« Semper Gumby | Main | Stranger Danger!!!! »

May 13, 2010

"Milbloggers" Not United on DADT Repeal

Yesterday, fifteen Milbloggers signed an open letter acknowledging that Sec. Gates and Admiral Mullen have directed an inquiry into how the services will comply with the anticipated repeal of DADT. The letter urged Congress to listen to what the services recommend as a result of this inquiry. Somehow, this nuanced message morphed into a simple (and misleading) meme: Milbloggers Call for Repeal of DADT.

Some of the signatories to the letter do indeed favor lifting the ban. But as Simon Owens and John Donovan both point out, not all of them did:

In February I interviewed several LGBT bloggers who had banded together to create a “blog swam” that pressured human rights groups into taking a more firm position on repealing the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The idea, I gathered, was that by speaking as a unified voice the group could exert more influence than any individual blogger. From initial press reports, the joint letter released yesterday by 15 military bloggers (or “milbloggers,” as they’re affectionately called) seemed to aim for this same organizational heft. “Milbloggers call for end to ‘Don’t Ask’” Ben Smith at POLITICO wrote. Similarly, Huffington Post characterized it as, “Milbloggers Urge Repeal Of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’” But after reading the joint letter, a short four paragraphs, I wasn’t so sure this was the case. An email from Andrew Lubin, one of the co-signers of the letter, confirmed these suspicions. “Simon: please read our statement more carefully,” he wrote. “We’re not calling for the repeal of DADT, but rather are calling its repeal inevitable – we’re calling for Congress to wait until the military study is completed and support its recommendations – and not to act precipitously. This is an important difference than your statement that we’re calling for its repeal.”

Today, CJ Grisham published the opposing viewpoint:

We don’t believe the US Military is ready to adapt to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell without compromising its mission. We disagree with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen about lifting the ban but will welcome any and all lawful orders that may be given as a result of any repeal. The US Military is a professional force, but would take years to adjust to these extreme changes.

There are literally hundreds of Milblogs out there. Yesterday we heard from 15 of them, most of whom are not on active duty. Lest there be any doubt here I am not on active duty either (nor have I ever served). For what it's worth, I don't think one has to be on active duty to form a valid opinion on the wisdom or consequences of lifting the ban on open service by gays.

I do think it essential to understand the many ways in which military differs from the civilian world. I also think it's essential to understand what the law currently says on the matter as well as the reasoning behind the current policy:

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

...(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

In today's WSJ, Daniel Henninger has a must read essay on the consequences of this administration's drive to make America more like Europe. In it, he does what few of us are willing to do. He looks at what happens to societies when equalizing outcomes becomes Job One:

Barack Obama would never say it is his intention to make the U.S. go stagnant by suppressing wealth creation in return for a Faustian deal on social equity. But his health system required an astonishing array of new taxes on growth industries. He is raising taxes on incomes, dividends, capital gains and interest. His energy reform requires massive taxes. His government revels in "keeping a boot on the neck" of a struggling private firm. Wall Street's business is being criminalized.

Economic stagnation arrives like a slow poison. Look at the floundering United Kingdom, whose failed prime minister, Gordon Brown, said on leaving, "I tried to make the country fairer." Maybe there's a more important goal.

It seems ironic that in the case of both health care reform and repealing DADT, one of the most often used arguments has been: "Europe does it. It works for them - why not us?" As it turns out, Europe cannot afford to provide free health care to all comers. It has been borrowing - in some cases for decades - and at long last the true costs of the European Way are only now becoming apparent:

Government debt has been flagged by the IMF as a chief risk to economic recovery, particularly in the developed world and in such high-debt emerging economies as Hungary.

"We can't finance our social model anymore -- with 1 percent structural growth we can't play a role in the world," European Council President Herman Van Rompuy said Monday in remarks at the World Economic Forum in Brussels, just hours after European Union finance ministers approved the new program. European growth rates are lagging behind those in the United States and the rest of the world as the recovery takes shape, with Spain and Greece still in recession.

Critics who dared to point out that America cannot afford another huge entitlement program were told, "Europe does it. All 'civilized' nations do it. So can we." Now we are watching these civilized nations go broke as the true costs of their supposedly enlightened and superior programs become apparent. Now we are faced with yet another massive policy shift - this time, one that affects our armed forces. And skeptics are once again being told, "Europe does it. All civilized nations do it. So can we."

And we can do it.
We absolutely can. Our military can become more like Europe's:

Soldiers from Germany and France are well-trained, but they operate under a series of restrictions or "caveats" instituted by their parliaments. Some caveats limit the areas where troops can operate, permitting enemies to retreat to safety when engaged. The most controversial caveat is a prohibition on the offensive use of lethal force. (That is, they can defend themselves, but they can't attack.) Germany, which requires its soldiers to carry a card in their pockets explaining when they are permitted to fire, has received the most criticism on this particular rule. In 2008, German special forces had a Taliban commander in their sights. They weren't allowed to fire unless their detachment was under active attack by a Taliban force—so instead of killing the target they retreated meekly. (The German restrictions are loosening, but the piecemeal changes have led to confusion.) All in all, NATO countries have imposed nearly 80 caveats on their soldiers.

We absolutely can adopt European military values and European military methods:

U.S. troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.

The proposal is now circulating in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, a command spokesman confirmed Tuesday.

... Giving a medal for restraint was proposed by British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, ISAF’s Regional Command South commander, during a recent visit to Kandahar by Army Command Sgt. Maj. Mike Hall, the top U.S. enlisted member in Afghanistan, Sholtis said.

The question is not whether we can. The question is, "Is this what we want?", and "What will it cost us?". And these are valid questions. One doesn't have to be a bigot or even to disapprove of homosexuality to ask them.

Unlike some opponents of repealing DADT, I have absolutely no moral objections whatsoever to homosexuality. None. Never have. I completely understand objections to the policy on fairness grounds. The problem is that many things in the military aren't fair. Fairness has never been the primary determinant of military policy. Many classes of people aren't allowed to serve for a variety of reasons which violate fairness. As a woman, I could not serve in the combat arms. That is not "fair". But it is military policy and unlike some I happen to think that fairness should not necessarily be the overriding concern of our armed forces. Even when it impacts me and those like me.

We are talking about fundamentally changing the primary determinant of military policy from mission readiness and effectiveness to fairness. And we as a society can certainly do this: it is up to us to determine what kind of military we want.

