Mullen plans to institute a Reverse Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Admiral Mike Mullen told the Senate Arms Committee today that when DADT is repealed, all of you POS servicemembers who’ve served faithfully over the years, adhering to every DoD and Executive policy to the letter of those policies, well, you can just get the fuck out of his military (Fox News link);
Mullen told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the military is based on meritocracy, “what you do, not who you are.” He said if Congress changes the don’t ask, don’t tell policy then the U.S. military will comply.
And if some people have a problem with that, they may not want to join the service.
While some troops may ask for a separate berth or different showers, “some may even quit the service,” Mullen said. “We’ll deal with that.”
Shouldn’t that be “Who you do, not who you are”? Because apparently assholes like Dan Choi who’ve made a pest of themselves by NOT following an established policy…hell, demonstrated an inability to comply with ANY policy…get a pass.
Now you fucking breeders know where you stand with the CJCS.
I never thought I’d see the day that a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would make such an blatant threat to his troops in front of the Senate Arms Committee.
I guess it’s a good thing that I’m not invited to this toad’s birthday party this weekend.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues
Anon/Joe; You still donh’t get it. If you were forced to shower with your biking buddy; would you have had a problem with that? See, you have a choice when you go to the gym, or in your house. Soldiers don’t. Sure, the argument could be “then don’t join the military”, but that’s later; we’re talking about now and there are troops that are maybe in the first year of their 4 year hitch; are you going to make them endure something they didn’t sign up for, just for your own social satisfaction? DADT isn’t broke so why the rush to fix something that isn’t broke?
OlTrooper,
If one soldier makes an unwanted advance towards another, whatever sex, that’s unacceptable. I am sure the armed forces have regulations and sanctions for situations like that. I get the feeling you think all male homosexuals are just waiting for the chance to jump someone in the shower – that is such an old cliche. Again, they should abide by the same rules as any other soldier without having to lie about their orientation. I’m a red blooded American male, and on several occasion I have had the pleasure of skinny-dipping with incredibly beautiful young women, yet somehow I was able to exert enough self-control to keep from raping them. I would expect soldiers have a similar level, or greater, self-control. If a new recruit has trouble dealing with the shower thing, most of that is in his own head. He got to get a grip. How many other unexpectedly distasteful things do new recruits learn about the service once they’ve enlisted? Somehow they deal with them and move on. I get the feeling you think of human nature as some kind of rigid, inflexible phenomenon, but we are all capable of adapting to a wide range of circumstances, and I would think that with bombs falling and bullets flying, what my possibly might happen when you get in the shower, when you actually get a chance to shower, would be way down on the list of anxieties.
Hey Joe! Old ghey! “if homosexuality is abnormal and homosexual organisms do not procreate, why hasn’t homosexuality disappeared like any other deleterious trait?”
Because in the Bay Area it’s considered trendy to be openly perverted and a militant ghey. Mind you sir, I do know gays that do not condone the actions of those that choose to be militant and perverted about their so-called “life-style”, too. Cruise your old tail over to http://www.zombietime.com and take gander at the photo’s.
You sir certainly help foster that notion as well. One more thing before you jump off the fence. I’ve worked side by side with both. You care to take a guess which “life style” chooser gets the most trouble brought down on themselves for their behavior?
Somebody has it right from way up above, “We are now Rome”.
I think the whole conversation is getting into unproductive territory.
Arguing the moral implications of homosexuality is not what should be focused on here. Personally I have no problem with homosexuals as a rule, and even as a serviceman I would find no more issue in showering with one than I had with public showers in general. Like many of you here, I knew of people I was serving with who were gay, and so did others in my units. Not once can I remember it being an issue in the latrine, and no one I can remember went out of their way to avoid showering with them, not even the youngest and most immature of our troops.
Homosexuality as a moral deviancy question? Give me a break, do those of you with the biggest issues with gays engage in nothing but woman on bottom missionary style sex for the sole purpose of procreation? If all of you that dislike gays say yes to that I’ll go on record right now as calling some of you liars.
