Do you not understand the militaries rules? Don't ask, don't tell doesn't mean you can flaunt it, it means you still have to hide it. Clinton made no significant changes in this area when he instituted the "don't as don't tell". That's what it has been all along. It's still illegal and aginst the UCMJ to be homosexual. Trust me, they are not hard up for translators. There are far more than you think.

Gerald be me to most of what I was going to say.
However Dean you should be embarassed at teh very least. Making blanket staments like "You conservatives need to be ashamed of yourselves" is beneath you. You know very well that not all conservatives are alike on this issue, nor are we all responsible for this policy.

Bad Dean! No biscut!

Every single American is responsible for these policies who has done nothing to repeal them.

The UCMJ isn't something you can just repeal.

John,
Really? Come now, thats just being silly. Last time I checked we most of our citizens conservative or otehrwise have no say in this policy.

The most we can do is try and elect a president who can change the policy.

I voted in the last few presidential elections, I susspect most people idd too. So we gone about as far as we can with it till next time.

In case your woundering.. I don't blame Bush for not getting to this issue yet. One its kinda hard to make all things owrk out (no way is it as simple as just declaring 'OK,Now all homosexuals will be treated just like everyone else" or Billy would have doen it.)

And he's been kinda busy.. what with a war on and all that.

Is there any law that says, "In case of war, ignore the UCMJ?" To the contrary.

The UCMJ isn't something you can just repeal.

But it is something that can be enforced with discretion. In previous, actual wars, soldiers who confessed to being gay were not immediately discharged. Instead, they were allowed to serve out their term of duty and just forbidden from re-enlisting. And this was before the more lenient "Don't ask, don't tell".

This proves two things:
1. These rules can be bent and have been bent when the military desperately needs people.
2. The "unit cohesion" arguments against gays in the military are garbage - otherwise why would they have let gay soldiers stay in during wartime, when unit cohesion is a real matter of life and death?

And anyway, in the case of Arab linguists, you'd think having them be gay would be a good thing, since you'd be pretty darn sure that they aren't Islamic fundamentalist spies (see the case of those army translators and chaplains in Guantanamo who have removed classified documents) or converts to radical Islam, which hates gays more than it hates Israel.

Bush agrees with don't ask, don't tell. He will never move to repeal it.

Personally, I'm shocked that any self-respecting gay or lesbian person would join the armed forces. It speaks a lot for their patriotism that they risk being treated like chattel in order to serve their country. I am not such a patriotic person, and at the age of 16 when the Marines came to my house, I said, "The only thing we have in common is that I'm looking for a few good men myself -- in fact, one will do. Now get out of my house until you start doing right by us."

If the army of a foreign country landed on U.S. soil and invaded us, I'd fight to protect this country. As our current military entanglements stand, however, I feel that by serving in the military, gay and lesbian Americans are doing more to support injustice than they are to support freedom.

You can criticize me for my lack of patriotism, but you'll also be ignoring the worldview of someone who was trained from the youngest age to feel like "one of them". If America wants patriots, it needs to start treating Americans like Americans.

The UCMJ could have been inforced with discretion if Clinton didn't put such a big emphasis on it. Prior to Clinto, drugs could have been delt with in another manner in the military as well. Clinton hated the military and wanted people out. He reduced its size more than even Jimmy Carter. To do this he had to impose guidelines to remove the soldiers and ssailors and one of these methods was to use strict adherence to the UCMJ. John: Your statements are just ignorant. If no one joined the military (gay or otherwise) who would defend you? I don't think you can ward off a nation alone. I don't mind that gays enter the military (although it does make it uncomfortable) but they should adhere to the rules.

The ironic thing is that many of the discharged gays and lesbians will probably be hired as contractors by companies in Iraq billing the US for their translation services and it will end up costing the taxpayer far more than if they had been allowed to serve - sheesh

A couple of points that I would make.

According to the article 37 linguists have been dischared of which is says, "many studied Arabic" NOt the same thing as the claim that we threw out 37 Arabic linguists.

The other issue that I would make is the fact that, agree or disagree those are the rules in the military. If you cannot or will not follow the rules I find it very likely that the military doesn't want you. Especially in the case of Spec. Glover who directly and willfully disobeyed the Uniform Code. A person willing to do so is unfit for military service and should be discharged, no matter their sexual preferance.

I would also add that her depression, her discontent with the military and her situation make her a security risk, which greatly lowers her value to the military as a translator.

Every single American is responsible for these policies who has done nothing to repeal them.

Let us all make note: John Kusch just endorsed the "if you're not with us, you're against us!" policies of George W. Bush.

;-)

You want a wishy-washy position here that won't please anybody?

In the 1940s military, openly embracing gay soldiers would have been a disaster. Everyone lived in close quarters in open barracks. Friction in the ranks was often fought with fists while the sargaents and the lieutenants looked the other way unless things got completely out of hand. The way things were organized, and the way most people saw stuff back then, "unit cohesion issues" would have been a nice way of saying, "open rebellion in the ranks" when it came to an issue like this.

In the early 1990s? The military was in major transition, from a positon you were possibly drafted into, to a career you chose. In that period, it would have been uncomfortable and weird to inject openly gay people into the mix. Totally unfair, of course, but the military was adapting.

In 2004? Quite honestly, the military is so different today, I don't even get why it's an issue for anyone except the grizzled vets who have been in the service for 25+ years. "Soldier" is a career choice, not something you're forced into because you have no other choice. Furthermore, our military today is far more horizontal than it is hierarchical. Soldiers are paid professionals who are proud of what they do. Your average Airman or Sailor or Soldier goes to work in uniform in the morning, lives (at worst) in a dorm with his own private accomodations, does his day job, then at night puts on civvies, slips on an earring or even a navel ring, and hits the dance club. Maybe his sister's gay and he thinks it's kinda funny, or maybe she's a fag-hag who hangs out with all her gay boys on the side.

It's 2004. Or will be in a few minutes, anyway. We're in the middle of a serious war, and our military is not made up of farmboys from backwoods Arkansas who didn't have anything better to do but learn how to shoot and talk about poontang from the First Sarge.

It's time we get serious. Our military people are highly trained people who've chosen a profession for which they are well-compensated and have consciously chosen to serve. We no longer need a draft--indeed, all the branches of the service for the last few years have exceeded their recruitment goals substantially. We no longer have to worry about whether the grunts from Arkansas will put up with the weirdos from San Francisco. Being in the military is a career choice. An honorable one, but definitely a choice. It's not 17 year olds in foxholes anymore, it's 23 year olds in an office and 26 year olds in charge of Humvees full of 22 year olds who've all consciously chosen to be there.

We can make a moral case for "don't ask don't tell" if it's 1992 and we're still in the middle of that transition. But now it's 2004 and it's time to get over it. Your average 18 year old just doesn't have these issues anymore, and if he does he can find work elsewhere.

If I made the rules, or was in a position to directly modify them, I would be ashamed.

As it is... the rules are the rules, they knew it when they enlisted, and no matter how much I may disagree with the rule, and hope that it sees an end soon, while it remains a rule, it must be adhered to.

As anyone who spends time at my blog knows, I have a problem with gay marriage, but I suspect my problem is with the phrase, 'gay marriage'; I take the libertarian position when it comes to gay sex or gay preferences.

In specifics to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", I suspect you've pegged my own opinion just now, Dean.

I'm going to sound like a Clinton-hating nut here ("Everything bad is Clinton's fault!"), but... if Clinton hadn't gone for Don't Ask Don't Tell when he did, we might be removing the stricture altogether today.

