Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Nothing new about tea partiers Previous entry: Seriously, why are they so obsessed with rape metaphors?

The Marine Corps’ top officer says he wants separate homo barracks if DADT is repealed

LGBTMilitary

Jesus H. Christ—Admiral Mullen has a handful now. The free-flowing ignorance of Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway, who surely has gay service members bunking in with hetero ones, is ready for some same-sex segregation. They’ve already seen each other naked, General.

The Marine Corps’ top officer said March 25 that even if the ban on openly-serving gays in the services is lifted, he would draw the line at forcing heterosexual Marines to bunk with gays on base.

“We want to continue (two-person rooms), but I would not ask our Marines to live with someone who is homosexual if we can possibly avoid it,” Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway told Military.com during an exclusive interview at the Pentagon.  “And to me that means we have to build BEQs (bachelor enlisted quarters) and have single rooms.”

And what do you know, Military.com goes to military “expert” Elaine Donnelly:

“In this case, I would want to reserve the right of a Marine that thinks he or she wouldn’t want to [share a room with a homosexual]. And again that’s the overwhelming … number of people that say that they wouldn’t like to do so.” Conway said the Corps billets two-to-a-room—unique today among the services—because it believes it’s good for unit cohesion. But if a gay Marine sharing a room with a straight one has the opposite effect, the Corps will adopt the single-room standard of the other services.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said the question is whether the military, without a ban on gays serving openly, will opt for mixing gays and heterosexual troops in the same facilities or have “separate but equal” facilities.

“That’s what [Conway] seems to be advocating here,” she said. This is something the working group established by Gates to look at repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should address up front, Donnelly said.

In no time flat, The Palm Center sent out a release with other generals with common sense, noting that there would be more disturbance of unit cohesion with a clearly homophobic move like this.

Richard H. Kohn, a prominent military historian who was faculty at the Army and National War Colleges, and was Chief of Air Force History for the U.S. Air Force, said that “segregating Marines, as Gen. Conway envisions, might undermine the very cohesion he and other opponents of change say they are trying to protect.” Kohn said that “the proper response to a question on the issue is to defer any statement until the Ham-Johnson group reports,” referring to the year-long Pentagon Working Group. Kohn is currently Professor of History and Adjunct Professor of Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Retired Marine General Carl Mundy, one of Conway’s predecessors as Commandant of the U.S Marine Corps, opposes openly gay service, but recently said that if repeal is going to happen, “the easiest way to deal with it is to make it as simple as possible. The last thing you even want to think about is creating separate facilities or separate groups or separate meeting places or having four kinds of showers — one of straight women, lesbians, straight men and gay men. That would be absolutely disastrous in the armed forces. It would destroy any sense of cohesion or teamwork or good order and discipline.”

Other top generals have noted that uniformity is what’s needed for this policy change, and that divided leadership and separate rules or facilities will make the transition harder, not easier. In a 2009 op-ed in the Washington Post, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. John Shalikashvili, said mixed messages from leadership could be toxic, and that it was crucial for top leaders to communicate consistent signals that the force is capable of carrying out new orders. “Given the inevitability of change,” he wrote, “it will be important for senior leaders to send clear signals of support to the rank and file. Every general officer knows that mixed signals undermine leadership. Indeed, studies show that when organizations implement controversial change, signals from the top must be clear.” Gen. Shalikashvili wrote that when senior officers oppose the inevitable, their messages “could cause the very disruptions they predict.”

...Nathaniel Frank, Senior Research Fellow at the Palm Center, said Conway’s plan is inconsistent with research on gays in the military. “Decades of research, including all of the conclusions of the 1993 RAND study, shows that separating gays and straights is a bad idea,” he said. “RAND found that creating policies that are applied only to one group of people or to accommodate the prejudices of another group of people only undercut the larger mission of a unified, integrated force.”

Related:
* General Conway’s DADT Comments “Off Base & Out of Line”

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 11:04 PM • (89) Comments

Luckily, he’ll probably be leaving the job soon…if only because no Commandant since 1944 has served for longer than four years.

Comment #1: truth is life  on  03/26  at  11:22 PM

I suppose it would be bad for team integration, but on a purely personal level, I think that if I was gay/lesbian, it might be nice to know I’d be given a roommate who:

1. knows what it’s like to be different, come to terms with it, come out, etc.
2. isn’t going to feel threatened and in return become a threat to me.
3. might be interested and interesting.

Especially if I was from a small town/conservative locale where it’s hard to safely be out and meet people my age and orientation.

Comment #2: Samantha Vimes  on  03/26  at  11:22 PM

I’ve got a better idea. How about segregated facilities for the phobes? All the guys who aren’t totally insecure and in a Closet of One can live and work together the way they always have.

Comment #3: paul  on  03/26  at  11:23 PM

Don’t make the mistake of thinking Military.com is anything but a Freeper/Bagger hangout. Liberals are not welcome. It’s a vile place.

Comment #4: ginmar  on  03/26  at  11:28 PM

Thinking of the pedopriest thread, I’d like to point out that both Conway and Donnelly are Irish surnames. Maybe the sexual repression rampant in 19th century Ireland was passed down to them.

Comment #5: Hector B.  on  03/26  at  11:36 PM

General Galloway said, “I would not ask our Marines to live with someone who is homosexual if we can possibly avoid it.”

Interesting choice of words. “Marines” are presumed straight. Gay Marines are spoken of as “someone” in general. Galloway can’t quite wrap his head around the idea of there being real Marines who are really gay.

Comment #6: catfood  on  03/27  at  12:03 AM

Conway wouldn’t want to bunk with a homosexual because he knows how attracted they are to grouchy middle-aged bigots.

Comment #7: Molly, NYC  on  03/27  at  12:06 AM

And yet, this asshole will do as he’s damn well ordered to do if DADT is repealed.  And that thought makes me smile.

Comment #8: Seraph  on  03/27  at  02:23 AM

Oh, yes, Donnelly - who wants women kept out of uniform because it interferes with her idea of the Manly Way, and who claims homosexuals are a threat to servicemembers because one time, back in 1977, a female soldier was supposedly gang-raped by lesbians.

Comment #9: mythago  on  03/27  at  02:23 AM

having four kinds of showers — one of straight women, lesbians, straight men and gay men

I don’t see any provisions for bisexual soldiers here.  Do they shower with the gays?  And who determines if a soldier’s bisexual enough for the gay shower?  Like, does a woman admitting she’d have sex with Angelina Jolie make her bi enough, or does the “some people transcend sexual orientation lines” rule come into effect?

