The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : DADT Facts vs. Opinions

Text Size

DADT Facts vs. Opinions

By John R. Guardiano on 12.23.10 @ 4:23PM

Well, Aaron Goldstein is nothing if not persistent! He sallies forth with a new post in which he complains that I have made “statements which are either contradictory” or which I “simply cannot substantiate.”

If I thought that Goldstein’s latest post elucidated the issues involved in DADT and “gay rights,” I would simply acknowledge that we have a disagreement and let it go at that. But unfortunately, Goldstein’s latest brief confuses rather than elucidates our dispute.

As Goldstein surely must know, given the full context of what I have written, the “feelings” that are irrelevant are the feelings of straight soldiers, airmen and Marines toward homosexuals.

Indeed, how straight servicemen and women “feel” about homosexuals is irrelevant. What matters is how the presence of an overt homosexual dynamic within small-scale military units will or might affect unit cohesion and unit performance.

In short, I distinguish between, on the one hand, sexual dynamics between and amongst gay military personnel (or, for that matter, between and amongst male/female personnel) and, on the other hand, the “feelings” or attitudes that straight soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have toward homosexuals.

Surely, Goldstein understands this. Yet he conflates and confuses sexual dynamics between and amongst homosexuals with how straight people feel about homosexuals.

Goldstein complains that I have not offered up any “hard empirical evidence” that sexual dynamics shape and affect human behavior. Of course, his demand for such evidence is silly. You might as well demand “hard empirical evidence” that the sky is blue, or that night follows day.

Nonetheless, to address his point, I asked rhetorically whether he had ever been to a public high school or even onboard a navy vessel. There, obviously, you’ll see sexual dynamics at work between boys and girls, men and women.

(And this doesn’t mean that actual sex, or intercourse, is necessarily taking place either. It simply means that there are sexual dynamics — tension, play, flirting, et al. — at work.)

I mentioned a coed public high school because most of the U.S. military is barely out of high school. Indeed, these are 17-, 18- and 19-year old kids that we’re talking about.

Do we really need a scientific laboratory experiment, as Goldstein is demanding, to ascertain how sexual dynamics shape and affect human behavior and group dynamics? Obviously not. Yet Goldstein is stubbornly obtuse on this point.

And I am not “caricaturizing gays and lesbians and impugning their motives” when I point out another obvious point, which is that some gays and lesbians within the same military unit will carry on sexual dalliances with each other. The same can be said of some men and women within military units.

(As a Marine, I’ve personally seen the latter, though not the former. Of course, the Marine Corps swept these incidents under the rug; and they were never reported or discussed. We can expect the same of most homosexual affairs or dalliances within the military.)

Again, Goldstein’s understanding of human nature and sexual dynamics is unrealistic and almost otherworldly in its innocence and denial.

The homosexual hazing and harassment incidents that I referenced were just that: hazing and harassment incidents by homosexuals against straight servicemen and women — or against other homosexual soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

Yet Goldstein assumes that any hazing and harassment would necessarily be perpetrated by straights against gays. But this is simply untrue. And it betrays Goldstein’s own bias and prejudice. In his world, apparently, just like Hollywood’s, lesbians and homosexuals can do no wrong.

Though in fairness to Goldstein, his biases and prejudices are not uncommon. They are, in fact, shared by the political and cultural elite, both Left and Right, sad to say.

Indeed, the elite are always concerned about how the military will deal with women or gays. But they’re not at all concerned with how women or gays might deal with or manipulate the military.

Goldstein is right that most U.S. military personnel will exhibit professional behavior. But what he fails to realize is that sexual dynamics often don’t result from bad intentions or a willful desire to be destructive.

Sexual dynamics are typically the natural and inevitable outgrowth of sexual allure and attraction. That’s one important reason the U.S. military bans women from frontline combat. This same reason, it seems to me, ought to apply to self-avowed lesbians and homosexuals.

Goldstein also belittles my concerns about the softening and undermining of the military’s warrior culture and the denial of religious liberty for our military chaplains and service personnel. These concerns reflect only my “opinion and nothing more,” he insists.

Would that this were true!

In fact, the U.S. military’s unique warrior culture is rooted in a strong sense of heterosexual manhood, masculinity and male bonding. The introduction of an overt homosexual dynamic within this unique culture obviously will undermine the shared sense of manhood and masculinity that helps to bind combat units and personnel together. And this is especially true if a gay subculture emerges there.

Goldstein, I’m sure, will demand “hard empirical evidence” of this. To which I can only respond: Do you also want “proof” of male bonding? Or “proof” that a shared sexual dynamic is part and parcel of that bonding process? It just is. It’s rooted in human nature and long-standing traditions. And no amount of gay reeducation or sensitivity training is going to change that.

As for religious liberty, we’ve already seen the U.S. Navy try to stop some chaplains from mentioning the words “Jesus Christ” in prayer. If homosexuality is now a specially protected minority within the military, then the day is not far off, I would submit, when chaplains will be “counseled,” if not required, to refrain from “creating a hostile work environment” for lesbians and homosexuals by preaching the Gospel.

Again, every major religious tradition in the world — Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, et al. — has moral proscriptions against homosexual behavior. And no, I’m sorry: that’s just “my opinion”; it’s a bona fide fact.

Finally, Goldstein says that “his views regarding the repeal of DADT are very much in the minority amongst [his] fellow conservatives.”

I wish this were true; but alas, I’m not so sure. Most conservatives, after all, have been silent on this issue. And their silence, it seems to me, has spoken volumes.

National Review, for instance, has said very little against openly gay military service. Certainly, NR hasn’t devoted anything like the editorial space or energy to this issue that they have to, say, the START Treaty.

Ditto Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly: The repeal of DADT either isn’t something that’s concerned them, or it’s something that they quietly support. Thus, they’ve devoted virtually no airtime to this issue.

Yet I think you could make a convincing case that repeal of DADT will do more to undermine American national security than the START Treaty.