No, the real issue to me is whether or not right now is the right time to be changing our service member’s environment, when they have so many other far more important things to concern themselves with. I’m aware that this issue is distracting for some, and nothing, I mean nothing, should distract our current service members from the deadly business of winning this war and coming home in one piece. And fine, when the worst of the danger is over, repeal DADT and get on with re-writing those portions of the UCMJ that the objective will require.
streetsweeper,
Not even gonna try that site, probably blocked, but however sketchy it is, I’m sure there are hetero sites that are just as sketchy.
Jacobite,
Good points. I understand you sentiments. My question – when is it going to be a good time? Somehow these things get conveniently tabled indefinitely, waiting for the “right time”. Was 1948, the beginning of the cold war, a good time to initiate the beginning-of-the-end of segregation? A lot of people said not. Yet somehow the military survived.
I guess the notion that I’m struggling with is the thought that this tough, young, well-trained, bad ass soldiers somehow need coddling on this issue. I suspect they are a lot more flexible and pragmatic than that…
Sorry,
“Anonymous” is me. For some reason it stopped auto-filling in my name.
I get the feeling you think all male homosexuals are just waiting for the chance to jump someone in the shower – that is such an old cliche.
==========
Good, then this should mean that with the repeal of DADT, the military should move to gender-neutral showers (and bunks and bathrooms). Afterall, it is such an old cliche to think that all male heterosexuals are just waiting for the chance to jump some female in the shower. Females need to get over their discomfort of showering (and bunking and going to the bathroom) with men. Right?
Not even gonna try that site, probably blocked, but however sketchy it is, I’m sure there are hetero sites that are just as sketchy.
Wrong. There are no heterosexual versions of the Folsom Street Fair. NONE. And there are no heterosexual versions of the “‘Gay’ Pride Parades”. NONE. Nice try.
I would expect soldiers have a similar level, or greater, self-control. If a new recruit has trouble dealing with the shower thing, most of that is in his own head. He got to get a grip.
==========
Again, good. So this means when the military suggests gender-neutral showers and bathrooms and bunks, you will tell the females that if they anxiety about dealing with males in the shower, most of that is in their own heads and they “got to get a grip”.
All the arguments you make for heterosexual men to deal with openly homosexual men can also be made for females to deal with men. So, based on these arguments, Joe sees no problem with gender-neutral military accommodations. Interesting.
#58
“Females need to get over their discomfort of showering (and bunking and going to the bathroom) with men. Right?”
Right, and they did in our unit in Iraq, urinating next to the trucks with the guys every piss stop on convoy (and sometimes into Gatorade bottles like us right there in the passenger seat next to us when we couldn’t make a piss stop), and bunking right next to us whenever we were on the road, which was most of the time. We were all adults, not fucking middleschool students. And amazements of amazements, rampant promisuity and deviancy didn’t rule the day, imagine that.
No, the real issue to me is whether or not right now is the right time to be changing our service member’s environment, when they have so many other far more important things to concern themselves with. I’m aware that this issue is distracting for some, and nothing, I mean nothing, should distract our current service members from the deadly business of winning this war and coming home in one piece. And fine, when the worst of the danger is over, repeal DADT and get on with re-writing those portions of the UCMJ that the objective will require.
==========
I disagree. If you truly believe that this is a civil rights issue (as you seem to believe, based on your opinion that homosexuals are no different than anyone else and this is not a question of moral deviancy at all), then there’s no better time than the present for deciding this issue.
If it’s a civil rights issue, then telling people they can’t get their civil rights simply, because we are at war — a war that will not end anytime soon, since Islam is not going away anytime soon — is unacceptable.
And really, this has become a ridiculous distraction that will not go away until DADT is repealed. So, if you see no issue with moral deviancy and see it as basically a civil rights issue, then the solution to this is simple: repeal DADT and move on. Dragging this on any longer is what creates the distraction.
Or, the other solution is for the Congress or the military to take a stand and say that homosexuality is morally deviant and DADT will be kept in place. Period. End of discussion on the issue and move on.
Obviously the latter is never going to happen though, so the solution seems to be the former. Repeal DADT and move on.