Comment #10: Maureen  on  03/27  at  04:54 AM

Politics :-
In an interview with Military.com published yesterday, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said, “I would not ask our Marines to live with someone who is homosexual if we can possibly avoid it.

“And to me that means we have to build BEQs (bachelor enlisted quarters) and have single rooms.”

Conway is a known opponent of a recent push by President Barack Obama and Democrats to repeal the 1993 law, but his comments seem to fall short of Mixon’s call student aid.

Mixon was harshly criticized by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for publicly urging troops and families to speak out against repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
medical school
Mixon, commander of the Army in the Pacific, made his views known in a letter to the editor of Stars and Stripes.

Comment #11: politics  on  03/27  at  08:59 AM

Believe me, one thing every young gay must learn to survive is how to behave in a men’s locker room full of straight guys without giving offense.

Comment #12: rea  on  03/27  at  11:08 AM

Believe me, one thing every young gay must learn to survive is how to behave in a men’s locker room full of straight guys without giving offense.

Yup.

Comment #13: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  03/27  at  11:33 AM

Ok, how is someone going to be brave enough to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda when they’re too scared to share a bunk with a gay man?

Comment #14: Ben D.  on  03/27  at  12:25 PM

What a bunch of whiny babies.  They want to be able to pick their bunk arrangements?  What ever the hell happened to DISCIPLINE people?

Comment #15: Ms Kate  on  03/27  at  12:28 PM

My god!  If you sleep in barracks with gay soldiers, you might pick up The Gay right through the air! 

If they don’t segregate the gay soldiers away from the Real Soldiers™ eventually the whole Marine Corp might look like this!...

Comment #16: MikeEss  on  03/27  at  12:40 PM

Believe me, one thing every young gay must learn to survive is how to behave in a men’s locker room full of straight guys without giving offense.

Being straight and still relatively young (under-30) I have been hit on a few times at random bars/concerts by men.  I say I am not interested and straight, they look saddened but either move on or just talk for a moment.  It’s not as there is some awkward pause and then they attack me with gayness.  I take it as a bit of an honor to be desired by anybody.

Comment #17: Xeranar  on  03/27  at  12:59 PM

I say I am not interested and straight, they look saddened but either move on or just talk for a moment.

Yeah, it’s the closeted ones like Massa that get into sexual harassment because they’re so repressed, which is an argument for serving openly.

Comment #18: Ben D.  on  03/27  at  01:08 PM

Maureen @ 10 has a great point.  I would vote for the bi-sexuals to all shower together; that could be fun.

Comment #19: helen w. h.  on  03/27  at  01:16 PM

Seraph @8, YES!

President Obama had better not make Clinton’s mistake.  He needs to be polite but firm and stick to, “Objections, noted, gentlemen.  Carry on.”

Comment #20: Dr. Psycho  on  03/27  at  01:55 PM

helen @19: I’m pretty sure that we can expect bisexual service men and women to be professionals and that a bisexual shower would not have any more chance of ‘fun’ as any other.

That said, I’m not a service man and I don’t have to be a professional and I totally dig that idea. wink

Comment #21: BlackBloc  on  03/27  at  01:56 PM

So currently they have 2 people to a room even though most soldiers get their own rooms, is that what it says? (I thought most low-level/young soldiers lived in barracks of more like 20 people in a large room, but maybe that’s not accurate).

Having lived through the dorms in college, I’d be amazed if everyone isn’t excited to get their own private room, for whatever reason. Having a random roommate in your bedroom is not the most pleasant way to live. Even if you get along, its much nicer if they have a bedroom next door to you and you can still go to sleep at the time you want in private.

Comment #22: geogami  on  03/27  at  02:17 PM

@22: Big dorms of 20+ people are still used in Basic Training and other training programs.  Barracks in permanent units are a little more pleasant.  And while having a random roommate may be less than ideal, a well-run unit (or a well-run college) will make sure that roommates are compatible, and that people who are incapable of living with others get a single room.

Comment #23: BABH  on  03/27  at  02:35 PM

If they don’t segregate the gay soldiers away from the Real Soldiers™ eventually the whole Marine Corp might look like this!…

I was expecting the link to go to Monty Python’s “Military Fairy” sketch.

Comment #24: Rebecca  on  03/27  at  05:47 PM

Speaking as a lesbian in college who has had problems with homophobic roommates - personally, I would appreciate having some method to prevent being forced to room with homophobes. This would be especially true if college girls were armed and trained to be violent. Of course, not all gays and lesbians feel this way, and furthermore I think the solution is most certainly NOT to just have all gays in separate rooms.

As for what the solution is - well, I’d suggest the homophobes be forced to have separate rooms, so that they could be ostracized, but then again I do understand that there are costs to consider. Perhaps roommate questionnaires? In which there is a both a “are you homosexual” and “are you homophobic” question? Then again, that’s very invasive. There’s no perfect solution to that problem, it seems to me.

Comment #25: Triste Morningstar  on  03/27  at  06:02 PM

There’s no perfect solution to that problem, it seems to me.

I dunno, I can think of a fairly close-to-perfect solution: Maintain and enforce behavioral standards.  There’s no way to ensure that everyone will get paired up with someone perfectly suited to them, but it shouldn’t matter, because everyone should behave professionally and treat each other with a basic level of respect.  You’re an atheist living with a fundy?  Shouldn’t be an issue, because religious harassment is unacceptable.  You’re queer and living with a homophobe?  Shouldn’t be an issue, because sexual harassment is unacceptable.

I recognize that getting the armed services to really crack down on harassment would probably, in practice, be a lot more difficult than cobbling together some kind of sorting system, but that’s what we should be aiming for.

Comment #26: burgundy  on  03/27  at  06:40 PM

Ok, how is someone going to be brave enough to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda when they’re too scared to share a bunk with a gay man?

Yeah, I don’t get it - they rabbit on and on about “penetration” when it comes to bullets and guns, so what’s the big difference?

Comment #27: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/27  at  06:47 PM

I can think of a fairly close-to-perfect solution: Maintain and enforce behavioral standards.  There’s no way to ensure that everyone will get paired up with someone perfectly suited to them, but it shouldn’t matter, because everyone should behave professionally and treat each other with a basic level of respect.  You’re an atheist living with a fundy?  Shouldn’t be an issue, because religious harassment is unacceptable.  You’re queer and living with a homophobe?  Shouldn’t be an issue, because sexual harassment is unacceptable.
Comment #26: burgundy on 03/27 at 04:40 PM

Well, the people who get targeted for abuse in situations like this have to avoid being perceived as crybabies, so they’ll generally not report harassment unless it gets bad.