I think the United States military will succeed at whatever it decides is the priority. If we make military effectiveness the priority we will continue to be the world's best and most effective military force. And if we decide that diversity and fairness are our most important values (as several military leaders have recently announced is the case) then we will become the world's most fair and diverse military.

The integration of women and blacks into the armed forces is frequently cited as evidence that "we can do this". We can, and we have. But neither of these policy changes has been cost free. The fact of the matter is that the military cannot even enforce its own rules where women are concerned:

There is a basic truth here: laws that ignore human nature don't change human nature. Given that pregnancy is a preventable condition, there is no reason for female military personnel to become pregnant in theater. An aggravating factor is that most pregnancies that occur on a deployment are the result of fornication or adultery, two offenses already punishable under the UCMJ.

But this will not matter to those who demand equal rights without equal responsibility or accountability. They will continue to demand protected class status for women while illogically maintaining that women are interchangeable with male soldiers. If the data suggests - powerfully - that this is anything but the truth, the data will be disregarded or discredited.

Or in the case of female pregnancies it will simply not be counted, lest it reveal a truth we're not prepared to deal with.

Are we prepared to face the costs of fairness and diversity issues honestly? Past experience suggests that we are not. And yet that past experience - along with the experience of Europe - is frequently cited as "proof" that change is cost free.

Like the 15 milbloggers who signed Jimbo's letter and the 6 who have (so far) signed CJ's, I believe the repeal of DADT is inevitable. I wish I believed it would be conditioned upon a full and fair accounting of the costs to military readiness.

Because I see no evidence that it will, I reluctantly add my name to the list of signatories to CJ's letter. My decision reflects no one's opinion but my own and should not be imputed to either my husband or the Marine Corps.

Posted by Cassandra at May 13, 2010 01:03 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3662

Comments

Hello.
If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed, does military policy become "Do Ask, Do Tell?" And if you don't? What result?
Thank you.

Posted by: spd rdr at May 13, 2010 03:06 PM

My personal credo has always been, "Don't Ask, Don't Care."

Posted by: BillT at May 13, 2010 03:53 PM

Man. Let a gay guy soldier, and before we know it, we're taxing and spending our way to hell while wearing a tutu and giving ourselves medals for exercising restraint!

;^ D

I guess the only question is - which was the first brick on the road to Euro-hell?

Posted by: John (Master of Inanity) Donovan at May 13, 2010 03:54 PM

True, dat :)

I don't claim to have all the answers. But by the same token, I think "Europe does it" is a particularly lame argument for why we should do anything.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 13, 2010 04:14 PM

Cassandra -

I posted some "muddled thoughts" about this yesterday at TigerHawk, and would appreciate everyone taking a look, paying particular attention to the hypothetical I posed.

Posted by: Escort81 at May 13, 2010 04:40 PM

must be hard ... watching the world changing around you and knowing that you are being left behind ...

Posted by: I Call BS at May 13, 2010 04:55 PM

Or watch the lemmings run off the cliff and deciding that may not be the best course of action for you or your country.

You analysis may vary.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at May 13, 2010 05:41 PM

must be hard ... watching the world changing around you and knowing that you are being left behind ...

Send us a postcard when you get to Shangri-lah.

Posted by: BillT at May 14, 2010 04:06 AM

This post is all over the place.

It begins with the usual complaints about why repealing DADT is just too darn hard to do.

Then it goes on to say that Obama keeping his boot on the neck of BP to clean up a disaster of their own making proves he is a socialist european.

Then it pretends the reason Europe is broke is because of their healthcare system, not the 2008 global meltdown of the financial sector caused by the unmitigated greed of Wall Street, USA.

Then it conflates the European governments' policy of how not to get THEIR soldiers killed while helping us out with OUR occupation of two foriegn countries with a US policy of giving soldiers medals of constraint for not trying to summarily kill Afghanis for the crime of being Afghanis.

Then reverts back to why repealing DADT will be costly because women get pregnant without being punished for it.

Whew! What a trip.

But regarding your question:

"Are we prepared to face the costs of fairness and diversity issues honestly?"

Of course we are and always have been. DADT didn't substantially alter an acknowledged discriminatory, bigoted policy in 1993.

Doing the right thing now, even though it will not be easy, doesn't make it less right.

Posted by: Craig at May 14, 2010 08:23 AM

Of course we are and always have been.

When the government says it is going to gather information from the military and then proceeds to censure military leadership for encouraging the military to cooperate with that investigation, it's a fair bet they're only willing to hear one side.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 08:30 AM

Then it pretends the reason Europe is broke is because of their healthcare system, not the 2008 global meltdown of the financial sector caused by the unmitigated greed of Wall Street, USA.

The global meltdown was caused by, among other things, the EU policy of considering all countries *equal*, regardless of their economic status, workers' productivity, and availability of natural resources. Putting Greece on the same footing as Germany and then subsidizing the Greek government's unrealistic economic policies was just asking for trouble. And Europe is broke because its economic expansion took place under the shield of the US military, so it cut back on defense and went overboard on social programs.

DADT didn't substantially alter an acknowledged discriminatory, bigoted policy in 1993.

Ah, another know-it-all who can't be bothered to read the law. The first point it makes is that there is no Constitutional right to serve in the military -- if someone has no Constitutional right to do something, discrimination doesn't even enter the picture -- you're arguing from emotion, not reason.

Doing the right thing now, even though it will not be easy, doesn't make it less right.

So, your position is that removing the present protection against self-incrimination which presently prohibits homosexual servicemembers from being prosecuted for false enlistment is the *right* thing to do.

I've got a question, Craig. Do you *really* believe that there are lots and lots of homosexuals out there clamoring to serve their country and are only inhibited by the remote possibility that a straight will out them? If so, I've got a lovely bridges for sale in a perfect location...

Posted by: BillT at May 14, 2010 08:59 AM

Cassandra,

DADT supporters have had their way for about 20 years. If the policy was successful in achieving anything other than continued discrimination, what is it?

Posted by: Craig at May 14, 2010 10:07 AM

It made it possible for gays to serve (despite the laws passed by Congress) so long as they didn't bring their sexuality into the workplace.

It made it possible for people who had lied on their enlistment papers to escape legal sanction for breaking the law.

