A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
Barack Obama’s wizbang website, change.gov, gives the lay-reader quite a bit of insight into the “change” the President-elect is going to bring to this country. Some of it positive and some of it is not. I’d like to focus a little gem many people may not have noticed. Obama WILL repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which bars gays and lesbians from serving. The problem is that his policy doesn’t stop there.
If one connects the dots with respect to Obama’s policy on “civil rights” it’s not far-fetched to see where he is going on this issue. “Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity,” according to change.gov. So, as a small business owner (or the manager of any business), if some nutcase man dressed like a woman wants a job and I have no other reason not to hire him other than the fact that a cross-dressing man is unprofessional, I’ll be violating the law. Under an Obama administration, there are no more standards of conduct, decency, and professionalism. I wonder how many he will employ in his cabinet.
Obama believes that LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) individuals entitled to full equal rights, civil unions, and/or marriages. He will try to repeal the “Defense of Marriage Act”. You read that right, the DEFENSE of Marriage Act. This action would be completely UNconstitutional – not that he cares about that sacred document in the least.
The Legislative Branch of the government has already subverted the Constitutional rights of the states with respect to even ATTEMPTING to define marriage. The Constitution does not define the role of Congress as defining what marriage is. This is a State issue. The tenth amendment to our Constitution specifically states that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Yet, Mr. Obama seeks to subvert the will of states who desire to define marriage as between a man and woman.
As a stepping stone, or perhaps the other way around, recognizing the LGBT community as normal will definitely affect the military community. I’ve said numerous times that I have no problems with gays and homosexuals personally. The problem is that it goes against good order and discipline in a military environment. Can a gay or lesbian fight and die or kill for their country? Absolutely. But, let’s face it, when we talk about minorities, gays and lesbians are definitely down there on the pecking order so why are we forcing everyone else to bend to their ways (no pun intended)?
And where does it end? Where do we draw the moral line in the sand when it comes to acceptable behavior? How, as a First Sergeant, do I deal with a male Soldier who dresses like a female? Which uniform do I issue him/her? Does a transgendered Soldier get graded on the male APFT standards or the female APFT standards? Does he/she get to choose? If that is the case, everyone should get to choose. When it comes to grading the APFT, I can just suddenly decide I’m a woman for a day so that I get a higher score. When I do an in-ranks inspection, how do I deal with a male Soldier showing up in a skirt and pumps? Which latrine does he/she use? Where do I put them in the barracks? Can a transgendered female who became a male go into the Infantry Branch? Armor? Other areas that deny women to serve?
Now let’s take it one step further. If we say that it’s okay for a man to love and marry another man (or a woman to love and marry a woman), why isn’t it okay for a man to love his horse, pig or sheep? Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry or mothers and sons? Seems to me that it just wouldn’t be fair it two sisters love each other and want to get married under Obama’s plan! Repealing DADT is a slippery slope that will lead to legally copulating with goats.
This country has to draw a moral line somewhere, whether people like it or not. This is a republican form of government and I think that the majority of America has spoken over and over again about where that line is and it doesn’t include legal marriages between people of the same sex. It doesn’t include incest and it doesn’t include bestiality. But, you let one standard slip the cracks and the others become that much closer to becoming accepted reality!
Can you imagine if we had accepted Obama’s morals in the Garden of Eden?
(69) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
555FAA71-9003-E525-37025352646A88C8
Hi Gaby, you can email me at tracylin.hogan@yahoo.com and i will ta
Army Review of PTSD Will Reinforce Combat Veterans Not to Seek Help
CJ, we thank you for your service and all you have been through and ho
Army Review of PTSD Will Reinforce Combat Veterans Not to Seek Help
Who would WANT a PTSD diagnosis? Only a fraud would. I would give an
Donna
Oh My Goodness! What next?! If we don’t agree with homosexual behavior we are labeled as homophobic and bigots. We are being forced to accept behavior that we don’t agree with.
I totally agree with you CJ where will it stop?! All the perversions will be permitted! God help us where is this country going?!
Rich
CJ I totally agree with your post but I just can’t stop laughing at that video. GREAT find!!!!
Rich
*EDIT
Maybe you uploaded the video but its still hilarious
bean
amazing is it not? a young boy, who is full of piss and vinegar, is told he has a disorder(adhd) and must be medicated.but a man who will sexually pleasure another man is normal?? todays liberalism is the anti-christ.