Nuclear weapons and missile defense, after all, are narrow technical endeavors that can be turned on or off with relatively little effort. The U.S. military’s warrior culture, by contrast, is a far more complex operation, which, once weakened or destroyed, is far more difficult to restore.

That’s one reason why I’m glad the American Spectator has indulged Goldstein and me by permitting this debate. Our conversation is helpful in elucidating this debate over “gay rights.” And this debate, as I’ve indicated, will be with us for a very long time, with or without “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

But let me conclude on a positive note. Goldstein writes:

I [ever] I find myself in disagreement with the vast majority of conservatives on a specific matter, I will not hesitate to let my views be know, whatever the feedback. Debate, discussion and disagreement aren’t bad things. Merry Christmas.

And, on that point, dear readers, Goldstein and I agree: never hesitate to fight, and Merry Christmas, indeed!

Esperando| 12.23.10 @ 4:46PM

Here's a nice little fact that isn't an opinion. That out of control sexual dynamic that you fret so much over? It hasn't manifested itself at all in any of the militaries that have allowed openly gay service... you know, like, every other developed country's in the world. I know American exceptionalism runs strong in conservative thought, but I don't think American soldiers are that magically different from all others. I know you're very concerned about the harassment gays and lesbians might commit against "normal" soldiers, indeed you lay the lion's share of the blame for harassment between gay and straight soldiers, but here's another fact that's not an opinion. No straight soldier has ever been beaten to death by a gay soldier for being straight, gay soldiers have been beaten to death by straight soldiers for being gay. Given that little fact, I don't think that the military should be more concerned with protecting straight soldier's bigotry than it is with protecting the lives and careers of perfectly competent Gay soldiers.

John Guardiano | 12.23.10 @ 6:02PM

Esperando,
I never referenced an "out-of-control sexual dynamic." That's a straw-man of your own creation.

In fact, as I mentioned in one of my posts, it only takes one gay sexual dalliance in one unit to create one serious problem.

As for other militaries, none does, or even tries to do, what the U.S. military does routinely. And none of the other militaries that you reference has really been tested in the crucible of combat.

Moreover, many of the problems that we are likely to see are not big or dramatic events. Instead, they're smaller-scale, though real and detrimental. And these problems won't be publicized; they'll be swept under the rug and hidden from public view.

So it's premature at best for you to suggest that there's absolutely no problem with openly gay service.

Regards,
John

fred | 12.23.10 @ 11:39PM

John:

First, thank you for serving in the USMC. I'm genuinely glad you made it back from Iraq. Just so you know, I think that repealing DADT was the right thing to do. I'm writing now to disagree with a particular point you made above. You wrote "none of the other militaries you reference has really been tested in the crucible of combat." Correct me if I am wrong, but both Britain and Israel allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. The British have been fighting and dying alongside of us in Afghanistan and Iraq. As for the Israelis, do you really want to say that they have never been tested by combat?

Putting aside our differences, I do hope that you have a Merry Christmas.

luvntheBIGsites| 12.23.10 @ 5:27PM

Here is the problem with the argument between Aaron Goldstein and John R. Guardiano... This is exactly what the left wants. Conservative cage matches on issues that effect .00001 % of the population. No offense to you gentlemen as you both have very valid points on this particular "issue"... but its the lefts issue, not really on the Tea party/Conservative movement's top priority list.
May I suggest you guys try to hash this out on the new version of Journ-o-list for influential members of the media... Its called the (telephone). Might free up some room on the blog for... I dunno, energy policy, Taxes, you know.. things that will effect all of us. Just a thought.

John Guardiano | 12.23.10 @ 5:41PM

LuvnTheBIGsites,
Thanks for your note; but with respect, this isn't "the Left's issue." It is now the military's issue and, therefore, America's issue.

And while openly gay military service might not be of great concern to you, it should be. After all, anything that affects the military is, by definition, something that ought to concern to all Americans.

Moreover, while the DADT repeal has been effected, its implementation still awaits. And "gay rights" is still very much a contentious issue throughout America. Witness the controversy surrounding "gay marriage" and so-called marriage quality.

And isn't it better that these issues be discussed openly and thoroughly in the public square than that they be rushed through, at the last minute and in a lame-duck Congress, with little or no debate a la the DADT repeal?

luvntheBIGsites| 12.23.10 @ 5:54PM

Your right, Your right, and... Your right. (same for Goldstein) I will concede to all off your points.

Can you concede to my one point? By beating DADT (or abortion for that matter) into the ground in a never-ending fight is exactly what the left wants?

Bill| 12.23.10 @ 5:33PM

Whoever wrote this piece should know that to anyone under 40, these ramblings simply make you look like a complete and total fool and a raging moron.

Seriously. To us younger Americans, all the gay haters are publicly exposing themselves for who they truly are in their hearts.

Which is, of course, the first step toward us eradicating this type of nonsense from America.

Most telling about this 'writer' is his complete and total lack of shame and embarrassment at publicly and openly denigrating law-abiding citizens. He tells the world so much about himself. But seems too mired in his own bigotry to see what a fool he looks like to young people. An absolute fool. A joke, really.

I would like to ask Guardiano what it is like to be the kind of man whose greatest contribution to the world will be his eternal exit from it.

John Guardiano | 12.23.10 @ 5:46PM

Bill,
Get a grip! I don't "hate" anyone. Nor haven I "denigrated" anyone with "bigotry." That you must resort to such name-calling demonstrates the utter intellectual vacuity of your position.

crusain| 12.23.10 @ 6:19PM

Bill, you would have made a great Gulag guard.Your bigotry is mind boggling.

kingsmill| 12.23.10 @ 5:43PM

John, arguing with the invincibly ignorant is not a rewarding task.

Keep up the good work!

Aaron| 12.23.10 @ 5:49PM

Just create an all fag regiment and see how they do in the field. If they do well, great, if they all get killed, even better.