Joe: “If one soldier makes an unwanted advance towards another, whatever sex, that’s unacceptable. I am sure the armed forces have regulations and sanctions for situations like that. I get the feeling you think all male homosexuals are just waiting for the chance to jump someone in the shower – that is such an old cliche. Again, ”
I’m not talking cliche, here, since that isn’t the point, either. I like women, so the military should then be co-ed in the latrine and showers; correct? I’m not going to “jump them in the shower”, but I wouldn’t mind looking. THAT is the point. I don’t know why you haven’t figured it out, yet. Since it would be against the rules for me to touch a showering female, I would abide by those rules, however, that doesn’t mean I have to close my eyes.
Right, and they did in our unit in Iraq, . . .
==========
Okay, good then. So what’s the problem? Time to go gender-neutral in the military. All recruits train together (no lowering standards for women), bunk together, ‘bathroom’ together and shower together.
We’ll save a lot of money on having separate bunks and bathrooms and showers for males and females, and since everyone in the military is an adult and not middleschool kids, things will go great.
If this is the case, then repeal DADT and make the military gender-neutral now.
Damn…
To be young enough to shower with a bunch of soldiers…
I hope the Buddhists have it right; I want to go around again and try that. 🙂
Since it would be against the rules for me to touch a showering female, I would abide by those rules, however, that doesn’t mean I have to close my eyes.
==========
Exactly. And in that case, the females would just have to get a grip and deal with it. As Jacobite stated, his unit in Iraq dealt with it just fine, since they were all adults. So I see absolutely no reason why the other hundreds of thousands of adults in the military would not be able to deal with it either, both deployed and State-side. And, if they can’t deal with it, well they can get the f*ck out of the military or not join the military. Afterall, this is the military, not middleschool.
Mike, I know you’re being sarcastic, but I agree in every way but one. Not. Right. Now.
I can accept that our unit, and others like us, were and are exceptions, but we show that it can be done. I just don’t believe the climate amongst most of the troops would allow it to happen without big ripples, and ripples are something we don’t need in the middle of a war.
Michael in Michigan in tearing them a new asshole.
He is one hundred percent correct. If we’re going to accept the absurd notion that homosexuals in latrines and showers will not be a problem, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t have completely integrated facilities. If some eighteen year old female has an objection, well then, the problem is entirely in her head. Tell her to STFU or GTFO (after her enlistment is up). She’s not in middle school any more.
I am so damned sick of this “gays will behave themselves” argument. That’s not the point!
We respect the wishes of women who don’t want to shower with heterosexual men because they shouldn’t have to suffer the discomfort. Even if only a few men will ogle them, we respect their wishes. Even if even fewer men will touch them, we respect their wishes. We don’t accept the argument that ALL straight men will ALWAYS be on their best behavior in a female shower, because we know that isn’t true. But when it comes to homosexuals in the shower, we browbeat everyone else into submission. If someone has a problem with it, they’re the ones who are screwed up.
Integrate the military by gender and save bookoo bucks.
Ok, since it appears I got off track, read this from Moonbattery. The article does a much better job of it than I can.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/12/assanges-suppli.html
So, go ahead Admiral Mullen, shit can DADT. It appears to be much easier to do than tighten up.
Hey Joe!
“streetsweeper,
Not even gonna try that site, probably blocked, but however sketchy it is, I’m sure there are hetero sites that are just as sketchy.”
What are ya? Using a government system? ROFL!