You want to avoid making the people who are discriminated against have to carry the larger burden of busting that discrimination.  Put them together in a room and require they work it out isn’t a full solution.

I’m not saying that’s all you’re proposing, burgundy.  Just that it’s complex, and I don’t blame any gay person for not wanting to share a room with a violent homophobe.

Comment #28: oldfeminist  on  03/27  at  08:14 PM

Maureen @10,

Okay, so as a lesbian who’d be prepared to go bi for Clive Owen or Nathan Filion, but who can’t stand Angelina - where the hell would I shower?

Comment #29: Theadosia  on  03/27  at  08:17 PM

Okay, so as a lesbian who’d be prepared to go bi for Clive Owen or Nathan Filion, but who can’t stand Angelina - where the hell would I shower?

Presumably in between Clive and Nathan.

Have fun.

Comment #30: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/27  at  08:21 PM

@burgundy - The problem with that solution is that while it is a nice idea in theory, and may eventually be a nice idea in practice (re: in a few generations when people understand that homophobia is not acceptable), right now that solution puts gays in some very stressful and potentially dangerous situations. This is why I say there’s no perfect solution. That is one possibility, I think, but it’s far from perfect. It is in fact quite unpleasant for many people.

(Sorry, not sure how to quote. Does this thing use BBCode, or what?)

Comment #31: Triste Morningstar  on  03/27  at  08:23 PM

And Richard H. Kohn is an expert how? He’s a historian, not an commander. A historian at army and Air Force war colleges at that. He knows shit about the Marine Corps.

I’m still not sure what to think about repealing DADT. While I do agree that gays do have the right to serve openly in the military, I just don’t think right now is the right time to start a social experiment when we’re fighting two wars (well the Marine Corps is fighting one, since we’ve pulled out of Iraq).

If what some of what you guys are proposing were implemented, segregated barracks for homophobes, then there would have to be a whole new barracks because there are a lot of homophobes in the Marine Corps. I’m just speaking from my own experience.

And seriously, get off Gen. Conway’s back. He’s the fucking Commandant, which means he’s a badass. He’s allowed to voice a concern for the Corps.

Comment #32: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/27  at  08:45 PM

Also, Triste Morningstar, I agree.

Comment #33: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/27  at  08:50 PM

“And seriously, get off Gen. Conway’s back. He’s the fucking Commandant, which means he’s a badass. He’s allowed to voice a concern for the Corps.”

...and I’m sure there were “badasses” who opposed Truman’s orders to desegregate the military too.  That didn’t make them right…

“While I do agree that gays do have the right to serve openly in the military, I just don’t think right now is the right time to start a social experiment when we’re fighting two wars (well the Marine Corps is fighting one, since we’ve pulled out of Iraq).”

With all the rabid Teabaggers and the other RWA loons who want to have never-ending wargasms, it doesn’t look there will be any “right time” any time soon. 

I suppose you think that the Civil Rights marches and voting rights for all should have been delayed too, because of course the Vietnam War was going on then also. 

Well, too damn bad…

Comment #34: MikeEss  on  03/27  at  09:00 PM

When I was in college, some of my friends had roommates who objected to their sexual orientations.  The RA would say, “give it two weeks, and if you’re still uncomfortable, you can move to another room.” 

It would be reasonably unobjectionable for the Marine Corps to have the same policy—no need for separate “homo barracks,” but if someone is really uncomfortable, allowing them to switch rooms while they gradually come to the realization that Gay People Are Not Out To Get You seems reasonable and humane (there is a little bit of tacit legitimizing of the homophobe’s concern, which I don’t love, but I’d accept it in the name of giving the homophobes one fewer straw man to trot out). 

And the same goes for the gay marine who doesn’t want to live with a homophobe—because of the safety concerns others have brought up, the two-week waiting period might not make sense in that case, but it can still be handled on an individual basis, with the assumption that accepting a gay roommate is the norm, and that gay marines aren’t a problem, homophobic ones are.

Comment #35: A.  on  03/27  at  09:22 PM

I’m still not sure what to think about repealing DADT. While I do agree that gays do have the right to serve openly in the military, I just don’t think right now is the right time to start a social experiment when we’re fighting two wars (well the Marine Corps is fighting one, since we’ve pulled out of Iraq).

Well, you say that as if there is any real chance of there being some significant uproar or disorder over it. The problem is that the whole “gays and homophobes can never work together omg” thing is actually pretty much nonsense. Some of the hicks will whine for a bit, and they might even start shit during the slow days, but once real combat starts, they’ll cut the shit pretty goddamn fast. The racists do it, as do the anti-semites and classists and various other assholes. This is no different.

Comment #36: Triste Morningstar  on  03/27  at  09:28 PM

Oh, and just by the way, #11 seems to be link spam. Don’t know if it’s a bot or not.

Comment #37: paul  on  03/27  at  10:13 PM

@ Triste Morningstar - [blockquotes]quote text[/blockquotes], replacing the square brackets with angle brackets

Mostly what I mean is that there needs to be a huge culture change.  I get really annoyed at the idea that we should always cater to the most troglodytic people.  It shouldn’t matter what people believe so long as they act right - you can be as homophobic as you like, but you still have to behave professionally.  And I think it’s important to keep coming back to that as a framing tactic - whenever people say, “oh, but it could adversely impact unit cohesion” or talk about segregation, what they’re really saying is “we don’t expect our soldiers to behave like professional adults.”  I want to hold them accountable for that sentiment.

But framing and philosophical issues don’t trump actual people’s lives, and of course I don’t support putting out servicemembers in danger.  I think the experience of women in the military shows just how much we can count on queer soldiers getting the support they need.  I’m not saying this is a near—term fix, just that, at some point, it’s got to be done.  Anything else is an admission of failure, it’s a second-best to actually holding people accountable for their behavior.

Comment #38: burgundy  on  03/27  at  10:36 PM

MikeEss, your assumption doesn’t make sense. If I opposed the integration of the military, why would I be supportive a delay in the Civil Rights Act? Minorities were integrated during the 1950s. It’s moot.

I stick by my opinion that we should wait until our combat troops are out of Afghanistan, since most of them are out of Iraq.

Triste Morningstar, I agree again. However, Marines aren’t constantly in combat. There is a lot of down time. A lot.

