Pentagon officially endorses an end to DADT, anti-gay bias
The results of the Pentagon’s ten-month assessment of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell have now been released. Here’s the money quote:
“Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the prompt implementation of the recommendations we offer below, the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low. We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting, and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below. Longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to core values of leadership, professionalism, and respect for all, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history.”
In remarks today, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates endorsed the report’s findings and strongly urged “the Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year.”
“Given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts,” Gates said, warning that a court-imposed change would be “by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can imagine, and the one most hazardous to military morale, readiness and battlefield performance.”
The country is ready. The military is ready. The time for waiting has passed; the time for acting has finally come.
“For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’” an impatient Martin Luther King Jr. wrote from the Birmingham jail. “It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied’.”
No more waiting. No more excuses.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
545 comments Add your comment
TaxPayer
November 30th, 2010
5:27 pm
Who put that burr in USMC Dawg’s thong?
jewcowboy
November 30th, 2010
5:27 pm
“Robert Gates just called out John McCain on whether he’s going to be the next version of George Wallace for the History Books”
Too late…
jewcowboy
November 30th, 2010
5:28 pm
Paul,
““Sweetheart?!!?””
Looks like someone is sweet on you
jewcowboy
November 30th, 2010
5:30 pm
Paul,
“THAT, I think, says more about the views of the straight guys when it comes to self control.”
Bingo!
josef nix
November 30th, 2010
5:32 pm
At the risk of bringing out our inresident anti-Semites…but have you military types taken into consideration the Israeli Defense Force…believe me, when your back is to the wall and you’re surrounded by unfriendly types who are hell bent on your elimination as a people, such bull hockey as being bandied about here becomes an abstract…
Paul
November 30th, 2010
5:32 pm
jewcowboy
Yeah, well, the Freudian stuff does bubble through, doesn’t it?
I always get a kick out of it when someone from one of the military branches speaks as if their procedures and ways of doing things are the same for all the services, and when someone else says “not necessarily” the response is “you ignorant person, you!”.
Scout
November 30th, 2010
5:35 pm
Paul:
There are people who experience “combat” in every one of the services including the Coast Guard. That can be from a plane, a ship, an artillery base, etc., etc.
But …… unless your job was to “close with and destroy the enemy” as infantry (eyeball to eyeball” it’s nothing near the same.
The former have experienced “combat” and we should honor that.
The latter were “warriors” in the purest sense of the word.
Paul
November 30th, 2010
5:36 pm
jewcowboy
I once observed to some guys who happened to be senior field grade officers that, given that most sexual exploitation offenses are about power, and given many had seen their contemporaries disciplined for using their positions of power to intimidate others for sexual favors, that maybe their opposition to gays openly serving was the realization some day a senior gay officer just might put the moves on them, just as straight officers had done for so long?
Needless to say, the conversation became a bit… strained.
Hey!! Golly gee, I know something else about the military!
And USMC Dawg must’ve missed my post about how men walking around in patent leather shoes or knee-high boots with puffy leg trousers strikes some people as stereotypically gay -
TnGelding
November 30th, 2010
5:37 pm
Wouldn’t it be better to wait until most of the troops have been withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan so the ones that feel deeply against it can seek a discharge without upsetting requirements?
Paul
November 30th, 2010
5:38 pm
Scout
I’d kinda put anyone who’s getting shot at and who’s part of a system that shoots back as having experienced combat. I see your one-on-one point, but I think it a matter of degree.
@@
November 30th, 2010
5:38 pm
That’s twice today you’ve tried to bait me, are you starved for attention?
Bosch was keeping count? I wasn’t…can’t even recall the first.
Taxpayer:
I used Bosch’s post to launch a frontal assault on Bosch. Bosch, on the other hand, likes to hide behind cowboy’s skirt.
Don’t take ^^^ that personally, cowboy. I’m pretty sure you don’t wear skirts.
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
5:40 pm
Oh my Gosh, you guys are taking it a little far aren’t you.
I stated an opinion from my experience and then you lashed out at me as homophobic.
And then you through in that you are all so intelligent, etc.
Unbelievable. All I did was state an opinion that you didn’t like. I told you my brother was gay and I have gay friends as well. But I don’t think they should be waving the Gay Flag in the Marine Corps.
md
November 30th, 2010
5:41 pm
“I was just pointing out that pre-existing condition doesn’t just mean waiting until you get sick and then buying insurance.”
