-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Philip Klein has argued yet again for openly gay military service. “As somebody who doesn’t view gayness as a big deal one way or the other,” Klein wrote yesterday, “I honestly have trouble seeing the problem with allowing gays to openly serve in the military.”
Klein, I believe, is an honorable man. His indifference to this issue is no doubt sincere and, unfortunately, widely shared by many on the Right. So let me try to explain why conservatives such as myself — especially those who serve in the U.S. military, and in particular the combat arms — are so riled by this issue.
First off, our opposition to openly gay military service has nothing to do with fear or prejudice against homosexuals. Yet this line of argument has been propagated and accepted by the cultural and policy elite. Hence the Pentagon’s silly effort to “study” the issue so as to better understand the “feelings” of military service personnel.
But you don’t need a study to realize that the vast majority of our military personnel don’t give a damn if you’re gay. By the same token, however, most military personnel recognize that being gay is not at all like being black, Jewish, Hispanic or Asian. And the reason, as Colin Powel observed in 1993, is simple:
Skin color [and ethnicity are] benign, non-behavioral characteristic[s]. Sexual orientation, [by contrast], is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.
Yet Klein and the cultural and policy elite suggest that sexual yearnings and sexual appetites are of no consequence. After all, they argue, so long as we enforce strict codes of conduct, there will be no problems with openly gay military service.
Please. Only someone who has never served in the U.S. military and who has never been to high school or college could make such a ludicrous argument. Sexual yearnings and sexual appetites are of tremendous consequence; and they profoundly shape human behavior.
I could cite examples from my own modest experience as a Marine to show specifically how and why sexual dynamics (between men and women) adversely shape behavior and disrupt teamwork and unit effectiveness. My experience, however, is not atypical.
Suffice it to say that how military personnel feel about gay men and women is utterly irrelevant. What matters greatly is the introduction of an overt sexual dynamic into an overwhelmingly young and healthy male population. The problem with openly gay military service is that it puts the full force of law behind this dynamic while dishonestly pretending that sexuality doesn’t affect human behavior.
Yet ironically, Klein writes, “My political philosophy also leads me to believe that issues of sexual morality aren’t the concern of government, which means that on some issues I reach the same conclusions as liberals…”
Well, give Klein credit for honesty. He’s not afraid to admit that he’s at one with the Left on social issues. But if issues of sexual morality aren’t the concern of government — and I quite agree that they are not — then why is Klein urging the government to grant special legal protection to homosexuals? Why does he think homosexuals should be singled out for special protective status?
After all, gay men and women can and do serve now in the U.S. military — provided they keep their private sexual lives private. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, says this policy (‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’) is wrong because it forces gay men and women to “lie” about their sexual status.
But that’s not really true — or at least the policy is not as bad or as onerous as Adm. Mullen suggests. Most commanders, after all, are loath to initiate separation procedures against a gay military member unless and until that member makes an issue of their sexuality.
In fact, the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy requires gay men and women to be discreet about their sexual status. Big deal. Excuse me for not thinking that this is a terrible and grave injustice wrongly inflicted upon patriotic lesbians and homosexuals.
In any case, the issue is not one of sexual morality (though unlike Klein, I do think morality matters); it is one of human nature, human behavior and group dynamics. Heterosexual dynamics within the military certainly can be, and often are, disruptive. However, homosexual dynamics would be even more disruptive given most people’s natural antipathy toward homosexual acts.
A shared sense of manhood, after all, is integral to the military culture, especially in the combat arms. But what happens to that culture when it becomes known as a hospitable redoubt for gay men and women? It would be naïve to think that this won’t have an effect on recruiting, retention and combat effectiveness.
Yet, Klein decries conservatives’ “inordinate focus on homosexuality.” Would that it were so! In fact, as Klein well knows, most conservatives have been reticent to oppose the gay lobby. Their reticence is attributable in part to crass political motives (the omnipotent polls show that everyone’s now in favor of so-called gay rights), and in part to the fact that many conservatives have bought into the propaganda and deception of the gay lobby.
But before we force a dramatic policy change and cultural transformation upon the U.S. military, we might want to reflect deeply upon human nature and human sexuality, and their effects upon human behavior: Because the reality is that we are not automatons; we are sentient beings. And our sentient nature profoundly affects individual behavior and group dynamics, and not always for the better.
View all comments (31) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/08/dont-ask-philip-klein-about-do
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
randyinrocklin| 6.8.10 @ 11:43AM
The true colors of Mr. Klein's liberal slant is coming out like Helen Thomas's anti-Semitism. I quit reading Klein a while now. He's another phony RINO!
Bill| 6.8.10 @ 11:51AM
I wonder if John Guardiano could speak a little about what life is like for the kind of human being whose greatest contribution to planet Earth will be his eternal exit from it.
Crusader| 6.8.10 @ 11:58AM
I served for 21 years. Let me tell you, it is bad enough that women are deployed alongside men in the ME. I can not tell you how many marriages and families I saw torn apart because allegedly "honorable" officers and NCOs get deployed and act like they are in a frigging frat house. It isn't the "seperation" that causes all the divorces, its what the members DO while seperated.
I can't imagine throwing openly gay folks into that already combustable, destructive situation.
For all these media types who are OK with this and who have never served, you really need to go enlist. While the discipline and readiness of the force has declined slightly, the American Military is still LIGHT YEARS better than our Euro-weenie counterparts. Now, if you want us to become as undisciplined and lazy as say the Dutch or Italians or whatever, by all means let's keep going do wn this path.
longcabin| 1.5.11 @ 12:37PM
Hey Joe, still live in Arlington, VA. Not far from me, maybe we will get together...Pagaens Rule!