A., the Marine Corps doesn’t work that way. If you don’t like your roommate, then tough shit, buttercup. Then the games begin.

Comment #39: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/27  at  10:51 PM

@whiskeytangofoxtrot

While I have never been in the military, I am a big, decently built, butch acting gay man.  Therefore, I can pass, and have had the opportunity to listen to a lot of homophobic bullshit over the years.  As far as I can tell, the problem would not be in the showers.  Straight guys check out other guy’s weiners in the shower all the time, so it’s not that.  That’s part of the need to put everyone in a hierarchy.  It’s not being afraid someone will grab your ass or hit on you.  That’s rare and can be dealt with as the sexual harassment it is.  What it seems to come down to is that if a guy takes it in the ass, he’s like a woman, and women are less than.  So we don’t want women or gays in our manly Boy’s Club.  It ruins everything.

In reality, since we already have gays and women in the military, and we know they can be badass, too, there is no longer any good reason to exclude them.  Being in a war has nothing to do with it.  Nothing changes.  My ex-military friends all tell me everyone knows who is gay or lesbian already.  You already said it your last post.  If someone doesn’t like it, tough shit.  You are only disliking your bunkmate because he’s like a woman, and you are just going to have to live with it.

People are remarkably adaptable when they have to be.  The military will be just fine.

Comment #40: jackspratt  on  03/27  at  11:25 PM

Actually, assigning a homosexual and heterosexual male to the same room is about the best guarantee that they won’t be having sex in their rooms.  You segregate the homosexual Marines into their own barracks or own dorms, and you invite “fraternization.”

Maybe the Commandant would like to assign homosexual men and women to share two bunk dorm rooms?

Comment #41: Dana  on  03/27  at  11:47 PM

BABH wrote:

Big dorms of 20+ people are still used in Basic Training and other training programs.

You’ve way misunderestimated it: when my daughter was in BCT at Fort Jackson, she was in a bay with sixty women.

Comment #42: Dana  on  03/27  at  11:49 PM

That could be true. I think another reason would be sexual assault. There were a few rumors of men (gay or straight) raping other guys, drugging them, or whipping it out and propositioning whoever. Now, as far as I know, they were just rumors. I can’t say for a fact that those things happened. Sexual assault freaks anyone out. Another reason I think military men are generally against gays in the military is be because the military, especially the Marine Corps, is one of the few PC-free institutions left. Again, I’m only speaking on my experience with guys in my company. I’m not saying the Marine Corps is filled with homophobes.

Comment #43: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/27  at  11:57 PM

They’re not dorms, they’re squad bays. And when I went to boot camp, we had about 70 guys.

I like the way you think, Dana.

We need a strong military, not a PC one.

Comment #44: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/28  at  12:16 AM

WTF wrote: “A., the Marine Corps doesn’t work that way. If you don’t like your roommate, then tough shit, buttercup. Then the games begin.”

Other commenters here have asserted that attention is paid to compatibility in room assignments in the Marines.  And proposing that *all* of the big tough straight Marines need to be protected from the scary, scary fags seems like a bigger coddling move than what I’m suggesting.  But OK—if a straight Marine doesn’t want to room with a gay one, his CO can say, “Suck it up,” and point out that only a real pussy would have a problem sleeping in the same room with a gay dude.  Fine with me.  Either way, the separate homo barracks is not necessary.

Comment #45: A.  on  03/28  at  01:33 AM

I’m still not sure what to think about repealing DADT. While I do agree that gays do have the right to serve openly in the military, I just don’t think right now is the right time to start a social experiment when we’re fighting two wars (well the Marine Corps is fighting one, since we’ve pulled out of Iraq). <blockquote>

<blockquote>We need a strong military, not a PC one

The last time I checked, the UK had been fighting in Afghanistan and had been in Iraq.  Canada has been in Afghanistan since the beginning.  Israel has been fighting on and off for years.

Israel removed restrictions on openly gay personnel serving in 1993.  Canada in 1992, and the UK about the same time.

Also allowing openly gay soldiers and having been in combat over the last few years: Germany (Afghanistan), Russia (mini-war with Georgia), Netherlands (Afghanistan), Australia (Afghanistan), France (Afganistan), and so on.

As a former member and officer-trainee in the Canadian Forces, and thus having some military experience, allow me to put this succinctly: anyone who goes on about it causing problems, or somehow compromising the military are completely and totally full of shit.  Unless the US military is composed of mentally-impaired fucknuts who are incapable of dealing with people who are a tad different, in which case you should keep them safely locked up in base and away from everyone else, including your own citizens, then they’ll have exactly the same experience that every other goddamn military which has undergone this process has demonstrated; namely it doesn’t make one fucking bit of difference to operational readiness, operations, morale, recruiting, or retention.

I mean listen to yourselves.  These are the exact same statments made in the late 40s and early 50s after Truman ordered the military to desegregate, a process which finally happened in the US Army while they were suffering massively in the first part of the Korean War and were forced to integrate previously segregated units and found that by and large the troops didn’t give a shit what colour the guy sharing the foxhole was.

The complaints were stupid then, the same complaints transferred to gays are stupid now.

Comment #46: KeithM  on  03/28  at  01:56 AM

I like the way you think, Dana.

We need a strong military, not a PC one.

So you’re saying the Israelis are wimps?

Comment #47: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/28  at  03:00 AM

Well, if WhiskyTangoFoxtrot’s an example—-and I don’t necessarily think he is—-then the Marines sure are full of tools.

Comment #48: ginmar  on  03/28  at  03:27 AM

A., the commanders, or the barracks NCO, can tell you who your roommate is. But what’s from stopping some dude who’s pissed about being paired with a gay guy, lashing out? You can pretend that homophobia stops with a little heartfelt conversation, but shit doesn’t work that way.

KeithM, I understand that all the states you mentioned allow gays to openly serve. But were these changes implemented during war time? Who are you to talk about a multicultural society? How many blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, etc. serve in the Canadian military? For the record, Marines in my company were completely open about people “different” than themselves. As far as I know, we had no racists.

Phoenician in a time of Romans, no, I don’t think the Israelis are wimps. In fact, I admire their military. They don’t fuck around. But at the same time, our military is far superior than any other state’s and I hope it stays that way. I’m willing to compromise political correctness in exchange for military superiority.

ginmar, you’re a pogey bait douche bot.

Comment #49: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/28  at  04:20 AM

Phoenician in a time of Romans, no, I don’t think the Israelis are wimps. In fact, I admire their military. They don’t fuck around. But at the same time, our military is far superior than any other state’s and I hope it stays that way. I’m willing to compromise political correctness in exchange for military superiority.