Unfortunately, pre-existing condition means anything on your medical record since birth……….and there in lies the problem.
sally
November 30th, 2010
5:42 pm
Perhaps, if gay soldiers could have served openly in ‘Nam we wouldn’t have had our arses handed to us…
AmVet
November 30th, 2010
5:42 pm
Seventeen years on and some are STILL…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VjPPuias1k
Logical Dude
November 30th, 2010
5:42 pm
TnGelding says “Wouldn’t it be better to wait until most of the troops have been withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan so the ones that feel deeply against it can seek a discharge without upsetting requirements?”
Nope. Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
Scout
November 30th, 2010
5:44 pm
Paul:
You are correct …….. and it’s a “lot” of degree.
Scout
November 30th, 2010
5:46 pm
While we’re at it:
Should an openly gay police officer (or TSA employee) be allowed to search a person of the same sex?
RW-(the original)
November 30th, 2010
5:48 pm
Wouldn’t it be better to wait until most of the troops have been withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan so the ones that feel deeply against it can seek a discharge without upsetting requirements?
Then the excuse would be that we can’t do it because the then current wars in Iran and North Korea would make it a bad idea. The military has a long history of getting unpopular orders and making them work so to whatever extent this is unpopular it’s just too bad. DADT is almost by definition an excuse to kick the can down the road and the bridge out sign is now in view.
Besides, I’d feel a lot better if gay soldiers were being assimilated rather than stuck in front of a computer with classified document access and a stack of CD-RWs….alledgedly.
Logical Dude
November 30th, 2010
5:48 pm
USMC Dawg says: “But I don’t think they should be waving the Gay Flag in the Marine Corps.”
And guess what? They won’t be! They’ll be another Marine that “just happens to be gay” just like the other Marine that “just happens to have red hair” or “just happens to be hispanic”.
Yes, there will be the few who’ve never seen a gay person before, and being brought up to hate gays, may lash out at the Marine that “just happens to be gay”. For most other Marines, it’s about being American. It’s the few that still harbor bias that are worrisome, not the gays themselves because the gays are already there.
Logical Dude
November 30th, 2010
5:49 pm
Scout says “Should an openly gay police officer (or TSA employee) be allowed to search a person of the same sex?”
Yes. Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
josef nix
November 30th, 2010
5:49 pm
SCOUT
I’d rather have an openly gay one searching me than a closeted one…of course I don’t see what that has to do with the price of eggs in Funkiang. You straight folks slay me with this preconceived notion that we’re just waiting for the chance to cop a feel…talk about ego run wild…
Ragnar Danneskjöld
November 30th, 2010
5:49 pm
Everyone interested in the topic ought to take the time to parse the data. While the conclusions focus on the numbers of soldiers who are not particularly opposed to termination of DADT – not inherently invalid, although I despise absence of negative proof as a basis for action – one set of numbers that ought to give everyone pause are those across-the-board numbers who believe homosexuals bring any value to the military – as close to zero as it can be. There needs to be a really good sales job if this integration is going to work.
RW-(the original)
November 30th, 2010
5:50 pm
Damn, I went to all that trouble and the answer was just “nope”???
Paul
November 30th, 2010
5:50 pm
USMC Dawg
I didn’t see your comments as homophobic (well… most of them) but think your descriptions such as “wave the gay flag” a bit hyperbolic. I took your essential point to be combat effectiveness in land-based units would be degraded. The Commandant of the Marine Corps stated essentially the same view. However, when the Chairman of the JCS and the SecDef think such concerns are made out to be more than they are, and when they express, as the Marine Lt Col did, that they would work extra hard to set the example for the other services, well, I come down on the side of giving the Lt Col and the Corps a chance to prove themselves.
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
5:51 pm
Logical dude,
Who has never seen a gay person before? That sounds pretty condescending.
It’s not about being Gay. Do we mix men and women… and why not?
RW-(the original)
November 30th, 2010
5:52 pm
The TSA just needs to hire a bunch of really hot gropers and let us take our pick. Problem solved.
Paul
November 30th, 2010
5:53 pm
’cause USMC Dawg, doesn’t opposing the Chairman and SecDef on this mean some Marines think they’ll be given a tasking they can’t execute?