Mike| 12.23.10 @ 6:16PM

Hey Aaron, I was kicked out under DADT. You're cowardly little attack against me is why Americans reject Guardiano's points, the American people are tired of homophobic folks like you.

Greta| 12.23.10 @ 7:34PM

You say you were kicked out by DADT. If you were not able to put the military ahead of your personal life and weaknesses with discipline, then the military became better when you were gone. I think others have been discharged because they too were not able to control their weaknesses. In fact, more were kicked out for other reasons than DADT such as for inablity to control drug addiction. Interesting that because of PC, those who got sent out were not given dishonorable discharge even though they violated policy. In fact, many who suddenly wanted out because of deployment or other factors suddenly came out in the open to get their honorable discharge and get out. If you notice in any of the blogs where this is being discussed, it is one of the hot button issues which proves that acceptance of the gays in the military is far from a small issue to those who care about the military and national defense. Granted that many under 40 have no idea of what the military does for them to maintain their freedom to not give a damn about America. If you have seen any study of those under 40, most do not vote, cannot tell you anything about the country present leadership or issues or about American history. Obviously to them, gays are not an issue. But also note that every time those who vote speak out on gay issues, they vote in large numbers no even in some of the more liberal states.

lars medhaug | 12.23.10 @ 6:37PM

One simple thing that could turn our economy around is for us to demand cars made in america,tires made in america parts made un america as i think we are the major buyers of same

Greta| 12.23.10 @ 7:39PM

At one time this was true. The unions kept pushing for ever better wages and benefits and protecting those who did not do a good job until the American people got tired of paying for crap cars and went elsewhere. When you start with cost of 1600$ before you start building just to pay for huge pension funds, you are not going to be competitive in this world.
What is needed in this country is to get the unions out of the teachers union and start teaching kids what they need to learn to be competititve in today's world and stop teaching them all the PC bull. Start teaching them about our country and the founding fathers and personal responsibility. Start flunking students who do not make the grade and firing teachers who have too many that flunk. You can also cut the federal, state and local governments by at least half and cut regulations and mandates by about 2/3rd. You can lower business tax to drive corporation to hire and build a solid economy. The last thing we need is any more protection that is mandated.

lars medhaug | 12.24.10 @ 4:59PM

quite frankly i think there is a real effort to destroy our country and from what i see the evidense bears me out, maybe it is way past time to return to our values and put GOD back on his Throne

lars medhaug | 12.28.10 @ 12:57PM

I think you are right on and i think they will be forced to do this also lars

Curly Smith| 12.23.10 @ 7:08PM

While I appreciate your effort, all you've done is demonstrate that it's impossible to win a debate when the other party starts with "you're a bigot", then falls back to "you're a bigot" and triumphantly concludes with "you're a bigot". In fact, all your reason and rationale does is demonstrate the depths of your obvious bigotry. Of course, the above is true whether we're talking about DADT, tax cuts, the environment or any other issue.

You're arguing reason, Goldstein is arguing emotion. Which might explain why the gay rights crowd hasn't looked at Black America and said "hmmm... having the Democrats champion their cause certainly didn't turn out well". No worries though, Obama is they one they were waiting for because he's been a consistent advocate for gay rights except for the 2 years preceding an election.

Greta| 12.23.10 @ 7:42PM

Curly, you are right, arguing with a liberal who spends their days hating our country and with no ability to put forth any type of sound argument is pretty much a waste of time. However, those who do not the wonder of America before the liberals gained power, before the courts started to legislate from the bench, and before the media turned into liberal cheerleaders rather than unbiased 4th estate must continue to stand up and fight now or our children and grandchildren will never have what we were given.

Tim| 12.23.10 @ 8:09PM

John..I notice how quick you are to reply to someone who agrees with you..yet you say nothing about Aarons disgusting anti american post. Aaron..you are a coward..you get to call someone a fag..and be happier if they all die defending YOUR freedom to sit on your ass and state that gay americans dying is a good thing..and John..your silence on this issue says it all.
I guess you would have some retort...like..."we have freedom on speech" and that is exactly the point- Aaron has his freedom of speech..YOUR religion has its views...and the gay soldiers have their freedom of speech..to take that away from them is anti freedom, and anti american.

John Guardiano | 12.23.10 @ 8:35PM

Tim,
I am not the comments monitor. In fact, I don't respond to or acknowledge most comments.

Occasionally, I do respond to a comment when I think a commenter makes a good or misleading point which I think requires further clarification or elucidation.

You complain that I am "quick to reply to someone who agrees with" me. But in truth, my first comment on this post was in response to someone who disagreed with me.

No one is proposing taking away anyone's freedom of speech, so relax. Chill! : )

For the record, I obviously do not condone the comments by Aaron (above). That comment does not reflect (obviously) my views or my beliefs. I don't (obviously) wish death upon any American, least of all an American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine.

tatosian| 12.23.10 @ 8:58PM

Excuse me.
What's disgusting or anti American about putting homosexuals and lesbians into their own unit?
Sort of an updated version of the Sacred Band.
Where's the problem?
Aaron's just trying to help us get to the next step in our long climb up the homosexual evolutionary ladder.

Thom| 12.23.10 @ 8:13PM

Greta..your reasoning is a joke. 13,500 plus men and women were discharged ...those that were extremely valuable..ones that speak Arabic and farsi..those with intelligence that you would never hope to achieve..and they did put aside their freedom of speech and put country first..and they were still discharged. IT was wrong..sour grapes sweetheart..those that think like you are in the minority...better get used to being in the minority...tell me how it feels.

tatosian| 12.23.10 @ 9:36PM

What type of discharge? Dishonorable? Undesirable? Is there a special homosexual discharge they're privy to?
No matter. They got discharged from the military they're shit birds. They couldn't get with the program and they got fired. Tough.
And actually, those that think like us are in the majority. It's those who speak up that are in the minority.
Merry Christmas.