Uh-huh.  Well, why not press for all Marines to wear Kabbala wrist bands to benefit military superiority?  Why not train them in knitting, in order to improve military superiority?  Why not require them to drill on a daily basis by jumping up and down on one leg while singing “I’m a little teapo” in order to improve military superiority?

I mean, there’s just as much real world evidence for asserting that those actions contribute to military superiority as there is for excluding gay soldiers…

Comment #50: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/28  at  04:51 AM

“A., the commanders, or the barracks NCO, can tell you who your roommate is. But what’s from stopping some dude who’s pissed about being paired with a gay guy, lashing out? You can pretend that homophobia stops with a little heartfelt conversation, but shit doesn’t work that way.”

I personally don’t give a shit whether some fucktard homophobe gets over his issues with gay people.  He signed up to follow orders, and when the policy changes, he’ll have to fucking deal with it and continue to follow orders.  He can leave his personal fears up his ass where they belong.

And have people forgotten that, you know, we have civilian control over the military?  I understand and agree that there is a military culture which is different from civilian culture, but at the end of the day, it’s controlled BY civilians, and if “military culture” doesn’t conform to the standards and spirit of what this country was built on, then it’s “military culture” that needs to change.

Comment #51: Evan Hurst  on  03/28  at  06:12 AM

But at the same time, our military is far superior than any other state’s and I hope it stays that way. I’m willing to compromise political correctness in exchange for military superiority.

and

But what’s from stopping some dude who’s pissed about being paired with a gay guy, lashing out?

Wait, which is it?  Is our military the best in the world, which would theoretically include the fact that when they receive an order no matter what it may be they do it, or will our soldiers defy a direct order by their superiors to treat homosexual soldiers the same way they would heterosexual soldiers?

And this argument still ignores the fact that homosexual soldiers already serve.  Our “far superior” military already has gay and lesbian servicemen and women in it.  We’ve been throwing away decent hardworking soldiers we’ve devoted vast amounts of expense into training—especially Arabic translators, which surprisingly are sort of necessary in the Middle East—because they’re gay.  How can we possibly have the best military in the world if we keep eliminating trained professionals for something that has nothing to do with their work in the field?

Comment #52: trollprincess  on  03/28  at  09:23 AM

But what’s from stopping some dude who’s pissed about being paired with a gay guy, lashing out?

Orders. 

Discipline. 

Repercussions for failure to follow orders.

Grow the fuck up.  Sexual harrassment is rampant in the military and it needs to be stamped out.  Repealing DADT is just a baby step.  Court martialing the fucks who think it’s okay to rape their female compatriots is another.

Whining that teh gay is just to upsetting to poor, fragile, cowardly Marines—especially in war time!—just shows utter cowardice.

Comment #53: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/28  at  10:30 AM

WTF? WTF @ #49, you are a real denialist jerk.  You should come over to my local paper, where some asshole who calls himself USMarine with presumably the years he served after it to view his vile racism.  Either a) he was openly racist in the military (though from some comments I think he was too scared shitless of his CO to be so, or b) he was able to control it while serving - just like homophobes would have to.  Once out, they can go back to being assholes.

Comment #54: phylosopher  on  03/28  at  10:59 AM

wtf-

First of all, social experiment. Every other first world nation pretty much already allows openly gay soldiers to serve in their military with no drop-off of their relative military prowess. Much like universal health care, it’s well-worn ground. Thanks to our regressive resistance to progress, we wouldn’t be engaging in any form of experimentation. The history and implementation has been well traveled and documented for us so we don’t need to worry about negative effects.

Secondly, key word openly. See, thing is that the military is currently full of homos. Yeah, strangest thing but homosexual people are prone to the same patriotism, economic desperation, and/or desire to escape that straight people are that drives them to join the military. I know, it’s like they were human beings or something. Anyways, what that means is that there are currently a large number of gays already in the military, already integrated, etc…

What will change is the word openly. Right now gay soldiers have to be deliberately closeted, which is corrosive to squad dynamics and trust. They have to by law lie to their fellow soldiers and be more worried about a fellow soldier suspecting and triggering an investigation than about that war thing. The law would merely allow those same soldiers to be open about their sexuality so they can stop worrying about being drummed out over bullshit and can better focus on the mission. That would be those soldiers who are already currently serving. We’re not going to be sending a recruitment van down Castro Street advertising hot barracks sex.

Third, America’s military superiority. It’s a cheap shot I know, but since World War II we’ve been stalemated by Korea, defeated by Vietnam, defeated Iraqi security forces, but then stalemated by Iraqis, defeated by Afghanis, and only really got any form of a resounding victory against the nation of Grenada. Considering we’ve consistently spent more money on the military than the rest of the world combined for a good number of years now, that’s not exactly the most heroic of resumes for America’s greatest military.

And yes, it’s a cheap shot and I fully understand that our main problem is that wars of occupation, hey, suck and that it has been our choice of targets and missions that have been the real reason that the military has so often been beaten by far weaker forces, but I’m a bad person.

Fourth, in a time of war. Well we could you know, stop those wars. Iraq, Afghanistan aren’t going to get better, those pooches are already pretty well screwed and the military has pretty much been in a holding pattern of PTSD inducement for years now so I think they’d welcome any change just for a shake-up. But beyond that, there is Israel who well, have kind of been at a heightened state of existential panic and pseudo-war its entire existence so yes, they have “implemented these sweeping changes” during a time of war.

Also, integration of black forces into the military was ordered during peace time, but wasn’t implemented by military officers until after the disastrous initial assaults in Korea, so during wartime.

Comment #55: Cerberus  on  03/28  at  11:22 AM

wtf-

Almost forgot regarding the “there is no racism” claim, the marine corps among other military branches have been directly targeted by white supremacist groups who hope to gain the requisite military training before what they believe is an upcoming race war.

Also we should mention that the combination of two pointless wars and the constant kicking out of trained queer personnel, the military is understaffed which has lead to recruitment standards being lowered so that criminal records and the like and extremist group connections are being allowed. So white supremacists and gang members do not disrupt the war time flow, but allowing existing trained gay soldiers serve without being kicked out when discovered would be an unprecedented PC explosion that would complete destroy the awesome kick-ass power of the American military.

All righty then.

Comment #56: Cerberus  on  03/28  at  11:28 AM

one of the few PC-free institutions left

WTF, your slip is showing.