I realize that the notion that when you live under a representative government, you have to obey the law (or that lying about a condition of employment is wrong) is objectionable to you but there it is.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 10:21 AM

DADT supporters have had their way for about 20 years.

That doesn't mean it's your turn. DADT was a Bill Clinton policy dodge to avoid confronting Congress on the law and yet preserve the illusion that he actually gave two hoots about what The Base thought.

Posted by: BillT at May 14, 2010 10:40 AM

you're arguing from emotion, not reason.

If it is good enough for terrorists, it should be good enough for them, right.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 10:56 AM

It is TOO DIFFICULT to change the law. Waaiiiiiiii

It's not fair.

I'm going to REMAKE the world so that it will be the way I want it to be

Well, at least, that's what that kid on the twilight Episode told me.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 10:58 AM

That doesn't mean it's your turn. DADT was a Bill Clinton policy dodge to avoid confronting Congress on the law and yet preserve the illusion that he actually gave two hoots about what The Base thought.

Good point, actually: even with the elimination of DADT, won't there still be a law on the books that prohibits homos from serving in the military: "[DADT is the] present protection against self-incrimination which presently prohibits homosexual servicemembers from being prosecuted for false enlistment ... "?

And yet, none of this would be an issue if there were not "lots and lots of homosexuals out there clamoring to serve their country", right?

Can't y'all find a way to let these people serve who want to serve?

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 11:08 AM

Can't y'all find a way to let these people serve who want to serve?

I mean, wanting to serve your country is a good thing, right? And everybody knows that homos are smarter than the average grunt anyway, so they'll be an improvement over the "hayseed plowboys" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUFObCZtGWQ - sorry about the commercial before the video starts] who enlist to get off the farm ...

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 11:12 AM

(no offense meant to hayseed plowboys, from whose stock yours truly is also descended)

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 11:13 AM

Can't y'all find a way to let these people serve who want to serve?

Spoken as a true government utopian. Those in power supposedly can give "permission" and things will then start moving.

Individual initiative=obsolete. Character and virtues= superfluous components in the eyes of the puppetmasters.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 11:21 AM

Cassandra,

Gays were serving before DADT. What happened to gays who were "outed" before DADT wasn't much different than what happened after.

"I realize that the notion that when you live under a representative government, you have to obey the law (or that lying about a condition of employment is wrong) is objectionable to you but there it is."

When people are FORCED to lie because of a bigoted stereotype in order to pursue a career path or serve their country, I do find it objectionable.

Posted by: Craig at May 14, 2010 11:27 AM

"I mean, wanting to serve your country is a good thing, right? And everybody knows that homos are smarter than the average grunt anyway.."

Bless your heart.

Posted by: Wilbur at May 14, 2010 11:28 AM

When people are FORCED to lie because of a bigoted stereotype in order to pursue a career path or serve their country, I do find it objectionable.

And you are free to find it objectionable, Craig. I have found a lot of things in my lifetime objectionable. That doesn't mean that every time you run up against a policy you disagree with, you're excused in advance for doing things that are wrong.

If you know up front that an employer - any employer - has decided upon lawful qualifications for employment and you lie in order to get hired anyway, you have done something wrong. By your logic, that doesn't matter?

I might disagree with a prospective employer's qualifications. I have lost out on jobs because I had a child. No one ever asked my husband if he had a child during job interviews. I still don't get to lie. I can decline to answer, but lying is still wrong.

Period.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 11:35 AM

Also Craig, lying is a decision. No one is ever forced to lie.

They may decide to lie to avoid consequences they don't care for, but they are not forced to lie.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 11:36 AM

Once again guys... it's GOOD to want to serve your country. But not everyone is allowed to. The military does NOT have restrictions against sleep walkers, people with flat feet, or any other reason we've stated because "we don't like em". Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean there's no reason for it.

The Armed Services are not in existence because the government needed a jobs program. It exists to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. I'm very sorry that you think it's unfair that not everyone who wants to volunteer is allowed to. But "fairness" (thankfully) is not something the military has to allow for in it's recruitment.

If the law changes, then certainly the military will comply with it. But if you think there will be no problems simply because there's a law, then I think you're incredibly naive. There WILL be impacts to readiness because of the change, and you're either too blind to see it, or ignorant enough not to care.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 11:36 AM

What happened to gays who were "outed" before DADT wasn't much different than what happened after.

Actually, that's not true. You need to read the policy in question.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 11:37 AM

Preposterous. The Armed Services exist to give a political route for the young boys of aristocrats, those Pelosi once mentioned as Born to Rule.

You serfs don't have the right blood to give orders to the masses.

The Armed Forces will give the necessary prestige, stature, and glory to the scions of noble families and well heeled lineages. That is all they are for.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 11:40 AM

I mean, wanting to serve your country is a good thing, right? And everybody knows that homos are smarter than the average grunt anyway

And you're getting this bigoted conclusion from where? I was unaware of any link between sexual preference and intelligence. But hey, thanks for the insult ICBS. Apparently now ad hominem is allowable.

And if we dumb grunts are so 'ignant', why would any of your hypothetical brilliant (on account of the gender they prefer to have sex with) homosexuals want to serve with us knuckledraggers?

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 11:41 AM

There is no rule of law. They the Democrats simply make it up as they go along.

That is the right and honorable path for those born to rule.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 11:41 AM

And if we dumb grunts are so 'ignant', why would any of your hypothetical brilliant (on account of the gender they prefer to have sex with) homosexuals want to serve with us knuckledraggers?

The dumb masses must be kept in check by truly enlightened, rich, and wise leaders.

The masses are poor precisely because they are dumb. They join the military as their only resort precisely because they are poor and dumb. By integrating their betters, those with more social awareness of the problems of society, they will be shaped, molded, and conformed to the True Path.

The path to an everlasting future, where human strife, conflict, wars, and hate will cease to exist. Until then, any atrocity can be justified with such a noble goal in sight.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 11:43 AM

"You need to read the policy in question."

I dont need to read it. I saw it happen to someone on our ship.

After a brief investigation, the guy was given a general discharge.

Posted by: Craig at May 14, 2010 12:01 PM

There WILL be impacts to readiness because of the change, and you're either too blind to see it, or ignorant enough not to care.

I keep reading this here, but I don;t recall anybody articulating what the impact will be.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 12:08 PM

Bottom line, Craig, is that just being "outed" by someone else isn't enough to get you discharged.