DRed| 12.23.10 @ 9:56PM

If people like you are in the majority, than how come something like 70% of Americans supported the repeal of DADT? There's nothing wrong with holding a minority opinions, and it's certainly your right to do so, but don't delude yourself.

Merry Christmas.

tatosian| 12.24.10 @ 12:10AM

Well the numbers depend on the poll.
Some 67% of combat Marines didn't support it. They're the ones doin the fighting and dying. That being the case, I put more weight in the opinions of those Marines.
How come a majority of gay marriage ballot initiatives and referendums have failed?
Don't delude yourself.

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:25PM

So what? There were 60,000 discharged between 1993-2004 for drugs and over 24,000 discharged for being overweight. We trained them at great cost too. And DOD stats bear out that about 85% of those discharged under DADT were people who themselves brought up their sexuality. Often simply to get out of the military.

Greta| 12.24.10 @ 3:11PM

It matters little if one is in the minority when you are on the right side of history and committing gravely disordered acts will never be the right side. I love it when you state with such conviction that these people were extremely valuable when they could not keep basic agreement with what they had agreed to under DADT. They knew the rules and regulations going in and chose not to keep them and so were discharged. To mean that means they put themselves first over their word and their country. If they cannot control their weakness enough to serve, to me they have no value.

Josie| 12.23.10 @ 8:17PM

Liberals hate their country..?.quite the opposite..we actually feel that every law abiding, tax paying, american deserves equality.
obviously you dont believe that every American deserves equality. We do- and that is why YOUR side has lost every culture war America has seen...you lost the war against women..you lost the war against african americans..and you are JUST starting to lose the war on gays.

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:26PM

NIce argument from emotion. But it won't wash. This isn't about equality, and never has been.

Greta| 12.24.10 @ 3:22PM

We have not lost any war on the culture. There was no war against women, only the desire to honor them and I stand proud as a woman who believes in God who are Country is Under and in whom we place our sacred trust. I suppose you think we as women are better because some judges said it was OK to kill infants because their location happened to be in the womb. As to African Americans, the churches were the ones that pushed the country to end slavery and the Democratic Party was the ones who supported slavery, went to war to keep it, and when the war ended did everything in their power including torture and lynching to keep blacks down. The Democratic party fought every attempt to give them rights. I think we won that culture war, not the democratic party. When Truman ended segregation in the military, he did so with the support of the churches and the republican party who beat back Truman's own party attempt to stop him. These cultural wars were based on gender and race, something we all have at time of birth. What we are also born with is weaknesses, some are lazy, some are gluttons, some are prone to lust or greed, and some have a weakness for attraction to the same sex in what for centuries has always been viewed as unnatural because it flys in the face of natural law. We are called to control our weaknesses and certainly only a foolish society would decide to not only allow them to become accepted, but to give these perverted weaknesses special standing.

so Josie, I am very comfortable standing up to those who want to destroy everything of value and to make grave sin a normal law of the land. We are called to love the person, but hate the sin and that is what most Christians do.

Since we are now giving special rights to sexual attraction access in the military, I would expect as one on the other side of morality that you would understand that the constitutional right does not exist, and if it now does, then hetrosexual males with sexual attraction to females should have full access to them just like the gay men soldiers to the normal male soldiers. If not, on a purely contitutional basis, why not?

Greg| 12.23.10 @ 8:20PM

Greta...hate to break this to you...but all of the so called activist judges..especially many who ruled FOR gay rights..were appointed by conservative presidents...Like the CA supreme court..the IOWA supreme court...the judge in CA who struck down Prop 8..and the judge in MA that struck down DOMA...

There is NO GETTING AROUND the constitution. It overides your religious beliefs..
Oh..and by the way..."activist Judges" are what the losing side calls the rulings when they dont agree with them.

Greta| 12.24.10 @ 3:26PM

Greg, name the judges you think are conservatives who voted for these special rights. The democrats have made a strong stand to block any conservatives they possibly can and as a result, some left leaning judges have gone through but I can list about 20 that have been blocked because they are truly conservative judges. And one more thing, it is amzing to me that those who actually uphold what is written in the constitution, rather than invent law out of thin air, are viewed as radical. If the gays want to amend the constitution with special rights, there is an amendment process and according to some here, there is widespread approval in the country for gay rights so amending the constitution should be the correct route. So rather than getting around the constitution which you seem to be saying you do not want to do, why is it that gays have not gone the route to amend it the right way.

Mike| 12.23.10 @ 8:25PM

Melanie Nathan; Dec 21-2010 – Well our fellow Bloggers are a-buzzing, and that is what I love about Bloggerish – we get to blogger ISH I mean DISH, sometimes. But here we may well have the real dish. Now for quite some time we have heard that someone in the Senate will be outed for being Gay and that person is a Republican. No need for debate on this one – Are his initials LG? Many assert it must be “Graham; Senator Lindsey Graham.” Citing his aging bachelorhood and his consistent anti-gay votes, we have the perfect recipe for a closeted self loathing homophobic homosexual.

Oh if only they would say GAY it should not sound nearly as awful as homosexual. But hey sorry when one is outed it will be’ Homosexual’ whereas if one has the courage to “come out” then one gets to control the lexicon and GAY it can be. So I am asking and Senator please do tell!

Take one look at Lindsey Graham, the Senator from South Carolina and (sorry to stereotype, but he leaves stereotypes at the starter line. ) This man is a bachelor is not woman’s man but rather a man’s man – for sure.

So finally someone has the goods to OUT Graham; … According to Joe My God’s Blog, Wonkette famed for exposing such hypocrites, is about to release pictures of an overnight guest – a man – leaving the home of our friendly bachelor.

Now I know my money would be good a on Graham and there it should stay, but I am willing to wager a few more dollars on Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) – anyone willing to camp outside his house?