Joe Gafman| 6.8.10 @ 12:40PM
Guardino's arguments, like so many of the theoretical arguments made against gays serving honestly and honorably in the military, suffers from one, tiny (well, obviously not so tiny) detail -- the reality on the ground. There are thousands of known gays serving right now, in both theaters of war, known to their peers and sometimes even to their commands. And the net result is --- no big deal. There is obviously no demonstrable detriment to unit morale, unit cohesion or combat readiness, despite the known presence of all these gay soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen.
What facts back up this reality? Every poll of military service members, both scientifically valid polls and not scientifically valid polls, shows the same thing. A 2006 Zogby International poll of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans found 68% of them either knew for certain or suspected there were gays in their own unit, and the majority of these troops said that knowledge was widely known by the other members of the unit. 73% of these troops also said they were comfortable working alongside gay and lesbian peers.
A 2010 Vet Voice Foundation poll (conducted jointly by both a Democratic and Republican polling agency) found the same thing: 57% of the troops said they thought there were gay members of their own unit, and 73% of them said they were comfortable working with gay peers.
Both of the above polls were scientifically valid polls. Another poll which was not considered scientifically valid, but which found the same results, was the Military Times poll of its subscribers in 2010. That poll also found 57% of the respondents said they knew there were gay members of their own unit, and interestingly, 11% said their chain of command was aware of the these gay troops and weren't doing anything to kick them out.
So, the reality on the ground conclusively demonstrates that there already are lots of known gay troops serving right now, and it's NOT hurting the military in any way. Thus, why continue a law that requires the military to kick out anyone who is known to be gay, to terminate a valuable, experienced member of a unit for no other reason than somebody happens to find out they're gay?
Time to repeal DADT and relegate to the dustbin of history alongside other sad chapters of discrimination, like segregated military units in the 40s, and huge prohibitions against female service members on Navy and Coast Guard vessels and in all of the Service Academies.
Capt G| 6.8.10 @ 3:33PM
How much of the article did you actually read, Joe?
The point you make is one that merely strengthens the author's claim that preserving DADT is preferable. It's not like segregation (read the Powell quote) and you obviously have no experience with how the integration of women into combat units has worked out.
Sexual tension is rampant where women are deployed with men and that is with separated living quarters. Presumably we're going to separate the sexes further? Into four, maybe six groups? When you repeal DADT you also commit to an open acknowledgment of the service-person's sexual orientation and you must make accommodations for it, under law! Women and men found themselves in combat and close quarters situations prior to their integration into combat roles. But we did not have to provide separate facilities, etc...for them because that occurrence was due to mere happenstance and not official policy. Make it official policy and everyone gets their own latrine or head.
The presence of women already reduces combat readiness and effectiveness. The military brass, as PC a group as can be found, is loathe to admit it and they'll not be reliable witnesses for the repeal of DADT. They're lying about women and they'll lie about gays.
And my class was the first class at the first service academy to admit women. Prior to that, I thought as you do. Reality prevailed.
Nick| 6.8.10 @ 3:58PM
Excellent points, Capt. G.
Only those who have served, and are honest about it, know that this will be a disaster. Based on the defective policy of putting women in combat units. And, for not keeping women segregated, like they used to be, in the first place.
D. in Texas| 6.9.10 @ 9:17PM
I'm sorry but you can make as many "arguments" (excuses) as you want to. The fact remains that human beings are being discriminated against and it has to stop. Arguing that you'd have to have separate latrines, or more sleeping quarters is just muddying the water here. This is a human rights issue. It's also true that gays and lesbians have always served with dignity in our armed forces. It's time to stop punishing them for being who they are.
Time to repeal DADT!
Alessandra| 6.12.10 @ 3:40PM
"The fact remains that human beings are being discriminated against and it has to stop. "
What a hypocrite.
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/HE.....index.html
Paul Crane said he lost everything when he was kicked out of the Army after 15 years — for being 8 pounds overweight.
Every year, between 3,000 and 5,000 service members such as Crane are forced to leave the military for being too fat.
——
So what about the fatties?
Although there’s a difference between someone who sits behind a desk all day and someone whose work involves physical activity, it’s completely discriminatory to discharge someone with a sedentary job because they ate a few more Twinkies.
I don’t see pro-homos crying about how unjust it is that good men and women who had a few more chocolate bars were expelled from the military, if they were in sedentary jobs. Additionally, fatties don’t harass other people in the showers because of their overweight condition, and fat men don’t get military women pregnant because of their preference for two large fries.
There were a lot more chunky people that were discharged than DADT cases, but are liberals wailing and putting on their drama queen shows about it?
No, they can care less. That's the Left and their great concern about Discrimination.
longcabin| 1.5.11 @ 12:35PM
Hey Joe, still live in Arlington, VA. Not far from me, maybe we will get together...Pageans rule!
Oldefarte| 6.8.10 @ 1:17PM
If you want to know what the end effect of open homosexuality will have upon the military, take a look at the Catholic Church today [as a result of the pedifelic priests' predatory assaults upon children, and the financial ruination as a result of same]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SilentJ| 6.8.10 @ 3:02PM
I agree that "don't ask, don't tell" should be a passively inert force when it comes to military discipline. I don't want to hear about ANY person's sexual exploits while I'm at work. Professional and personal lives should be separate. That's part of being disciplined.
