Gays in the Military: A Pox on the Radicals of Both Sides
I honestly don’t know which is more retarded, VoteVets and their demagoging the issue, or the Center for Military Readiness which apparently thinks Teh Gheys are the biggest threat to readiness out there. I will flat out tell you that with both of these groups on each side, there is no chance I am taking a public position to be in any way affiliated with either of them.
Let’s start with Dicksmith, who responded to this quote from John Boehner:
Boehner predicted that any action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would lead to a “divisive debate” and “do nothing more than distract the real debate that should occur here about helping to get our economy going again and getting American people back to work.”
Now, read that a few times, and reconcile it with Dicksmith’s characterization:
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a policy that removes brave, qualified American servicemembers from their jobs in service to their country. It would appear that House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) thinks that gays who have served their country and been removed from service are either not people, or are un-American…Repealing DADT would allow qualified gay troops who have been discharged as a result of the failed, discriminatory policy to return to work. It would also allow qualified gay Americans who have heard the call to service in uniform to serve their country without sacrificing their integrity.
There you have it, John Boehner hates gay folks, thinks they are not people and un-American, and doesn’t realize with the keen insight of Dicksmith that the best way to cut down unemployment is to tackle this issue. I think we can all agree that Dicksmith is 100% retarded, and if he could find a job, anyone should be able to.
But, before anyone jumps to the other side of this debate, I give you the Center for Military Readiness. To my shame, I long ago applied for a job with them. Frankly, I am embarassed I did, but only because I thought the name implied that they were concerned about readiness, and not just Teh Gheys. Just read through the list of “CMR Research & Analysis” on their website if you disagree with my assessment. How many of those readiness issues *don’t* deal with DADT?
Anyway, from an email solicitation from them:
CMR has repeatedly analyzed in well-documented detail how the new LGBT Law would work in actual practice. To make the information more manageable, we have drawn a “picture” in our newest CMR Policy Analysis, titled:
Consequences of the Proposed New “LGBT Law” for the Military
The CMR Policy Analysis uses few words, but every “box” placed on the charts highlights complicated social realities and problems that, taken together, would impose a crushing weight on the men and women of our military. Even a quick review of the flow chart diagrams will impress on you just how radical and problematic mandatory implementation the new LGBT Law would be.
I’ve gone through their chart several times now, and I have no idea what they are getting it. There is no source material for any of the “facts” they give. My all time favorite is found on Page 3, wherein:
Living Conditions Remain Same + “Homosexuality or Bisexuality Whether the Orientation is Real or Perceived” (Proposed LGBT Law) + New Forms of Sexual Misconduct =
RESULT:
Three-Fold Increase
In Misconduct
Incidents
No empirical or even speculative evidence is given to support this mind you, but there it is.
And this is exactly why I would be reticent to jump in on either side of this debate. You have Dicksmith who thinks that not only is doing away with DADT the panacea for all that ails the military, but also the economy, and the CMR who thinks that all those wiley Gheys are waiting for is for the law to fail and then it will be misconduct for everyone! I initially considered that the rates of men walking around wearing nothing but a kaiser helmet might skyrocket, but then I took into account that The Sniper and S6R are both out. So, who knows.
In the meantime, a pox on the radicals of both sides.
Category: Politics
The Sniper and S6R are out (of the military) or out as in OUT?
A little unclear.
Out of the Military, not out in.
I am just defending myself prematurely since I know they will both hit on my ownership of a black jeep wrangler (1994 Car of the year from Out Magazine) as proof of my Gheyness.
Not a pre-emptive ghey-bomb……
Yeah, it was actually a hella gay bomb.
Granted, the “three-fold increase” number is being pulled out of their fourth point of contact, but there is no doubt in my mind that incidents of sexual misconduct WILL increase if DADT is repealed.
I for one am glad that at least someone is trying to (somewhat) rationally discuss why DADT should not be repealed.