Or we might not.

I suspect in a few more years something will be done one way or another. And I doubt the War On Terrorist Sponsors And Supporters will end before the last of the current round of Old Guys With Stars And Closed Minds leaves and the institutional mindset drifts a little further towards a more tolerant, maybe even accepting, view.

The focus of the comments seems to be more on the broad question of should gays be allowed in the military. While I can see and also hope that the issue is raised again and re-examined by this story, I don't think that the rightness or wrongness of the military code justifies violation of it. If you disreegard the laws, you should face the consequences.

On gays being allow in the military, I think it is a more complex situation in some cases than people thend to make it out to be, but also that those cases are not as common. For example, it is a very different situation when you are looking at soldiers deployed in the field in a time of war. Psycological issues are much larger and must be treated differently. Social dynamics, also are very different. The type of connection that soldiers in the field need to make with each other is critical to their effectiveness.

The military's primary concern is and should be on making itself the most effective fighting force possible. In that pursuit typically has been more uniform and less tolerant of variation of any kind in it's soldiers. Many people are excluded from military service for a variety of things about them(age, health, weight, physical defomity, etc.). These exclusions are not made to keep those people from serving, they are made to keep the military as strong as possible. People typically do not argue against those exclusions, because, while they may not be fair, it is easy to see why someone who is too old, or too overweight, or too unhealthy would weaken the military.

It is more difficult for people to see that in the case of women and gays, becuase their influence is in the far less understood areas of psychology. Psychological concerns, as I said earlier, are far mor pronounced in combat situations, and as such need to be evaluated much more carefully in the military. It's not about what right or what's fair. It is about what is effective.

In this case, the military will always be somewhat "behind the times". The exclusion of blacks from the military was partially based on these factors as well(I'm certainly not claming that there are no cases of racisim, sexism, or um..sexual preferencism(?) in the military). Including blacks in combat positions of the military would have caused huge problems that would have decreased the combat effectiveness of the units(speaking of early WW2 times here). It had nothing to do with the blacks, rather it had to do with the misconceptions about them that many whites had. Since racism was such a norm for society at the time, it was part of the psycological makeup of the army. Many white soldiers would not trust black soldiers, many would not accept living with them, or eating with them. The mililtary cannot force psycoligical change without dropping combat effectiveness, so it accepted the reality of the situation and excluded blacks to increase combat effectiveness.

The modern situation with gays is, I beleive similar. It is unfair, but it is a reflection of the societal views that define the psycological makeup that the military must deal with. Yes, the military could eenforce acceptance, and by doing so could be a force to change those wrong societal view, however, doing so would result in a reduction in combat effectiveness.

This is something that the military has done with women already. In their case goign so far as to reduce the physical requirements for women so that enough could be included to help reduce the problems of the psycological effects, which makes the loss of effectiveness I think more clear to some people, though it was done to reduce the loss. Personally I think that was a mistake for the military. I don't want to see it reduced in effectiveness for the sake of social engineering.

I see gays in the military as a similar issue. Is it unfair to exclue them? Yes. Should we be at a place where they can be included? Yes. Are we there now? I don't think so. The military has to operate in the reality of where we are and not in the ideal of where we want to be. If you want gays in the military, the first step is in reducing the prejudice and bigotry against gays that create the problems which the military would have to face when integrating them.

It's not a good answer. I would like for their to be an easier way, instead I think it will simply take more time. We could use the military to shortcut that a bit, but I think doing so would come at too high of a cost.

Dean, moral issues aside, there are some serious concerns by the military in allowing openly homosexual people into the military. A fair amount of people in the military are "conservative christians", who view homosexuality as a sin. They constitute a significant number of people, and if homosexuals were let in, the military worries that many of these soldiers will not stay in, and that recruitment will go down. And the number of homosexuals who join will not make up for it. The correct decision? Tough to tell. This is as much a culture war issue as it is a civil rights issue.

Aaron,
Regarding blacks in the military, the military was decades ahead of the power curve. The military had initiated racial integration long before the civil rights acts of the 60s. It took a while for them to work up through the highest levels of leadership to make General, but it takes everyone a long time to get there. Women were accepted into the highest levels of the military ahead of civilian society as well.
The military is behind the curve with homosexuals right now, though, and I think that is wrong.

Even though I consider homosexuality damaging to the individual, I favor allowing homosexuals to serve openly with one reservation: that the aspect of "good order and discipline" is always maintained. I expect someone will always try to push the envelope, just like Kelly Flynn did by defying an order to stop sleeping with a married man (she got away with it because she had good PR). As long as that sort of behavior/attitude is prevented, homosexuals should be allowed and encouraged to serve openly. For one thing, I think the "don't ask, don't tell" encourages rumor-mongering and gay beatings. Allowing them to serve openly would probably have a short-term trend to increase violence, which good, pro-active leadership should be able to prevent, followed by full integration and acceptance within a few short years.
Also, I can't read the article because it requires subscription, but don't forget that the "don't ask, don't tell" clause is used mainly by people who decide the military isn't for them but can't find another way out of their contract. I personally knew 2 Russian linguists and a Korean linguist who admitted they were gay for the sole purpose of getting out. It worked, too.
So maybe these 37 didn't even want to stay in?
On the other hand, while I don't know all the details, there was a submariner in Hawaii who was forced out for being gay after 17 years of service. I thought it was a tragedy and a travesty...but I don't know how the details came to light; if he were doing something prejudicial to good order and discipline, then he should have been thrown out...

Seems to me that the lady in the article just wanted out and took her excuse...what was she "hiding"? Someone in the military invent a "gaydar" which picks up who's the homo?

The rules are the rules - she knew the rules before she joined so she chose to do whatever "hiding" she had to do; and then she decided that she didn't want to be in the military anymore. Pathetic.

As for the two guys caught in the act - that, homosexual or heterosexual, is a big no-no in the military...and they also knew better.

Pardon me for not getting my sympathy juices flowing for the people in the article.

Now, as to gays in the military - perfectly fine; as long as a strict ban on intra-military sexual relationships is enforced. Can't have people making decisions based upon their sexual feelings for another service member - the purpose of the military is to kill and destroy and sometimes this means that some of the troops have to be placed in a very bad position; its hard enough for commanders to do this as it is, put into the mix worries that someone might do something stupid to protect a lover (gay or straight) rather than carry out the mission and we'll have all sorts of problems.

Mark,
Intra-military sex is fine.
However, the restrictions are: Can't do it with anyone in your chain of command, above or below. Officers can't do it with enlisted (although the officer always gets the heavier punishment...and for good reason). And NCOs aren't supposed to do it with junior enlisted. Oh, and instructors have to keep their mitts off the students.
By the way, that also bars dating and even friendship (although the friendship restrictions are fairly lax, you are expected to keep it from being a problem; if it becomes a problem, you are told to stop).
That was the biggest problem with Kelly Flynn, btw. She was caught and told to stop, and she refused.
But two NCOs going at it is fine, unless they are same sex, as it currently stands.
On the other hand, it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline if 2 homosexuals were able to serve on the same submarine, where such emotional/sexual release would be denied to all others on board (women are still barred from submarine duty, I think).

I disagree that the military was decades ahead of society reguarding the ingetration of blacks. There were times when the military was ahead of laws, and they were certainly ahead of some elements of society, however their rules tended to adapt somewhat behind what society wanted. There are certainly some exceptions, as there are to any generalization.