Mike, I know you’re being sarcastic, but I agree in every way but one. Not. Right. Now. ========== Well, I’m being mostly sarcastic. I don’t agree with the repeal of DADT, because I am against the overall GLBT agenda to fundamentally change our culture to redefine social norms. And my stance was solidified when people who disagreed with the agenda, but had no problem with homosexuals, were called “bigots”, “homophobes” and “H8ters”. However, I’m using your premise that if this is a civil rights issue, then it should be addressed now. There is no reason to wait, since there is no guarantee of a time in the future where we’re not going to have people deployed in a war zone. Also, this IS a distraction. And from how the GLBT movement bullies and makes nuisances of themselves to draw attention to their issues, I think this will only get worse and worse and worse a distraction. There will be more idiots like Choi and more news stories talking about this (what I consider to be) meaningless issue when it comes to military matters. So if people really care about the betterment of the military, and that, as you claim, the people in the military will adjust without any issue since they are all adults, then there is no benefit at all to pushing this off to later. As I sit here and type this, the ‘top of the hour news’ on my local radio station (listening to Rush Limbaugh program) touched on a story about DADT. They have been talking about it every day. It’s NOT going to go away and the GLBT movement is only going to get more aggressive. Just look at their actions post Prop 8 and look at the idiot “No H8” campaign. Imagine taking those actions to military bases. People protesting military bases, celebrities dressing in military gear for ads and their dumbass “No H8” stuff. A decision needs to be made NOW, one way or another. Putting this off is the worst decision that could be made, because it will stir the pot even… Read more »
Well, I’m being mostly sarcastic. I don’t agree with the repeal of DADT, because I am against the overall GLBT agenda to fundamentally change our culture to redefine social norms. And my stance was solidified when people who disagreed with the agenda, but had no problem with homosexuals, were called “bigots”, “homophobes” and “H8ters”.
==========
I meant to add that with regards to the GLBT agenda, repeal of DADT is not the end of this, but just the beginning. The movement is using this as a stepping stone to get back to their main goal of redefining marriage. Once they have DADT repealed, they will have another bullying mission success. They will then have open homosexual couples in the military wanting the same benefits as married military couples. From here, they will push the military for these benefits and during that fight, will go back to work towards redefining marriage.
People seem to think that repeal of DADT is the end of this gay-stapo circus. Not even close. This is just the beginning. Don’t stand up to this bullying now and this is just the first step to more down the road.
They tried getting their agenda passed through voters. Voters rejected them. They tried forcing it on the populace through the courts. Unsuccessful (so far) there as well. Now, they’ve decided to use the military for the purpose. And, of course the ‘leaders’ in the military are bending over and taking it.
Who would have thought that the American public would reject the GLBT agenda, the courts would reject it, but the military would cave.
“if homosexuality is abnormal and homosexual organisms do not procreate, why hasn’t homosexuality disappeared like any other deleterious trait”? Joey asked up in #46. It’s really simple, Joey. Homosexuals do not procreate, they recruit. I’m surprised that even you haven’t figured that out yet.
And, Michael hit it right out of the park in #72. That seems to be the agenda.
We had lesbians in my unit. They used the communal showers. There was no hassle. I would feel much more comfortable showering in front of a lesbian female than a straight man. They are socialized and behave in totally different ways.
# 73- It’s really simple, Joey. Homosexuals do not procreate, they recruit. I’m surprised that even you haven’t figured that out yet.
Thanks Upnorth! That’s a point I should have made in my post. You got it! Recruit they do, using any method (drug or liquor) too
“Recruit they do, using any method (drug or liquor) too”
Yep, but what you’re describing is sexual predators, an abomination with far greater numbers ensconced in our own heterosexual ranks.
If homosexuals are permitted to openly serve, there needs to be a big change in UCMJ, which will only lead to demoralizing mostly the mid-grade ranks – those folks who’ve made the decision to make the service a career and are too vested to leave, but too far away from retirement. Within the UCMJ, how many rules will have to be re-written? How many will have to be written? Anecdotally: a captain gives a private a 15 & 15. The private is gay. Does the captain’s action constitute sexual harassment since the private perceives that the captain has created an atmosphere of fear? Another example is a sergeant dressing down a private. Well no, guess we have to change that term – dressing down – the sergeant is delivering a fine ass-chewing… rats… okay: the sergeant is admonishing the private with coarse language: does that constitute hate-speech? An officer goes before a promotion board and is passed over. Has her sexuality played a part in her non-selection? In the civilian world, the answer is yes. Homosexuals form a legally protected class apart from everyone else. How will this translate in terms of justice, fairness, and an egalitarian ethos (I know, quit laughing… I meant in terms of the rest of us non-Academy types). Budgets are tightening. For the Army, that means support to families, non-combat services, and such will face the axe in order to preserve at least the illusion of war-fighting capability. Fees for medical and dental care, which again for the Army hasn’t progressed beyond checking the mule’s teeth and a fistful of motrine, are about to begin climbing ever higher. Who foots the bill for continuing AIDS research and the treatment of HIV? I remember that immediately following 9/11, then-Senator Clinton slipping in funding for breast cancer research into an emergency defense appropriation for the Navy. The military is a social laboratory – has been for decades. The problem being the mindset: you can study the issue, develop a plan and gather the resources to implement the plan, and then focus the service on successfully implementing it.… Read more »
Welcome to the Lemonparty.