If anyone thinks that we are going to be able to quickly and easily lift DADT and then get back to the business of killing people an breaking things, they’ve got another thing coming. It will start with DADT, then move on to housing rights, spousal benefits, etc. I know there are many homosexuals who just want to serve their country openly and honorably, but I get the feeling that there are many more that just want to use the military as a platform to press the federal government for marriage rights.
How is saying that it will triple misconduct charges “rational”? I agree they will go up, but to claim something is a fact sheet, and then just pulling a number out of thin air had the EXACT OPPOSITE effect that it’s intent was me. I became less amenable to their position, and I was hoping someone would repeal the 3rd Amendment and house all the Gheys in CMR’s office.
I am ABSOLUTELY amenable to arguments made on implementation and everything else, but when advocates just make shit up and portray them as facts, they lose me entirely.
And Bohica, “No doubt in my mind” is precisely what there is in mine as well, but what one thinks isn’t really germane to a “fact sheet” is it? I strongly suspect that over +50% of all “homeless veterans” are not actually veterans, but I wouldn’t put that on a statement of facts. It smacks of the IPCC report on himaleyan glaciers.
yes but all increases in sexual assault are just increases in reporting, not actual incidents…..just ask SAPRO.
I took a look at the PDF. after my computer stopped barfing, I saw right about the threefold increase was the “New Forms of Sexual Misconduct”. How does this lady not know male/male rape and harassment already happens and it’s not always gay men. Oh wait, that would undercut her anti-gay stance.
That’s why I said they were being somewhat rational. If they were to remove “three-fold” comment, and just leave it as “sexual misconduct will increase” I would agree with the whole thing.
The problem is that there probably hasn’t been a real, impartial study of how allowing homosexuals to seve openly affects unit readiness. I have a great deal of respect for the British military, but as far as I know they have never done a study on how their homosexual rules and regulations affects their units. Moreso, I doubt any officer would want to put their career on the line to speak out against the policy, if given the opportunity.
In my mind, saying there will be a million, bazillion sexual misconduct cases is no worse than saying, “Well, the Brits allows gays to serve, and they have no problems whatsoever.” Neither statement is based on fact.
It’s rare I disagree outright with TSO. But they do clearly state that The Chart is INTENDED to be a simplified view that covers months of research.
Operator Dan has done a coupla posts here, and there seems ample evidence elsewhere to support the notions suggested by those simple charts, but I did not dig though the CMR website for their verification.
Sometimes a chart is just a chart. In this case they make no other claim.
Granted it would have been better if there were links to the backing research and analysis, but I’m unclear where the ‘radical’ element lies.
Pons, there is no study anywhere to suggest anything akin to 3x the misconduct. If one argues that something is current X, and that after a change it will be 3X. Then, in order for that to be true, you have to have 3 times as many offenders as you have now, right? Now, let’s say gays make up 10% of the military if they can serve openly. That means that A Ghey is 30x more likely to violate an order as his straight counterpart. (They make up 1/10, but that 1/10 accounts for a 3 fold inscrease.)
Now, you don’t see anything wrong with that stereotype?
Can we drop the pretense of neutrality? That “both sides” are wrong here? “Both sides” are not wrong.
Repealing DADT will result in a reduction of 10% to 24% in reenlistment rates. For all of the hooting and hollering about the vast amounts of “perfectly good” homosexual soldiers we are losing because the policy, there are countless more who will leave if (or when?) the policy is lifted. In my four years in the military, I am not aware of a single person chaptered out for homosexual conduct. If I compare that to 10%-24% of the people who crossed my path, it isn’t hard to decide which number is bigger.
Let’s see–zero people or dozens and dozens of people?
And yes, it is a Pandora’s Box of endlessly complicated issues that follow. Questions of marriages, kids, facilities, barracks, etc. It will also inject issus of romance and relationships into all-male units that have thusfar been spared this blight.
I guess technically it would be more like 20x, I’m not a math expert, but my statement still stands.