For most of the time in the 40's the Army had a policy of segregation and limitation. Blacks were largely restriced from combat duties and were segregated into black units. During World War 2, most of the limitations on where blacks could serve were lifted, however the segregation was left in place. It was argued that integration would hurt morale and combat effectiveness due to both morale and psychological issues. (some of the situations in World War 2 did lead some some units being partially inegrated despite the policy and concerns, some situations required it)

After world war 2, the military began to look for options, recognizing that most of it's policies reguarding blacks were reactions to various problems and not part of a cohesive plan or strategy. Prior to and even during World War 2 it was a fairly common believe that blacks could not perform as well in the military. There was some evidence to back up that view, based on the performace evaluations of black units and even of individual blacks. The military researched this after WW2 and concluded correctly that the problem was not with the blacks, but rather with the whites and their poor leadership of black units and a reluctance in many cases to work effecvely with them. (It is worth nothing that much of this was done because blacks represented abou 10% of the population, nearly 10% of the military and the military needed to be able to effectively use that manpower)

Admittedly the military review did conclude that integration was a good solution and a review by the Gillem board sought to bring further integration about in 1946. It was met with many problems and was not really adopted. Many of the problems were due to the continued perception that blacks did not perform as well, even though the military review found otherwise. The military attempted to use a quota system to enfore proper racil integration. This was in some ways ahead of it's time, but was also a failure.

The quota policy caused many unqualified people to be brought into the military and the military later removed many soldiers as unfit(about half of the ones removed were white) and setup higher testing standards for blacks in a clear case of discrimination. This caused a lawsuit against the Secretary of War. That ended that practice, but then the quotas were used to limit blacks joining the military, as the manpower for the military was then being limited and the army no longer needed to utilize black to meet their demands, they if fact had an abundance of recruits. Through the rest of the 40s black army units were primarily segregated their numbers were held down, and even the units were give na special status in their divisions, being treated as further apart and not a complete part of the division(again there were a few exceptions).

Still the military saw that integration would make for the most combat effective force, if it could be achieved without all of the problems that would come with it(problems with the races being unwilling to work effectively together). In recognition of this, and with the realization that it was the societal views that were the largest barrier to such and inegration working, the military decided to review it's racial policies based on the changes in society.

Then the Korean War came, and with it an increased need for military manpower again. Segregation continued to be the offical policy, deispite the ffact taht many argues that among the younger men societal attitudes had changed enough that integration could be accomplished with positive and not negative effects. This led to a surplus of black troops in black units and a shortage of white troops, and so in the field commanders started assigned black troops as replacements for white units. Similar problems in trainig effencicy caused some commanders to begin to partially integrate training. The lack of problems and difficulties were poited to as further proof that society had adopted enough racial cooperation to make it practical for the military. The military then investigated again and found that integration was, indeed, occurinng without the feared problems of the past and that it was provided the anticipated benefits. They did begon policies of integration, but with quotas on the number of blacks allowed in integrated units. Which led to an end of the segregation in the army by 1954 (the same year that the supreme court ruled to desegregate schools).

This did put the military slightly ahead of US laws regarding segregation, and if you were arguing that I would say you have a point. The military is not nearly as far behing societal views as the law is. The is primarilly because the military can adapt more readily than our legal system can. And while there were certainly many bigots in the 50's and 60's, society had changed enough at that point to allow for integration to occur without cauing problems for the military. The Korean War caused a demand for manpower that forced the military into action which allwed them to see the situation and therefor enact change more quickly than it otherwise would have.

Certainly the military then became better integrated than society more quickly, because that integration was enforced and the soldiers were forced to overcome any problems they had with it. So such a thing did, indeed, bring about further change in society, but the military was only willing to enact change with it became apparnt that such a change would benefit and not harm the military effectiveness of it's troops.

Having said all of that, I am not convinced that integrating gays into the military would create a reduction in combat effectiveness. I'm not convinced that it wouldn't either. I don't know if we are at the point in our society where such an itegration could occur without severe problems that would impact the military negatively, perhaps we are, erhaps we are not.

I would like to see more people thinking about the issue on those terms, however, rather than looking at what is fair or accusing the military of being closed minded and bigoted. The military operates in the reality of where they percieve society to be. If their perception is wrong, then attack that. Certainly there are bigots in the military, but overall military policy tends to seek the greatest efficiency.

Are we ready to integrate gays in the military? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm not willing to assume that the answer is yes and therefore condemn the military for not doing so.

Aaron, my perspective on saying the military was ahead of society was predicated on the idea that the guarantees gained in the late 60s were already established in the military as far back as 1947. Not fully implemented, perhaps, but they weren't fully implemented in society until years after the laws, either.
Point: Colin Powell made general in the late 80s because he was given the chance in the early 60s.
Derrick Thomas' (KC football player) father was a pilot who died in Viet Nam. How many commercial pilots were black in 1963?
That's all I was looking at. Your longer explanation pretty much says the same thing, so I'm at a loss by how you can say the military was behind the times at all in regards to racial integration.
Even the Civil War, despite segregating the blacks into their own unit, represented a better opportunity than civilian society at that time.

Nathan,

I hold that the troops should save their sexual energies for non-soldiers. Its just simpler that way - one thing I've learned in life is that when you start allowing exceptions, the exceptions will be taken advantage of and abused. This is not too much of a problem in the normal world, but in a place where you are trying to kill the enemy, it can cause problems.

When I was in, the sexual outlets available to a young sailor out on liberty were not in any way scarce or hard to come by - I cannot imagine that for gay and lesbian sailors that this would be any different. Keep it in your pants on duty and only take it out when its a non-service member on the other end...this should not be too tricky; 285 million Americans, 2 million military personnel...gotta be plenty of non-military action out there.

Nathan,

I suppose it greatly depends on what you mean by integration. The garuntees that black had in reguard to the military in 1947 was that they could serve in relative purportion to their population as a whole(which is to say that the military should be comprised of about 10% blacks). One could also argue that society employed blacks in nearly the same ratio in the 40's(as blacks were not hugely unemployed). The military was not ready in the 40s for integration, and even though they tried to make it happen to some extent, it didn't work and instead increased racial tensions and attitudes against blacks serving in the military.

Desegredation happened in the military and in the non military in the 50's, not decades apart.

I'm not sure what your point about Colin Powell has to do with integration.

Perhaps we are using simial words to discuss different things.

The point I was making was that the military had to wait for societal views to change to a certain point in reguard to blacks serving before integration could occur. In that sense the military had to be behind society to an extent. Once the view of most people reached a certain point, then the military could and did integrate blacks(though I would submit that it occured much sooner and faster than it ordinarily would have due to the demands of the Korean war). Look at the movements at the times involved prior to integration. Civil rights had been fighting for integration heavily through the 40s, social acceptance of the idea was increasing. At the time that the military finally adopted integration fully, society had also begun to adopt in in many ways the desegradation of schools happened in the same year as full integration, desegradation of public transit a year or so later. These laws changing were not the beginng of a change in society, they happened only after the change in society became pronounced enough. The military was able to seize on it earlier, but it still had to wait for popular belief to come ot the point where it could find it acceptable to integrate with blacks. Not for everyone to accept it, not even for people to embrace or act upon it, but for them to generally accept the idea.

In that sense, the military was behind society in making a transition. After that point it did surge somewhat ahead. The military embracing integration of blacks forced military personell to face the situation and deal with it. This caused most of them to accept it and the cohesive units that the military needed were formed. Blacks were shown to be every bit as capabable, and integrated units were proven more effective than segregaded ones.