When you whine about “one of the few PC-free institutions left”, you’re making it quite clear that you miss the Good Old Days when it was perfectly OK to be a vile, loudmouthed bigot, because anybody who might object was either not allowed to be present or knew better than to dare open their mouth. Such a shame that you actually have to consider that maybe the guy in the next bunk might not find your anxiety-ridden jokes about fudgepacking to be the height of manly-bonding humor.

C’mon. Did you really think that we don’t know what the “PC-free” dogwhistle is all about? Or “social experiment”, for that matter?

Comment #57: mythago  on  03/28  at  02:25 PM

How about this. You guys who are for the repeal of DADT, go to a Marine Corps base and ask a Marine if he or she would be willing to serve with openly gay people.

Caren-Sun-Blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes, courts-martial do need to take place for rapists. Maybe I should add something to that. What’s from stopping someone from lashing out when the leadership is against gays in the military. Leadership on all levels: HQMC, division, regiment, battalion, company, platoon. What then? The military needs an overhaul in gender equality. Equal work for equal pay, etc.

phylosopher, fuck you. My experience is my own. I’m telling you what I know. I even said it, “For the record, Marines in my company were completely open about people “different” than themselves. As far as I know, we had no racists.” Key phrases: “my company” and “as far as I know.” This is probably a foreign concept, but just because I speak of my experience doesn’t mean I speak for the entirety of the Marine Corps. Sure, there probably are racists in the Corps. Thang is, I didn’t know any. Even the boys from Dixie and mountain West were cool about it. Maybe I just got lucky.

Cerberus, you’re not listening. I’d be fine if it DADT were repealed after combat operations are done in Afghanistan. I’m not denying the military has gays. But filled with, I don’t think so. Maybe the other branches. I don’t know.

Now you’ve hit a spot with your shot at our military superiority. Is our military fucking awesome? Fuck yes it is. The wars you listed were fought against unconventional forces. Against conventional forces, we rock. It’s against guerillas/insurgents that we have the most trouble against. And who doesn’t? You try to distinguish between civilian and insurgent. It’s really, really, really hard. I don’t expect you to know first hand, but just try to use your so-called open mind. Really, who doesn’t have a problem with guerilla fighters or insurgents? It’s hard to eradicate. Your not a bad person, just stupid, especially about military and civil-military affairs.

Second, “... we could you know, stop these wars.” We’re in the process. The Marines have left Iraq. That’s a fucking good sign. Combat has virtually ended in Iraq. That’s an even better sign.

Third, about your white supremacists targeting the Marine Corps. And there’s also street gangs who happen to get through to the Marines Corps, for the same purpose.

Pointless wars? Nah, I don’t think so. Pointless for civilians to think they know what’s best for the military.

Comment #58: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/28  at  02:38 PM

Mythago, I didn’t know the 2003-2007 could be counted as the “good ol’ days.” I don’t think being a loudmouthed bigot is necessarily the PC-free institution I was talking about, but ok.

Comment #59: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/28  at  02:41 PM

whiskeytangofoxtrot wrote:

I think another reason would be sexual assault. There were a few rumors of men (gay or straight) raping other guys, drugging them, or whipping it out and propositioning whoever. Now, as far as I know, they were just rumors. I can’t say for a fact that those things happened. Sexual assault freaks anyone out. Another reason I think military men are generally against gays in the military is be because the military, especially the Marine Corps, is one of the few PC-free institutions left. Again, I’m only speaking on my experience with guys in my company. I’m not saying the Marine Corps is filled with homophobes.

Let me get this straight (pun intended): Are you saying that Marines, trained to be the toughest fighting men we have, trained to fear no one, are afraid that if they get assigned to a two-man dorm with a homosexual Marine, that guy is going to overpower and rape them?  Wouldn’t most Marines say something along the lines of, “If someone tried that, I’d kick his fornicating ass?”

Now, I can see the social implications involved in this potential change, and have far more concerns than my friends on the left.  We’d never assign a male and female soldier to share a two-bunk dorm, because they might have real problems in being viewed sexually even if there was a no sexual contact order in force.  It’s very possible that a straight Marine would be made very uncomfortable if he reasonably thought his assigned roommate was looking at him sexually.  We can argue all we want that the guys have to just grow up, but the fact is that these men are under extreme pressure and they’re 19 and 20 and 21 years old.

I don’t like DA/DT for reasons I’ve expressed previously, but while I think that the policy has to end, I also recognize that there’s a real need for training in the service with how to deal with the implications of homosexuals serving openly, and very strong fraternization rules have to be put in place.

We’ve been pretty successful in integrating women into the armed services, but it hasn’t gone without incident, and there are still strains that crop up from time to time.  The same can happen with allowing homosexuals to serve openly, but doing it the wrong way could be a real problem.

And remember: it’s an old saying in the military that you don’t have to ask to be able to tell.  It’s not true in every case, but it’s more true than many, including the brass, would like to admit.

Comment #60: Dana  on  03/28  at  03:00 PM

Cerberus wrote:

Also we should mention that the combination of two pointless wars and the constant kicking out of trained queer personnel, the military is understaffed which has lead to recruitment standards being lowered so that criminal records and the like and extremist group connections are being allowed.

The Army, at least, has been meeting its recruiting goals easily the past couple of years.  Recruitment bonuses are down, and the Army has instructed recruiters to work fewer hours.  My younger daughter’s recruiter actually had to disallow her enlistment last June—she wanted to do boot camp between her junior and senior years in high school—until October, because the billets were filled for all but a few MOSs.

By waiting, she got a pretty desirable MOS (25-U) in a good reserve unit, but her bonus was a lot less than our older daughter’s.

Comment #61: Dana  on  03/28  at  03:09 PM

Dana, the rumor referring to the rape involved two Recon Marines raping and murdering another Recon Marine. Reconnaissance Marines are our SF, but I’m sure the rumor was set because Recon Marines are usually pretty douchy. But not afraid, just freaked out. Who wouldn’t get freaked out about the thought of being raped?

If gays were allowed to serve openly, here’s how I’d do it: slowly. For instance, allow them to serve in support MOS’. Strictly POG. Let’s see how that works. If it works, let them in combat MOS (infantry, artillery, tanks, etc.)

Comment #62: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/28  at  03:52 PM

wtf-

Ironically enough all the marines I know are gay. Okay, that’s not true, many are bi. And because of DADT I won’t provide any more information than that. I could ask them whether they want DADT repealed but I have a feeling I know how they’d come down on that equation.