Trust me, you don’t want to google lemonparty.
Another example is a sergeant dressing down a private. Well no, guess we have to change that term – dressing down – the sergeant is delivering a fine ass-chewing… rats… okay: the sergeant is admonishing the private with coarse language: does that constitute hate-speech?
An officer goes before a promotion board and is passed over. Has her sexuality played a part in her non-selection?
In the civilian world, the answer is yes. Homosexuals form a legally protected class apart from everyone else. How will this translate in terms of justice, fairness, and an egalitarian ethos (I know, quit laughing… I meant in terms of the rest of us non-Academy types).
==========
Good points. We’ve already seen what the GLBT agenda has done with Hollywood (going after Vince Vaughn joke in a movie calling the Prius a ‘gay’ vehicle) and with their “That’s so gay” PSAs that used to air on a constant basis. (They would have people like Wanda Sykes tell people to stop saying “that’s so gay” and “think before you speak” and “knock it off! (saying ‘that’s so gay'”))
They also have the same say in Hollywood and activism that Islamic groups have. Both groups get to have ‘consultants’ go over scripts to make sure there is nothing in them that will be insulting to homosexuals or Muslims, respectively.
This is how it works for protected classes of citizens, of which GLBTs are a part.
So all you have to do is look towards civilian life to see how GLBTs will get special protected treatment in the military.
Well, AS, I’m sure they didn’t mind you being in the shower with them, either.
However, what you are saying is that lesbians are more able to control themselves than straight men? Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence. Speaking for myself as a straight man, I’m glad you are so in tune with what and how we all act. Do you need a broader brush to paint us with?
“if homosexuality is abnormal and homosexual organisms do not procreate, why hasn’t homosexuality disappeared like any other deleterious trait”? Well UpNorth, I don’t know about recruitment, it would seem a person would already have to lean in that direction to get “recruited”. But no, that’s not what I was talking about. There are selective pressures that prevent homosexuality from disappearing despite the fact a strictly homosexual organism will not procreate. In Somaon culture they recognize three sexes – male, female, and third that traslates something like: my uncle who never got married but helps his extended family raise their kids. And even though those “uncles” never have kids of their own, now “uncles” keep appearing. Interestingly enough, these “uncles” seem to be born to the mothers who are the most fertile and have the most kids. This points to biological/physiological/hormonal influnces in determining sexual preference. Also, it’s thought there can be some adaptive utility to homosexuality in certain environments. Needless to say it’s a complex subject, but no, it’s not due primarily to recruitment UpNorth.
People that advocate the reversal of DADT have never served in the Infantry. It won’t work. I guarantee it.
I still don’t understand why DADT is such a big deal. You can still circle suck dudes on a saturday night and go to formation as long as your platoon daddy doesn’t hear about it.
Anyway if DADT is ended is it going to pave the way for outlandish behavior? Am I going to go to a battalion ball and see a guy dressed in Female Class As or Dykes wearing male Class As? I don’t give a fuck… if that happens it’s unprofessional and disgraceful to the uniform.
Hey Joey…wouldn’t it be awfully ironic if a poor ghey draftie died in the RVN serving in your place while you spent a whole lot of time trying to “find” yourself in the desert with your badassed, hot, red blooded, american self… dodging the draft and skinny dipping with hairy legged hippie chicks? You need to climb your pathetic and cowardly ass back up into your Ivory towered condo in the peoples republic of Denver…do real americans a favor and get a part time job as a speed bump for m-1 abrams tanks…you f**king,sniviling bag of shit…your opinion on ANYTHING military is not welcome or needed…go pound sand until your pussy stops bleeding Bitch!
Jacobite: “Yep, but what you’re describing is sexual predators, an abomination with far greater numbers ensconced in our own heterosexual ranks.”