So yes, in the later 50's and 60's there was a more friendly environment in the military than outside it. Military people were forced to face and overcome any bigotry and civilians were not. in this sense the military was able to surge ahead a bit in practice of where society was. That is the point that you appear to be focusing on. Certainly once a change is adopted the military world can embrace it much more quickly. It can also reject a change more definitvely and forcefully.

This brings me back to the original point. If you attempt to force the military to chagne before they are ready, you can either get your way and harm the military(through it's reduced effectiveness) or the military can react back and harm your cause(as happened in the mid to late 40s). I don't think that either policy is good.

I would like to see some studies done on the acceptablility of the idea of gays being integrated into combat positions in the military. I suspect that we would see that we are ready to accept such an idea and that the military could make an integration. I think it is also possible that we are not and that such an integration would cause harm. Either way I would like the issue to be more seriously explored.

Regarding homosexuals serving openly in the military, I had no problem with it when I was in. There was always some guy or girl with whom you could just tell what was up. The way I figured it, as long as they were willing to take ‘no’ for an answer--like heterosexuals--what a homosexual did behind closed doors was his/her business, not mine.

The only problem I had with it was this hypothetical: since lower enlisted persons are required to have at least one roommate, suppose two homosexuals--either male or female—through the luck of the draw, are required to room together. Say, they’re compatible in all aspects of the relationship area and become a couple. They have a nice live-in set-up, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

So, why can’t I have that with my boyfriend? The slope gets slippery.

Aaron, on July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9981, officially desegregating the US military. Now, you are correct in that it took a bit of time for this to become a reality, but the process happened a lot faster in the military than in civil society. In my opinion, race relations in the military are still much further along than in that of the civilian world.

I do not think this is right wing. This story and others are coming out here and there. I have been reading the posts above and I truly believe for now that we have to go by the rules that were established.

There are gays in the military serving all around the world for us now. They are no different than you or me when it comes to loving this country. They signed up and they have honor. They themselves do not bring attention to this unless something happens where they bring it out themselves. I know a decorated soldier from the viet nam war that said his room mate told him after he had been shot. They were both decorated soldiers. The gay soldier got his purple heart and his family was there and my friend got his purple heart and his family was there. One soldier had a wife there and the other did not. That was the only difference.

Sometimes we just have to give it time and quit pushing. Gay people have honor, and pride and morals they live with and deal with every day. Those of us that are not gay, deal with our issues and we too have honor and pride and morals. I understand their pain and reading the posts tells me and just being informed tells me they have come a long way. They see changes. Look at the television programs. Look at the movie stars that have come out and the media. We hear their pain.

We know their desires and I believe they have dignity and don't want things forced like, It has to happen now! They know the military is looking at it, they know. We do have a new kind of war going on and that is a priority.

There are churchs that are opening up their arms to gay people and no, they do not say you have to quit being gay, there are not a lot of them yet. That too will take time.

I can tell you that meat cooked in a crockpot that simmers all day long, with different kind of seasonings and your favorite vegtables tastes mighty good when you come home from work! You save a good amount of money too, no rushing around. Put it in the crockpot, come home from work and you have meat that falls apart & a healty dinner.

We will get there Dean...in time. Hope you are still trying to find some humor in your daily schedule.

I got one for you! Did you hear about the lonely old lady that noticed her house was too quiet since she became an empty nest? Yep...kids grown, all gone away leading busy microwaave worlds.

Well, she decided to go get a singing canary! The man at the pet shop assured her that, that pretty white canary would be the best and cure her lonely heart!

Oh for days she was in heaven, the house was filled with the sounds of the sweet little canary. Then the lady decided to clean up the whole cage for her sweet little canary
she gasped!

The little canary only had one foot!!! She ran to her telephone to call the pet shop owner. Her heart was about to beat out of her chest!

The shop owner answered the phone and she was furious with him, "This is Jenny and I came in your store to buy a canary that would sing to me because I was so lonely and I just found out this canary has one foot! Well Jenny is the canary singing? Yes it is. Well what do you want then, a singing canary or a dancing one!?!

Y'all are going to have to forgive me for not being the smartest guy in the room but I'm really having trouble with the idea that Dean is mad at conservatives for Clinton's policy of 'don't ask, don't tell'.
I can see anger at the author of the policy. I can't see anger at consevatives. It isn't our policy. Perhaps GWB should have looked at it prior to 9/11/01, for all I know they WERE looking at it. After 9/11, we were at war. Wartime is not when you have a lot of luxery to decide on sweeping changes.
Sorry, Dean, your anger is misplaced.

As usual, I come too late to this to actually contribute, but--as [probably] the only one who served 21 months in the ETO during WWII--I have to put my 2¢ in. The DA,DT policy has nothing to do with the incidence of gay-bashers in the military. Nathan, around 2:50pm, put his finger on it, with his "...one reservation: that the aspect of 'good order and discipline' is always maintained."

First, a little anecdote, then the conclusion. Two of the finest officers I ever met were both company commanders in the Airborne. Both were wounded, both decorated for conspicuous gallantry in action, both flaming faggots. But: they did their flaming in London, Brussels, Frankfurt and points east. Never in the OC, the orderly room, or a foxhole. On duty they were as military as any tight-assed West Pointer.

Bottom line: order and discipline are key. You cannot maintain a chain of command when Capt. Fracas and Lt. Browning get into hair-pulling scraps over who gets to bunk with Pvt. Prettybuns. Over and out.

I don't think Dean's anger is misplaced at all, and thank you for another great one, Dean. We _are_ hard up for Arabic linguists and spies and soldiers and every willing and able man or woman we can find. At a time like this, they _are_ worth their weight in gold and we can't afford to lose a one. The purpose of the military is indeed to kill people and break things, to win wars and keep us free, not to enforce your moral code or mine. The strength of our fighting forces must come first, above everything else. If the situation with homosexuals today is like that of blacks in 1943, then let them prove their worth in segregated units. Don't force them to lie about who they are. "Closet" homosexuals are security risks as they are susceptible to blackmail by the enemy. Not all conservatives need to be ashamed of themselves. Barry Goldwater certainly had no such cause for shame. We should follow his example.

Steven,

Wasn't it Lincoln who opined that a widely held opinion, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be easily ignored?

Its not quite a simple as a stroke of the pen, as Clinton found out, even though the Constitution and US laws give the President exceptionally wide lattitude in military affairs. DA/DT is an abomination, in my view - niether fish nor fowl; either gay people shouldn't be in the military, or they should be - in either case, DA/DT is, well, a rather dunderheaded thing...though at the time I recognised the political utility of it all...it got Slick out of a box.

I served with gay men during my stint in the Navy - the only time the fact of homosexuality troubled the waters was when two homosexuals decided to have sex on the mess deck...specifically, on one of the tables we ate on. This rather upset us - not least because they were getting sex while the rest of us were 5 months into 7 months of cruising the Persian Gulf, with no sex at all. Other than that, though, the guys we knew or suspected of being gay weren't much of an issue...we just didn't hang out much with them on liberty.