Ragnar Danneskjöld
November 30th, 2010
5:53 pm
Dear USMC Dawg @ 5:51, with that pithy ending argument to express perfectly why the sexual integration has been a mixed result, at best. I’m thinking that will have to be the template.
Adam
November 30th, 2010
5:54 pm
everyday American – lets see if the Democrats play to their base or to the majority of the country with Obamacare…..oh, we already know that answer…
Wow. Way to COMPLETELY miss the point. That misdirection tactic failed miserably.
Keep up the good fight! – How many sides can McCain flip to on DADT?
Granny Godzilla – I wonder about McCain and DADT. The embarrassing floppety flippety behavior….What’s really driving his opposition?
I think it’s funny now that he’s calling DADT a “working” tactic and that it’s something that was promised by an inexperienced president.
There you have it, he is against it because Obama promised to repeal it. It’s all about making Obama a one term president.
Ugh, no way am I reading through all 5 pages. Really though, what else needs to be said while still staying on topic?
josef nix
November 30th, 2010
5:55 pm
‘It’s not about being Gay. Do we mix men and women… and why not?”
Oy! So we’re a third and fourth gender?????
Hillbilly Deluxe
November 30th, 2010
5:56 pm
I don’t know if there was a TSA then, but I once got patted down in an airport by a female officer. She seemed to restrain herself quite well, even given that I’m as handsome, as I am.
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
5:56 pm
Paul,
I think what you missed is that while the Marine Corps will implement what they are told to, they will not be as effective. This is a political move from the left and the Gay community to “shove” their Gayness down everyone’s throats. I even Gay friendswho hate when other gays either fly the flag or draw attention to themselves for being gay. That’s all i am saying.
I believe that DADT will be done away with eventually. I personally like gay people, they are you and me (to a degree:-)
RW-(the original)
November 30th, 2010
5:57 pm
So we’re a third and fourth gender
And you thought dealing with whether it was a choice or not was a tough one.
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
5:58 pm
“Oy! So we’re a third and fourth gender?????”
Stop being so insecure Joseph, you know what I meant.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
November 30th, 2010
6:00 pm
I think all of us pro-military types can see hundreds of jobs homosexuals could perform in the military without harming unit cohesion. However, there are also hundreds of units performing jobs – arguably the most important ones – that could be gravely damaged by premature integration.
Back lines jobs – much of supply, much of intelligence – have no particular “unit cohesion” issues. Those are, admittedly, viewed as the second-class work in the military. I proposed the “pansy division” not entirely tongue-in-cheek. With our best ground fighters, words mean nothing, and actions mean everything; we need to give homosexuals a chance to prove their capacity without harming the unit cohesion of our regular forces.
Keep up the good fight!
November 30th, 2010
6:01 pm
Dawg…again your comment fail to address reality.
Do we mix men and women… and why not? Reality…we already mix homosexual and heterosexual men…we just tell them not to “tell.” Seems it has worked. The DADT issue is NOT about allowing gay men and women in the military. They are already there. The issue is what happens if there is a “tell”. The many many gay men and women that have served bravely and proudly, have earned numerous medals, have been in combat situations and have been extensively trained at taxpayer cost should be drummed out when there is a “tell.”
And the best you can do is say that somehow the knowledge of their sexual preference would NOW destroy the “espirit”…..
The report states, however, that of the 69 percent of service members who say they have knowingly worked with a gay or lesbian person, 92 percent stated that their unit’s “ability to work together” was “very good,” “good” or “neither good nor poor.”
josef nix
November 30th, 2010
6:01 pm
DAWG
Me? Insecure? Not in this lifetime! Seriously, what DO you mean?
RW
I want a lesbian to pat me down…no second guessing there!
md
November 30th, 2010
6:02 pm
Scout says “Should an openly gay police officer (or TSA employee) be allowed to search a person of the same sex?”
Actually, the one being patted down should have the option……..I may very well prefer a female vs a male, yet someone else’s preference is forced on me………..
Logical Dude
November 30th, 2010
6:03 pm
USMC Dawg: “Who has never seen a gay person before? That sounds pretty condescending”
It wasn’t meant to be. There are a great many who enlist from poor rural communities where homosexuality is so suppressed, and the religious environment so restrictive, that there are bound to be a few who have never knowingly met a gay person. Sure, they hear from the preacher how terrible a sin it is, and it’s an abomination and all. That’s how some people grow up.
