You lefties are always whining that the rights of the minority are not dependent on the whim of the majority, blah blah blah.

It doesn't matter how many vets say they feel comfortable in the presence of gays or lesbians. If even one person in the unit is uncomfortable, that person has a right not to serve with gays.

It's no fun being hoisted on your own petard, is it?

Note to regulars: Myke K is a **SPOOF** of a real troll called Mike K. Don't embarrass yourselves by falling for a spoof, m'kay?

From The West Wing

Major Tate: Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.

Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?

Major Tate: No sir, I don't.

Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: 'Cause they impose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.

Major Tate: Yes, sir.

Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: That's what I think, too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.

Major Tate: Yes, sir.

Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: The problem with that is that's what they were saying about me 50 years ago - blacks shouldn't serve with whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... Beat that with a stick.

Look, let's also not forget that the younger you are the more likely you are to support same sex marriage, and that our active duty forces are a very young bunch. It is entirely consistent that folks serving aren't bothered, while the generally much older public (and wrongheaded Villagers) seem to be hung up on this issue which has no effect on unit performance.

Mike K

If even one person in the unit is unconfortable, that person has a right not to serve with damn nigras, jews, homosexuals, mexicans, a-rabs, and all kinds of different chinks turning us good god fear'n white folks into a minority.

It's no fun being foisted on by a retard.

It really is kind of baffling.
This is an issue that was a non-issue in WWII.

I'd really like to see an analysis of the impact caused by removal of gay personnel, particularly in a combat area, or supporting operations in one. How many soldiers were killed or injured due to lack of translating ability, for instance, or insufficient numbers of unit medics, etc.

Then, frankly, I would like to see the folks who turned them in held responsible for those casualties.
I can't believe that anyone would not agree, that abruptly and permanently removing an Arabic linguist from a unit in Iraq constitutes providing aid and support to the enemy(regardless of how "enemy" is defined.)

Myke K is not a troll! Take that back, Shade Tail! He's a beacon of goodness and truth and you know it.

I think you meant to address your note to non-regulars, or irregulars, or whatever, no? But thanks for illuminatin'.

Think of the cost of converting all the showers to private stalls.

Leadership is one of the key factors in unit cohesion. Thus, the big question is what guidance to provide commanders when the change comes about. They will be handling the same old issues with a new twist---issues with domestic violence, fraternization, etc.

The arguments about showers and dorms completely ignore that the fact that homosexuals serve. And it is logical to assume that homosexuals serve in a greater percentage among new recruits. We live and work along side each other. And have for a while.

Our commanders, however, will see the stranger stuff. They are going to need advise and feedback.

Point of fact: various Greek armies- eg: the Spartans- encouraged homosexual relationships amongst their soldiers as a means of *improving* unit cohesion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece

-Z

"Myke K is not a troll!"

Well, no. He/She/It is a spoof of a troll. As I said. :)

"I think you meant to address your note to non-regulars, or irregulars, or whatever, no?"

Uh...considering how frequently people keep falling for it? No, actually. But I guess the non-regulars need to know also. :)

A large part of the anti-gay attitude is an obsession with gay sexuality. They see gays as sex machines and serial rapists.
Actually most rapes of both boys and females of all ages are the acts of "straight" males.

So there is a lot of projection here, putting straight sexual obsession and misdeeds onto a minority.

I've often wondered whether the "unit cohesion" concern isn't really a concern that straight soldiers are so homophobic that they will react negatively to openly serving gays, but just the opposite. That is, I wonder if the generals are afraid that there are so many bi-curious straights in the army that allowing gays to serve openly with straights in close quarters might lead to rampant "experimentation" in the barracks, resulting in fraternization issues. Not that I think that's at all likely; I just wonder if it's what's going on in the generals' minds. It does seem clear that a lot of opposition to gay marriage is driven by the belief on the part of the Christian right that if gay marriage is legalized, tons of straights will abandon their wives to marry other men because they can't resist the siren call of the cock. Gen. J.C. Christian might have more to say about that.

Paul W. is right on target. I am 29 years old and have over a dozen friends in the service, most of whom have spent years in Iraq, and every one of them is accepting of homosexuals and are mind-boggled by DADT. I even have one friend who is gay, in the army and while he neither asks nor tells, most of his unit are aware of his preference and they don't mind at all.

It's time to destroy this version of segreation and allow all patriotic Americans to serve their country.

We all knew our company clerk was *off-post gay.* We also knew he was probably the best goddamn company clerk in the United States Army. The First Sergeant was a drunk and the C.O. was a moron, so Corporal X ran the outfit.

DADT was never about the military's concern about "unit cohesion", it was about the Congress and serving the demands of the anti-gay lobby.

