it comes in pints?

Pace knows that this kind of stuff still goes on and he should have kept his damn mouth shut. There are still plenty of gay-bashers in the military.

Agreed that he should have kept his mouth shut, but even that article misses my point.

Winchell's murder led President Bill Clinton to order a review of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which many believe contributed to Winchell's being killed by other soldiers.

And you would know this better than I, but didn't being booted for homosexuality include a dishonorable discharge?

Wow. I just realized that I should have worded that last sentence a bit differently...

I'm not sure about what kind of discharge (heh) it used to be. I'm sure that before DADT is was at least "other than honorable." But under DADT, it can be honorable depending on the circumstances.

hehehe

Beyond the "discharge" (huh-huh!), I didn't mean to imply anything about Cullen. Because I really don't have time for rehab...

It only hurts when I pee.

Having served under both policies I can tell you that YES, it was a dishonorable discharge. I personally do not care what someone’s sexual preference is. I really don’t want to know what goes on in someone’s bedroom, be they hetero or homo sexual. I DO want to know if they can do their job. If my life is going to depend upon their competence and dedication in any situation, the only thing I NEED to know is whether they will be adhearing to the same standards I hold myself to.

Oddly enough, when I think about this, I remember the story of Desmond T. Doss, Sr. He was a conscientious objector who still wanted to serve his country. He became an Army medic and was harrassed by his fellow soldiers because of his refusal to carry a weapon and his constant praying. At one point an officer wanted to have his discharged for mental illness.

He went on to win the Medal of Honor in Okinawa during WWII for his selfless courage in saving his wounded comrades, and from what I've read, there isn't a man who served with him there who would have wanted anyone else at their back.

I'm strong enough in my own beliefs not feel threatened by someone else's. I can't see where descriminating against homosexuals, women, persons of wiccan faith or any other similar grouping in the military is productive. I think Pace and people like him need to open their eyes. We have more important issues facing us right now. Wasting time and energy and taxpayers dollars so that you can be safe in your comfort zone is criminally insane.

I certainly don't have time to hear about what goes on behind the closed doors of two consenting adults, REGARDLESS of their sexual orientation, unless it is a federal crime or affects national security.

HEEEELLLLLOOOO? There are people dying and I would rather hear about how we are not only going to handle the terrorism situation in the short term but also the long term. Step outside your comfort zone and utilize ALL POSSIBLE ASSETS to their fullest extent, regardless of your personal opinions. Otherwise you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

There is more on Desmond T. Doss, Sr. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_T._Doss_Sr.

Lemon Stand, regarding Desmond Doss, see this piece of mine:
http://halfapica.blogspot.com/2006/04/memories-are-floodin.html

I met Mr. Doss in May '95 as a brand new, mosquito-wing private during the 50th Comemoration of the Battle of Okinawa.

1) My sense from being in the military is that Pace is right that most service members think negatively of gays/gay sex. I believe the majority of the country would answer "yes" to the question "Is gay sex immoral," and I know at least that military folks are more leery of it than Americans at large.

2) DADT simply made it official, but that had been the de facto operating practice of the military for at least 35 years (maybe more, but that's as far back as the personal knowledge of those to whom I talked goes).

3) I knew a lot of JAGs, and every single one of them said they prosecuted quite a few DADT cases. However, not one said they ever prosecuted a genuine homosexual. All of them were people who were mysteriously struck with a case of the gays when, for instance, they were about to deploy or just really wanted out of the military.

4) Not allowing gays to openly serve is the right thing to do because I'm fairly convinced by the argument that, if nothing else, it would be disastrous to morale.

JrRog, I can respect your point of view and you make some valid points as to the moral issue (although a case could also be made of the moral rightness of having premarital sex and serving in the military)

I'm not saying that being flamingly gay should not be tolerated. The same way it should not be tolerated for anyone to be flamingly Democratic, Republican, feminist, chauvanistic or racist. Those are all very personal beliefs.

As far as morale...that was the same thing they said about blacks serving in the military. The same thing they said about women serving in the military. I served under men who believed women lessoned the honor of their service. Despite that, I am proud to have served.

I believe we all bleed the same color blood. We all stand or fall together if we fail to protect and defend this country, regardless of personal beliefs regarding sex, race, politics or religion. We ALL will go down if defeated. Not just the ones who were 'good' enough to serve.

Service is rendered to pay for the freedom of personal choice and the protection of the same.

As for those who just wanted an 'out' from the military... Which would YOU rather have at your back? Someone who kept their personal views to themselves but served with distinction or someone who would do ANYTHING to get out of their responsibilities?

I've discussed this with quite a few friends of mine wyho are veterans, including one or more who are now, as civilians, openly gay and/or bisexual. They all have the same objection to DADT:

DADT does not remove the prohibition against homosexuality from the UCMJ, it simply codifies a policy of "Look, just don't get caught". This is troublesome to those who serve and who view adherence to the UCMJ not only as a legal necessity but also as a matter of honor. They worry that the lax attitude opens the door for such attitudes towards other issues, and undermines the culture of honor in the military.

The vets I know may, and in fact DO, disagree on the issue of Gays in the military: Some are for, some are against. But they all agree that the policy against Gays should be enforced or abolished: Not swept under the rug (or into the closet).

I'm not saying that being flamingly gay should not be tolerated. The same way it should not be tolerated for anyone to be flamingly Democratic, Republican, feminist, chauvanistic or racist. Those are all very personal beliefs.

Huh? Why should someone not be allowed to be "flamingly [political]?" There's a particular restriction for officers to make certain comments, but there aren't any for enlisted men. Why should there be? You're comparing things without offering any criteria as to their connection aside from "personal beliefs," which is nonsense.