However, I thoroughly disagree when you say that commands are loathe to pursue discharge for service members under this policy. How naive of you! Thousands of LGB service members have been other-than-honorably discharged under this policy and I would bet my salary that the vast majority were hunted out, turned in out of spite. I will also bet the same salary that thousands more serve honorably and choose not to reenlist because they decide they can no longer lie about who they are. Yes, another point on which we disagree...they do, in fact, have to lie about their lives. Imagine going to work on Monday and being asked about your weekend. You might say, "My wife and I saw a movie that was really good" or "My girlfriend and I went to a party" or something along those lines. A simple enough answer that goes unquestioned. But for the gay or lesbian service member to say "I went out with my boy/girlfriend" (still a simple enough answer) they would be putting their entire career on the line. And so, they must either lie to your face or isolate themselves...both options leading to a sense of shame and lonliness.
As for sexual crimes...the vast majority are performed by heterosexual men. Period.
If a person is willing to put his or her life on the line for God and Country and is willing to serve with integrity, why should any aspect of who they are be questioned? Why should they be placed in constant fear, not of an honorable death, but of the dishonor of discharge based on the simple fact that they are attracted to a man or a woman?
Capt G| 6.8.10 @ 3:44PM
Modest people keep their private lives to themselves and so, do not have to brag about what they did over the weekend with their lover, male or female. A point you assert for your own self while enroute to finding it a burden for others.
People join and leave the military for a wide variety of reasons. So many reasons that we really don't have very good numbers on any of them. In your assertions on retention, re-enlistment, and discharge from the military over homosexuality you have no numbers; just an assertion based upon what you guess must be the case. It's not even a SWAG.
Tim| 6.8.10 @ 4:20PM
You make the most persuasive arguments of any I have seen posted here.
Sheila| 6.8.10 @ 3:15PM
"Don't believe in legislating morality," "gays placed in constant fear," yada yada yada ad nauseam. Let's all ignore the basic issue here once again, as admirably explicated by Mr. Guardiano. The question is not whether or not gays serve, it is one of official advocacy and support of open homosexual acts and behavior in a closed society with a specific mission. Silent J, boo hoo hoo, we ALL lie about certain aspects of our lives. I'm so terribly sorry that you find reality difficult to deal with - and no, the vast majority of sexual crimes are not performed by heterosexual men. Get out from behind your purple lenses.
Nick| 6.8.10 @ 3:44PM
I agree that DADT should be repealed.
And, it should go back to the way it was before Bubba the pervert instituted it. The way it was when I served ('88-'92).
If a homo was caught in the act, they were kicked out. That worked pretty well for the U.S. military since it's inception.
kingsmill| 6.8.10 @ 4:51PM
Beltway "conservatives" are on board with repeal of DADT because ignoring the radical culture change spearheaded by the gay movement makes their lives so much easier.
There is a price to be paid in opposing the gay movement. Remaining a principled conservative comes with a a high price to be paid, especially in terms of social acceptance.
A central precept of authentic conservatism is a distrust of egalitarianism. The sexual egalitarianism of the homosexual movement is acceptable to the beltway and establishment "conservatives" who litter our public life, because it makes their social and professional lives much easier.
Marcos| 6.8.10 @ 5:43PM
The primitive, minority-held views of those against openly gay and bisexual Americans serving their country through military service is not just undermined by today's polls and the enlightened attitudes of today's young soldiers. They are also undermined by the experience of the overwhelming majority of Western countries today that allow gays and bisexuals to serve openly without any detriment to the morale, cohesion, and recruitment of the service, including the UK, Israel, Argentina, and Spain. In fact, the integration of openly gay and bisexual servicemembers has been so successful that many countries purposely recruit gays and bisexuals, as Australia now does.
D in Texas| 6.9.10 @ 10:33AM
It's time to repeal DADT!
I'm a conservative. I take exception with your editorial and feel you need to be educated!
"You don't need a study to realize that the vast majority of our military personnel don't give a damn if you're gay." That should be the end of the discussion here.
You don't equate this kind of discrimination to that of racial discrimination because racial discrimination is just about skin color and being gay means you have different "behavior characteristics." Behavior characteristics? Do you mean like heterosexuals who can be psychopaths? Or just mean-spirited a$$es?
You disagree with the statement made by Klein that "sexual yearnings and sexual appetites are of no consequence." Then we definitely shouldn't have heterosexual men and women serving together!
You argue that we shouldn't introduce an "overt sexual dynamic into an overwhelmingly young and healthy male population." But women serve alongside of men! That's not an overt sexual dynamic?
Where have you been? Gays have always been serving in our military! We're not introducing anything. We just want them to be able to serve without some jerk coming along and outting them and ruining their careers. We want them to be able to have families like everyone else does. I'm not sure where you have been that you have seen an "overt sexual dynamic" coming from the gay population. Sounds like you're just afraid of your own personal boogey man.
Your hypocrisy astounds me. You think it is better for honorable men and women to lie about who they are so you can feel better?
And I love this one: "A shared sense of manhood, after all, is integral to the military culture, especially in the combat arms." Wow. Manhood! Most of the gay men I know are more of a man than you'll ever be. I would bet your next week's salary that I could put you in a room with a bunch of gay soldiers and you wouldn't be able to pick them out. Do you honestly think they are doing each others' hair at night? And don't get me started on the women who are in the armed forces. I'm sure they're waiting to hear your judgement on their "manhood."
Repealing DADT will NOT "force a dramatic policy change and cultural transformation upon the U.S. Military". It will only allow those serving honorably to be 100% honorable. It will (finally) bring about equality.