But to a lot of people, it is a big issue - the soldiers will, of course, shut up and soldier if they are ordered to get along with openly gay comrades...but there is a strong feeling against homosexuality in the country; not strictly intolerant, but more of a "we'll tolerate, but go away" sort of mentality. For now, things will probably remain as they are - perhaps after the 2004 election, President Bush (or in the unlikely event he loses, his successor) will revisit the issue freed from any immediate political pressure and dress it up as a means of allowing ardent patriots who happen to be gay to serve...perhaps following the "discovery" that some heroic service-member is gay and "if he can get a Silver Star, then he should be able to be open..." sort of thing.

TO: Dean
RE: Projection, Anyone?

"Stupid, stupid, stupid right-wing morons." -- Dean Esmay

You're doing it again....

RE: Besides....

...the idea that we have to have homosexual linguists because without them we can't get any at all is totally bogus.

We can crank out a linguist in less than a year. Presidio of Monterey has a great program that's done that for the military for decades.

This canard may have worked in the first year of the war, which is two years old now. But not any longer.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: Steven Malcolm Anderson
RE: Every Man Jack We Can Get Our Hands On

"We _are_ hard up for Arabic linguists and spies and soldiers and every willing and able man or woman we can find." -- Steven Malcolm Anderson

Sooooo....

....when are you going to do your part, if you haven't done it already?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Guns don't kill people. I kill people. -- US Army airborne-ranger-infantry]

TO: Peter
RE: Dean's Anger

"Sorry, Dean, your anger is misplaced." -- Peter [on Dean being angry at conservatives because of President Clinton's policies]

Don't denigrate yourself. You're doing juz fine.

Dean is not angry at conservatives. He's just angry. It's what Scientologists would describe as kicking the cat for something the dog did. He's doing a bit of that lately. I can conjecture as to why, but he'd just hate conservatives, especially the christian ones, all the more, and that Guy he claims doesn't exist. But that's another topical thread.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God is alive....and airborne-ranger qualified. -- Seen in the chapel at the US Army Airborne School, Fort Benning School for Boys]

TO: Dean
RE: Don't Ask...

Thinking further on this. Anyone stupid enough to want to get into the Army and then is so STUPID as to tell them that they are homosexuals is not bright enough to be in the Army in the first place.

We're talking REAL morons here people.

Considering that the homosexuals can get in under the Clinton policy. They're just supposed to be smart enough to keep it to themselves.

So...Dean....what's REALLY at the bottom of this diatribe? Something been catching your attention of late? Care to talk about it?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God himself does not speak prose, but communicates with us by hints, omens, inference and dark resemblances in objects lying all around us. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

Juliette,

I am aware of Truman's executive order, however, it was not simply a matter of time for it to become a reality. The order was largely ignored or at the very least, reinterpreted. The military desegregated only at highest levels, keeping black in their own units but attaching those units to division along with white units(though keeping them in a separate status even then). Any real desegragation didn't begin until 1951 during the Korean war, when field commanders and some training commanders began to integrate units because of severe manpower issues. The success of that integration demonstrated that integration of the military was possible in a positive fashion and the military began to actually integrate, completing the process in 1953. Other elements of government run society were integrating at around the same time(civil service in 1949, schools in 1953, public transit in 1955). The executive orders and legislation that caused these integrations was drivien by society changing to accept such an integration, which was my point. As I said earlier, not all of society was ready to embrace it, and there were backlashes, etc. Most people, however, in the 1950 were ready to accept the idea of integration of blacks and so the military and the government began to adopt changes.

As for "Don't Ask - Don't Tell"

It was a comprimise. The military felt that people were not ready to accept integration, segregation was not an option and that excluding gays was also not right. It was beleived that the psycological and sociological impact on gays being in the military would be greatly reduced if most of the served without the real knowlege of those around them. So "DA-DT" was setup as a type of transitioin policy. Since gays can blend in for the most part, some felt that was a good way of allowing gays to serve, and would possibly speed the acceptance of people for integration of gays in the military. As some have often pointed out when the issue of gays in the military is raised, there are gays in the military. So allowing them to serve and to build evidence that they can and do perform alongside hetrosexuals would make the case for integration easier in the long run. It was believed that integration would hurt the military, but that such harm was based on the incorrect views of society about gays, so "DA-DT" was seen as a transition way to help correct those views without harming the military.

Of course it is an unfair policy. It is a reflect of the unfair views and beliefs of US society in general about gays. Those views are changing, but it will take time.

If we had a modern day event that caused a huge demand for manpower, it would probably happen more quickly. The Korean War did greatly accelerate the integration of blacks into the military. Unfortunatley for the gays who wish to see the military integrated, there is no such anpower demand right now. So the military has no great incentive to change its policy.

TO: Aaron Pohle
RE: Desegregation vs. Sexualization

"As some have often pointed out when the issue of gays in the military is raised, there are gays in the military. So allowing them to serve and to build evidence that they can and do perform alongside hetrosexuals would make the case for integration easier in the long run." -- Aaron Pohle

This is a bogus analogy.

There is a significant difference between matters of skin color and matters of sex. [Note: Or would you care to share what new fetish you've discovered?]

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Chuck,

Both cases are matters of prejudice and misperceptions based on a single trait of an individual, which is a large part of the point that I have been making. Most people that comprised the military forces were unwilling to work with blacks prior to around 1950. The same holds true for gays up to the present time(it's possible that attitude has changed I don't know that it has been seriously examined recently).

So, in what way is the analogy bogus?

Aaron,

The point disputed was whether the military began integration before the the civilian sector. Whether one uses the official date in 1948 or the actually date you use in 1951--I'll take your word for it--and regardless of the reasons, the military started its integration actions before most of the civilian sector got on the bandwagon and it has been much more succesful at it.

Most people, however, in the 1950 were ready to accept the idea of integration of blacks and so the military and the government began to adopt changes.

Not according to my family.

TO: Aaron Pohle
RE: Mispreception?

"Both cases are matters of prejudice and misperception..." -- Aaron

Please answer my question. What sexual fetish have you found with respect to color?

If you can correlate sexual activity to color of skin, I'd like to hear about it. Otherwise, you have no idea what you are talking about. And your dates will probably be very dull.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Juliette,

Actually the point that I was defending was that the military was not decades ahead of society.

I don't know how much of what I have written that you read here, I know it was an aweful lot to go through, but a lot of these statements can be made either way depending on exactly what you mean.

Of course there we mny people that did not accept the idea of integration in the '50s, and a push was needed in order for them to do so. What the military discovered was that in the '50s they could make that push and be succesful because people were open enough to the idea to accept it when pushed. This was not true in the '40s.

So the point that I am trying to make is that society has to get to a certain point before the miltary can make a change. The inteegration of blacks is, of course, not a perfect comparison. The stress of a war the demanded manpower caused a number of failures in the military's segregation policy that forced the military to look ofr a better solution which caused them t be more willing to push integration, as that would solve many of the problems they faced. Pushing too early, however, caused more problems than were solved, as they saw in the '40s because people were not ready.

As I said earlier, the military was then able to push people and surge ahead. Military training and the realities of military life force people to mature and get over their personal biases on issues, once the military has adopted that policy.

The average whites in the '50s still probably did not want to work with blacks, however, they were willing to do so if the situation demanded it.(of course there were and are always exceptions). This is not to say they would have embraced it, sought it, or even that there would not have been temporary resentment from it. They had reached a point, however, where their negative reaction could be quickly overcome through military training without having a significantly poor impact on morale and combat effectiveness.

Yes, once the miilitary started forcing soldiers to face and overcome their bigotry they were able to become more open to civil liberties than the civilians were(since the civilians were not force to outgrow their bigotry through training and forced integration).