And I thought Dan’s Post was 8 million times better than anything in that report. And I would LOVE to see Dan debate someone rational from the other side. Maybe Blackfive or Uberpig or someone like that. Maybe Sniper even. But both sides that I posted here jumped the shark as far as I am concerned. And I wouldn’t mention Dan in the same breathe as either of them if it hadn’t been brought up first.
Since I am the author of the piece, I’ll take whatever fucking pretense I want.
This is exactly what I was talking about. Yet another person who knows the facts and isn’t afraid to put down anyone who might disagree.
Ben, is clicking a button on an online poll truly indicative of how many people will leave an organization that in general, doesn’t let people decide to just up and leave?
and Ben, the number of dischages is public information, you might not have personally known about any discharges since, well, “don’t tell”. you’ll see it isn’t zero and fell by half when the wars started(when you’d think the arguments for morale and cohesion would be stronger, but I guess they needed the gays).
And as a guy in an all male unit, show me a unit that didn’t have romance going on. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
In A-stan a good 30% of the guys were having sex with the MP and Engineer girls. So presumably you also argue against women being deployed, so just go ahead and argue that as well.
Also, units back here as they train also shouldn’t have the romance issues, so all women out. And, romance with someone outside the unit and outside the military might hurt as well, so we should sequester all military folk somewhere else.
A few more commenters and I might inexplicably find myself on your side of this issue Jen.
It was not an unscientific internet poll. That’s from the militarytimes.
Furthermore, I didn’t say that zero people have been booted over DADT. I’m saying that the number is incredibly small compared to the huge amount 10%-24%. Yes, but I’m sure that they’re just bluffing. Let’s not take them at their word. After all, if they make good on their threat we can always change the policy back, right? Then they’ll come back. No wait, we can’t do that.
No romance going on when I was in 1/23 Infantry, Ft. Lewis Washington. None that I knew of. If it was going on underground, it was DEEP underground. In any case, no one is saying that people in the military shouldn’t have romances. They shouldn’t have romances with another person in their unit! Quite different.
But I hear you now–what about relationships in mixed-gender units? News flash–that’s a problem too!
You just made my point for me.
Problems with romance aren’t just same sex you know. And that was my entire point, not that the all male units went Sacred Band of Thebes, that given a unit in proximity to any unit with females, there will be romance. And if the number of available women is less than the number of men seeking, you will have hurt feelings and envy in the male population.
What percentage of people was it that would leave the military if the GI Bill was passed? Curious how those numbers match up.
TSO,
If I just made your point for you, then you have no point. At all.
How many would leave because of the GI Bill? Are you for real? Uh…isn’t that an INCENTIVE to join? Nowhere in the realm of reality can you compare the GI Bill with repealing DADT.
I don’t know how many were supposed to leave over the GI Bill. I’m guessing you don’t either, or you would have told me. In any case, you’re again making the argument that these people who say they won’t reenlist under BAGAYWTB (be as gay as you want to be) are lying. You’re grasping at straws. You have no sound basis to disbelieve these people, other than that it’s an inconvenient obstacle that BAGAYWTB can’t get over.
So what happens when these people make good on their threat to leave the military? Can you reverse BAGAYWTB and put everything back to normal? No. Still, you’re willing to bet our military on your absurd idea that the respondents are lying.
Incidentally, what would be their motivation to lie? Why would a soldier–who intends to keep serving under the new policy–decide to lie to a pollster and tell him the opposite?
TSO said: Now, you don’t see anything wrong with that stereotype?
I haven’t read all the studies – I don’t have a dog in this fight. And I’ll concede that you are likely better informed on this subject than I.
I’ll not nitpick over whether that 3X constitutes something nefarious, or if it’s simply a demonstration of what can happen when a complex data set gets reduced beyond a certain point for ‘clarity’.
And I still don’t see much that rises to the level of radical? As I read it they don’t want to replace the existing DADT policy. Isn’t that a conservative approach?
Broadly I dislike stereotypes, BTW. Outside of a few funny usages I can’t quickly come up with one that isn’t inherently wrong.