Greta| 12.24.10 @ 3:30PM

I love it when the left wants to violate peoples privacy when they do not agree with the person. They place their right to murder babies in the womb on the privacy issue but do not seem to care a whit about privacy. If the issue is being hypocritical, then I would imagine every politician would fall prey to this charge. Pelosi for example runs around like a Catholic when even the Pope has taken her to task for her beliefs after giving her several private warnings.

Tony| 12.23.10 @ 8:34PM

john..your headline reads "facts and opinions" and then you dont give even ONE fact about how gays will negatively affect combat readiness, unit cohesion etc. Your reasoning is as follows..."as sure as the sky is blue..."...that what..gays will negatively effect the military...Mr Goldstein is absoulutly right..come up with the date, you know..statistics, empirical evidence..yadda yadda...because if you dont have it (which you dont)..and you dont have a functioning crystal ball (if you own one..please let me know where i can buy one)...then you can only theorize. And you cant remove someones freedom of Speech (something you religious people and conservatives hold in high regard, as well you should) based on a theory. you have proven nothing...and as another reader stated...why can 30 other countries have their generals report no issues or problems..your retort was weak...Britian and Isreal have been involved in wars since their countries have allowed gays..and 100% of those countries have stated their militaries have only gotten stronger.

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:29PM

"100% of those countries have stated their militaries have only gotten stronger."

That's the PR view put out by their militaries. Talk to soldiers one on one away from the official MOD handlers, and you get a VERY different story.

Tim2| 12.23.10 @ 8:37PM

YOU get a grip John..SURE you dont hate gays..you ony dont want them to serve openly in the military, dont want them to be protected from getting fired from their jobs simply because they are gay..you dont believe they should be able to get married to persons of the same sex..so basically...how are they to be happy? and If you wish them all of this..how can you say you dont hate them..i guess you just really really really really really dont like them!!!

Robert| 12.23.10 @ 8:41PM

John- you state this warriors mentality..like gays cant kick ass or be masculine warrior killers like straights..reading the pentagon report..a straight army soldier stated
"we have a guy in our troop...he is big..he is mean...he kills lots of bad guys..no one cares that he is gay"

So YOUR OPINION...and getting back to the title of your article...is that the warrior mentality is weakend..but its not truth.again..where is your FACTS..the fact that this straight soldiers states that this gay guy is a bad mofo that nobody wants to mess with.

Gaz| 12.23.10 @ 8:45PM

"As for other militaries, none does, or even tries to do, what the U.S. military does routinely. And none of the other militaries that you reference has really been tested in the crucible of combat."

I beg to differ, coming from the British Military we've been "tested in the crucible of combat" many times over.
We had very much the same type of bigotted, close minded comments about allowing openly gay members in the military. There was a lot of scaremongering and what happened?
Nothing, things carried on as normal, as happened with all other 'professional' Armed Forces that have allowed gay personnel to serve openly.

We have gay members throughout our Armed Forces, they serve in all parts. From Infantry, Royal Marines, Air Force Pilots, Medical, Support to Special Forces.
Equality and fairness will happen, and people will look back and feel both amused and ashamed by the comments of bigots over something as unjust as DADT.

From a serving British Soldier.

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:33PM

"Nothing, things carried on as normal, as happened with all other 'professional' Armed Forces that have allowed gay personnel to serve openly."

So if that's the case, why did the MOD absolutely prohibit any serving Brit from talking to the NY Times when they requested to interview service men and women about how supposedly great things were going with your military and homosexual integration? Why did the Guardian have to put in a freedom of information act request to get a copy of the report done about how things didn't go so rosy when you all implemented this thing? And when a lot of people quit over it.

And sorry to say, but folks in the US who have worked with you all say you are.... shall we say, off the game you had before you made the switch.

Johnz| 12.23.10 @ 8:49PM

ive read several of your posts..you always end with religion..It makes me sick that you think you deserve to have your religion (and I dont care that buddists, Catholics, Muslims etc agree with you) shoved down everyones throats. I dont believe what you believe..many Catholics, Jews, Buddists DONT agree with their own religion on this issue, period. More and More religious people are getting disillusioned by religion every day regarding gay issues ...they see how it treats their gay son, daughter, neighbor...you feel that you can discriminate because the bible says you can, however...you worry about losing the right to discriminate against gays. Too damn bad...their rights are being violated by people with your mentality..no wonder there are so many gay suicides (im sure AAron is all for 'em)
and bullying- you state over and over that you dont hate gays..but every action you take against them perpetuates crimes, bullying, and murder against them

Tim2| 12.23.10 @ 9:00PM

John seems to think that his religious (or the religious beliefs of the Catholics, buddists, jews etc)...can supercede individual libery and freedom in this coutry. you can have your beliefs all you want..but the second you think you can stomp on someone elses liberties and freedoms, because of those beliefs..is the second you must and will be stopped.

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:36PM

And the second you use your heterophobic anti-religious beliefs to try and supercede my right to free speech and personal religious beliefs you will be stopped as well.

This speaks to the vacuity of the pro-repeal crowd: It's all about my individual rights. In the military, no it's not. It's about the team. Your rights and my rights don't mean a thing in combat.

DRed| 12.23.10 @ 10:58PM

I can only speak for myself, but I think the idea is that any gay soldiers, and especially gay combat soldiers, would also understand that it's about the team. I'm not sure why being gay would get in the way of that.

josie| 12.23.10 @ 9:02PM

Exactly correct Tim-
there are athiests in the military..what do the chaplians say about them (do they call them abominations)...they are allowed to serve....are you saying that a gay catholic cant serve..but an athiest can???

Tim2| 12.23.10 @ 9:05PM

john..your point is moot..DADT is repealed..you and America must do your best to deal with it and move on! you can sulk and be pissed off all you want..im sure many white Americans were sulking and pissed off when blacks were able to join the military. All hail the death of DADT!!!!!!!!!