Michelle
what exactly do you hate so much about gays. It’s not their choice to be gay. Homosexuality is caused by certain parts of the the brain that do not form as they should. This is the same for transsexual people. People with conditions are caused great distress and prejudice from people like you just make it worse.
Army Sergeant
CJ, I often agree with you, but this is one in which I just disagree.
Freedom of religion means that everyone has the freedom to practice the religion they choose, not that they have the freedom to force it on anyone else. Where do you get these standards of “morality”? From the Bible and Christianity. That’s fine. If you want to have those standards to yourself, go for it. But not everyone is Christian, not everyone believes in the bible, and to try to claim that everyone should is discriminatory and unfair.
Gays do not break down an army. If you look at the historical precedents, some of the world’s strongest fighting forces have been gay as the day is long. Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world before he was twenty one, and kissed his Persian male lover in front of most of his army to loud cheers.
The Persian emperor he fought at the time also kept men as well as women in his harem.
The Sacred Band of Thebes, one of the fiercest fighting units of the ancient world, was made up completely of male homosexual paired couples.
The Spartans who died so bravely at Thermopylae also were heavily made up of bisexual or homosexual men, though they didn’t put them in formation with their lovers.
I’m just saying. Morality has changed throughout history. It is not right to condemn people based on prejudice. Do you know that your arguments against open integration of gays are some of the same arguments people had against integration of blacks? And women?
CJ
The ancient Romans and Greeks had no concept of “homosexuality” or “heterosexuality”. Yes, they had some marvelous and amazing successes in conquering the world, but where are they now with all their homosexual might?
Morals such as homosexuality come from biology. Man was simply not made to be with man (or woman with woman) – hence the video suggestion. If that were the case, they’d be able to procreate. It doesn’t work and does not contribute to the survival of the human species. Quite the contrary. Yes MY morals come from the Bible, but Christianity does not hold the patent on the ill-conceived notion that homosexuality is wrong. Heck, even Darwin’s theories prove it’s incorrectness.
Buddhists call it “unnatural” and a “karmic punishment”. Hindus look at is at “lustful” and “distracting”. Even Islam considers it sinful, while being very Greek or Roman in their practices behind closed doors. And Sikhs and Jews find the practice wrong and sinful.
You are right that morals change through time. Our decline of morality is greatly contributing to the poor direction in which this country is moving.
The difference between the current argument about accepting blacks into the military and homosexuals is that “blacks” are normal. They are part of the diverseness of humanity. They procreate just like “non-blacks” do (parenthesis to highlight my disgust with color identification). Gays do not. It is unnatural.
But, I would ask you answer the question posted at the end of my post: where do we end it? Where do we draw the line of what is acceptable? Animals? Familiar relationships? Polygamy? If homosexual behavior is to be accepted because it’s about love, why can’t a man have multiple wives if they all love each other? Why can’t a brother marry his sister if they love each other? Why can’t a woman marry her horse if her husband isn’t doing it for her and she has found love in the stables?
Army Sergeant
Actually, there are biological factors in homosexuality-pure homosexuality once served the species very well. I wish I could remember the scientific journal I read it in, but in times of high mortality, homosexual males in the family would actually contribute to genetic success. For example, let us suppose that a homosexual man is brother to a woman. This woman marries and produces a child. The homosexual male does not produce a child as his proclivities do not lead towards it. Thus, his energies are directed at protecting his sister’s child. This child then has a greater chance of survival, with more providers. It is speculated that this is why pure homosexual tendencies survived throughout the ages-because these children, who shared genetic material, would be more likely to survive.
If the pure purpose of marriage was procreation, what then for barren women or sterile men? Should they be forbidden the richness of human experience and love because of their inability to produce children?
Also, I have to say that I’m not utterly against polygamy. It’s practiced in many countries throughout the world and has flourished historically. I wouldn’t engage in it myself, but if others choose to, it’s no skin off my nose. The only problem I have with it is when it’s coercive, as in many religious communities. However, I admit that I don’t have much experience of the practicalities of it, as most of my experience with seeing it play out comes from TV. (Big Love) I will say though, is polygamy really worse than divorce and the breakup of families? If there was a way for men who had tired of their wives romantically to marry someone they did love without tearing that first family apart, would that really be worse?
Why shouldn’t people marry within families? Because it leads to extinction of the species. If you look at the historical precedents of what happened, incest breeds genetic failures. Why do you think royal families were so screwed up? In addition, it’s incredibly coercive and would subvert the culture of humanity, in that people would be raising future partners rather than future humans.