The argument against the GI Bill was that folks would leave because of the value of it. This was an argument made by undersecretary Chu. That has not proven to be the case.
And I am not opposed to the argument that there will be problems, in fact, it is the same argument I have made REPEATEDLY. My argument is with folks who argue that side and then just make up ludicrous and upsupportable figures. Much as when someone articulates a conservative position and then brings up that Obama is not an American, it makes us look bad. Arguing that gays are 20 times more likely to engage in behaviors in violation over that of straights ruins all teh valid arguments that were articulated the other day by Operator Dan.
And, I am not arguing the poll is a lie. I am arguing that it is a) self selective, and b) not a fair sampling of actual positions. When some argues in favor of taking down DADT, they argue that the Pentagon paper that was done for the NDU said that it would have no massive effect on reenlistment. How do you disregard that study over the poll that was self selective?
In A-stan a good 30% of the guys were having sex with the MP and Engineer girls.
And your point was about having stats to back stuff up vs. throwing numbers around?
Don’t take that the wrong way, it just shows how hot button this really is even if you’re not one of the “radicals”. I gotta say though, the discussions on this the last few days have been damn good, especially OD’s piece. I think it goes to show maybe the military’s not ready to repeal DADT. I’m honestly not sure yet how I come down on this. I give a flying f&$k if I served with a ghey and sometimes think, why the hell not repeal it, I hear most veterans (no unverifiable stat here) say they don’t really care either, but what problems will it really create? That is a big ol’ can of worms there, now you have to start thinking about not just an assault but now labeling it as a hate crime….or not! That’s a whole other mess I haven’t really seen covered yet…..does that factor into a 3 fold increase? That could certainly play into it but we still don’t know, do we?
I should have clarified, 30% of my guys.
I can actually give you names if you want to validate that, I didn’t think I would have to go so far.
And the three fold increase was in “incidents” not hate crimes or anything else.
But I give up, y’all win. I will no longer argue that statements like this without factual basis invalidate a point. I will now agree with the readers 112% of the time, and if I do not, it makes me 7000% a communist.
sorry ben I didn’t get that by zero you meant not zero.
whoever did the poll, it is just that. seeing that agreat percentage will have to spend some time with the new policy, I think that number will drop quite a bit. I am pretty sure the same scare tactic was used for women and black people integrating.
there is no motive to lie to a pollster, but there is plenty of motive to stay in. saying yes to a poll and leaving are two totally different things and levels of commitment. it is real easy to commit to a poll.
elaine donnelly is generally regarded as a nut job radical. when I say she served zero years I mean the real zero.
I think that people also always say “I’m not going to re-enlist” and then when it comes to it, wind up signing on the dotted line anyway.
Bullshit statistics are bullshit statistics, no matter what side they’re on. I commend TSO for trying to show that, even though I’m sure my endorsement is like the kiss of death for most folks here.
but your jeep is only 69% gay.
RESULT:
Three-Fold Increase
In Misconduct
Incidents
A hate crime could be a misconduct incident (the harassment part of the chart)……but then again, that just proves the point you were trying to make. People pulling numbers out of their duffel bags with nothing to back them up.
I heard that out of 100% of stats 70% are more than 50% wrong and 65% right. Of course that is after statistically invalidating 80% of those and keeping the remaining 35%……
smile everybody 🙂
All I know is that, in the workplace, your own private sex life is nobody’s business. Any person, gay or straight, ought to be able to plausibly deny any sexual conduct in the workplace. The military may be a special case, but it is still a workplace.
TSO said:But I give up, y’all win. I will no longer argue that statements like this without factual basis invalidate a point. I will now agree with the readers 112% of the time, and if I do not, it makes me 7000% a communist.
This is good.
Genuflect 12.78 times to the SiteMeter Altar while saying “The Reader is Always Right” as your penance.
——-
“He’s such a sensitive lad, that TSO. We must help him see the error of his ways – and be gentle about it.”