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:42PM

It's a Pyrrhic victory. Gays in the military got used by the politicians, pure and simple. And when they don't need you anymore, they'll ignore you.

Nice try equating DADT and segregation. However, skin color is benign. Human sexuality is a lot of things, but it's not benign.

And about who lost... Gays and straights in the military both lost in this. Why? Because Congress didn't give us (the military, as an institution) the time of day. A flawed report and 2 days of hearings. Every gay and straight in the military should be mad as hell about that. That's one of the reasons this will be more problematic and take far longer to work out in reality.

This will not be the simple benign change people think it will be. Because of the way this was done, there will be more enmity and problems between gays and straights, not less.

Josie| 12.23.10 @ 9:10PM

was it Finland where the church spoke against gay rights and 130,000 people left the church that day...More and more religious people are turning away from the church because of this very issue, we all know that Jesus would not allow discrimination against any individuals liberties..Jesus never once in the bible states that being gay is an abomination...Leviticus states that GOD says...
interesting how its SUCH an abomination..but its hardly even addressed in the bible....and Jesus was 30 years old...a super radical..never married...Hey..wait a minute..was Jesus.......umm....was he um.....gay?

Tim2| 12.23.10 @ 9:13PM

John will always the lose this argument especially if he bases his beliefs and opinions (since he gives NO facts at all, just like the attorneys that are fighting and losing the prop 8 case in CA)..John simply has animus towards the gay population..you would think he would be a little more grateful to the gay soldiers that have fought and died in every war this coutry has ever had to John and those likeminded individuals have the freedom to state that gays DONT deserve to serve openly in the military.

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:44PM

People can leave and can turn against any church they want to, but that doesn't mean the truth has changed one bit.

And spare us the facile "I am going to say you have an animus because you disagree with what I have to say." This is a serious issue for all military people, regardless of persuasion. It requires much more thought than what we have gotten from Congress, the President, or the Joint Chiefs.

tim2| 12.23.10 @ 9:18PM

tatosian..if you dont see whats disgusing on anti american about Aaron stating that 'fags that go to war..if they win great..if they dont even better." and then you state..what is anti american about that...well let me see:
its ANTI AMERICAN to wish gays that are fighting and dying for their coutry to lose and be killed...if you disagree..then I suggest you see a therapist immediately.

tatosian| 12.23.10 @ 9:55PM

Have any empathy for dead and mangled Christian soldiers that you so ardently want the American military to be rid of?
Christian soldiers who contributions to this nations campaigns far outweigh any contributions from the homosexual community?
Clearly not.
You can dish but you can't take it huh.

Gary| 12.23.10 @ 9:21PM

aaron and tatosian-
why dont you open up your bibles and sit around on your asses doing nothing for our military, while gay soldiers fight and die for our country.
Im sure it pleases you to see them die. Dont forget to read leviticus before going to bed little boys

Mel| 12.23.10 @ 9:25PM

Religious conservatives have lost every culture war America has ever had..and thank GOD for that!

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:48PM

Careful what you wish for there, Mel. Who do you really prefer: Me, the Catholic who sees in you a human being made in the image and likeness of God, or a radical Islamic AQ supporter who wants to kill you? Because at the end of the day, that's the fight we are in. A religious war. Why do I say that? Because I am a Christian, right? Go ahead, let the bigotry flow. But the answer is no. It's a religious war because AQ has said that is what they are fighting.

Gary| 12.23.10 @ 9:28PM

let John, Aaron and Tatosian sit around, do nothing but complain about gays in this country all they want. We are the younger generation, and we vastly support gay rights and freedoms..This is what aggrevates John and those who agree with him..they KNOW they are going to eventually lose this battle..time and the numbers are on the side of gays...its only a matter of time until they have EVERY right that John arrogantly enjoys.

Josie| 12.23.10 @ 9:36PM

we of the younger generation are just not going to put up with your crap. We are not putting up with you not allowing gays in the military..we are not putting up with your not allowing gays to bring dates to the prom..we are not putting up with schools (like belmont) firing a coach that led the team to the finals because she and her partner adopted a baby together. We are going to continue the push for equality for every American Citizens..no exceptions!!!

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:50PM

Nice to see other youngsters here... But is this a push for equality or is it a push to force people to accept and affirm that which they do not want to accept and affirm. I have read After the Ball, too.

gary| 12.23.10 @ 9:41PM

The leaders of the Pentagon...Gates..one of the most respected military men ever ...Mullin, Powell, The President of the US, The Senate, The House of Rep., The vast (77%) majority of the American People, 70% of the military currently serving all respectfully disagree with you John..and that is one FACT, that you cant talk your way around.

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:52PM

Well, if only those facts were true. Gates is not all that respected. Mullen has little respect. He's a politician and always has been. Well the President did support it. He's also supported a lot of other things like Obamacare, which haven't gone so well. How's the economy doing, by the way? As for your percentages, they are from flawed studies. If 77% of Americans supported this, then why did they push a flawed study as the only real basis for changing DADT and why did they only debate it for two days? Because they knew it was a losing proposition the more debate went on.

Bruce Berger| 12.23.10 @ 11:05PM

Gary,

The problem with your analysis is that the success of the military may not be dependent on the 70% in favor of repeal, but on the 30% that don't favor it. What if those 30% don't re-enlist, or don't enlist in the first place? In that case, would you view that to be a serious problem?

This is my whole issue with how this has been handles. It has been treated like an opinion poll. But in an all-volunteer force that is not reality. In a volunteer force the 30% don't have to abide by what the 70% want. They can vote with their feet by walking out the door at the end of their enlistment. The reality is that we need all the soldiers we currently have to stay in the force. If they leave, you need someone else to step into the breach. Who will that be?

I am not an expert, but it seems to me that the military and political leaders didn't really explore this question in the study that has been cited to support repeal.

So we are left with a big unanswered question. Are we confident that military manpower needs will be met?