And yes, filled. Okay, not anywhere near 50%, but pretty close to the 10% gay population in the US? I’d put money on it.

I mean think about it. You’re a poor small town queer, you know you need to get out of here, you’re not welcome at home, where are you going to go? The military is a good tempting prospect.

We also integrated black and white soldiers during Korea. So that wouldn’t be the faggy pants Euroweenie armies that we’re not allowed to bring up, but rather our tough super macho ultra-awesome wargasm machine, The Fighting Freedoms.

So we have experience doing it before during wartime.

Of course, if you’re arguing that the World’s Greatest Armed Forces, the pinnacle of awesome in all things military can’t adjust conditions during war time, well, I guess that would be saying something, but I’m not sure it would be me snarking on the armed forces at that point.

Comment #63: Cerberus  on  03/28  at  04:36 PM

KeithM, I understand that all the states you mentioned allow gays to openly serve. But were these changes implemented during war time? Who are you to talk about a multicultural society? How many blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, etc. serve in the Canadian military?

Visible minorities are underrepresented, and have been for some time in the Canadian Forces.  This is actually more widely known in the Forces than outside, and is primarily because recruiting numbers among visible minorities and Frist Nations are low, and certainly not for lack of trying.

And I see you overlooked the part where I pointed out the US Army did a racial integration in the middle of a brutal conflict, where the exact same arguments were being made.

I suppose what this boils down to is that you, and the people who agree with you are, to use some terminology you might be familiar with, pussies.  That’s right.  Big manly US Marine gets all weak in the knees when they have to confront Teh Gay.  Tell me, do you make accomodations for the racists (and don’t tell me they don’t exist, they exist everywhere)?  Do you stick the Muslims and Atheists in a seperate building because some of the Christians and Jews might be uncomfortable with them around?  How about the recent immigrants?  They go to different showers because they speak with a funny accent?

I suspect not.  I suspect that even the mighty US Marines will be able to man up and demonstrate (as the ones who already serve with people they know are gay do) that it won’t make a bit of difference.

Funny how I have a greater respect for their ability to deal with it than you and the current commandant.

Comment #64: KeithM  on  03/28  at  05:22 PM

whiskeytangofoxtrot wrote:

Dana, the rumor referring to the rape involved two Recon Marines raping and murdering another Recon Marine. Reconnaissance Marines are our SF, but I’m sure the rumor was set because Recon Marines are usually pretty douchy. But not afraid, just freaked out. Who wouldn’t get freaked out about the thought of being raped?

The key word in this is “rumor.”  Did it really happen?  If it did happen, what happened to the murderers?  Are some Marines getting “freaked out” over something that never happened?

If gays were allowed to serve openly, here’s how I’d do it: slowly. For instance, allow them to serve in support MOS’. Strictly POG. Let’s see how that works. If it works, let them in combat MOS (infantry, artillery, tanks, etc.)

That’s how women were integrated into the armed services, certainly enough.  My mother was a WAC, at a time when the WACs were limited to some pretty narrow duties.

But at least with the gradual integration of women, there exists the physical differences between men and women, and a reasonable need to see what jobs women could and could not do in the military.  Your rumor concerns two Recon Marines, some of the hardest and toughest men in the Corps.  From a combat capabilities standpoint, the rumor you cited (and personally believe?) already has homosexual Marines demonstrating equal capabilities.

Nor am I certain just what you’d hope to achieve with your suggestion.  If the concern is the sexuality of the Marines, I’m not certain why their particular jobs would matter: their sexuality, if its expression was a concern, is going to be occurring when they are off the job, not on.  Do engineering MOSs somehow sleep differently than combat arms?

Your suggestion would reinforce a stereotype of lessened capability, of being second-class soldiers.  I’m not sure how that would help military readiness and capability.  The job of the Department of Defense and the Chiefs of Staff is to recruit, train, equip and field the most capable military possible for the resources they are given.  If you can make a case that homosexual service members are detrimental to that mission, go ahead: if it can be reasonably demonstrated that the presence of homosexuals in the military degrades our military capacity, then I’d say that they shouldn’t be allowed to serve, period.  But if such a case can’t be made, I’m not sure why we should have restrictions on homosexuals serving, including whether they acknowledge their sexuality or not.

Comment #65: Dana  on  03/28  at  06:10 PM

What’s from stopping someone from lashing out when the leadership is against gays in the military. Leadership on all levels: HQMC, division, regiment, battalion, company, platoon. What then? The military needs an overhaul in gender equality. Equal work for equal pay, etc.

Again, if you can’t follow orders, you need to face repercussions, be you enlistee or general.  If our forces are ordered to integrate, they fucking integrate.

The reason it hasn’t happened yet is b/c DADT is the current law of the land.  The moment that changes, war or no war, I expect my troops to act like professionals and deal with it—or be punished accordingly.

Pointless for civilians to think they know what’s best for the military.

Now, you just need to STFU.  Civilians are in charge of the military for a very important reason.

Comment #66: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/28  at  07:34 PM

Oh, and WTF? mutual. 

But while I’ve got your attention, you bolstered the point that we aren’t the best anymore with the admission that it’s guerilla/insurgents we’re fighting.  IIRC it’s been estimated that guerilla/insurgent will be the most likely kind of military action we’ll be up against for the forseeable future.  Your claim - that we’re damn good against conventional forces is like saying “yeah, I’m the best damn horse handler- carriage driver there is in 2010.  Not likely going to be much practical use, is it?

Comment #67: phylosopher  on  03/28  at  08:46 PM

I’m not denying the military has gays. But filled with, I don’t think so. Maybe the other branches. I don’t know.

So really, what’s your problem other than that you, personally, are kind of squicked out at the image of openly gay Marines?

Comment #68: mythago  on  03/28  at  10:26 PM

Civilians are in charge of the military for a very important reason.

Generally conservatives are always bleating about our Second Amendment rights. Do they not remember how Founders like Madison, Jefferson, and Patrick Henry warned us about the dangers of a standing army, which would tempt our Presidents to go to war at a moment’s notice? Only a militia composed of “the whole people” would be a defense against tyranny.

I assume that some of “the whole people” were gay back in 1776, and thus some served at Lexington and Concord.

Comment #69: Hector B.  on  03/28  at  10:39 PM

Hector wrote:

Only a militia composed of “the whole people” would be a defense against tyranny.

I assume that some of “the whole people” were gay back in 1776, and thus some served at Lexington and Concord.

Surely you know that the “whole people” in 1776 were heterosexual white male property owners.