That last is a quote from the secret TAH reader’s newsletter/handbook. I’m quite sure you suspected as much, but now the secret is out. Sorry Jonn.
79.4649% of all stats are made up on the spot.
Will any opening gay or lesbian be able to serve in any muslim country where homesexuality is illegal and in some the punishment is death?
Kenny,
I would imagine so. Our military women are allowed to drive in those countries. When I was in Saudi during Desert Sheild/Storm the Saudi police actually tried arresting a few of our women for driving……needless to say, it didn’t last long.
Another article on the policy on CNN this morning. Slanted to the left, of course.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/02/gays.military/?hpt=T1
The article states that 428 troops were chaptered out on DADT last year. That’s such an infintessiamly small number you can hardly even see it with a microscope.
If you add the total personnel strength of the activity duty military (1,473,900) and the reserve components (1,458,500) you get 4,405,900. Expressed as a percentage of total strength, the number discharged last year (428) is .00971 percent.
No,we know from polls that 10 to 24 percent of the military will not reenlist as a direct result of this policy change. This is not an internet poll in which you can click as many times as you want. (i.e. Are you in love with Ron Paul? Click yes twenty times).
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/
Some people find this stastic very inconvenient and will try to think of anything to get around it. My favorite is “Well, when they said they wouldn’t reenlist, they’re not being serious. When it comes right down to it, they’ll sign on the dotted line no matter what we do.” Any way you slice it, this argument is essentially saying that people who claim they will leave are actually lying! They have every intention of reenlisting, they just like playing cutesy games with pollsters. I think we should take them at their word.
So which is bigger? Ten percent or .00971 percent? Twenty-four percent of .00971? It doesn’t take a mathemetician…
Even still, the people who were discharged are to blame for the loss of 428 troops. It is not the fault of the rule, but the fault of the rule breaker.
“Gates is expected to appear Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. As a first step, he is expected to call for no longer discharging people whose sexual orientation is revealed by others.”
I wonder how many of those 428 separations were from “witch hunts” and how many were from homosexuals outing themselves for their own self interests.
When I was XO for an AIT unit, we had a couple of Chapter 15s (Homosexual Conduct). Over a period of two years (98-99)we had, maybe 10 or less out of the over a thousand or so soldiers that went through the unit. All of them were cases of the soldier coming forward themselves. I would say that only one was a legitimate case of a homosexual no longer wanting to be in the military. The rest were soldiers so fed up with the Army, they would do or claim anything to get out. We had an informal process of dealing with them, but in the end, we would eventually let them out, knowing that forcing substandard soldiers to stay in the military is a drain on command time and morale.
Are those 10-24% of the troops that said they wouldn’t reenlist if DADT was repealed the same 10-24% that said they wouldn’t reenlist if blacks and women were allowed to enlist? Jeez, at this rate if we drop DADT we’ll potentially only have 28% of the Army left after letting African-Americans and the penis-challenged in. Hell, after Chu’s GI Bill I’m surprised we have enough guys left over to guard the gates. By the way, I would agree with TSO on his 30% assessment of shenanigans going on in A-stan among our guys. He and I were in the 70th percentile so it was pretty easy to see. Hanky panky goes on all the time and you’re not going to stop it. Frankly, I don’t think any government agency should stick it’s nose in anyone’s crotch and start sniffing around. Unless your nekkid-wrestling partner is in your chain of command or chain of concern and you’re sticking to the plus/minus one rule of thumb, your crank should be your business. Don’t like that Bob is bobbing on Neil and Neil is kneeling on Bob? Too bad, that’s their call. There are lots of bigots out there that don’t like white guys dating black girls and vice-versa. My nephew took a bullet in the head because some brothers didn’t like him dating a sister. Whether we agree with Teh Ghey lifestyle or not, we have to show that we’re better than some hood-rats with a stolen .38. DADT is not going to be repealed and I’ll tell you why: this will get pushed back for a vote until more Republicans come into office and then the blame for its failure can be laid squarely at the feet of the GOP. The Dems had a super-majority and the most liberal President since, well, ever to sign it off and they didn’t do anything about it. Why? Because if they do that, then Teh Gheys don’t need them anymore and they’ll start looking at the financials instead of civil rights when it comes time to vote… and we know they don’t want that.… Read more »
TSO is “Bond, Gay Bond”?