Unlike some, I am willing to grant that a gay soldier is equal to a straight soldier in terms of fighting ability. I am also willing to grant that there won't be morale issues from openly gay soldiers being part of the military. But I have not seen evidence that convinces me that we can be sanguine about the 30% wanting to stay in the military or join in the first place.

bsuden| 12.23.10 @ 10:03PM

Question: We segregate heterosexuals in the military. Will we segregate homosexuals, and if not, why not? That's the real question. The pro homosexuals have yet to even acknowledge it, never mind take a guess. It's so much easier to decry "discrimination" and accuse those who disagree with their agenda of "bigotry".
A big lie becomes the truth when it is repeated often enough.
cheers

Gaz| 12.23.10 @ 10:42PM

How would you seperate homosexuals?

Again citing other nations who have intergrated homosexuals into their Armed Forces there is quite obviously no need to do this.
Gay soldiers will act just as professionally as straight soldiers, there will not be some sudden outbreak of gay soldiers acting improperly.
Again all the scaremongering is unfounded and will be proven as such now.

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:55PM

Well. Interesting. No need to segregate. Then let's put all men and all women together. They are all professionals, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Gaz| 12.23.10 @ 11:13PM

At the end of the day this will all blow over just as it has in my Armed Forces.
Bringing up weak responses such as the issue of seperating two distinct genders smacks of desperation.
Merry Christmas America - Bigots 0 - Equality 1

From A Serving British Soldier in Afghanistan

PCP Smoker| 12.23.10 @ 11:20PM

I used to sit in the maneuvering area for 6 hours watches. We use to tell, retell, and embellish all kinds of personal stories, especially, past sexual conquests and the intricacies and quirks of the lovely ladies at whatever port.
I could simply not image having to either sit there in silence for the whole watch or to be forced to hear some homo recount his conquests a with some dude. Fuck that. Fuck the GOP, and fuck the American public.
I would recommend all bubble heads to support "Paperclip" ( People Against People Ever Re-enlisting. Civilian Life Is Preferable)

mt| 12.24.10 @ 9:19AM

Thanks to John for continuing this discussion. Nothing inevitable about DADT's repeal. The elite was for it clearly but the military not, despite cont'd suggestions by proponents to the contrary. Read the report. It notes that the authors sense was that the majority of service members were against the repeal. Also not sure where the radio right was on this. Didn't hear Rush discuss it. Don't remember any VFW leaders or training experts interviewed on FOX. Where were Huckabee, Palin or Thune on this? Didn't seem that media ever offered opposing point of view. It seemed to really not be a victory so much as a surrender. I suspect if those in favor of maintaining DADT had argued with the strenght of John it would have been a closer fight.

jjv| 12.24.10 @ 1:27PM

The reference to other militaries also fails to note that other countries often do not have our litigious society or our rule of law. Sure they allow gay servicemen but informal hostility keeps them in check. Hostility that is forbidden in the U.S. and bad for morale in any event. In other places we do not know if there have been negative effects becasue no one in the press or the military will publicize or highlight them.

Yosemeti Sam| 12.24.10 @ 2:16PM

Yo, Sodomist Sympathizers - expound on the virtue(s) of sodomy.

Also, give us the time line when the word sodomy was superceded by the word homosexual and then superceded by the word so generally comically used nowadays.

Greta| 12.24.10 @ 3:34PM

Seems to me the ones who want to make the change, especially during time of war, should have to have the emperical evidence that the change will not make any negative impact in any way on the war effort. As to other countries, last time I looked, our constitution does not have clauses in it that say we should follow other countries when we are talking about new constitutional rights. In fact, I think several rulings have stated that fact very strongly that other countries laws do not apply here. Also, we have a country that is one Nation under God and not sure what other countries were founded with the same freedoms given to each by our Creator. Also interesting to see the same people that bash every military act by Israel using this as an example of how we should act.

Gaz| 12.24.10 @ 4:11PM

It'sm obvious no matter what is said you will disagree with it.
What is obvious is that you do not speak for the majority of American society, as for bringing other countries into this, well considering there is now a wealth of experience of integrating gay personnel a wise country would take this information on board.
Face the music you lost this battle, and you'll continue to lose the battle.
The right decision was made, no correction, the just decision was made.
Equality 1 Bigots 0 ;)
Merry Christmas

Gaz| 12.24.10 @ 3:58PM

"Sure they allow gay servicemen but informal hostility keeps them in check. Hostility that is forbidden in the U.S. and bad for morale in any event. In other places we do not know if there have been negative effects becasue no one in the press or the military will publicize or highlight them."

As a serving British Soldier I can say with all honesty there is very little hostility, yes we have a few old guard bigots, but they will soon be gone as they are of the older generation.
I have heard so much about how intergration of gay people will destroy the military and 'unit cohesion'
We had exactly the same type of comments from the religious nuts and bigots, hat happened after intergration came to pass?
Nothing we carried on doing the jobs we've always done.
In fact if anything it has strengthened the Briswtish Military, we have a rock solid 'Equality & Diversity' policy which is to the benefit of all miitary personnel regardless of their sexuality, race, colour, creed, culture, religion.
The biggest thing about allowing gay people to serve openly is they no longer have to keep parts of their lives secret, they don't need to constantly look over their shoulder fearing for job security.
It will increase trust within units not destroy it, nobody likes being lied to least of all a soldier who has to rely on others.
The British Military mirrors British society and is all the stronger for it, we even allow our sailors, soldiers and airmen to march proudly in uniform during the London Gay Pride march each year.
We actively recruit from the gay community as we do from all walks of life.
Some information to read with an open mind:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-13439.html/

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010.....ductivity/

Gaz| 12.24.10 @ 4:05PM

"In Britain and Canada, roughly two thirds of military respondents in polls said
they would refuse to serve with open gays, but when inclusive policies were
implemented, no more than three people in each country actually resigned."