When was the first person you met who was openly gay? (meaning, high school, college, first day at boot camp, etc)
Alas, the overwhelming majority of those who enlist really don’t care if someone is homosexual. Which is why letting gays serve openly is really going to be a collective yawn.
Paul
November 30th, 2010
6:03 pm
USMC Dawg
“I think what you missed is that while the Marine Corps will implement what they are told to, they will not be as effective”
I thought that’s what I said I thought your position was? And why I thought the Corps could be just as effective?
Y’know, there’ve been some in the Army who’ve maintained the Corps is an anachronism, served its purpose once, but in today’s environment the Army could just as easily perform the missions. If this becomes an issue, that the Army can forge ahead and retain effectiveness while the Corps can’t, that’ll just provide ammunition to those who say if the Corps can’t keep up, maybe it’s time to retire it and transfer the responsibilities to the Army.
On the issue of shoving their lifestyles down their throats, I’ve frankly been more disgusted with hetero guys (and this was before workplace harassment laws largely did away with it) who would shove their hetero exploits down eveyone’s throats than the gay people who went about their business in a professional manner.
Scout
November 30th, 2010
6:04 pm
Logical Dude:
You are not being logical.
1) Straight men are “attracted” to women even though they don’t want to grope all of them (especially the ugly ones). Therefore, they are not allowed to search them.
Gay men are “attracted” to men even though they don’t want to grope all of them. Therefore, they should not be allowed to search them.
Now, if you don’t agree with the above then #1 should also be changed. “That” would be logical.
Del
November 30th, 2010
6:04 pm
USMC DAWG@4:41, you can relate to this but just a question for our liberal friends who didn’t serve. Within the military units insults are throwing out most often in a joking manner but sometimes in a hostile manner. They can become quite personal even when joking. It’s unacceptable within the unwritten culture for a subordinate to go up the chain and register a complaint that they’ve been personally insulted by a fellow soldier because you’re expected to handle those issues yourself. I’m wondering what disciplinary provisions if any that may be instituted for handling personal insults that may and probably will not infrequently be directed at a homosexual military member. Will some soldier, sailor, airman whose a homosexual and on the receiving end of insults commit suicide because of it, or write his or her congressman and by doing so, launch congressional hearings and investigations that result in demands for more legislation and oversight of military policy. I’m wondering if the unintended consequence of repealing DADT, which I believe is good legislation, might open up a can of worms that could be extremely damaging to our national security? And for what purpose beyond political vote pandering.
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
6:04 pm
Listen, I know of gay friends and/or colleagues thatare as good or better, but we are talking about an institution that we have to have some common denominators.
There is a reason why women are not included in the Draft. Does that mean that there are no women that can kick ass and go to war? heck no. but we have to have common denominators. If we drafted ALL women, would that fly? That’s what I thought.
carlosgvv
November 30th, 2010
6:06 pm
I saw a report on PVT Manning today. He is the person who is accused of giving Wikileak all those documents. He is also gay and was constantly being harrased and bullied by other soldiers. Maybe the military is not the best place to carry out social experiments. You have to see things as they really are and not necessarly as you would like them to be.
robert
November 30th, 2010
6:07 pm
I’ve had a few fingers male&female up my tush for pre-op and physicals over the past couple of years and could care less if a homo/hetero did the deed as long as they was gentle…
josef nix
November 30th, 2010
6:07 pm
USMC
The Israelis draft everybody and works pretty well for them….
RW-(the original)
November 30th, 2010
6:08 pm
I want a lesbian to pat me down
Don’t we all….
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
6:09 pm
Del @ 6:04 You are spot on.
If a straight Marine gets in a fight with a Gay Marine and says the word “Fag”, are we going to apply the HATE crime laws against that person?
Listen, men are less effective right now around women in the military.
They walk around on egg shells because a woman can say a man “looked” at her “funny” and the man gets “slammed” with sexual harassment. His career goes straight down the drain.
@@
November 30th, 2010
6:09 pm
Will the transgendered recruits get to choose from two different uniforms? An occasional skirt and then the trousers when the mood strikes?
schnirt
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
6:11 pm
The Israelis draft everybody and works pretty well for them….
Josef, we are not Israel and they HAVE to because they are so small.
We live in a litigious society and have different challenges than Israel.
If your friend jumped off a mountain, would you? That’s what I thought.