Mr. Guardiano, people don't "choose" to be gay. They are born gay. As my sister (who is gay) once said to me, "why would anybody choose a lifestyle where they are shunned? where they have to hide who they are at work? A lifestyle that may prevent them from getting a job that they want, or would make some people turn away from them? What would be the motivation to make that choice?" So to you I say, I hope that someone close to you is gay, or that a beloved grandchild is born gay. Then you will know what being gay is all about and why they are no different from the rest of the population. Equal rights for all. It's time.
Joe Gafman| 6.9.10 @ 10:46AM
Great comments, D in Texas. You are exactly right. Not only do the vast majority of Americans support repeal of DADT (80% by the most recent poll), but overwhelmingly, the majority of young Americans support repeal of DADT (91% of the 18-29 age group according to a Gallup poll on DADT).
Furthermore, in repeating the polling data of CURRENT troops, the majority already knows or suspects they're serving with gays, and many commands know about them too. And it is obviously not proving to have ANY detrimental effects of operational readiness. That is game, set, and match on the issue. KNOWN GAYS ARE SERVING NOW -- and where are the problems? Show me the data -- show me the evidence that our combat effectiveness is degraded with all these known gays serving openly now.
Joe Gafman| 6.9.10 @ 10:52AM
The very first American casualty of the Iraq War was a gay Marine, SSGT Eric Alva. He was known to be gay by others in his unit when they went into battle together on the first day of the war. His leg was blown off by a land mine, and his Purple Heart was personally presented to him by the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps. His being gay didn't bother the other Marines in his unit -- he was medically retired from the USMC, not kicked out for being gay. If SSGT Alva can serve openly, and his unit functioned just fine in battle, why kick anyone out for being gay?
Paul Cross| 6.10.10 @ 9:18AM
The author is wrong on several fronts.
First, he said “our opposition to openly gay military service has nothing to do with fear or prejudice against homosexuals.”
Logically, there are people who ARE basing their opinions off of preconceived notions fear and prejudice; for example the assumption that every person from an entire group is bad and each and every one of them from that group will negatively affect the military. Since these people who’re assuming this have yet to meet, let alone get to know all these gay and lesbian service members, then they are in fact prejudging and entire group of people. They are basing their opinions off of prejudice, preconceived notions, and fear; NOT facts.
They are forming an opinion beforehand. The dictionary states prejudice is “a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes and an irrational dislike of someone, an unfounded hatred, fear, or mistrust of a person or group, especially one of a particular religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexual preference, or social status.
The people forming these opinions prior to knowing the actual facts are basing their opinions on their fear and prejudice. Thus the author is clearly in error.
Next he said “most military personnel recognize that being gay is not at all like being black, Jewish, Hispanic or Asian. And the reason, as Colin Powel observed in 1993, is simple: Skin color [and ethnicity are] benign, non-behavioral characteristic[s]. Sexual orientation, [by contrast], is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”
His argument is a straw man fallacy because the comparison is not between the characteristics but between the discrimination against an entire group of people who possess said characteristics. Since religion is also a behavioral characteristic, then by the author’s logic, it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against atheists, or Baptists, or Pentecostal people. When we’re discussing bigotry against Catholics compared to bigotry against black people, does anyone seriously think we are saying that being black is a religion, or that Catholicism is a race? No, of course not; that is ridiculous. But some people use this error in reasoning to justify their distaste for an entire group of people who have done them no wrong. This is immoral and dishonest in my opinion. Thus his second argument is an error in reasoning.
Paul Cross| 6.10.10 @ 9:20AM
(continued from above) Third, he claims “The problem with openly gay military service is that it puts the full force of law behind this dynamic while dishonestly pretending that sexuality doesn't affect human behavior.” He appears to imply that “the full force of the law” will allow gay and lesbian service members to run amok, preying on us helpless heterosexuals. That is absurd. The law will simply allow them to serve under the same exact rules and regulations as the rest of us. Furthermore, repeal of DADT will certainly not result in repeal of the entire UCMJ; it will certainly not result in all NCOs and officers deciding they will cease enforcing discipline. Thus, his 3rd argument is disingenuous.
Fourth, he says “why is Klein urging the government to grant special legal protection to homosexuals? Why does he think homosexuals should be singled out for special protective status?” My question to the author is; how is allowing all service members to serve under the exact same rules of conduct considered special protective status? His assertion makes no sense whatsoever. The author’s argument is a straw man fallacy and is therefore in error.
Fifth, he says “After all, gay men and women can and do serve now in the U.S. military -- provided they keep their private sexual lives private.” With this statement, he admits they now serve under discriminatory rules. We heterosexuals aren’t mandated to keep our sexual lives private, why should they serve under a different set of laws than the rest of us?
Sixth, he says Mullen’s comment that DADT is wrong because it forces gay men and women to "lie" about their sexual status is not true, but then he says “or at least the policy is not as bad or as onerous as Adm. Mullen suggests. Which is it? Not true or not as bad or onerous? It can’t be both. Furthermore, it is easy for the author to say it is “not as bad or as onerous” since he is not affected by the rules of DADT. Heck, slavery wasn’t as bad or as onerous to whites, but to black people you can bet your fourth point of contact it was indeed as bad and as onerous as could be. Imagine if the rules of DADT applied to us. You could not date someone whom you were attracted to, because if you were caught, you could get booted out. You could not have a romantic or sexual relationship with one you were attracted to during your entire term of enlistment, whether it was 4 years or 30 years. You could not socialize romantically, you could not fall in love; you could not get married, you could not do all of these things we heterosexual service members take for granted. Or if you did decide to do these things, you would have to constantly be on guard; wary of getting caught through some innocuous and trivial slip; for example a telephone conversation being overheard, a letter or email being inadvertently read; someone seeing you off duty and off post with your significant other. There are a great many other acts and behaviors we straight soldiers do every single day and don’t even think about. These acts and behaviors we freely and without reservation engage in with nary a conscious thought, while innocent and obviously not in violation of DADT for us; is in fact a violation if done by a gay or lesbian service member.