Do believe it may be an even split on that….
“if homosexuality is abnormal and homosexual organisms do not procreate, why hasn’t homosexuality disappeared like any other deleterious trait”
I just wanted to drop in to say that this line of thinking does not prove homosexuality has some kind of selective usefulness to the human race.
Natural selection is about transmitting your genes to the next generation. There are some recognized non-reproductive tendencies that can accomplish this, such as altruism, but it would be too far a reach to associate homosexuality in this category. Posit that the “homosexual gene” is a recessive allele of some sort. When two heterosexuals who each have a copy of the recessive allele mate, their is a chance an offspring of theirs could have the double recessive copy and become homosexual. This offspring will not produce any offspring of its own – the same thing as a lethal double recessive that kills an organism before it can reproduce.
So how come this hypothetical “homosexual gene” is not bred out of the population entirely? The answer is in the heterosexual “carriers” previously described, who can reproduce but nevertheless carry a recessive copy with them. This allows the recessive gene to exist without consequence a minority of the population, which slows down its elimination quite drastically.
In summary it is wrong to say that just because a minority of human beings are homosexual, there must be positive selection pressures that influence the human population this way.
“do real americans a favor and get a part time job as a speed bump for m-1 abrams tanks…”. Jeebus, Old One, please post a spew alert when you post. That almost cost me a monitor…..
Joey, is what you’re trying to say, that the “third” is who wants to “serve openly”? Otherwise, all I can get from your post is, “Huh”?
So, you’ve never, ever in your sheltered, non-military life, heard of a man or woman, who was not homosexual/lesbian being recruited? Is that what you’re saying, that one would have to be pre-disposed to be gay, for recruitment to work? Blackmail, shame or resignation wouldn’t do it, but pre-disposition would?
“Is that what you’re saying, that one would have to be pre-disposed to be gay, for recruitment to work? Blackmail, shame or resignation wouldn’t do it, but pre-disposition would?”
==========
Isn’t the claim of the LGBT movement that we are all “predisposed to be homosexual” (or at least bi-sexual)? I thought I’ve read that somewhere. And that is it part of the reason why the LGBT movement has pushed to get into schools and add sex education classes for kids as young as 2nd grade in order to ask them early on about homosexual disposition and convince them that it is quite okay and ‘normal’ to have those feelings. Recall Van Jones and his GLSEN organization and their indoctrination in our nation’s schools.
I’ve also read the discussion on this at Blackfive and it is very evident that the people pushing for DADT to be repealed are completely clueless about the overall LGBT agenda and movement. This is not about DADT, this is about a stepping stone the movement wants to use to push for the end of DOMA and the redefinition of marriage, as well as the redefinition of social norms.
Now, maybe McQ and Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive do not support that, but that is definitely what the movement behind the repeal of DADT supports. And for people to reject out of hand all arguments about “slippery slopes” and the overall LGBT movement/agenda is naive. This is all related. The movement is part of a complete fundamental change and redefinition of social norms. They are using the schools, the “entertainment” industry and now the military for their goals.
All that said, the Blackfive post by Grim has 104 comments. We’re only on 87 here. Slackers!
I left this comment in the thread at Blackfive, but it is applicable here as well. ===== You seem to think that this is all the LGBT movement wants. This is not the end of the line, but actually the first step. Back after Lawrence v Texas (2003), Justice Antonin Scalia gave his dissent and warned of the “slippery slope” of standards that would be changed from then forward: (3) That leaves, to distinguish the rock-solid, unamendable disposition of Roe from the readily overrulable Bowers, only the third factor. “[T]here has been,” the Court says, “no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding … .” Ante, at 16. It seems to me that the “societal reliance” on the principles confirmed in Bowers and discarded today has been overwhelming. Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation. See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabama’s prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that “[t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality … indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny”); Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that “[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality … rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms”); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F.3d 1126, 1136 (CA9 1997) (relying on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that “a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage”); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469—473 (Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional right to commit adultery). We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.,… Read more »
If the so called “LGBT” agenda is that they can come out of hiding in the shadows, what is wrong with that? Some (you?) would have them hide in fear and live a lie their entire lives just for your satisfaction. I hope those days are over.