As far as morale...that was the same thing they said about blacks serving in the military.

Maybe. I thought they said that blacks and whites wouldn't work well together. That was often true, by the way... the policy was only changed when attitudes in much of the country had changed re: interaction between races. But regardless, again you just throw out these comparisons as they self-evidently make an argument. They don't. The fact is that blacks in the military didn't significantly affect morale. Why that would hold true just because it did for blacks escapes me. But aside even from that also, your comparison fails on the grounds that it's not a matter of simply general dislike for gays that makes up the point about morale. It's about the danger of creating divided loyalties amongst groups of men when the general esprit de corps is disrupted by introducing sexual/romantic attachments within a unit. Which, by the way, is one of the arguments against women in combat units.

I believe we all bleed the same color blood. We all stand or fall together if we fail to protect and defend this country, regardless of personal beliefs regarding sex, race, politics or religion. We ALL will go down if defeated. Not just the ones who were 'good' enough to serve.... Service is rendered to pay for the freedom of personal choice and the protection of the same.

Nice thoughts, but it's just sloganeering, and doesn't really say anything about whether open homosexuality will hurt or help the military.

As for those who just wanted an 'out' from the military... Which would YOU rather have at your back? Someone who kept their personal views to themselves but served with distinction or someone who would do ANYTHING to get out of their responsibilities?

Huh? I wouldn't want EITHER. That's why they're dishonorably discharged. What's your point?

Cudos to Lemonstand. Ya know, JrRog, guys that talked like you were also the ones who thought it was perfectly okay to find a 13 year old 'virgin' in the PI to keep them company, too. (major dad used to ask them why child molestation was okay, but being gay wasn't.) I also think part of your arguments are that fact that you're a MALE. If you'd been a female (like I'm a WM), gays would have been a fact of life/open secret.

Those same fellows with their child sexual slave have no idea that there are gays everywhere around them in the military ~ maybe even in the head, God forbid. They're the ones who equate 'gay' with the guy in the KISS boots and make-up on a SanFran street, NOT the hard working NCO or officer who they might actually admire, even share a quaff with on occasion. Once known that they were gay, however, those f*ckin' pinheads would only be able to see visions of anal sex in their heads, NOT the qualities of the individual they'd admired a short time before. And honestly JrRog? That's YOUR problem. (There's quite a few heterosexual, 500 pound couples that I wouldn't want to visualize 'doing the nasty' either, but it's NONE of my freakin' business.) And if you're so shallowly stupid that you equate subterfuge to escape duty (LYING, which I'm assuming is immoral in your blinkered eyes) with serving honorably, but being 'uncloseted' through no fault of your own, then maybe YOU'D better revisit that code of yours.

As for playing grab-ass at the E-Club, sexual harassment or being terrified of someone ogling you in the shower, you handle it if inappropriate, REGARDLESS of the sex of your antagonist. That's what being grown-up and conducting yourself in a professional manner is all about.

That's great, THS. You respond by insinuating I'm a caricatured child molester/closet gay.

Substantive!

No more, no less than you stating someone who has the temerity to disagree with you is spouting 'utter nonsense'. And those are actual conversations between active duty military members I referred to. ~ ones either major dad or I had with those we served with. What's 'utter nonsense' is where you pulled 'closet gay' out of thin air. Smug and defensive, vice 'substantive' I'd say. Try sticking to precisely what I said vice manufacturing insults/insinuations for me.

Don't think you should use child molester and closet gay as the same thing cause they are not. Personally anyone who uses an excuse i.e. "I'm gay", overweight, "my knees hurt" etc to get out of service I wouldn't want to serve with anyway. Now, in my experience I have known of quite a few heterosexuals who had some pretty disgusting ~ if not illegal by the UCMJ ~ sexual habits that no one seemed to mind, but boy, mention a gay and they went into creep out mode. That was only in regards to male gays because boy nobody seemed to mind the lesbian layouts in Penthouse or the scenes in a porn flick. I don't think the time is right for them to serve openly, people aren't ready for that. BTW gays get an admin sep.

THS,

Embarrassing. You should try reading what you wrote and what I wrote before you start throwing around claims of misrepresentation.

I called a particular style of argumentation you used that was poorly constructed and which you simply asserted as if it was self-evident truth (and I also didn't say "utter nonsense" - it's funny that you accuse me of being sloppy).

You also said that guys who "talked like me" were child molesters. But no, you weren't implying anything! Either you're dishonest or too inept to construct your sentences to communicate what you mean.

You're right, JrRog. I am embarrassed. Maybe even inept.

1) Because I can't for the life of me figure out where I implied/said/swore on the Holy Virgin Mary you were a closet gay and you have yet to point that out. And quit with the child molester, already. I wasn't arguing I DIDN'T say "guys that talked like you were also the ones who thought it was perfectly okay to find a 13 year old 'virgin' in the PI to keep them company", duh. And I won't take back that those WERE the conversations I had with people who spouted the exact same drivel you do. So. Pin your focused gaze on "CLOSET GAY", there, big guy. And then give me the exact spot where you pulled it out yo butt that I even HINTED at you being a closet gay, or a gay blade, or just damn happy and gay. I didn't and you can't. But that's probably why you're so familiar with 'dishonest' and 'inept'. Of course I'm just guessing, not IMPLYING...

2) And for extending the apostrophe to include 'utter', when it should have been around the 'nonsense' alone. ("...You're comparing things without offering any criteria as to their connection aside from "personal beliefs," which is nonsense.") You are correct. A typo during my frenzied key pounding. Your superior tone IMPLIES 'utter' but you only SAID 'nonsense'. My bad completely.

See? Honesty. And a quick correction of my sloppy sentence construction. Your turn.