Sounds very familiar doesn't it!

http://www.palmcenter.org/publ.....aries_2010

http://www.palmcenter.org/publ.....l_cohesion

Greta| 12.24.10 @ 10:04PM

Gaz, one message. The US is not Britain nor is it Israel. We have far different values and government. We have a far different constitution and court system. We have a much more litigeous society with lawyers hanging from every lampost and far too many in our congress. So if you guys want gays serving openly and you have no issue with it, that is fine and I could care less. It has nothing to do with us nor is it any measure of how it will do here.

As to all the other gloating about this repeal of DADT, remember there is a 60 day period where those who are to implement this program have to put together a plan and bring it to congress to show how they are going to do it and not impair our ability to fight or to impact retention and recruiting. Waiting for them will be a far different congress recently elected who will be looking this plan over very carefully and we in the various tea party groups are working hard to get the word to these new congress people that we will hold them responsible if they pass on this and it blows up. We are also working on the others who supported this mess. So for all those gloating about how the young are going to change the world, take a look at voting records and how much they know about what is going on. It is a pretty pathetic record. And I will also point out that in every state where this type of issue has gone to the ballot, gays have lost. You see most people do not see this as a pure civil right like the african americans had to indure born with their skin and the history of slavery. Most blacks in fact are not that enthused about gays using them as their way to put forth their perverted lifestyle. We had a joint mission session with a very large and strong black church recently and this topic brought out some very strong rage. We polled both our churches and found that both had over 80% against the gay agenda and it went to over 90% when asked if they saw the gay issue attached or like the black civil rights struggle in any way. Many indicated they would not support Obama again if he continues to push these type of issues.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 2:03AM

I'm not worried about the arguments between John Guardino and Aaron Goldstein distracting conservatives from the issues. I'm worried about the military being distracted from its important missions by stupid political correctness and the arguments within the military that will ensue when it comes to "accomodating" (i.e. providing special treatment to) gay and lesbian military people. I simply believe the militancy by gays and lesbians about this issue and about gay marriage is not only destructive of the culture that ultimately enables self-government, it is also an exercise in self-indulgence that does not promote military values - the values that help us prevail in the critical battles in the years ahead. But go ahead, call me a "bigot." It's the easiest thing to do, like what the Southern Poverty Law Center did, when they have no coherent arguments for anything but absolute freedom to do what you like, unless it's making money or operating a business.

Ted| 12.26.10 @ 9:29PM

The first major problem is the current long standing ban on homosexual men donating blood which was reaffirmed this past June. While the “lifetime ban” was not warmly received, all opposing discussion centered on the allowable time between homosexual sex (men having sex with men – MSM) and the act of blood donation. See http://www.healthfinder.gov/ne.....cid=640056

In a 2006 transcript of a similar hearing concerning MSM blood donation, it was noted on page 46-47 of the document that the European Blood Exchange also bans donations from MSM, and the ban was upheld in a court challenge. Of note, on page 48 of the report the MSM HIV infection rate in the US was cited as approximately 500,000. This number was essentially validated in the next document as posted on the CDC website:
The document states the following four highlights:

- MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).

- MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).

- While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).

- MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

The last point is most disconcerting when combined with a recent study. A new study on city teens and sex has identified some risky sexual behaviors - particularly among teens that have partners of both genders. According to the study in the journal Pediatrics released in October, nearly 1 in 10 of the city's sexually-active high school students say they have had at least one partner of the same sex. Those teens reported higher-than-average rates of dating violence, forced sex, and risky sexual behavior. Of the male teens who say they have had both male and female partners, just 44 percent said they used a condom the last time they had sex. That's compared to 79 percent of male teens who have only slept with female partners and 62 percent who'd slept with only same-sex partners. The report is based on more than 17,000 public health surveys administered in New York City high schools in 2005 and 2007. This tells us that MSM sex in high school students is radically increasing. Not included in this study was a demographic of HIV transmission for these teenagers. Regardless, this statistics is important.

If 4% of US Population of males between the ages of 13 and older is MSM inclined, and 532,000 MSM are HIV positive, we can extrapolate the following: Of the US Census demographics of military service the closest US Census ages statistics are 13-44 – approximately 53 million men This means that of this percentage, approximately 12% - more than 1 in 10 - of all MSM in the USA are HIV Positive. If the 4% statistic is applied only 53 million military aged demographic, we get a 25% infection rate – or 1 in 4 MSM in that age group are HIV positive. This tells us the infection rate for military aged personnel is between 12% to 25% - an neither statistic is acceptable. Add to that approximately half of all new annual HIV infections are MSM and the medical cost and readiness implications are significant. This clearly shows the MSM demographic is the most risky for HIV of any demographic in America. These statistics coupled to the NY City school statistic of 1 in 10 males has had sex with another male creates the potential for spiraling HIV transmission rate in the military service demographic.

These clearly documented facts show that (1) homosexual conduct is the highest risk conduct for HIV transmission; (2) that the MSM population group has the highest per capita infection rates of any demographic; (3) MSM blood donations are banned for life and that status was reaffirmed in June 2010 making battlefield medicine problematic at best.

Without considering any other aspects of the issue of open service of homosexuals such as privacy, religious and moral issues, these HIV infection rate facts should clearly demonstrate that open service of homosexuals is not in the best interest of the Nation’s security posture and will clearly harm the readiness of the armed forces and greatly increase medical bills for serving HIV positive soldiers and veterans (as the requirement to treat them transfers to the Veterans Administration).

Without a doubt, one of the more interesting aspects of the debate is homosexual marriage – something that the homosexual community will pursue with renewed vigor if the military ban on homosexual service is repealed. It is instructive that three of four Supreme Court Justices in Iowa who voted to make gay marriage legal were summarily “fired” by the electorate over this issue in November This would indicate the homosexual agenda is not playing well across America.

The American Spectator

View all comments (83) | Leave a comment Leave a comment