You can choose to out yourself, but that's a decision only you control. If someone else accuses you, there must be evidence that your conduct violated the statute.

And no, ICBS, there is no law against "hitting on" your fellow service members. If that were the case, no one would ever date.

Just as in the civilian world there are laws against harassment and non-consensual battery.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 12:32 PM

When people are FORCED to lie because of a bigoted stereotype in order to pursue a career path or serve their country, I do find it objectionable.

First of all, no one forces you to lie. That's a choice an individual makes, and, as with all choices, there are consequences if you make a bad one.

If the law prevents you from following one career path, you find another. Congress took away my career path in 1972 and then took away my GI Bill benefits that would have allowed me to qualify for a different career path, so I chose a third, which turned out to be the best move I could have made in the first place.

Life isn't fair. Trying to make it fair has been tried, but Life always gets the last laugh.

Posted by: BillT at May 14, 2010 12:33 PM

I keep reading this here, but I don;t recall anybody articulating what the impact will be.

Then you need to re-read because several people have answered that question. We can't force you to read the responses however. That's up to you.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 12:34 PM

I'm inclined at this point to say that we should just agree to disagree. Our kids won't have much of a problem with this, because they know how to deal with people of all inclinations, so maybe this is a generational thing which will be less of an issue once all of us old guys and gals move on to the great blogosphere in the sky.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 12:42 PM

I keep reading this here, but I don;t recall anybody articulating what the impact will be.

You are now officially trolling in my book, and I am done with you. I've gone to great lengths to lay out the reasons, and you keep insisting no one is telling you. Good bye.

there is no law against "hitting on" your fellow service members. If that were the case, no one would ever date.

Not quite true, Cass. Fraternization (relationships between ranks and in the chain of command) is strictly forbidden by UCMJ, and in most (mixed gender) units there are standing orders prohibiting relationships within squads or even platoons. I know specifically because there was a lovely young woman who I had to steadfastly remain "just friends" with (in spite of our mutual attraction) because she was a squad mate of mine. I did not violate orders on that one, because it's just about impossible to not get caught in those situations.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 12:43 PM

You all think "it" will be a problem for the reasons stated; I don't think it will be a problem for the reasons I have stated. I have not persuaded you to embrace my view; you have not persuaded me to embrace your view. I see that you think caution is in order; I think that it is not so much an issue of caution as it is a question of change and concern about the unknown or the imagined.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 01:05 PM

Our kids won't have much of a problem with this, because they know how to deal with people of all inclinations

Self-styled rulers of the universe?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 01:16 PM

Not quite true, Cass. Fraternization (relationships between ranks and in the chain of command) is strictly forbidden by UCMJ, and in most (mixed gender) units there are standing orders prohibiting relationships within squads or even platoons.

I think Cassandra was talking more about flirting than actual relationships.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 01:17 PM

Reconcile these two statements and I will apologize for accusing you of trolling:

"I keep reading this here, but I don;t recall anybody articulating what the impact will be."

"You all think "it" will be a problem for the reasons stated"

Were the reasons stated, or were they never articulated? Which is it.

We have provided you with chapter and verse of what the impacts will be (good order and discipline, logistics and housing, unit readiness and cohesion). The "reasons" you claim to have stated are? That we're wrong. Or that we haven't articulated our reasons. You are arguing from a position of ignorance and have said nothing that would refute anything I have stated about unit readiness, housing problems, or any other point. I have laid out examples of standing problems existing in sexually segregated troops currently and directly from my first hand experience, and pointed out how those problems will be exacerbated by fully integrating open homosexuals into the Armed Services without any form of sexual segregation. You have ignored it.

You tell us that our concerns are "about the unknown or the imagined." I have given you the known and existent. You've countered none of it. Either debate my points or admit you cannot. To dismiss them as nonexistant or unrealistic out of hand WITHOUT ANY PROOF is demeaning and insulting. You do not wish a debate, you want to lecture. And I will have none of it.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 01:19 PM

I think Cassandra was talking more about flirting than actual relationships.

Attempting to tell your squad leader that you were only "flirting" with Molly would get you about as far as telling him aliens made you do it. The best you could hope for would be a stern lecture about the ills of attempting to fool around within the squad. At worst, you might get an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) for disobeying a direct order. Most likely you'd get a negative counseling statement.

What folks don't seem to understand is WHY these rules are in place. Let's say young SPC MikeD finds PFC McHottie attractive. She feels the same about him. They date, have a good time, and later (like most relationships) break up. Now, assuming this break up is like most, there are some bad feelings on both sides. But now, SPC MikeD MUST work closely with PFC McHottie day to day and in potentially life threatening situations. And PFC McHottie then starts dating PV2 NewGuy who just joined the squad. How well disposed do you suspect SPC MikeD is with either of them? Especially when PV2 NewGuy (not knowing about the previous relationship she had with SPC MikeD) starts extolling the virtues of PFC McHottie's flesh within SPC MikeD's hearing. Remember, SPC MikeD and PV2 NewGuy might need to save each other's lives on any given day. Do you see where this might be a problem?

The example I gave is not actually a personal example. I never dated anyone within my own platoon (I tried to keep all dating cross-service when I could) and never within my own workshop. It leads to bad blood, poor unit integrity and poor discipline. And guess what? The military... ISN'T YOUR PERSONAL DATING SERVICE! They don't have to make it easier for soldier's to date/fall in love/get married. Because that's not what they're there for.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 01:31 PM

I don't think it will be a problem for the reasons I have stated.

Which reason you hold in the complete absence of knowledge of the subject.

I have not persuaded you to embrace my view; you have not persuaded me to embrace your view.

You ask for reasons, you are given reasons, and you ignore those reasons.

I see that you think caution is in order; I think that it is not so much an issue of caution as it is a question of change and concern about the unknown or the imagined.

Right. You're accusing people whose *job* it is to go into the unknown and face possible death and dismemberment of being timid in the face of the unknown.

Troll.

Posted by: BillT at May 14, 2010 01:38 PM

I don't think it will be a problem for the reasons I have stated.

Which reason you hold in the complete absence of knowledge of the subject.

I have not persuaded you to embrace my view; you have not persuaded me to embrace your view.

You ask for reasons, you are given reasons, and you ignore those reasons.

I see that you think caution is in order; I think that it is not so much an issue of caution as it is a question of change and concern about the unknown or the imagined.