Yes, it IS as bad and as onerous as Adm. Mullen suggests. Might I suggest to the author that he research what he plans to talk about prior to making such a statement as devoid of facts as his is here.
Paul Cross| 6.10.10 @ 9:20AM
(continued) Seventh, he said “unless and until that member makes an issue of their sexuality…..” That “issue of their sexuality” many times is something as inoffensive and innocent as having a picture of your significant other in your barracks room. I challenge the author to go talk to gay and lesbian service members who have been kicked out. The author should ask them, if he dares; the circumstances of their discharges. He should try arguing from a position of knowledge rather than a position of assumptions, fact-less assertions, and misconceptions. The author needs to learn the facts.
Eighth, he says “In fact, the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy requires gay men and women to be discreet about their sexual status. Big deal. Excuse me for not thinking that this is a terrible and grave injustice wrongly inflicted upon patriotic lesbians and homosexuals.” Yeah, it obviously isn’t a big deal to the author; this is proof positive he has not researched one iota what he is opining about. It does NOT require them to be discreet, because even if they are discreet, they are still running a huge risk of eventually being found out. When they are found out, they are investigated and booted, even if they have been discreet as they could possibly be. “But I was discreet” is no defense. The author obviously has no clue what the law actually states. That is why he is wrong, because he argues from a position of assumptions and not knowledge. I strongly urge the author to please educate himself.
Ninth, the author claims “homosexual dynamics would be even more disruptive given most people's natural antipathy toward homosexual acts.” Is the author merely guessing or does he have facts to support this claim? I served 21 years in the military, periodically alongside gay and lesbian soldiers. Not even once were they disruptive. They conducted themselves honorably, honestly, and professionally. In my experience, your claim is completely untrue. If however I had been faced with a soldier (gay or straight) who was disruptive, DADT was not needed one bit. There are a great many tools we NCOs had and still have with which to deal with disruptive soldiers. It’s called the UCMJ. It applies to all equally. Thus when DADT is repealed, if a soldier is disruptive through sexual harassment, assault, failure to obey an order, etc, they can still be dealt with. Thus there is no need for DADT. Furthermore, I am in Afghanistan right now; there are gay and lesbian service members here right now. They are not being disruptive to their units. The majority of soldiers over here do not give a damn. The author’s assumptive prediction is belied by the facts. He is wrong yet again.
Tenth, he claims “It would be naïve to think that this won't have an effect on recruiting, retention and combat effectiveness.” How about the author gives us some facts to support this assertion? Merely claiming it is naïve to think this, fails to support the author’s opinion. All he’s doing here is saying if you don’t agree with him, you are stupid. The author needs to try arguing with facts and logic next time. Since the Brits and other countries said the same thing years ago when they went to open service AND since that fear failed to materialize, then the facts do not support the author’s opinion. Since the author’s opinion here is not based on fact or logic, it has no value.
Lastly, he admits the majority is in favor of repeal. Yet he implies the reason for this is because either they’ve been duped or they are too afraid of going up against the “oh, so powerful and malevolent gay agenda”. Basically his laughably inane implication is that only HE has the intelligence to see through all the deception and only HE has the courage to speak up. No, I strongly disagree. I think most people see this matter as it truly is. It is discrimination against an entire group of people and is therefore wrong. People throughout history have used some of the same fallacies the author has used in an attempt to rationalize their irrational hatred of others. They all have two things in common; they base their arguments favoring discrimination and inequality upon nothing more than convoluted Bizarro logic and they are all devoid of facts.
Paul Cross| 6.10.10 @ 9:21AM
(continued) Guardiano’s fallacies are clearly in serious error.
As for some of the comments; one was saying Klein is “another phony RINO!” So what this poster is saying is if you don’t agree on every single issue that he believes, then that person is not a true Republican. Sorry, not all Republicans agree on the exact same issues all the time. The poster is clearly thinking in black and white with no variations in between. This is obviously quite faulty reasoning.
Another poster blames women for the actions of unprofessional and dishonorable NCOs and officers. Put the blame where it belongs; on the person perpetrating the act. This seems to be a common tactic in today’s society;
“It’s not my fault, it’s my parents fault, it’s the fault of the women who came into my neighborhood, it’s the fault of the store owner who failed to lock his shop door securely, it is the fault of the victim for wearing a short dress; it is everybody’s fault but my own.”
Pathetic. How about we as leaders hold our soldiers accountable for their own actions?
As for the poster not being able to “imagine throwing openly gay folks into that already combustible, destructive situation; I CAN imagine, because I served alongside gay and lesbian soldiers several times. I held them to the exact same standards of discipline as heterosexual soldiers. The gay and lesbian service members did not pose a problem. I am currently working in Afghanistan and know of gay and lesbian service members and civilians. They have already been “thrown into the situation” and they are performing their duties in a professional and military manner. We’ve got a job to do over here and most of us only care if the soldier or civilian next to us can do their job. Who they date back home is not our concern. The poster’s “imagination” (or lack thereof) is belied by the actual facts and is irrelevant; thus it is worthless in his attempt at rationalizing an unjustified and discriminatory law.