It is for that reason, I believe that many people want to see gays integrated into the military. Such an integration would help society to integrate as well, which did happend with the blacks.

My point, however, is the society had to reach a certain point before the military could do so, and I don't know that we are there with gays. I don't know that we are not either and I would like to see that explored.

I would like for the issue to be examined more carefully and for people to stop attempting to overly simplify a complex issue.

TO: Aaron Pohle
RE: Simplicity Itself

"I would like for the issue to be examined more carefully and for people to stop attempting to overly simplify a complex issue." -- Aaron Pohle

Sex is hardly anything 'simple'. Women under Shari'a law are regularly killed for it.

In the West, you do not just go up to someone of the opposite sex and start showing them 'yours' in public....unless you're at one of THOSE 'parties'.

In reality, sex results in a number of things; children, AIDS, etc.

That's not quite the same thing as 'color'. You can show someone your color in public. Neither children nor STDs are generated by demonstrating color, either in public OR in private.

Sex is hardly 'simple', unless you're simple-minded.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. You [Aaron] are projecting. You're the on trying to over-simplify this discussion by comparing skin color to sexual-orientation.

Chuck,

I can't image what your point is and do not see any way how your comments pertain to the discussion.

I was not attempting to clain that sex was simple. Sex has not been a prt of this discussion, rather it is a discussion of discrimination as it pertains to the military.

The simplification that people make is the idea that gays should be allowed in the military and therefore the military should integrate gays openly to end any discrimination, without recognizing the problems and difficulties that such a policy would bring about.

I referred to the adoption of racial integration in the military to highlight some of these problems as both cases deal with discrimination and with social and psychological attitiudes that present the greatest challenge to a smooth integrate of a people group into the military. Of course there are differences, which is why the miltary has handled the situations differently. Don't ask, don't tell would, for very obvious reasons, never have been a policy you could adopt with racial integration.

Sex is a completely separate issue that has little to do with inegrating gays in the military. There are a large number of problems that the military must deal with in reguard to sex, several of which you mentioned. The military policies regarding sex, however, are separate from their policies on the integration of gays.

Integration would likey result in some minor revisions to the military's policies on sex, but I fail to see how that would geatly impact their poliy on integration.

So what's your point?

Furthermore, the point of discrimination according to skin color is based on the idea that, regardless of your behavior (good or bad), your different appearance (which you can do nothing about) makes you different and inferior.
Discrimination for homosexuality is predicated on the idea that, even though your appearance is indistinguishable from others, your behavior (which you control) is different enough to be incompatible with military good order and discipline.
That means in many ways, your analogy is bogus because you are comparing completely opposite issues.
Also, you keep asserting the facts of military integration versus your assumptions of social preparedness for integration.
I suspect that your assumption is simply that the military could not integrate until society is ready, so when the military integrated, you merely assume that society was ready. In reality, if you were correct, we wouldn't have had race riots in the 60s, now, would we?
My point about Colin Powell is that at the point Colin entered the lowest level of senior management (i.e., 2nd Lt), blacks were not allowed to enter similar positions in civilian society.
Please provide more evidence of your assumptions of "society's readiness". Are you talking about Vermont, where there were few black people? LA, Chicago, and NY, where metroplitan attitudes might be more open than a small town 100 miles away?
I just googled your "facts" and find you've been fudging all over the place. There were schools that still weren't integrated in 1957. Rosa Parks may have refused to give up her seat in 1955...but it was in December, and it was over a year later that public transportation segregation was found unconstitutional. So it was probably 1957 at the earliest that it was fully enacted throughout the US.
And by your own admission, the Korean war integrated blacks more fully in 1951.
And I repeat my point of Derrick Thomas' father: who else was training black pilots and integrating them in flying units in the early 1960s?

TO: Aaron Pohle
RE: Clueless?

"I can't image what your point is and do not see any way how your comments pertain to the discussion.

I was not attempting to clain that sex was simple. Sex has not been a prt of this discussion, rather it is a discussion of discrimination as it pertains to the military" -- Aaron Pohle

You think sex has nothing to do with this discussion? Are you REALLY that 'clueless'? What do you think the term 'homosexual' means anyway? Got a dictionary? They've got some good ones online these days.

RE: The Point

In the context of the Army's policies, you are bogusly attempting to equate skin color with sexual tastes. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. It's not even apples-to-oranges. It's more like apples-to-rocks.

As I said, your effort to make the desegregation of the 50s as the same thing as homosexuals in the military is so idiotic as to not warrant discussion. It's all smoke, without the benefit of any mirrors. And you're the one who's blowing it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid.]

Nathan,
You make some good points that I will address, however, before you accuse me of fudging things please be careful that what you believe I said and what I have said are the same thing. I stated earlier that the supreme court case ruling for the integration of schools was in 1953, and later used it as an example that soceity was beginning to integrate at the same time not completing it.

I did indicate that public transit began integration in 1955 and it does appear that it was 1956. I apologise for the error.

As for comparing opposite issues, I suppose that depends on your view of homosexuality. If you believe that it is strictly defined by behavior, then you are correct, my analogy would not directly apply. I was operating on the assumption that a homosexual is defined as somone who is attracted to their same gender and not attracted to the opposite gender. Even if they were not involved in any sexual activity, I think they would still be defined as gay. Though your point does raise tha as a question, when is someone defined as gay? Is is only when they have homosexual sex? Does that mean there is no such thing as a celebate homosexual? Interesting questions, I know what I think but I don't really know what the general perception is. I suppose that I did assume that most poeple defined gay by the desire and not by the action. Do you think that is not true?

My view that society needed to be ready before the military could integrate is based on the fact that the military had attempted integration prior to 1951 without success. Integration was more effecient use of manpower, so there was a desire for it to occur. There was the very prevalent view, however that blacks could not perform as well as soldiers as whites. This view caused most whites to be unwilling to integrate. In 1951 when the miltary experimented again with integration, they found that they could get white's to accept blacks as feellow soldiers and therefore integration did begin. Yes, I am assuming that based on difference in the reactions of most soldiers there was a change on societal attitudes that allowed for this to occur. There were no reported incidents in the training programs that experimented with integration that were attributed to racial tensions, which is a significant change from the many incidents reported in previous attempts.

At the same time, the anti-segregatioin movements were getting larger and more popular. Politicians also were willing to make inititives to reduce or eliminate segregation in some elements of society. It is all of those things that together lead me to believe that there was a change in the overall views of society at the time(early 50s). As that chage does explain all of these things and I don't know of another explanation that makes sense. If you have an alternative I would be interested.

As to your other points. I do agree that the military offered more opportunites for blacks in the 50's and 60's than most of the civilian world. Once integration was embraced in the military, it was able to happen more quickly. As I stated in one of my earlier mini-novel posts(sorry I guess I write too much ;), you did have a good point about that. The military was able to push ahead of the civilian world, as they were able to force soldiers to confront and overcome their bigotry in order to continue in military service(most of the time). Once that occured, there certainly was less discrimination in the military than there were outside it.

I still maintain that such integration could not have happened in the military in the 40's because people were not ready. I believe that the facts support that position.

As for your other question about who was training black pilots on the '60s I would say probably no one outside the miltary. And while I am sure that racial issues were a part of it, I would also point out that there were not a very large number of places outside the military that did train pilots, as such training is expensive and there were often enough military pilots leaving the military to take up the roles.