Right. You're accusing people whose *job* it is to go into the unknown and face possible death and dismemberment of being timid in the face of the unknown.

Idiot.

Posted by: BillT at May 14, 2010 01:39 PM

%$#@! server.

Sorry for the double post.

Posted by: BillT at May 14, 2010 01:40 PM

OK guys.

I love you all (and this is a very fraught subject, and you all are doing a far better job of talking about it that most people). Can we try to keep the name calling to a minimum?

Otherwise, I will be accused of being unfair and playing favorites and all sorts of other Odiousness of which I am undoubtedly guiltier than sin.

Thank you :)

*********************

The entire point of this post was that human beings, until they get their fingers burned, do a lousy job of anticipating trouble.

All my life I've listened to young sailors and Marines grumble about how all officers are stupid, officious morons who do no real work all day and whose only joy is lording it over the people who do the "real" work.

*sigh*

And then they get promoted and are put in charge of their buddies and suddenly they see exactly why a lot of those rules were put in place. It just wasn't "their" problem before.

The view's a lot different, depending on where you sit.

I don't really think civilians can understand what military life is like. They would never agree to live under the conditions people have to in the military.

What folks don't seem to understand is WHY these rules are in place. Let's say young SPC MikeD finds PFC McHottie attractive. She feels the same about him. They date, have a good time, and later (like most relationships) break up. Now, assuming this break up is like most, there are some bad feelings on both sides. But now, SPC MikeD MUST work closely with PFC McHottie day to day and in potentially life threatening situations. And PFC McHottie then starts dating PV2 NewGuy who just joined the squad. How well disposed do you suspect SPC MikeD is with either of them? Especially when PV2 NewGuy (not knowing about the previous relationship she had with SPC MikeD) starts extolling the virtues of PFC McHottie's flesh within SPC MikeD's hearing.

You know, there was a time when even civilians understood why office romances were off limits, or why faculty couldn't date students.

Now, it's all about them. No one can see past the end of their own nose. God forbid anyone should exercise a bit of self restraint.

Posted by: That Annoying Person at May 14, 2010 01:55 PM

You say your concerns are "good order and discipline, logistics and housing, unit readiness and cohesion".

You equate homosexual men with women in certain parts of your argument (housing) and express concern that homosexual men will be unable to control themselves or to maintain good order and discipline, but you acknowledge that men and women (yourself included) have been able to maintain good order and discipline despite their youthful hormonally-driven life urges. IMHO, you have not satisfatorily explained the basis of your concern that the homosexual men and women will be unable to control themselves the way you say that the heterosexual men and women have done.

I'm not sure what you mean by "logistics" if it is not the boarding and bathing. You say both will be a problem, arguing that homosexual men who share the heterosexual men's barracks and showers will feel the same temptation to hit on heterosexual men as heterosexual men would feel to hit on the women if the women shared the heterosexual men's barracks and showers, and more importantly, though you don't expresslsy say it, you seem concerned that the homosexual men will be unable to resist the urge to hit on the heterosexual men in the boarding and bathing environments. I disagree, and point to your acknowledgements that you have served (and presumably boarded and bathed) with men you say you knew were homosexual and that they conducted themselves properly in the discharge of their duties and presumably were able to navigate the shared barracks and shared showers without incident (leaving out the sarcasm onflamers whose feather boas would have gotten caught in the heavy artillery or goten soggy in the showers sarcasm off or, in other words, leaving out no sarcasm on the men who used their homosexuality as an excuse to avoid combat no sarcasm off .

You mention "unit readiness and cohesion", but your concern seems belied by your own experience with the homosexual men with whom you say you served and with whom you apparently observed no adverse imapact on "unit readiness and cohesion".

If it is "the fact of change" (that would follow the repeal of DADT and the statutory prohibitions on homosexuals serving in the military) that you say would adversely affect "unit readiness and cohesion", then I think it is fair to equate that "change" with the change that followed the integration of black with the white troops. If you disagree with my analogizing of the two "changes", please explain what makes the two changes not analogous, bearing in mind my "refutation" of the other concerns you mention.

If you think that you have already more than adequately explained yourself, then maybe we are at an impasse in the "debate" and are left with the need to "agree to disagree".

I'm trying here, folks.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 01:56 PM

I read a comment the other day that really made me think.

A woman said she had had a conversation with a Marine colonel stationed at a recruiting depot (where enlisted Marines go for boot camp). Marine officers go to Quantico, so they're different facilities.

He said he was astounded when he got there to find that they had to tell recruits how to behave around the opposite sex. They come in these days with no cultural norms.

Everything goes. Nothing is off limits. Nothing is ever wrong.

Depressing. In close quarters with no privacy, there is more need than ever for rules and consideration of others and these kids are a blank slate.

It's a a real tribute to the armed forces that they can take these kids and turn them around. One of the comments we hear from parents of Marine recruits is that they don't even recognize their own kids when they graduate. They are polite and respectful to their parents.

And that shocks them as much as it pleases them.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 02:00 PM

They come in these days with no cultural norms.

Supposedly homosexual men and women frequently lead lives that they feel compel them to be discreet in their word and deed when around people whose attitudes toward homosexuality they don't (or even do) know. If this is true, then presumably they'd have something in the way of "cultural norms" to "guide" them when surroundeed by smokin' hot, brawny soldiers whose bones they'd like to jump, knowing that the aforementioned SHBS will more likely than not be unreceptive to and even put-off by their come-ons.

He said he was astounded when he got there to find that they had to tell recruits how to behave around the opposite sex.

Presumably the intake advice could include suggestions on how to behave in the post DADT/post-10A U.S.C., Part II, Chapter 37, § 654, environment to similar effect.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 02:14 PM

I will, for the moment, accept that you are trying. Allow me to help:

You equate homosexual men with women in certain parts of your argument (housing) and express concern that homosexual men will be unable to control themselves or to maintain good order and discipline, but you acknowledge that men and women (yourself included) have been able to maintain good order and discipline despite their youthful hormonally-driven life urges.

I am equating homosexual men and women with heterosexual men and women. Currently heterosexual service members can and do fail at obeying standing orders against fraternization, and relationships within the ranks. I have shown WHY those rules are in place. And all this in SPITE of the fact that rules and regulations are in place AND that heterosexual service members are sexually segregated. I am therefore claiming that by NOT sexually segregating homosexual servicemembers (not just from heterosexual members, but from other homosexual members of their unit) you WILL exacerbate the already existing problems.