Logical Dude
November 30th, 2010
6:11 pm
carlosgvv says ‘I saw a report on PVT Manning today. He is the person who is accused of giving Wikileak all those documents. He is also gay and was constantly being harrased and bullied by other soldiers”
First I’ve heard of it, can you provide a cite? Thanks!
(but then, I don’t always keep up with every news item)
Jay
November 30th, 2010
6:11 pm
USMC, when you cite your military experience in arguing that ending DADT will make combat units less effective, you then have to explain why others with similar or greater experience believe otherwise. The implication that you’ve tried to draw that those with firsthand knowledge agree with you while those without firsthand knowledge disagree is plainly false.
For example, one of the two main co-authors of the study is Gen. Carter F. Ham. He joined the 82nd Airborne as an enlisted man and rose up to the rank of four-star.
“I’m not just a co-chair, I’m a commander, so if this [policy] changes, I’ve got to do this,” Ham told The Washington Post. “I can’t put my signature on something that’s contrary to what I think. If I didn’t believe what’s in that report, I wouldn’t have signed it.”
On another point, by using insults such as “pansy” and citing this absolute baloney about gay flags, etc., you do lead your readers to believe that your true underlying motivation re: DADT has nothing to do with a logical assessment of unit effectiveness and a lot to do with what’s between your own two ears.
Lieutenant Dan
November 30th, 2010
6:12 pm
Too bad Eve had to tempt Adam and screw it up, I’d love to see a bunch of naked marines in a tickle pile giving as good as they get.
josef nix
November 30th, 2010
6:13 pm
RW
You’re just too weird! What is it with straight men and lesbians? Or straight women and f*ggots? I don’t get it…like shall seek like according to the Good Book!
Scout
November 30th, 2010
6:14 pm
md @ 6:02
Then all gays/lesbians must be identified so your choice can be implemented.
@@
November 30th, 2010
6:14 pm
Whenever I fly out of Vallapraiso in Ft. Walton, I get a pat down. Everytime…without fail. It’s a small regional airport (3? 5? gates). I’m gonna start noticing if the TSA who pats me down is the same woman?
Something that I’m not aware of could be going on.
Logical Dude
November 30th, 2010
6:15 pm
Del says “Within the military units insults are throwing out most often in a joking manner but sometimes in a hostile manner”
And there is already a protocol in place for when things get out of hand. I’m sure the report above also has extra protocols that can be put in place for these instances. Again, they expected this, and the findings are that the issues will be few and far between.
josef nix
November 30th, 2010
6:17 pm
USMC
@ 6:11
You are right that they HAVE to…we can afford the luxury of bigotry, prejudice, bias and what have you…
And Israel is NOT litigious…? Oooooh, so many lines, so little time…
Logical Dude
November 30th, 2010
6:17 pm
josef nix asks: What is it with straight men and lesbians?
It’s the hope that one of them is bi and the possibility of a threesome. (another edition of simple answers to simple questions) LOL
AmVet
November 30th, 2010
6:18 pm
The mental masturbation and gymnastics that some of you go through on this matter is truly remarkable.
I think you stuck-in-the-1950s reactionaries should impanel a panel that would then impanel a second panel that would then select the final panel to consider whether or not just to forget the entire reason for the impaneling.
That should take another seventeen years or so…
Keep up the good fight!
November 30th, 2010
6:20 pm
Listen, men are less effective right now around women in the military
In Kam’s absence, I help……. there’s your sign.
They walk around on egg shells because a woman can say a man “looked” at her “funny” and the man gets “slammed” with sexual harassment. His career goes straight down the drain
And the bullcrap victimization award goes too…….(arf, arf). The same unsupported claims are made in the corporate world about women, race, etc……
@@
November 30th, 2010
6:21 pm
josef:
What is it with straight men and lesbians? Or straight women and f*ggots?
I’ve given that question a lot of thought. We can enjoy the opposite sex without fear of rejection or a need to play silly games. We don’t have to be on (no pun intended).
Ironic, ain’t it?
Paul
November 30th, 2010
6:21 pm
josef
“The Israelis draft everybody and works pretty well for them….”
I was wondering when that would come up –
USMC Dawg
“Josef, we are not Israel and they HAVE to because they are so small.”
Size does matter is the final argument?!!?