Joe, seriously, you have no idea of the concept of, “prejudicial to good order and discipline,” do you? And no, I don’t mean the queen dressed up in assless chaps and a riding crop, although I’m sure that visual just gave you a rager. There are lots of people who aren’t qualified based on numerous criteria. What you and the rest of the rump rangers fail to recognize is that there are a lot of situations where being flamingly openly gay just ain’t helpful to accomplishing the mission. Sorry if that leaves you all butt-hurt, but there it is.
NHSparky,
I know red-blooded heterosexuals somehow do their job without interfering with “good order and disciplne”, and one would expect soldiers on the other side to do likewise, otherwise a) they probably would not have enlisted in the first place, and b) military rules and regs would be able to rectify the situation.
All this hoopla, but I bet a couple of years after DADT has been repealed we’ll all look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
Hey Joe…go on over to “The Sniper”,he has some pictures of me…BTW,when can we get our very own computer and stop using the one at work…the other asses keep making fun of me…
Heh heh heh…he said, “rectify”…heh heh heh…
Yeah, and when Joe and his butt-buddy get an ADSEP for blowing each other in the barracks, what’ll your excuse be then?
“I know red-blooded heterosexuals somehow do their job without interfering with “good order and disciplne”, and one would expect soldiers on the other side to do likewise,”. A minor point, there, Joey boy. Dan Choi ring any bells? Evelyn Thomas? Autumn Sandeen? Miriam Ben-Shalom, if indeed, that is her real name. What do they have in common, you ask. Why, at the time of their arrest, they were demonstrating at the White House. Would you call that “good order and discipline”? Or, is their behavior to be excused because they’re “gay”?
Not sure what you’re trying to say in #94 UpNorth, they were all arrested. Is it your contention then that Dan, Evelyn, et all are representative of the entire homosexual presence in the service?
If so, what do Pvt. Kenneth Markle, Corporal John Roger Saloy, PFC David Lawrence, or many, many others like them all have in common? And should their behavior be excused because they’re ‘straight’ or combat vets?
NHSparky,
I do my best to ignore the junior high kids who post on this site
IOW–you have no answer for what WILL (not if, but when) happen. Once again, you haven’t a fucking clue of which you speak.
Just great Sparky…now lil ol joey is all butt hurt …shame on you Sparky,you know these old hippie draft dodgers are a sensitive lot…go beat your face you bad,bad patriot you!!!…Then we go go grab a beer or three…I’ll buy…
Nope, Jacobite, that’s not what I said, now is it? Joey boy is making the point that the elimination of DADT will not have a deleterious effect on morale and unit cohesion.
My contention was that those named seem to feel that “their” cause is more important than anything the service may have to say about their activities.
Are we now discussing crime and punishment, or DADT, and the ramifications of it’s repeal?
It is what you said, that’s the problem. You responded to “I know red-blooded heterosexuals somehow do their job without interfering with “good order and discipline”, and one would expect soldiers on the other side to do likewise,” in a manner that says you believe the entire homosexual community is represented by Choi et al. Why do you believe they represent all homosexuals in the service? I may have missed something in the posts above, but I don’t remember Joe defending Choi and company’s actions nor do I believe that’s what he’s trying to do. As for what he has said about morale and unit cohesion, he did not say repealing DADT would have no effect, he did say he believed the men and women of the military are strong enough to over come any issues that arise, clearly indicating he knows there will be ripples. But I understand the purpose of your mischaracterization, no biggy.
If it is simply because you believe the homosexual preference, coupled with the asinine antics of Choi et. al. makes it so, then the same logic can be applied to say that the ex-soldiers I offered as examples are representative of the straight community or the combat veteran community and therefore illustrate why straights and vets shouldn’t be allowed to serve, countering the absurd, with the absurd.
And as for what “the service may have to say about their activities”, the majority of the service so far is saying it’s no big deal. I’ll concede the surveys were incomplete, but they could still have been answered by respondents in such a way as to show majority in the other direction. They weren’t. I’ll even concede this should have been more heavily surveyed amongst the combat troops. But it wasn’t.