I'm not saying that the gay guys will prey upon the straight guys. Most gay men I know can take a 'no' as well as any straight guy can. But what about when they approach a squad mate and he says 'yes'? It will be harder to police than it would with the heterosexual couples, because they need to be on "the women's floor" or "the men's floor" to have intercourse. It's pretty obvious when there's a guy in the women's side of the barracks.

Straight men and women violate orders all the time, and they're having to overcome the sexual segregation. That's bad for good order and discipline. Now you're proposing removing that barrier (at least for the homosexual members) and telling me that won't be a problem for good order and discipline? Are homosexuals somehow magically more restrained than heterosexuals?

You say both will be a problem, arguing that homosexual men who share the heterosexual men's barracks and showers will feel the same temptation to hit on heterosexual men as heterosexual men would feel to hit on the women if the women shared the heterosexual men's barracks and showers, and more importantly, though you don't expresslsy say it, you seem concerned that the homosexual men will be unable to resist the urge to hit on the heterosexual men in the boarding and bathing environments.

No, I'm not concerned. It will happen, sure, and that may also cause problems (I was hit on by gay civilians, I politely turned them down... it didn't bother me, but I know guys who felt differently). My concern is for the homosexual men and women who flirt with and have relationships with other homosexual men and women they are rooming and showering with. Do you understand me? I a NOT worried about some poor straight boy getting his feelings hurt because a gay soldier hits on him or comments on his junk in the shower. It may happen, and that's called sexual harassment. I DO expect it to happen, just as I'd expect it to happen if men and women were allowed to bunk and shower together.

You mention "unit readiness and cohesion", but your concern seems belied by your own experience with the homosexual men with whom you say you served and with whom you apparently observed no adverse imapact on "unit readiness and cohesion".

And I can forgive the reason you think so. But you're forgetting one crucial difference. Every single homosexual servicemember I knew had one thing in common. They practiced GREAT discretion, because they didn't want to get kicked out. Whereas me and the rest of the straight guys tried not to get caught in the women's barracks (or with a woman in their barracks), we did so knowing the worst we'd face is an Article 15 (unless we were stupid enough to fraternize with an officer or NCO... that's UCMJ and potential jail time). The gay members had to be ironclad in their discretion. That discretion kept them out of the bunks of other servicemembers completely. Every last one I knew dated exclusively with civilians and very discretely at that. In fact, having typed this, I think the greatest danger of repealing DADT (and the associated laws) would be that it'd allow the homosexual servicemembers to behave as badly as the heterosexual members do.

If it is "the fact of change" (that would follow the repeal of DADT and the statutory prohibitions on homosexuals serving in the military) that you say would adversely affect "unit readiness and cohesion", then I think it is fair to equate that "change" with the change that followed the integration of black with the white troops. If you disagree with my analogizing of the two "changes", please explain what makes the two changes not analogous, bearing in mind my "refutation" of the other concerns you mention.

Your reasoning is predicated on the idea that my objection is to letting "them" mix with "us" (which was the problem with racial integration). The problem is not one of "we" don't like "them" it's that folks who want to have personal sexual relations with each other will have greater access to the gender of their attraction after the change than they would before.

The problem is more similar to allowing active duty women than it is to racial desegregation. And at least when women were allowed in service, we kept them sexually segregated. Now, with the removal of DADT (and associated laws) you're removing the sexual segregation that made integration of women possible (though still problematic).

Does this help?

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 02:19 PM

Not quite true, Cass. Fraternization (relationships between ranks and in the chain of command) is strictly forbidden by UCMJ, and in most (mixed gender) units there are standing orders prohibiting relationships within squads or even platoons.

You're right, Mike. But as you mentioned earlier, there are still relationships - mostly between people in different commands, but it happens all the time.

Meanwhile, your experiences (and 30 years of my husband's) aside, we do not need to worry about the imaginary problem of sexual attraction because ICBS in his vast experience sees no problem with any of this.

We'll just have unisex sleeping and showering from now on. Problem solved!

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 02:20 PM

You're right, Mike. But as you mentioned earlier, there are still relationships - mostly between people in different commands, but it happens all the time.

And those are not forbidden per se, but they're still frowned upon. At least in certain commands. At DLI, we were actually forbidden from sitting on the same surface as a member of the opposite sex in our barracks rooms (so if they were on the floor, you had to be in a chair, or on the bed, or any surface other than the floor and vice versa), the opposite gender had to be out of the room by 2200, and your barracks room door had to be open at ALL times if you had a female in there. Our commanders felt (accurately now that I look back on it) that we were there to learn a foreign language, NOT to make kissy-face with anyone else. Plus, to be honest, they were also doing anything and everything in their power to prevent a potential sexual scandal (ala the Service Academies' problems with rape accusations). If we followed their rules, it would protect us from false claims.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 02:29 PM

We'll just have unisex sleeping and showering from now on. Problem solved!

And as much as that idea would have appealed to me as a young PFC, I see the wisdom of not allowing it now. And I'm not even a father of a girl.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 02:30 PM

Heh....

*Bad* man! BAD!!! :)

(As my spouse would say, "You say that like there's something wrong with that...")

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 02:33 PM

I think the greatest danger of repealing DADT (and the associated laws) would be that it'd allow the homosexual servicemembers to behave as badly as the heterosexual members do.

Again, it seems to me that your arguments against repeal of DADT and 10A U.S.C., Part II, Chapter 37, § 654, are that the homosexual men will be unable to refrain from behaving as badly as the heterosexual members do. And my sense is that there will be some homosexual men who will not be able to refrain from behaving as badly as some heterosexual members do, and that there will be some homosexual men who will be able to refrain from behaving as badly as some heterosexual members do.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 02:37 PM

Plus, to be honest, they were also doing anything and everything in their power to prevent a potential sexual scandal (ala the Service Academies' problems with rape accusations). If we followed their rules, it would protect us from false claims.

Oh, but Mike - that's just an imaginary fear.

That sort of problem only occurs with heteros, you silly man.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 02:39 PM

sarcasm on Meanwhile [MikeD], your experiences (and 30 years of my husband's) aside, we do not need to worry about the imaginary problem of sexual attraction because ICBS in his vast experience sees no problem with any of this. sarcasm off

. . . . .