The Palm Center’s press release about the hearings today has a crystal ball prediction that changes in implementation will be announced. So basically the policy will still be selectively enforced, just officially now.
And yes Sniper, I think the military might be at -17% by now. Your Dem analysis was spot on, but some in the LGBT community know it and are just too stupid to care.
As far as the CMR not providing stats, it isn’t because it’s a simplified version. It is because they would just be quoting themselves. Any reputable organization who puts out a fact sheet includes references to assertions they make, no matter how short the sheet is. The difference here is clear, CMR is missing facts and reputation.
I guess anyone who disagrees with allowing homesexuals to openly serve is radical. I never thought I would see the day when former military members would support this. It is not about equality it is about power. Who is pushing the change? People outside the military thats who. It will not stop here. The next step will be allowing transgenders to openly serve and why not? It is just a life style choice. Maybe all homosexuals should be able to opening join any gay pride celebration this year. No sense in doing anything half ass.
So we let in the gheys. Do we let in the Transexuals? Bi-sexuals are included in the first I think. What’s that big soup-letter thingy, GLBTFCSM?
What about Furries? Beastiality? (no-not the Marines) Minonites?
Do you let a Transexual dress as their sex, or as their wanna-be sex? Do lesbians get to go to Ranger School? How about Ghey men who dress as women?
So many many questions….
Well, I never thought that I ‘d ever nudge my kids in any direction other then a military one. Today’s decision just made me rethink that. Maybe college is good for something after all…
Great questions Dutch and all relevant. Will gays be able to marry while serving? If they are allowed to openly serve why not let them get married? This is a very slippery slope that will not end with just allowing gays to serve openly. It will go much further than this……this is just the beginning.
[…] Gays in the Military: A Pox on the Radicals of Both Sides […]
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is clearly a closet gay. He needs to go immediately!
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=Tyy5Z8vm
If we don’t get rid of him now he could be cross dressing inside of a week.
Admiral Mullen may not be gay but he does support lifted the ban on gays serving openly as does Sec Gates as your links clearly reveals. I disagree with sniper. The ban could be lifted and soon. I hope I am wrong.
Gates and Mullen are secret ghey l*vers. That’s my current the*ry…
Maybe I am wrong. Hell, I’ve been wrong plenty of times before. In fact, as a married man, I am wrong about 23.7 hours of the day.
Just a couple of points.
I know of no incidents of “Romancing the Bone” in the all male crew of my old Submarine. Could it have happened? Sure… but Sparky and NucSnipe will attest how tough it is to keep a secret on a Sub at sea. So the suggestion that 30% are already having sex doesn’t hold true for all units.
Also, several comparisons have been made to the integration of Blacks and Women in the military without taking into consideration that both of those events happened while there was a Draft. The present all Vol force makes that an “apples to oranges” arguement.
Personally? I give a shit about someone’s sex life, but agree that ending DADT will result in a Charlie Foxtrot of unforseen complications.
And this really needs to be emphasized; not to contradict you , Jen, but Jeep Wranglers are not just 69% more gay, they’re three-fold 69% gay.
“without taking into consideration that both of those events happened while there was a Draft.”
There was a draft in 1948?
Yup. The draft didn’t end until the seventies.
For more than 50 years, Selective Service and the registration requirement for America’s young men have served as a backup system to provide manpower to the U.S. Armed Forces.
President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 which created the country’s first peacetime draft and formally established the Selective Service System as an independent Federal agency.
From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means.
A lottery drawing – the first since 1942 – was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970, that is, for registrants born between January 1, 1944 and December 31, 1950. Reinstitution of the lottery was a change from the oldest first method, which had been the determining method for deciding order of call.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/bldrafthistory.htm