The military serves under the command of a civilian, it is what insures our democracy. If the commander-in-chief scraps DADT the military has no option but to comply -- just as it did when Truman desegregated the armed forces.

This is all about Congressmen who are too immature and bigoted to think straight. They are the problem, not the military or gays.

"We all knew our company clerk was *off-post gay.* We also knew he was probably the best goddamn company clerk in the United States Army. The First Sergeant was a drunk and the C.O. was a moron, so Corporal X ran the outfit."

He's got a job with Oprah waiting for him.

The problem with DADT is that it's not a rational issue. If there is real movement on overturning itbet your bottom dollar that the percentage of public support will plummet as both sides draw their lines in the sand. I'm not sure the public at large really cares. I would say ambivalent is probably more accurate, but if it becomes a front page debate that ambivalence will quickly turn into something else.

There is no rational argument to support DADT, but pretty much any "gay" issue is radioactive. I'm honestly not expecting to see any major push to overturn it anytime soon. It would be a bitter divisive battle that wouldn't reap many political rewards. Sadly, I think were stuck with it for some time to come.

The DADT Tango

"Don't ask, don't tell,
and you can serve your country well.
'Cuz if the other fellas knew,
they might all want to try it too."

It's an age thing, and, if anything, the Brass and Congress are seriously aged.

When I was in my (all boys) prep school, there were no gays.

At my 50th reunion this summer there were several. . .

(maybe they caught it in college?)

If a soldier isn't tough enough to handle the possibility of someone checking out his pee-pee in the shower, I don't trust him defending my country.

DJ got there first, but:

As the claim goes, servicemen and women might be uncomfortable serving alongside soldiers who are openly [strike]gay[/strike black, and that discomfort means a unit may not function as it should. It's better, the argument goes, to exclude qualified, well-trained soldiers from service in the midst of two wars than to make anti-[strike]gay[/strike] black soldiers feel ill at ease.

Fixed.

And bullshit. These very same arguments were protested against racially integrating the armed forces. We did it anyway, and we're a stronger, safer nation for it.

Time to junk DADT and let any qualified loyal American serve. After all, with so many chickenhawks out there, we need them .

"Come on, Grampa, you're telling me there was a time when I couldn't have gotten married or served in the military just 'cause I'm gay?"
"Yes, honey."
"Aw, that's just one of your old yarns."

The day will come, and sooner than we think. The bigots are dying, and they are not being replaced in any numbers. Keep your eyes on the prize and hold on!

In the meantime, though, not every gay person wants to serve in the military or get married, but every person, gay and straight alike, needs a job and access to health care, clean water to drink and clean air to breathe.

Let's keep up the fight, but set our priorities, too.

Well, in the name of "preparedness", the military should prohibit all personnel from drinking alcohol. The impairing effects of alcohol can last for more than 24 hours (i.e., during on-duty hours), so no military personnel should be allowed to drink.

The DADT policy is harmful to ALL military personnel. That's why it should be abolished.

I served for 14 yrs in the ARNG, AR, and active duty. I was deployed to both Panama and 1st Gulf War. The "unit cohesion" argument is complete BS. I served with 2 people who I knew were gay and they were both exceptional soldiers who performed their duties without any gripes, bitches, or complaints. Chain of command was also aware but did nothing because both soldiers were top notch. However, what did cause problems with "unit cohesion" was a solider with the initials of JK from Texas. He was a bible thumper turned drug addict. We also had a couple of racist "down home southern boys" who didn't like....well, I guess y'all can guess that. This country has been able to survive because of inclusion not because of exclusion. We need anyone who is willing to serve because we all know that the right wingnuts who starting wars won't fight. Just ask Dick Cheney, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Tancredo, Bush daughters, among so many others on the right

I honestly don't mind if gays serve in the military. What I do mind are people expressing their opinion who don't think before they open their mouths. The brass look at things like this. Currently the military keeps men and women segregated. (Mostly there are exceptions) However there are currently no shared showers that I've seen in the military or shared quarters for singles. So if the military won't let men and women shower together in boot camp, or regular quarters why would they allow straight men/women shower with gays or lesbians? Or should the military just build more showers for them too? That is the primary cause of the fight to keep DADT. Nothing else really. It would also cause some problems but like previously stated the same happened with integration. Those could be overcome. Try to remember, that this country still isn't ready (the majority) to accept same sex marriage yet. Once that happens then fight for the military. Other than that your pissing in the wind. The most conservative organization in the country isn't going to change or accept. Just like I was always told. You want to make change happen, become a Sergeant Major and you can make change. (I did eight years. Left as a Sgt) You say more and more people are joining who accept gay marriage (true) but they are the little people, it'll take 15-20 yrs before they can make a difference. No one listens to a Private.