Still I do not claim that Americans ended discrimination as quickly as the American military did. I would say that the American military today still has less discrimination and racial tension than most of the country. The military can force their people to get past those issues, the civilian world largely cannot.

That force by the military can only be exerted so far, however, without harming the military. Attitudes can only be changed in that fashion so far. Based on all of this, I believe that the failure was because the attitudes in the 40s were too great of a disparity for military discipline to overcome. By the 50's that seemed to change, based on what happened both inside and outside the military.

I have stated before that such a change did not need to be a full acceptance of integration or an end to racial tension. It just needed to be closer than we were reguarding racial integration in the 40s.

I also think that society needed to be more willing to accept the idea of integration of gays than they were in the early 90's. Looking at the world today there are many examples that such an integration is more acceptable. homosexuality has hit mainstream culture in movies, tv shows, books etc. It is overall far more tolerated that it was 10 years ago. Maybe we are ready for such an open integration to occur. Maybe not.

Chuck,

Perhaps you should read my above comment to Nathan. As I discussed the definition of homosexual a bit. To sum it up, I would define a homosexual as someone who is attracted to their own gender and not to the opposite gender.

Sexual issues in the military, as I stated earlier are another matter. There are many rules and regulations about sexual activity for those in the military now, and those would have to be modified a bit if gays were allowed to openly serve. Such a modification in those rules is, in my mid fairly trivial and not the principle barrier to integration of gays into miltary service. Do you disagree?

I have not said and do not think that desegredation in the 50s is the same as integration of gays in the military today. I beleive there are some issues which are similar. There was some disagreement over those issues and so I have attempted to better explain my position on racial integration and support it with what facts I know.

The purpose of that was to point out the complex issues that arrise from attempting to integrate a group of people in the military that society discriminates against. I believe that many of the same issues will come up with an ingetration of gays in the military.

If you disagree with me, that's fine. If you wish to debate with me you might try using acual arguments and discussions instead of resoritng to cliches and shots.

You can continue to insult me if it makes you feel better, however, I really don't mind.

TO: Aaron Pohle
RE: Nathan Posts

"Perhaps you should read my above comment to Nathan." -- Aaron Pohle

Okay....

RE: Homosexual, Defined

"As I discussed the definition of homosexual a bit. To sum it up, I would define a homosexual as someone who is attracted to their own gender and not to the opposite gender." -- Aaron Pohle

Correlates well with my underestanding.

RE: Sex and the Army

"Sexual issues in the military, as I stated earlier are another matter." -- Aaron Pohle

Yes they are. And markedly different from skin coloration, I might add.

"There are many rules and regulations about sexual activity for those in the military now, and those would have to be modified a bit if gays were allowed to openly serve." -- Aaron Pohle

Those regs are in there for a purpose. Maybe you should do a bit of research before you start delving into this area. I've some suggestions, if you're interested. Things I came across during the course of my career.

RE: Trivialities R Us

"Such a modification in those rules is, in my mid fairly trivial and not the principle barrier to integration of gays into miltary service." -- Aaron Pohle

What may be 'trivial' to some minds is not trivial to others. Especially those that have to fight and, if need be, die.What do you think of that idea?

"Do you disagree?" -- Aaron Pohle

Is the Pope Polish?

Personally, as a retired grunt, I think winning the fight with the fewest casualties is more important than anything else. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that inteferes with that is costing unneceeary lives.

RE: Saying and Meaning Issues?

"I have not said and do not think that desegredation in the 50s is the same as integration of gays in the military today. I beleive there are some issues which are similar." -- Aaron Pohle

So why bother bringing it up in the first place? Which you seem to do quite a bit. As you do in your very next sentence....

"There was some disagreement over those issues and so I have attempted to better explain my position on racial integration and support it with what facts I know." -- Aaron Pohle

So if you don't think it's related, why do you keep going back to it, as if it were your only lever?

RE: And Still Again....

"The purpose of that was to point out the complex issues that arrise from attempting to integrate a group of people in the military that society discriminates against. I believe that many of the same issues will come up with an ingetration of gays in the military. " -- Aaron Pohle

...you attempt to move into that argument.

If you disclaim it in one breath and go at it again in the next, I think you've got serious problems.

RE: Honest Debate

"If you disagree with me, that's fine. If you wish to debate with me you might try using acual arguments and discussions instead of resoritng to cliches and shots." -- Aaron Pohle

If I were shooting at you, you'd never know it. {nudge-nudge. wink-wink.}

As for clichés, sound-bites would be better, but don't come across here very well.

But honest discussion? Sure. Get away from the canard of blacks in the military and get onto something honest.

How about the FACT that the Navy's language school at Presidio of Monterey can crank out a solid linguist in any language in less than a year?

We've been at war for over two years now. I'm sure the military is focusing on improving the numbers of linguists fluent in Arabic. I know of a reserve battalion in Utah that is nothing BUT linguists.

Do we need homosexuals for this? Logic would dictate that the answer is 'no'.

RE: Insults

"You can continue to insult me if it makes you feel better, however, I really don't mind." -- Aaron Pohle

You've not seen anything yet. All I've been doing is holding up a general cloth....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You think I'm getting 'smart' with you? How would you know?]

TO: Aaron Pohle
RE: You & Nathan

"Perhaps you should read my above comment to Nathan." -- Aaron Pohle

And 99% of it is that bogus analogy; desegregation. The only part that wasn't, in your post to Nathan at December 4, 2003 05:01 PM, was about the massive media blitz in the last paragraph.

So let's address that.

RE: The Media Blitz Is On

"I also think that society needed to be more willing to accept the idea of integration of gays than they were in the early 90's. Looking at the world today there are many examples that such an integration is more acceptable. homosexuality has hit mainstream culture in movies, tv shows, books etc. It is overall far more tolerated that it was 10 years ago." -- Aaaron Pohle

Ever hear of a guy by the name of Goebbels? He did the same sort of business, albeit before computer generated images and television. And he was VERY good at it. But instead of focusing on one form of acceptance, homosexuality, he focused on another, genocide.

Yes, homosexuality is all the rage in the media. But, as with all the rage in Nazi Germany, what the media is peddling is not necessarily anything good.

Show me your proof that homosexuality is good. Got the stats to back it up?

I know of one place with lots of stats, but for some strange reason they aren't willing to let those stats go public. Well...that's not quite correct. They let the stats on heterosexual male activities go public in a BIG way; numbers of partners, types of activity, numbers of incidents, etc., etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum (literally).

But, when it came to the same stats on homosexuals they were VERY quiet. So quiet that when I asked them for the stats they flatly refused.

Can you guess as to any reason why they would do such a thing as that?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Figures don't lie, but liars figure.]

P.S. I have no problems with homosexuals having jobs or living their life any more than I am constrained to have a job or live a life.

P.P.S. Be aware that I cannot hold some jobs or do things in my life because of things that have happened, either by my own actions or the uncontrollable actions of others. [Note: Have your sister marry an Iranian and watch what happens to your TS clearance.] Life is like that. If you're smart, you accept things like that and move on. Maybe in another direction, but you move. If you're stupid, life gets a bit 'tougher'.

Chuck,

Well at least I now know what your position is, which makes some of your earlier comments make a little more sense to me. It was hard for me to know how to respond to you previously becuase I didn't understand exactly where you were coming from and what part of my idea you were attacking.

I am not disclam my argument and then continue it. I pointed out that there are certainly differences, yet there are also some similarites. Some of the effects that made racial integration difficult would also make integration of gays difficult.

