be as religious as you want but I can assure you, you don't want the state in your religion anymore than others want religion in their government. You see, you can't have it one way and not the other… Our founders knew that and the chaplains themselves are finding that out.
As far as chaplains knowing about the afterlife, I have to laugh on that one. Unless they have spent some time dead (for tax purposes one would presume
) or they converse with dead people they are laymen on the subject. (I can make stuff up as well. Hell I could likely make some stuff up and write it down, bury and let some hapless civilization discover in in a 1000 or so years and might have created yet another religion. Because age is the accepted criteria to differentiate between a religion and a cult, right?) But I digress; Of course even the devoutly religious would likely refer a chaplain who converses with dead people to a qualified mental health professional.
About the, "they've always been there so it must be good" line. Another person might state, "cancer has always been there (even longer) so it must be good" as well. Priests went to war with armies as far back as ancient times. Some worshipped Zeus and Mars and I assure you they and the troops were just as devout and sure as the current crop of believers. In the United Kingdom the Ministry of Defence employs chaplains but their authority comes from their sending church. Most major religions pull in quite a bit of tax free profits, let them pay for the chaplains. As chaplains are noncombatants they really do not require military rank. Perhaps they could hold a rank simply called "chaplain"? That would go a long way toward helping this situation.
As far as anyone blessing me. I think the deity to which you refer has blessed the world with quite enough pain and suffering, of his making, thank you very much. But I will take it in the spirit it was given. Cheers and good health and happiness to you and yours and the rest of humanity. May compassion and humane charity (along with a bit of logic and reason) prevail.
1:15 am on January 5th, 2011 65
I have a strong dislike for the mixing of religion and the Feds. I dislike running for office on a "religious ticket".
I found it sadly amusing when Nancy Pelosi made comments regarding "The Word". She showed she new nothing of what she spoke. She showed that she thought those christians were a bunch of idiots. In doing so, she showed herself to be an idiot.
But when separation of church and state is used to tell me that a cross cannot be posted on federal land, I have a problem.
Christian religion has become a battle field. I don't pretend to understand why it is such a threat to the Liberals. The left will do whatever it can to embrace the religion that attacked us on 9/11. WTF! But attempt to ridicule the christian faith.
As for ANY religion knowing what is true and what is not, the answer is clear. None have any knowledge of the truth of their faith. There, In christian faith is the word "faith". Not knowledge. Not truth. "For it is by Faith alone".
I have on occasion, had a bit of fun with the brand spanking new born-agains.
When the faith is shown to be more of a cult (like Muslims) than a faith. I must not look like a christian, as many have come to me in an attempt to save me. Later to prove that I had an often greater knowledge of the bible than they did. (which isn't saying much) A wiccan was instrumental in increasing my knowledge of christian beliefs. The church often seems more concerned with teaching the cult rather than the faith. Which is why I do not attend.
But chaplains have a place in the military. Even if i do not attend their services.