People and animals? Granted, yes, there’s an inherent ‘omfg no squick’ reaction, but there’s also logical reasons to condemn that-not the least that it’s animal abuse. There are many reasons why it is illegal, but one of which is probably the issue of consent. Animals are incapable of making informed consent to such a terrible union, so it would be, among other things, animal abuse.
They’re also not on the same scale. It’s the slippery slope argument, which doesn’t work out well.
Critical Facts
Thank you, Army Sargent, for your thoughtful and spot on commentary.
Amanda
ArmySergeant of IVAW I wonder?
CJ
If animals are incapable of consent, how are they capable of other emotions? The animal abuse lobby seems to make great point out of the fact that animals are more intelligent than we seem to give them credit for. I would think – and I’m no specialist – that if a dog didn’t like being a man-lover, he would simply turn around and bite him/her. The animals survival instinct would take over. Animals throughout nature have ways of fending off “unwanted” sexual advances.
Incest doesn’t always breed genetic failures. It does happen more often than in non-familiar relationships, but it’s not a given. If incest is indeed an “extinction” problem, I would think homosexuality would be as well. You didn’t didn’t mention the families whose only child is gay. What happens to THAT families bloodline? It goes extinct.
This is also a good time to mention that the mere act of being heterosexual does not indicate that all is good an holy. As we spoke about in chat, Army Sergeant, the divorce rate among “normal” couples is paltry. Heterosexuals haven’t exactly made themselves out to be the standard by which we can judge what a “real” marriage should like.
I would also say that the entire “Defense of Marriage Act” in and of itself is unconstitutional. It is NOT the Federal Government’s job to define marriage. As a matter of fact, “marriage” is a religious concept as it is. The reason that government (or lobbyists) wants to define marriage is to ensure that they are recognized for tax and other purposes. This as well is unconstitutional because the government is only authorized to collect taxes that are “uniform throughout the United States”. Naturally, if our tax laws treat single and married citizens differently, those laws are unconstitutional and we are not subject to them. This is why the fair tax is so important.
The government has no business telling me who I can and cannot marry. That is not their function in any capacity. As a matter of fact, the requirement to apply for a marriage license is just ANOTHER tax upon the citizens.
I don’t think this is a “slippery slope” argument. This is a fairness argument. Incestuous, bestial, and homosexual relationships are a personal choice and should be treated as such. If you legalize or protect one, you have to include the others. It’s actually quite similar to the current “bailout” arguments. If the government is going bail out big business, they should also bail out small business. After all, that falls into the “general welfare” clause of the Constitutional constraints of Congress as well.
Bob the Liberal
I’m sorry, CJ, but I have to disagree with you here.
Are we going to be teenagers, to blush and giggle and say silly things when it comes to sexual orientation? Are we going to run around screaming “faggot! faggot!” anytime we learn someone is gay? Do you think someone is going to run up to you and try to force you to turn gay? Does someone’s sexual orientation mean they’re not just as much a patriot as you are, or even more so?
I believe it is time that we grew up as a country and not care what somebody’s sexual orientation is.
And as concerns incest or bestiality, you’re linking three things that have NO PROVEN LINK! Don’t give us that old disproved argument. You know it was disproved years ago. Incest and bestiality are illegal for a reason. The first is because of severe genetic issues and abusive to children, and the second as cruelty to animals.
And as far as marriage goes, I don’t think even the states should legalize or moralize who can and can not marry. All they should do is say “congratulations” and then process the paperwork.
Critical Facts
Thank you, too, Bob, for spot on, no nonsense, commentary re gays, and the pitiful pretext arguments that some use to argue against the lifestyle and gays in the military.
It amazes me that some have no moral qualm when it comes to killing one, two or hundreds of men during war, but get their panties tied in a moral knot when it comes to gays and lesbians.
CJ
Bob, I appreciate your comments. I’m not even going to respond to CF as he understands neither capitulation nor how to accept opposing arguments.
I think you’re missing my point. It isn’t right for people to go around saying silly things and giggling. That isn’t the point of my objection. My point is that the military is unlike any other job. Where else is one required to share a room, shower, and other personal spaces with another person of the same sex? Only in the military. For that reason, the homosexual lifestyle is incompatible. Don’t get me wrong here, I have nothing against homosexuals. I shy away from the tired “I have friends who are…” argument, but I do. It doesn’t bother me to have gay or lesbian people as friends or around me. It does, however, bother me to be forced to share rooms and showers with them.