Sorry… too good to leave alone…
@@
“Whenever I fly out of Vallapraiso in Ft. Walton, I get a pat down. Everytime…”
It’s the stilettos, @@ -
fred
November 30th, 2010
6:21 pm
How ’bout different unit for all our phobia’s
RW-(the original)
November 30th, 2010
6:22 pm
josef,
I think it’s more the prison shower scene types I’m thinking of. Not the ones with the same five letter name that were so prevalent at early Melissa Ethridge shows. I’d put some of them on the front lines right now, whether it was war or football.
@@
November 30th, 2010
6:23 pm
And then there’s Logical Dude’s answer.
Men can be both participant and spectator. The ultimate in sports.
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
6:26 pm
Jay,
Your condescending Pseudo-intellctualism is charming.
There will always be LOTS of differing opinions from mine. I’m ok with that. And no, I don’t need to explain anyone elses opinions. I disagree with you there.
But don’t pretend to know what you are talking about when it comes to the military. You clearly don’t.
You are merely cutting and pasting from Huffington Post EVERYDAY.
And I notice that you don’t police the Lib crowd on their insults.
I don’t want to be banned from your blog, so i won’t use the word pansy anymore.
I agree to disagree with you. I like you. I deplore your politics.
But It is your blog and I want to respect your rules. Is the word “pansy” that offensive?
Logical Dude
November 30th, 2010
6:28 pm
USMC Dawg asks: Is the word “pansy” that offensive?
I like “Namby Pamby” like Gunny Ermey says in the Geico commercial.
Del
November 30th, 2010
6:28 pm
Logical Dude says “Again, they expected this, and the findings are that issues will be few and far between.” That’s illogical because “they” can’t foresee all of the unintended consequences simply from a survey that was sent out to members of the military. Most of them weren’t even returned. The issue is far too complex and Gates even alluded to the fact that he, himself had concerns. This Pentagon survey is going to be riddled in Congress.
Scout
November 30th, 2010
6:28 pm
Jay ……. seriously:
1) Do you know if the report was broken down by service branch and/or military occupational specialty?
2) If a women going through an airport checkpoint has “the right” NOT to be searched by a man, doesn’t a straight man have the same right regarding a gay man?
dale
November 30th, 2010
6:28 pm
Only real American heteros can get a hard-on for soldiering.
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
6:28 pm
Paul at 6:21
Now that was funny.
josef nix
November 30th, 2010
6:28 pm
Okay, ask a question, get an answer (or several!)
But I still have trouble understanding this straight male thing about gay men wanting a piece…I’m like Walter and the 72 virgins…shoot, give me somebody who knows what they’re doing!
md
November 30th, 2010
6:29 pm
“We can enjoy the opposite sex without fear of rejection……..”
I can tell you didn’t grow up as an insecure young boy when it was “tradition” for the boy to do all the asking……………
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
6:29 pm
“I like “Namby Pamby” like Gunny Ermey says in the Geico commercial”
Logical Dude,
We are finally in agreement on something.
Scout
November 30th, 2010
6:30 pm
Excuse me: “woman”
Bruno
November 30th, 2010
6:30 pm
josef–A musical salute for your celebration today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVW9sOsXAjU
Paul
November 30th, 2010
6:33 pm
USMC Dawg
“But don’t pretend to know what you are talking about when it comes to the military.”
You tend to toss that out when others disagree. Didn’t the military have a saying about ASS-uming?
Seems to me your perspective and knowledge isn’t about “the military.” It’s about a small part of the military – The Marine Corps – as well as a restricted part of that, of a time that’s evidently passed by.
So it may be more accurate for you to say (assuming you have a basis in knowledge) “you clearly don’t know about the Marine Corps, the small unit part, circa 1980 (or whenever).
sally
November 30th, 2010
6:35 pm
There aren’t any atheists in foxholes because they are smart enough not to be tricked into fighting dumb wars over material things and realize gawd like santa is mythology.
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
6:35 pm
Any of you guys need a visual of the flag waiving I am refering to?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/dadt-repeal-endorsed-in-p_n_789916.html
That is all I was refering to.
Jay
November 30th, 2010
6:35 pm
Scout:
1.) Yes, it does. There’s a link to the report itself in my post, so you can see for yourself.
2.) I learned long ago not to be lured down one of your rabbit holes.