He also shows his ignorance and his animosity when he calls our allies “Euro-weenies”. We have a great many of our allies over here right now and they are doing a damn good job. I challenge the poster to come over here and see for himself. He should go over to Kapisa; or down to Helmand. He (like other posters on this site) needs to learn the facts. He fallaciously implies if we allow gay and lesbian service members to serve under the same rules and regs as we do, it will inexplicably lead to us becoming undisciplined and lazy. How? The poster should explain his line of reasoning here. It makes no sense, as one does not follow the other. Furthermore, how is it that 24+ other countries are capable of handling gay and lesbian service members serving openly yet we are somehow not capable? Is the poster implying we are less professional, less mature, more bigoted and narrow minded than they are? Are we less patriotic than they? Because if we would allow our hatred of gays and lesbians to prevent us from helping to defend our country, what does that say about us and our patriotism? Heck, I don’t want a person in our military so bigoted that his irrational animosity of those who have done him no wrong is more important to him than his country; his detestation is more of a priority to him than his comrades in arms. We do NOT need disgraceful and dishonorable people like that in our profession of arms, thanks anyway. I’d rather be shorthanded than have THAT in my unit.
The next poster said “The point you make is one that merely strengthens the author's claim that preserving DADT is preferable.” The poster should explain his line of reasoning because it does not make sense.
Paul Cross| 6.10.10 @ 9:22AM
(continued and final) DADT is founded upon the assumption that the presence of known gay and lesbian service members will have a negative affect on “the morale, good order, and discipline, and unit cohesion” of our military.
Combine this with the fact that (as Joe Gafman said), “There are thousands of known gays serving right now, in both theaters of war, known to their peers and sometimes even to their commands. And the net result is --- no big deal”.
Thus it is merely common sense to conclude it does NOT have negative affects on our order, discipline, morale and cohesion; thus the very foundation for maintaining DADT is based on a false assumption. Since the law (DADT) has no foundation, no justification, no reasoning, no basis for it’s existence then it is obviously NOT preferable; that’s pretty plain and simple reasoning.
He next said “It's not like segregation (read the Powell quote) and you obviously have no experience with how the integration of women into combat units has worked out. “
Actually it is extremely similar to desegregation because we are not comparing traits; we are comparing the discrimination against the traits. And the exact same words were used to fight against desegregation as are being used right now to try and keep DADT. When you read the arguments which some used to rationalize their desire to keep blacks separated from whites in the military you will be astonished at how the words, the sentiment, the bigotry has not changed a whit, only the target of that bigotry has changed. Bigotry, regardless of the target, is immoral, IMHO. People can and will continue from now until doomsday pathetically trying to excuse their irrational animosity of other groups of people who have done them no wrong; it will still be plain and simple prejudice and bigotry, no matter how you try to disguise it.
Another poster said he presumes “we’re going to separate the sexes further? Into four, maybe six groups?” Why? The poster’s presumption is based on what evidence, what logic? Since gay and lesbian service members are not separated now, why should they be separated in the future? He says we must make accommodations for sexual orientation “under law!” Poppycock. If this were so, then Police Departments, Fire Stations, and schools would be violating the law as we speak. Where are there separate shower facilities for gay and lesbian fire fighters and policemen? Where? I challenge the poster to show the exact law which stipulates we must maintain separate shower, latrine, and sleeping quarters for gays and lesbians. Show me; otherwise the argument the poster uses is worth diddly squat.
He also said the presence of women already reduces combat readiness and effectiveness. I disagree. The presence of substandard leadership and a few undisciplined soldiers reduces combat readiness and effectiveness. There will always be factors which dishonorable service members will point to as being the cause of their dishonor, their lack of discipline, and their crimes. It is not the fault of the factors but the fault of the undisciplined soldier and his leaders who fail to hold that soldier accountable for his actions. Any diversity could be a factor in reducing combat readiness and effectiveness….IF….. we as leaders allow it to be so. The poster’s argument could very well be used to excuse the despicable and undisciplined actions of a racist soldier. That soldier could say it is the fault of allowing black people to serve with white people. He could also fallaciously claim that allowing black soldiers to intermingle with white soldiers reduces combat readiness and effectiveness. The presence of so many different religious beliefs also is a factor which may reduce combat readiness and effectiveness. Does the poster wish to make all soldiers into Baptists? Or should we recruit only Baptists? The reality is we are a diverse nation; we are a diverse military. What we have in common is what makes us strong; our American values of freedom, equality, and justice. THAT is the reality. We already have gays and lesbians serving openly; we already have women serving, we already have black people serving, and people of various religious beliefs. It is up to our soldiers and our leaders to take these very different people and make them into a team with one goal and one purpose. It is up to our leaders to instill discipline where those differences do NOT get in the way of our mission. For those who allow the presence of women (or the presence of people of different races, ethnicities, religious beliefs or sexual orientations) to detract from their mission, I say they are undisciplined and selfish soldiers and should be dealt with accordingly.
He goes on to say “Modest people keep their private lives to themselves and so, do not have to brag about what they did over the weekend with their lover, male or female. A point you assert for your own self while enroute to finding it a burden for others.” That claim would be great if it was relevant to the discussion at hand. It is not. DADT does not merely keep gays and lesbians from “bragging about their sexual exploits” as many of us heterosexuals do. It prevents them from engaging in the same behavior as we do; living their life as human beings. IF DADT applied to all service members then it would not be discriminatory; since it ONLY applies to them AND there is no fact-based rationale for maintaining said discriminatory law, it is therefore unjustified. I as a heterosexual service member was free (when I was single) to date those I was attracted to as long as they consented. I was free to engage in romance, free to fall in love, free to marry, free to have a family, free to not have to live in secrecy about my life and I was free to answer innocent questions pertaining to my family life, free to acknowledge my wife and my family. Gay and lesbian service members have none of these same freedoms. The claim it is only about “bragging” is a deceitful fallacy. They merely wish to serve our country under the same exact conditions as we do. There is nothing wrong with this.