Secondly, I patently reject that homosexuality LEADS TO bestiality or incest. I never said that and I certainly don’t mean to infer it. I agree with you that they are NOT connected in any way.
The point I was making is where do we draw the line? I would go back to Army Sergeant’s use of the Romans as an example of how gays don’t hurt a military. If that is the case, neither would incest as the Romans also practiced that! Roman Emperor Caligula had open sexual relationships with all three of his sisters. So did the Egyptians and they were a mighty force for centuries as well. I thought it was about love?
I meant to address homosexuality, incest, and bestiality as three distinct examples of behavior that is not compatible with military service and morally frowned upon. Either you misunderstood me or I didn’t present myself clearly enough. Again, I patently denounce that homosexuality leads to either incest or bestiality.
We agree on the marriage argument. Government needs to stay out of it entirely. If two men want to be married, all they should need is a congratulations and slap on the butt!
Bob the Liberal
Thanks for clarifying that, CJ.
I still think you’re wrong. The same argument was used for women and blacks years ago. We went through that phase all the way up to and past Vietnam. I need a blood transfusion, but don’t give me any of that “black blood”. Women are too weak to be in combat. They’re too fragile. They’ll break and run.
(Please note, I’m not saying CJ is a racist in ANY way. Its just an example.)
I’m of the opinion that DADT has hurt the military’s reputation. It should be WGAD. Who gives a damn. I sure don’t. I’d share a foxhole, or a shower room, or a barracks, with someone who is gay. Wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. I shared a locker room with several that used to play volleyball with me. Didn’t bother me in the slightest. I shared a house with several who have been my room mates over the years. Never bothered me in the slightest.
CJ
Bob, if we allow gay and straight Soldiers to bunk and shower together, why not just have co-ed showers and barracks? Or, will repealing this policy inevitably lead to gay and straight barracks?
I can’t wait until we get to brief “Gay Equality Month” as part of our Equal Opportunity awareness training.
Bob the Liberal
Ever watch Starship Troopers?
Honestly, I think some kind of compromise would be found. Its a complicated issue that will take some time to resolve. But an outright ban has not worked.
CJ
Bob, although we both know ST was a movie, I’d be opposed to that as well. You integrate heterosexual males and females together in that sort of environment and you’re asking for trouble. Just like you’d be asking for trouble integrating homosexuals.
LT Nixon
CJ,
I strongly disagree with your assessment, but I respect your opinion as a senior NCO. I plugged you over at my place, since I think this debate will gain traction over the coming months.
CJ
Thanks. It’s a tight rope to walk feeling this way but knowing that I’m going to have to support any decision that comes down the pike as a Senior NCO. I can separate my personal and professional beliefs quite easily! My main goal is to engage that debate now BEFORE it becomes policy so that a well-informed decision is made. Thanks for the link and I absolutely invite disagreement!
CJ
I left this comment over at Lt. Nixon’s place and wanted to share it here for further discussion.
I don’t suggest that there will be a battalion of girly men running around in dresses and eye shadow. Even ONE is too many and will cause problems for many others.
A recent poll by the Army Times suggested that the majority of troops, 71% would continue to serve if the DADT policy was repealed. Some would suggest that this is proof that it won’t affect the military. Only 10% stated they would not re-enlist or extend their service and 14% would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours.
On the surface, this sounds like further proof that DADT’s time has come, right? Wrong. Consider this: the military is 2.4 million strong (if you include all branches, plus reserve and National Guard forces). If only 10% don’t extend or re-enlist because of this, the military has just lost 240,000 troops JUST LIKE THAT! Another 336,000 would terminate their careers after serving their obligated tours. That’s a total loss of over a half million troops to allow a [small group of openly gay citizens] to serve openly!
Critical Facts
“… a battalion of girly men running around in dresses and eye shadow.”
Ha! I’ll bet the so-called gay friends you profess to have think you’re a real barrel of laughs.
CJ
“I’ll bet the so-called gay friends you profess to have think you’re a real barrel of laughs.”
Since that comment wasn’t in reference to gays and lesbian, but transexuals, they probably do. And it they don’t, oh well. I don’t find everything they say funny either. I’m not “politically correct” CF, sorry.
Isaac
In my country we never had a “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, if you were gay you damn well admit it or they would be hell to pay, then again, the practice of it is illegal in public, which I am in full support of.
For both sides there are good arguments, for example, by not repealing it, as what CJ said, would affect the other troops, it hurts morale and make others uncomfortable. By forcing people to tell, the best option would be to place them in some MOS that they can’t do damage in (thats what they do here).