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 02:40 PM

Again, it seems to me that your arguments against repeal of DADT and 10A U.S.C., Part II, Chapter 37, § 654, are that the homosexual men will be unable to refrain from behaving as badly as the heterosexual members do.

DUH. I said this in my original DADT post. What was it - MONTHS ago?

The penalties will be less serious, the opportunities will increase, the rules will be harder to enforce and yet magically (despite an altered risk benefit equation) nothing will change.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 02:42 PM

sarcasm on Oh, but Mike - that's just an imaginary fear. That sort of problem only occurs with heteros, you silly man. sarcasm off Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 02:39 PM

. . . . . .

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 02:42 PM

DUH. I said this in my original DADT post. What was it - MONTHS ago?

Well la-di-ΦЦЄЖЇЙΞ-da. What you really mean is that you don't want more people like YOU in the military because you got there first.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 02:50 PM

Again, it seems to me that your arguments against repeal of DADT and 10A U.S.C., Part II, Chapter 37, § 654, are that the homosexual men will be unable to refrain from behaving as badly as the heterosexual members do.

DUH. I said this in my original DADT post. What was it - MONTHS ago?

Well la-di-ΦЦЄЖЇЙΞ-da. What you really mean is that you don't want more people like YOU in the military because you got there first.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 02:52 PM

The penalties will be less serious, the opportunities will increase, the rules will be harder to enforce and yet magically (despite an altered risk benefit equation) nothing will change.

This and lots of it. As long as the "nothing will change" is understood as sarcasm.

And my sense is that there will be some homosexual men who will not be able to refrain from behaving as badly as some heterosexual members do, and that there will be some homosexual men who will be able to refrain from behaving as badly as some heterosexual members do.

But, what I think you're continuing to fail to understand is, I am describing the status quo as "bad" and "a problem" and the proposed removal of DADT (and associated laws) takes this problem, increases it, makes it worse, and you're claiming that will have no impact on readiness and unit cohesion? Taking an existing problem and making it worse (in both terms of both intensity and frequency) is NOT a zero impact equation.

I will try it again from this angle. Do you think that there would be an increase, decrease, or no impact on the amount of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, fraternization, improper relationships and the incidental harm to unit cohesion and readiness (based on what I've described from the past) were the military ordered to sexually de-segregate the armed forces? Complete desegregation. Men and women bunking and showering together.

If you think you can answer that seriously as anything other than increase the incidence of rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment, fraternization and improper relationships amongst the ranks, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 02:58 PM

That's it.

I have said nothing of the sort and you know it.

You have repeatedly imputed the worst possible motives to anyone who attempts to discuss this with you in good faith and I'm not going to put up with it any more.

As I said, I said this in my original post. Long ago.

If you had bothered to read the argument I've made over and over instead of dishonestly projecting your own prejudices on others, you might know that.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 02:58 PM

... and when I say YOU please remember that I'm not talking specifically or personally about The Blog Princess, but am speaking of "the other". Mkay?

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 03:00 PM

Would this "other" be made of straw then?

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 03:01 PM

Again, it seems to me that your arguments against repeal of DADT and 10A U.S.C., Part II, Chapter 37, § 654, are that the homosexual men will be unable to refrain from behaving as badly as the heterosexual members do.

Again, your arguments *for* repeal of DADT and 10A U.S.C., Part II, Chapter 37, § 654, are "I don't believe all those things you say will happen, so let's just do it and see if they do."

Posted by: BillT at May 14, 2010 03:04 PM

But, what I think you're continuing to fail to understand is, I am describing the status quo as "bad" and "a problem" and the proposed removal of DADT (and associated laws) takes this problem, increases it, makes it worse, and you're claiming that will have no impact on readiness and unit cohesion? Taking an existing problem and making it worse (in both terms of both intensity and frequency) is NOT a zero impact equation.

I presume that (if one were to study it), one would find that ON AVERAGE some percentage of new incoming recruits will misbehave" (as we have sort of loosely identified misbehaving throughout this thread).

Would it not also be true that if X% of incomining recruits were expected - anticipated - destined - fated - doomed to "misbehave", then we could expect that X% of incoming homosexual recruits would misbehave, just as X% of incoming heterosexual recruits would misbehave, and that what we REALLY have is essentially "more of the same", and not more in the absolute sense.

Discuss among yourselves.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 03:06 PM

... and when I say YOU please remember that I'm not talking specifically or personally about The Blog Princess, but am speaking of "the other". Mkay?

No, Goddammit, it is NOT OK.

I don't care who you're talking about. You don't get to decide what someone else's motivation is. That's the ultimate BS because it is sourced in nothing other than your own bias and malice.

Conversations - especially on topics that arose people's passions - can't proceed without an assumption of basic decency and good faith.

I will say this one last time: KNOCK IT OFF.

That was not an argument. It was pure insult, and not something I'm willing to tolerate.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 03:10 PM

Again, your arguments *for* repeal of DADT and 10A U.S.C., Part II, Chapter 37, § 654, are "I don't believe all those things you say will happen, so let's just do it and see if they do."

Touché ... Again, your arguments *AGAINST* repeal of DADT and 10A U.S.C., Part II, Chapter 37, § 654, are "I [delete] don't [end delete] believe all those things [delete] you say [end delete] will happen, so let's just NOT do it [delete] and see if they do [end delete].

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 03:11 PM

Would it not also be true that if X% of incomining recruits were expected - anticipated - destined - fated - doomed to "misbehave", then we could expect that X% of incoming homosexual recruits would misbehave, just as X% of incoming heterosexual recruits would misbehave, and that what we REALLY have is essentially "more of the same", and not more in the absolute sense.

FINALLY he grasps the point people have been making for months.

Except he conveniently ignores the disparity in opportunity and the consequences of decreasing the current penalties for said behavior.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 03:13 PM

Discuss this, ICBS: I think your employer is prejudiced against cockroaches, which are annoying yet serve the useful function of cleaning up food particles in the common areas, by having an exterminator spray the communal areas and I demand that the prejudice be immediately reversed and that you bring roaches into your place of work. And I demand you do it now.

That's your argument in a nutshell.

Demand something in the name of fairness in an area in which you have neither experience nor knowledge, do not have a vested interest in, will not have to suffer any consequences, and if it turns out badly, you will only stand on the sidelines mumbling about how good an idea it seemed at the time.