Paul
November 30th, 2010
6:36 pm
josef nix
“But I still have trouble understanding this straight male thing about gay men wanting a piece”
I think it has something to do with the straight male condition.
http://tinyurl.com/2wj57ku
TGT
November 30th, 2010
6:37 pm
What a shame that our military is being used as a tool to legitimize homosexual behavior.
“George Washington, the nation’s first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.
General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military…
It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws–the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:
What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . .
I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; “peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum” (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: “ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei” (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).
Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, “dismemberment” of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration.”
But what do men–excuse me, bigots–like Washington, Jefferson, and Blackstone know?
md
November 30th, 2010
6:38 pm
Well, Sally just went on the naughty list……….one less stop this year.
Jay
November 30th, 2010
6:38 pm
USMC, how can I cut and paste from a site I almost never visit?
And if you have evidence to the contrary — after all, cutting and pasting ought to be easy to track, using Google — go ahead and post it to prove me wrong.
Otherwise, stop making accusations that you have no hope of backing up.
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
6:39 pm
Paul@ 6:33
“Seems to me……..”?
Paul, I am noticing a trend in your posts.
When you don’t have the experience to know something you use phrases like this.
“Seems to me….”
just saying
Jay
November 30th, 2010
6:40 pm
and no, “pansy” is not by any means a word that will get you banned. That wasn’t the point at all.
Scout
November 30th, 2010
6:40 pm
Jay:
1) Thank you
2) The civil suits are already out there on this subject. We’ll see.
md
November 30th, 2010
6:40 pm
“I think it has something to do with the straight male condition.”
Boy, I need to get me one of those mirrors in your link……….mine is way too honest.
Del
November 30th, 2010
6:41 pm
Jay,
Since you read the report you must have noted the concern Gates shared with military chiefs regarding resistance within the “Combat Arms”.
TaxPayer
November 30th, 2010
6:42 pm
If we’d just go ahead and privatize the military, then this becomes a moot issue. For example, Hessians-R-US Inc., a limited reliability corporation based in Delaware and thus subject to US antidiscriminatory law has no issues with employment of persons or non-persons of any race, creed, color, sex, sexual preference, etc., so long as one meets the demanding physical requirements that may or may not apply to one’s position and all positions are negotiable but only during the semi-bi-annual open enrollment period. So you see, government jobs just create far too many hassles whereas private industry eliminates said hassles.
AmVet
November 30th, 2010
6:42 pm
Bruno, that same imitable trio joined up with their (sometimes long lost) fourth partner…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9cHkX5Ng2o
Paul
November 30th, 2010
6:42 pm
TGT
“Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier;”
So General Washington was aghast that a commissioned officer would sexually harass an enlisted person? And the officer was drummed out of the service? Good!
Too bad we can’t go back to those standards. Now, when senior officers sexually harass their subordinates into granting sexual favors, the officers are told to retire and collect their pensions.
Jay
November 30th, 2010
6:44 pm
OK, TGT, now post what Washington did to one of his slaves when he or she tried to escape.
And then tell us about his reaction to the idea of women — WOMEN!!?? — getting to vote.
Paul
November 30th, 2010
6:45 pm
USMC Dawg
That’s one interpretation of ’seems to me.” Another is, what I’m expressing is an opinion, open to revision, and that to write in a declarative style on such matters is, to me, indicative of being just a bit too full of oneself.
md
November 30th, 2010
6:46 pm
“Most Democrats maintain that earmarks are a legitimate way to direct taxpayer money to their constituents. ”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101130/ap_on_bi_ge/us_senate_earmark_ban
Well of course……how else would they be able to buy votes………..
Jay
November 30th, 2010
6:46 pm
I did, Del. He made that clear, as did the report.
They also made it clear that the problem could and would be handled.
Scout
November 30th, 2010
6:46 pm
Well, I must leave you to your debate for the evening.
No doubt, at some point “Don’t Assk, Don’t Tail” will go down the tube (no pun intended).
Our military will be less than it could be (whatever that is).
The country will follow.
USMC Dawg
November 30th, 2010
6:47 pm
Lighten up Frances….
I apologize for accusing you of cutting and pasting.
I just notice EVERYDAY that the topics you cover are prominantly displayed on Huffington Post. (must be coincidence)
But I take back my comment on cutting and pasting. I was wrong to say that. You are correct I can’t prove that.
I must have touched a nerve when I told you that you don’t know about the military, didn’t I?
I will log off for the night. Sorry for rubbing you the wrong way.