Then again, my argument may be a little flawed, as a large majority of the soldiers in my country are conscripts, I’m not sure how this would apply to an all volunteer armed service.
Critical Facts
Isaac:
Last I knew, the practice of heterosexuality in public was illegal, too. So I guess I am missing your point there. On the other hand, I appreciate your point that good arguments exist on both sides of the debate.
Isaac
I think you may have mis-understood, I meant kissing another member of the same gender in public etc.
As a volunteer of the Armed Forces myself, I have to admit that I would be extremely uncomfortable if called upon to serve with a gay in the same Ranger Grave, although I would still do it without question, a distracted soldier is a dead soldier.
CJ
Isaac, I don’t think there are any concerns in the foxhole. That isn’t my issue. I’ll take a gay, lesbian, hermaphrodite, you name it in the foxhole next to me. The problems come in just about every OTHER aspect of military life outside of combat (although there are many area in combat as well that have nothing to do with fighting). I’m not worried about the gay dude next to me hitting on me when bullets are flying or ever, really.
Doug
“Where else is one required to share a room, shower, and other personal spaces with another person of the same sex? Only in the military.”
Um, high school locker rooms? Dorms? Come on.
“The ancient Romans and Greeks..where are they now with all their homosexual might?”
Only the single most important basis of Western civilization.
CJ
Really, where? What are the Romans and Greeks doing today again?
Elkins, Frank
9 Don’t you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers—none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.
11 There was a time when some of you were just like that, but now your sins have been washed away,and you have been set apart for God. You have been made right with God because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.
Ryan
Damn, I’m devastated that I won’t get to share in the “kingdom of god.” As much as you might believe so, you can’t “wash away” homosexuality. You can, on the other hand, choose to be an “adulterer, male prostitute, thieve, greedy person, drunkard, abuser, or swindler.”
Oh, and last time I checked this topic was regarding the DADT policy. We have a thing here called the separation of church and state, but unfortunately we still haven’t put an end to faith-based decision making and gotten people to accept the fact that religion does not belong in the government.
Elkins, Frank
There are those who attempt to legitimize homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life-style. Even some Christians say people have a right to choose their sexual preference. But the Bible specifically calls homosexual behavior sin (see Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). We must be careful, however, to condemn only the practice and not the people. Those who commit homosexual acts are not to be feared, ridiculed, or hated. They can be forgiven, and their lives can be transformed. The church should be a haven of forgiveness and healing for repentant homosexuals without compromising its stance against homosexual behavior. For more on this subject see the notes on Romans 1:26, 27.
Critical Facts
Oh my word. Do you ever reflect on some of the other things the bible says? Shall I quote some of the real zingers for you?
CJ
No, don’t worry about it. I don’t want you to go through all that trouble with having to don protective gear in order for you to actually have to touch one. I’m pretty versed about everything the Bible says, thank you very much. Go back to your Koran.
Critical Facts
Frank:
After reading your comment a few more times, I am left in equipoise – I really do not know where you are coming/going.
At any rate, my comment above was meant to say quotations from the bible are many, and they can be selected to fit pretty much whatever bill one tries to fold.
NY-David
Liviticus also says that you can’t wear clothes of different types (cotton and leather for example.
I respectfully can imagine the logistics involved, as CJ suggests, but I think its time to accept reality in all places.
NY-David
bean
its not hard to understand.forget morality and immorality. its not natural. its a perversion of the brain. a chemical imbalance. if the homo’s were all below voting age, it would a different thing. notice adhd “magically” becomes irrelevant in people over 18?
Ryan
So you’re saying that a homosexual can’t perform just as well in the Armed Forces as a heterosexual can? I guarantee you that there are plenty fighting in the Middle East at this very moment, doing the same job as everyone else around them. There are gays with more intellectual ability then you will ever possess, I promise you.
And of course homosexuality is biological, but so is being black or female. Should those people, simply because they are not like you, be labeled as “unnatural” and be discriminated against? That sort of attitude amazes me.
bean
installing words are ya? i did not mention service nor intellectual ability did i? no, thats your liberal defense kicking in.
so, tell us wise one. why, after millions of years of evolution, have not you been able to reproduce with another male? when that happens you will be accepted as natural and normal.
sue05
Mr Elkins, I respectfully disagree with you and think that the church needs to heal itself before it goes casting stones at others.