The same poster further says “People join and leave the military for a wide variety of reasons. So many reasons that we really don't have very good numbers on any of them. In your assertions on retention, re-enlistment, and discharge from the military over homosexuality you have no numbers; just an assertion based upon what you guess must be the case. It's not even a SWAG.” Actually there is ample data which supports this assertion. It is merely a google away for those willing to take the time and find it. Simply type in the words “DADT discharges”. It’s really quite easy. There is a wide assortment of sites you can look at. On one site, you will find that more than 13,500 service members have been fired under the law since 1994. Simply because one person is ignorant of the facts does not mean the facts are not out there. Education and learning goes a long way to dispel ignorance and bigotry.
Another poster fallaciously claims “Only those who have served, and are honest about it, know that this will be a disaster.” The poster’s statement is implying that if one doesn’t agree with his point of view, he has never served or he is dishonest. Bull crap. I served for 21 years and I am HONESTLY saying this will not be a disaster. How can the poster possibly claim it will be a disaster for us when it was not a disaster for 24+ other nations? The poster’s assertion has NO supporting facts, NO supporting logic, NO supporting common sense. The poster’s argument is only based on his preconceived notion of vaguely dire doom and gloom, “Chicken Little” predictions. He claims women should still be segregated. I served right alongside women for many years; there were no resulting major problems. Any small problems were dealt with by us leaders, swiftly and decisively IAW the UCMJ. Again, it is up to our leaders to maintain proper discipline. My soldiers (male and female) kicked butt because they were professional and disciplined, highly trained and motivated; in part because of their team leaders, squad leaders, platoon sergeants, and higher holding them to the standard, period.
Yet another poster vacuously and ambiguously compares heterosexual pedophiles in the priesthood with gay and lesbian service members. They are not the same. The pedophile is attracted to powerless children. Gays and lesbians are attracted to adults. The only two common denominators are sexual attraction and the poster’s unstated but obvious aversion to both groups of people. The big difference between the two groups is informed consent. Attempting to equate gays and lesbians who engage in consensual adult activity; with predators who victimize our children is fallacious and deceitful to the extreme.
Still another poster argues quite immaturely, facetiously, and fallaciously. She apparently thinks when DADT is repealed this will somehow mean the government is going to allow mass orgies in the military, there will be no more order or laws, and for some unexplained reason, our leaders will suddenly be incapable of instilling discipline in the ranks. The poster says “it is one of official advocacy and support of open homosexual acts and behavior in a closed society with a specific mission.” The poster, whether through ignorance or dishonesty, asserts gays serving openly mean the same thing as “open homosexual acts”. Who in their right mind would seriously believe that all laws would cease to exist; the UCMJ would go out the window, simply because we allowed all service members to serve under the same rules of conduct? To posit such an inane assumption is the height of fallacy. Laws will still apply which punish those who engage in indecent acts in public, harassment, or assault. The poster goes on to say “Silent J, boo hoo hoo, we ALL lie about certain aspects of our lives. I'm so terribly sorry that you find reality difficult to deal with.” Sheila’s 1st grade retort is evidence of her unwarranted hostility and disgraceful bigotry. My response to her detestable display of apathy towards our service members is if the lie is something we all have to live with in the military, so be it; if it is required of only a segment of our soldiers and there is no legitimate justification for requiring them to lie, then it is an immorally discriminatory law and it should be repealed. Furthermore her statement regarding “reality” seems to be implying the usual escapist fallacy of “life isn’t fair so those of you discriminated against should not fight for equality, should just surrender and deal with your lot in life; how very UN-American of that poster. Yeah, let’s all give up fighting for ourselves or fighting for others, since life isn’t fair. Let’s not fight for equal treatment under the law since life isn’t fair. Matter of fact, since life ain’t fair; let’s just stop trying to defend our nation against Muslim extremists. Sheila’s attitude is a wretchedly defeatist mentality.
Then she goes on to say “and no, the vast majority of sexual crimes are not performed by heterosexual men. Get out from behind your purple lenses.” I would REALLY like to see her support this totally absurd claim here. I ask the poster to tell us who does commit the vast majority of sexual crimes? Oh, and the poster should be prepared to back up the claim with facts (using referenced sources).
Then we have a definite bigot (as evidenced by the use of his slur), who claims the US Military kicked out all homosexuals when they were caught in the act, “since its inception.” I dare this poster to back up that fatuous claim with fact (using cited references.)
In short, what we have from this author and from many of the posters here is fallacy, ignorance, prejudice, preconceived notions, opinions devoid of data, assertions which contradict actual facts, and just plain irrational hatred and bigotry.
Repeal DADT and allow all of our fighting men and women to defend our country under the same exact rules and regulations.
Thank you; carry on.
Paul J {:-)
Alessandra| 6.12.10 @ 3:46PM
"However, I thoroughly disagree when you say that commands are loathe to pursue discharge for service members under this policy. How naive of you! Thousands of LGB service members have been other-than-honorably discharged under this policy and I would bet my salary that the vast majority were hunted out, turned in out of spite."
I will send you my paypal acct info so you can hand over your salary.