There are other issues, the one I was attempting to raise is one that I don't think is examined seriously by people who are for integrating gays in the military, but it does help to explain, in my opinioin the "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" compromise and why some that were in favor of gays in the military supported it.

There are other issues, which I was not addressing.

You see gays in the military has being a detriment to the military, because of the actions of of gays and not only based on the sociological and psychological impact, is that correct?

This is true to an extent, but was not what I was discussing. One example that comes readily to mind would be that an increased number if gays in the military would also likey cause an increase in the incidents of HIV among the soldiers. There are a number of other issues relating to problems associated with sexual activity, etc. The military has faced many similar problems with hetrosexual soldiers as well. I belive that the military can put policies in place to reduce the impact of such problems to acceptable levels.

Many gays are certainly unfit to serve in the military, as are many hetrosexuals. Perhaps most gays are not fit to serve. That does seem to be the position that you are taking, and I cannot dispute that as I have no real evidence to the contrary.

I do not think it is a credible position to believe that all gays are unfit to serve. If, for example, a gay solder were comletely celebate would not that eliminate most of the problems you are concerned about?

Overall I am not a real advocate of gays serving in the military, for probably the same bottom line reason that you are. I don't want to do anything which degrades the military's effectiveness.

My intent was to point out that even if you were to take away any argument about any individual gays fitness to be soldiers, there still is another problem with integrating them, which are similar to the psycological and sociological effects.

Problems caused by sexual behavior should, I believe be dealt with by dealing with the behaviors that directly cause the problems, not by excluding people because you think they are likely to have such problems.

I do, however, prefer that the military err on the side the causes the greatest effectiveness, in that I do agree that there is little reason for the military to integrate gays at this time. I did not and do not support the idea that manpower is limited enough that gays are needed to maintain or increase military effectiveness.

I am disappointed, frankly, in how the military has handled the integration of women for the very reason. The lowering of standards and such has weakened the military.

As to showing proof that homosexuality is good, I don't know why you believe that I think it is. I don't think that homosexuality is good. I don't think a lot of things that people do are good. I don't think adultery is good, lying is good, or that fornication is good(and there are many others.) I do, however, work with and am friends with many lairs, fornicators, adulterers and homosexuals.

If you want to bar someone from military service because of actions that they perform that lower the effectiveness of the military, and you have evidence to support that damage I would support that. It would, however, be a double standard to hold one people group to a higher level than another. The military does accept some realities reguarding the sexual behavior of soldiers accepting the risk of a reduced combat effectiveness from it(such as prostiution, multiple partners, etc which are frowned upon but not a basis for exclusion from the military).

I believe that the miltary could devise rules that would minimize these problems while maintaining no greater risk to its effectiveness while including gays in the military. I suspect you disagree, which is fine.

I do think, however, that the problems with integrating any people group, would still be present. My use of the integration of the blacks into the military was to highlight those problems, and to raise the question of weither or not they would be in place in light of where society is today.

Aaron,
Yes, I'm sure you were referring to "the date in which it was ruled unconstitutional" in the cases you cited for racial segregation.
However, you are comparing the year the ruling came down for civilian cases, but refusing to use that same standard for military situations. That is fudging and dishonest any way you look at it.
Compare apples to apples.
WHEN were the rules established for military in relation to civilians? At least one decade prior.
WHEN were the rules actually fully enacted for the military in relation to the civilians? At least one decade prior.
If not, there would have been no need for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In any case, you don't seem to know what you are arguing, because you objected to my comparison of Racial Appearance being opposite to homosexual behavior.
No one is thrown out of the military for "looking" gay. You are thrown out for engaging in homosexual behavior and and admitting it. But you have to have done it to be thrown out for it.
Seriously. Go read the UCMJ.
"Homosexual Statement" is defined as getting married or engaging in a sexual act with someone of the same gender.
They don't just take your word for it.
So, yes, homosexuality is NOTHING like racial issues, and even if it were, the military was at least a decade ahead of the civilian sector.

TO: Aaron Pohle
RE: Getting To Knooooow Yoooooouuuuuuuuuuu....

"It was hard for me to know how to respond to you previously becuase I didn't understand exactly where you were coming from and what part of my idea you were attacking." -- Aaron Pohle

What does knowing me have to do with it. Doesn't speaking the truth work best in any circumstance? Devil take the consequences.

RE: Similarities, Indeed

" I pointed out that there are certainly differences, yet there are also some similarites. Some of the effects that made racial integration difficult would also make integration of gays difficult." -- Aaron Pohle

Not enough similarities to make a difference in THIS venue. Nor in a number of others.

Case in point:

What is the difference between these two scenarios....

A black man applies for a position as the troop leader of a Cub Scout troop.

A homosexual man applies for a position as the troop leader of a Cub Scout troop.

Is there any difference in the way the two men could interact with the menbers of the troop?

Is there an adjective about sexual orientation that might significantly change the first applicant's potential for getting the position? Why is that so significant?

The point being that black versus homosexual is NOT the issue, be it Cub Scouts, public schools phys ed or the Army. The issue is homosexual or heterosexual and the benefit of the group as opposed to the individual.

More later....

Right now, it's time to be with the distaff and watch a good movie over hot tea.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[When I want to get in touch with my feminine side, all I need to do is reach out.....]

P.S. The preceived 'insults' will stop when you stop saying your not arguing about racism vs. homosexuality while you continue to do exactly that. I'm not 'insulting' you. I'm just doing what you are doing.

[I think there are some 'bozos' on this 'bus'.]

Chuck,

Knowing you has nothing to do with it, knowing you are really saying which was unclear to me from your first couple of posts was. I have spoken the truth as I see it from the start.

If you wish think think that I percieve racism and homosexuality as the same thing and take my arguements as justification for that fine.
That is not what I intended to say, nor what I believe I said.

With reguard to your example of a boy scout troop. Of course there is a difference today. I would ask you, however, would people today be more horrified about a gay boy scout leader than people in the 40's would have been about a black one in charge of white children?

There are 2 main ways that I can see where a gay scout leader could be a very bad thing. The first is sexual, if the gay man was also a pedophile then it would obviously be a horrible situation. The second would be a moral issue, the gay man would be promoting a lifestyle to children that is considered by most to be immoral. To some people this is a horrible situation and some would see it as a good one(presumably those that see homosexualy as not immoral and would like to see children's minds broadened by their definition). These concerns both have merit. While I am certian there are many homosexual men that could lead boy scout troops without causing harm, it is certainly true that a homosexual scout leader is more likely than a hetrosexual one to cause such harm.

There is also, certainly, something to this aspect of gays in the military. The question starts to be one of where do you draw the line? Fornication causes harm to the military, yet fornicators are allowed in, and do not even have to remain behind a "don't ask - don't tell" policy.

I agree that harm should be limited from the military as much as possible. To that end I would like to see the military revert back a bit in some areas, but I don't think that's going to happen.

TO: Aaron Pohle
RE: Contradicting Ourselves, Are We?

"Knowing you has nothing to do with it..." -- Aaron Pohle

Earlier you said it helped. Now you say it does nothing.

Can we make up our mind? Please?

RE: Scout Troops

"With reguard to your example of a boy scout troop. Of course there is a difference today. I would ask you, however, would people today be more horrified about a gay boy scout leader than people in the 40's would have been about a black one in charge of white children?" -- Aaron Pohle

And again you attempt the old canard.

There were black Scout leaders in the 40s.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Fib: A lie that hasn't cut its teeth yet.]