Posted by: BillT at May 14, 2010 03:18 PM

Nobody is saying anything about "decreasing the current penalties for said behavior," only that the proscriptions on behavior will be the same across the board for everyone, and that penalties for "just being homosexual" (don't ask anybody if s/he is homosexual; don't tell anybody if you are homosexual) will be eliminated.

Do the people opposed to the repeal of DADT and 10A U.S.C., Part II, Chapter 37, § 654 not see that this is what is really under discussion, rather than whether or not to open the door to cats and dogs living together?

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 03:20 PM

No ICBS, and last time for me, because I gave you a second chance, and I am beginning to think it was a mistake.

Would it not also be true that if X% of incomining recruits were expected - anticipated - destined - fated - doomed to "misbehave", then we could expect that X% of incoming homosexual recruits would misbehave, just as X% of incoming heterosexual recruits would misbehave, and that what we REALLY have is essentially "more of the same", and not more in the absolute sense.

Since you ignored it completely last time, let's try again. If sexually integrating men and women would increase the amount of rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment, fraternization and improper relationships within the ranks, then it IS an increase in the absolute sense.

Increasing the amount of access for a servicemember (regardless of gender or sexual preference) to their preferred gender/orientation WILL increase the amount of unwanted outcomes for the command (i.e. after the removal of DADT and associated laws the command doesn't care if I'm boinking a gay man or straight woman if they're in my squad, both are bad for readiness, both are unwanted outcomes). You are steadfastly ignoring this point, and you will either cease to ignore it, or I will have to simply accept you're trolling and that I should have gone with my first instinct.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 03:20 PM

Discuss this, ICBS: I think your employer is prejudiced against cockroaches, which are annoying yet serve the useful function of cleaning up food particles in the common areas, by having an exterminator spray the communal areas and I demand that the prejudice be immediately reversed and that you bring roaches into your place of work. And I demand you do it now. That's your argument in a nutshell.

I think BillT just compared homosexual servicemen to cockroaches.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 03:21 PM

Increasing the amount of access for a servicemember (regardless of gender or sexual preference) to their preferred gender/orientation WILL increase the amount of unwanted outcomes for the command (i.e. after the removal of DADT and associated laws the command doesn't care if I'm boinking a gay man or straight woman if they're in my squad, both are bad for readiness, both are unwanted outcomes). You are steadfastly ignoring this point, and you will either cease to ignore it, or I will have to simply accept you're trolling and that I should have gone with my first instinct.

You are assuming that and I am not making the same assumption. If that is trolling, then so be it.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 03:23 PM

Respond to the following or shut the hell up about "no one is telling me why I'm wrong":

Do you think that there would be an increase, decrease, or no impact on the amount of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, fraternization, improper relationships and the incidental harm to unit cohesion and readiness (based on what I've described from the past) were the military ordered to sexually de-segregate the armed forces? Complete desegregation. Men and women bunking and showering together.

Increase
Decrease
No Effect

Pick one.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 03:24 PM

You clearly don't understand anything that has been discussed.

You didn't bother to read Mike's careful answers.

Pay attention:

UNDER DADT, HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR WILL GET YOU DISCHARGED.

IF DADT IS REPEALED, THAT WILL NO LONGER BE THE CASE.

A MORE SEVERE PENALTY WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE - UNLIKE HETEROS, WE HAVE NO WAY TO SEGREGATE MEN WHO ARE ATTRACTED TO MEN FROM EACH OTHER OR WOMEN WHO ARE ATTRACTED TO WOMEN FROM EACH OTHER.

EVEN WITH MEN SEPARATED FROM WOMEN, SOME PERCENTAGE OF THEM STILL END UP IN RELATIONSHIPS THAT CAUSE MASSIVE PROBLEMS.

IF X PERCENT OF HETEROS END UP IN RELATIONSHIPS EVEN WHEN THEY'RE KEPT APART, IF WE ASSUME THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF GAYS WON'T FOLLOW THE RULES BUT GAYS SLEEP AND SHOWER TOGETHER AND THEY ARE NOT KEPT APART AND THE PENALTY FOR BREAKING THE RULES IS REDUCED FROM LOSING YOUR JOB TO AN ARTICLE 15 IT IS REASONABLE TO EXPECT THE SAME LEVEL OF RULE BREAKING THAT WOULD OCCUR IF WE LET MEN AND WOMEN SLEEP AND SHOWER TOGETHER.

This isn't rocket science. And despite your insulting insinuations, it isn't bigotry. The same standard is being applied.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 03:27 PM

Does the Israeli army suffer from the problems you describe? Is the Israeli army sexually desegrated?

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 03:27 PM

Mike, he will never answer, just as he never answered my question about whether he thought men and woman should be allowed to bunk together b/c the men should control themselves.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 03:28 PM

I'm not insinuating anything, so relax, please.

Is it not true that if DADT (and the compaanion in 10 USC ...) is repealed, the same proscriptions against fraternization etc will remain and apply to homosexual service personnel, such that homosexuals who engage in sexual conduct with superiors, inferiors, people in their same group (or whoever it is that service personnel are prohibited from boinking) will receive the same punishment that male service personnel receive when they engage in sexual behavior with off-limits female service personnel, and that that female service personnel receive when they engage in sexual behavior with off-limits male service personnel?

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 03:32 PM

Does the Israeli army suffer from the problems you describe? Is the Israeli army sexually desegrated?

Last chance, increase, decrease or no effect. Pick.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 03:32 PM

And no, they're sexually segregated too. To what extend I do not know, but answer the question. It's really simple:
a) increase
b) decrease
c) no effect

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 03:34 PM

You all are assuming that the homosexual service personnel will misbehave more than the heterosexual service personnel if the homosexual personnel serve in close quarters with the heterosexual personnel, but you do not acknowledge that you are making the assumotion. And IMHO, you have no proof that this is so - and IMHO MikeD's experience with the homosexual service personel he served with suggests that this assumoption is NOT correct.

[Ed. note; WRONG. We're saying we expect the same rate of misbehavior given the same opportunity and the same penalty. If the opportunity is greater for misbehavior for one group then it's logical to expect more misbehavior.]

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 03:35 PM

Are the homosexual service personnel in the Israeli army segregated from the heterosexual service personnel in the Israeli army? This seems to me to be a more apt comparison than the segregation of the sexes you are using as a comparison.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 03:37 PM