Comment #70: Dana  on  03/29  at  09:16 AM

Dana - Statistically some militiamen had to have been gay. Burger’s concurrence in Bowers v. Hardwick emphasizes how homosexual sodomy has been condemned throughout Anglo-American history. The gay people I know come from every ethnicity, although a plurality were raised Mormon, oddly enough.

Comment #71: Hector B.  on  03/29  at  11:04 AM

Hector, that may be due to your geographic location?

My son’s barracks for basic held about 20; USAF 2008.  When my husband was at Pendelton, the squad bays were much bigger.  I assume this is due to service differences rather than different time periods?

Comment #72: helen w. h.  on  03/29  at  11:41 AM

Dana, whole people were white male property owners.  No one would dare to suggest the homosexual part.

Comment #73: helen w. h.  on  03/29  at  11:42 AM

helen:  I don’t think the terms heterosexual and homosexual had even been coined at that time.  However, though Hector said that, statistically, some of the militiamen had to have been gay, any expression of homosexual activity in the late eighteenth century would probably get you killed. 

I was, of course, trying to be sarcastic with comment # 70.  The whole people as far as the militia was concerned would have been adult white men; you wouldn’t have had to be a property owner to be called upon to serve in the militia.  Owning real property was frequently a requirement to vote.

Comment #74: Dana  on  03/29  at  12:30 PM

Well, where the heck does he think gay Marines are sleeping now? If they can bunk with straight Marines when they’re not “open,” they can bunk with them when they are. Granted, I don’t know anything about barrack life more recently than when my father mustered out in ‘68, but I’m fairly sure it’s frowned on to be having sex right there in your bunk with ANYBODY, least of all in front of your bunkmate. It’s not the freshman dorm at State University. Can you request a bunkmate who doesn’t snore or fart or have B.O if that bothers you? He’s comfortable ordering men and women to go out and kill and die, but not comfortable ordering them to share a bedroom with someone they find icky?

Comment #75: ttintagel  on  03/29  at  01:37 PM

When I was in the Marines over 40 years ago no one under the rank of sergeant had anything that remotely resembled a “room”.  I think I would have chosen having one roommate, straight or gay, over having 30 or more straight ones.

Comment #76: OkieBlue  on  03/29  at  05:00 PM

OkieBlue, it depends on rank now. Lance Corporal and below: three to a room. Corporals: Two to a room. Sergeants: get their own room. My barracks were about the size of a college dorm. But grunts get treated like shit. I’m sure the airwing had room service. Fucking New Corps! Haha.

phylosopher, guerilla warfare/insurgency is obviously going to be used by a weaker group. The VC, FLN against the French, al-Qaeda, FARC in Colombia, etc. By the way, who’s good at eradicating guerillas/insurgents? No one.

And of course the military is going to follow orders from the Prez. But will this hurt recruitment and reenlistments?

Dana, they were rumors (Lance Corporal Underground). Basic rumor mill shit. You have to take those thing with a grain of salt. Personally, that’s what I did. Others, the more gullible type, probably didn’t.

Comment #77: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/29  at  05:52 PM

And of course the military is going to follow orders from the Prez. But will this hurt recruitment and reenlistments?

Which part of numerous studies with real armies have demonstrated zero effect are you having a problem grasping?  In fact, in some of those nations there were massive cries of doom and gloom about how allowing openly gay people to serve would impact recruitment and re-enlistment.  And guess what happened?  Nada.  No observable change.

You are dragging out every single excuse I’ve ever heard about this, excuses that time and time again have proven to be nothing but hot air.

Comment #78: KeithM  on  03/30  at  01:36 AM

So because it worked in Canada, UK, France, etc. it’ll work here? Get real.

The issue is the Commandant has an issue with it. I think Gen. Conway would know how to handle a situation like this. He’s not ignorant, as Pam Spaulding puts it.

Comment #79: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/30  at  03:09 AM

Why, I never thought I’d hear a (former?) US serviceman admit the US military was inferior.  Incapable.  Incompetent.  Usually most people thinking like you do cover their ears and scream I CAN’T HEAR YOU! when the subject of other nations that have successfully integrated openly gay troops comes up so they can continue their delusion that the US military is The Bestest Ever.

So to hear an American admit that the Canadian Forces is superior, well, that warms the old soldier in me.

Comment #80: KeithM  on  03/31  at  05:16 AM

When did I say Canada’s military is superior than ours?

Also, if we’re not the best, then who is?

Comment #81: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/31  at  04:49 PM

When did I say Canada’s military is superior than ours?

When you said that American soldiers were just too unprofessional to obey orders or treat their fellow soldiers like comrades in arms.

Comment #82: Rebecca  on  03/31  at  06:14 PM

So, because they allow openly gay people in their military makes them MILITARILY superior to us? Get real. Superior in the egalitarian society since, sure.

These are simply concerns that real people have. It’s not just some shit I made up.

KeithM, you’re a dumb ass.

Comment #83: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  03/31  at  09:36 PM

If the mass exodus of homophobic soldiers that you and all the other right-wingers are predicting when DADT goes actually comes to pass, we won’t be superior for much longer. The most expensive military technologies in the world don’t do much when no one’s around to man then.

Comment #84: Rebecca  on  03/31  at  11:24 PM

That’s great. In your tiny, close-minded head, you’ve categorized me as a homophobic right-winger. All for having a serious hang-up about the timing of possibly repealing DADT. You racist.

Comment #85: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/01  at  12:41 AM

Dude, “some people don’t deserve equal civil/human rights” is a right-wing argument. There’s no way around it.

Comment #86: Rebecca  on  04/01  at  01:45 AM

I mean, since you’ve brought up racism for no reason, I may as well use the example: if a party leader Back Then argued that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they might vote for the other party, wouldn’t they rightly be castigated as racist?

(It’s hardly a Back Then thing, of course. See: voter suppression and illegal purging.)

Comment #87: Rebecca  on  04/01  at  01:53 AM

Did I say “some people don’t deserve equal civil/human rights?” In you’re twisted logic/“open mind” you’ve managed to put words in my mouth.

The reason I called you a racist is the same reason you called me a right-winger… no reason.

Comment #88: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/01  at  03:13 AM

Is there a way to spin “gay people shouldn’t be allowed to serve their country like straight people can” so that it doesn’t mean “gay people don’t deserve equal rights”?

Comment #89: Rebecca  on  04/02  at  10:10 PM

Go ahead and respond to the analogy, by the way.

Comment #90: Rebecca  on  04/02  at  10:11 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.