"As Moskos pointed out in 1993, 80 percent of homosexuality-related discharges resulted from voluntary statements, a figure that has not changed. Furthermore, almost all discharges for homosexuality occur in the first term of enlistment, and more than half in the first year. The fact that so many of those who voluntarily claim to be homosexuals do so early in their enlistment is an important point. As Gen. Carl Mundy, former commandant of the Marine Corps, observed, this “is a very demanding period during which it is not uncommon for those who are not equal to the challenge of military life to seek opportunities for release from the service. A claim to be homosexual, whether factual or not, provides such an opportunity.”
Mackubin T. Owens is an adjunct fellow of the Ashbrook Center and a professor at the Naval War College. He is editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
Alessandra| 6.12.10 @ 3:58PM
"Mr. Guardiano, people don't "choose" to be gay. They are born gay. As my sister (who is gay) once said to me, "why would anybody choose a lifestyle where they are shunned? where they have to hide who they are at work? A lifestyle that may prevent them from getting a job that they want, or would make some people turn away from them? What would be the motivation to make that choice?" So to you I say, I hope that someone close to you is gay, or that a beloved grandchild is born gay. Then you will know what being gay is all about and why they are no different from the rest of the population. "
Oh the rubbish psychobabble the Left loves to throw out as "explanations" to homosexuality.
You are no conservative. But truer than that, you have no knowledge on either psychology or sociology (and the same goes for your sister).
Do you think anyone chooses to be a pedophile, a gambling addict, or an anorexic? Human beings DEVELOP complex problems with their psychology whether it has to do with sexuality or any other sphere of life. It doesn't mean that because someone feels same-sex attraction or attraction to gambling or to children or to being so thin that they will die that they were BORN that way nor does it mean that they chose to be that way. They (mis)developed that way.
Secondly, the "choice" question comes in as a consequence to their psychological dysfunction. A person may not have a choice in what they are attracted to, but they do have a choice in what they do with their attraction or psychological dysfunction, to which culture they subscribe to.
The majority of homosexuals, pedophiles, anorexics, etc prefers to think that they are just fine and the problem rests with anyone who doesn't see it that way.
Are we surprised?
Alessandra| 6.12.10 @ 4:19PM
Paul Cross: "Another poster fallaciously claims “Only those who have served, and are honest about it, know that this will be a disaster.” The poster’s statement is implying that if one doesn’t agree with his point of view, he has never served or he is dishonest. Bull crap. I served for 21 years and I am HONESTLY saying this will not be a disaster. How can the poster possibly claim it will be a disaster for us when it was not a disaster for 24+ other nations? The poster’s assertion has NO supporting facts, NO supporting logic, NO supporting common sense. "
Neither does yours. While you have apparently based all your comments on your personal experience, there are plenty of people with a different story to tell about their experiences in the military (in the US or abroad) and there are studies to support them. Either you are too disingenuous or too stupid to acknowledge that your experience is only valid for yourself (and even then, if we don't consider all the filters you may or may not have applied to your own interpretations of the same).
Joe Gafman| 6.13.10 @ 7:39PM
Alessandra, I guess you missed the polling data from our current troops -- the voices of the troops themselves.
Multiple polls of the troops all reveal the same thing: There are thousands of known gays serving right now, in both theaters of war, known to their peers and sometimes even to their commands. And the net result is --- no big deal. There is obviously no demonstrable detriment to unit morale, unit cohesion or combat readiness, despite the known presence of all these gay soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen.
What facts back up this reality? Every poll of military service members, both scientifically valid polls and not scientifically valid polls, shows the same thing. A 2006 Zogby International poll of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans found 68% of them either knew for certain or suspected there were gays in their own unit, and the majority of these troops said that knowledge was widely known by the other members of the unit. 73% of these troops also said they were comfortable working alongside gay and lesbian peers.
A 2010 Vet Voice Foundation poll (conducted jointly by both a Democratic and Republican polling agency) found the same thing: 57% of the troops said they thought there were gay members of their own unit, and 73% of them said they were comfortable working with gay peers.
Both of the above polls were scientifically valid polls. Another poll which was not considered scientifically valid, but which found the same results, was the Military Times poll of its subscribers in 2010. That poll also found 57% of the respondents said they knew there were gay members of their own unit, and interestingly, 11% said their chain of command was aware of the these gay troops and weren't doing anything to kick them out.
So, the reality on the ground conclusively demonstrates that there already are lots of known gay troops serving right now, and it's NOT hurting the military in any way. Thus, why continue a law that requires the military to kick out anyone who is known to be gay, to terminate a valuable, experienced member of a unit for no other reason than somebody happens to find out they're gay?
Let me restate that very emphatically so there's no misunderstanding, even by people who like to ignore reality:
OPENLY GAY TROOPS ARE SERVING RIGHT NOW, IN BOTH THEATERS OF WAR, KNOWN TO THEIR PEERS, and operational effectiveness is just fine. Since DADT was founded on the assumption that known gays would degrade operational readiness, and there are tens of thousands of straight troops who say they know gays in their own unit, and operational readiness is unimpaired, there is no justifiable reason to continue DADT.
Time to repeal DADT and relegate to the dustbin of history alongside other sad chapters of discrimination, like segregated military units in the 40s, and huge prohibitions against female service members on Navy and Coast Guard vessels and in all of the Service Academies.
Longcabin| 1.5.11 @ 1:56PM
Hey Joe, sounds like you got kicked-out of the USCG for being gay. Still live in Arlington, VA. I WILL see you in the gay bar, crying in your beer. Pagaens rule!