Ryan, this country was founded on religious principles and tenets. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious men. God is invoked in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution probably because the Preamble to the Constitution, (where God would normally be invoked) was based on the Articles of Confederation and they did not contain a reference to God.
The church and state interpretation was changed from the original interpretation that was accepted for over 150 years, back in 1947, at which time the Court distorted the intent of the First Amendment, and there by took away peoples rights of many under the First Amendment to pray in school and display the Ten Commandments to the benefit of a few. This interpretation and those that followed through the years, especially those in the early 60′s,were not in keeping with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
The History channel actually has a documentary on this that you might find very interesting if they have it in their library.
If you consider the steady decline in morals and ethics in this country in the last 50 years since the changed church and state interpretation was handed down, it might just tell you something about what the Founding Fathers knew that liberals and Atheists don’t. Not all change is good.
Ryan
It’s time for DADT to go. I’m a closeted gay and plan on enlisting after college late next year. I want to serve my country and guarantee that i’ll be a top notch soldier. I have a lot to offer to the Army and it’s amazing to me that this policy is even still around.
They’re letting in convicted felons and high school dropouts, but as soon as a decent gay American willing to fight for this country admits their true sexual preference, they’re let go (or never get in). And homosexual admission discharges don’t look good.
I still don’t buy the fact that homosexuals post an “unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” I’d say that the young, immature, horny, irresponsible teenagers cause more trouble in those respects.
It’s a shame that in this day and age, i’m not allowed to be who I really am. So, i’ll just have to keep my mouth shut and fake my way through my years of service. If I even dare to admit that i’m an atheist or homosexual, there would be nothing but consequences. I don’t think that I would ever come out to fellow soldiers in the first place, but the fact that good American warriors are discharged for doing so upsets me.
Oh, and by the way, please don’t try to tell me that homosexuality is not biological. Unless you’re in my shoes, you have no idea the pain and suffering that i’ve had to go through living a fake life. I’m only 19 and am not sure if I feel like living in the closet, trying to please everyone else for the rest of my life. Gays are experiencing discrimination just as blacks and women did years ago, and it’s a shame.
wordsmith
Sorry, this might have already been addressed:
Army Sergeant,
We all have a belief system, irregardless of whether they are religious or secular in origin. It’s not the source of the beliefs that should be argued; it’s like attacking MediaMatters and Accuracy in the Media for being partisan sources, rather than addressing their points.
That said, I didn’t see a single biblical quote cited by CJ. What he put forth were reasons that anyone who has thought through this, might have come up with.
Pepe Johnson
“But, let’s face it, when we talk about minorities, gays and lesbians are definitely down there on the pecking order so why are we forcing everyone else to bend to their ways (no pun intended)?”
With this statement your’re implying there is some hierarchy of minorities in this country, making some minority groups better than others.
“And where does it end? Where do we draw the moral line in the sand when it comes to acceptable behavior? How, as a First Sergeant, do I deal with a male Soldier who dresses like a female? Which uniform do I issue him/her? Does a transgendered Soldier get graded on the male APFT standards or the female APFT standards? Does he/she get to choose? If that is the case, everyone should get to choose.”
You’re confusing the issue. Don’t ask, Don’t tell specifically addresses sexual orientation, not gender identity. The existing rules that say a man wears a man’s uniform will continue to apply regardless of the man’s sexual orientation. Transsexuality is covered by a variety of other regulations (mostly medical) and Don’t ask, Don’t tell is only directed at homosexuality. When it is repealed it is still not going to allow transexuals in the service.
“This is a republican form of government and I think that the majority of America has spoken over and over again about where that line is and it doesn’t include legal marriages between people of the same sex.”
First, a republican form of government prevents tyranny of the majority whereby the majority can wipe away or prevent a minority from having the same rights and privileges as the majority.
Second, you’re confusing the issue again. This time you’re talking about same-sex marriage. What does same-sex marriage have to do with Don’t ask, Don’t tell? Sure, attempting to marry someone of the same sex is grounds for discharge under the current law, but just because of the majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marraige, doesn’t mean that the majority of Americans are opposed to gay Americans serving in the military.
It may be surprising to some, but there are gay people who aren’t supporters of same-sex marriage either. The majority of gay men I know don’t wear women’s clothing and have no desire to and they couldn’t decorate their way out of a paper bag. You’re analysis, while more thoughtful than others I have read, mixes the issue of Don’t ask, Don’t tell with other hot-button gay issues and uses a lot of stereotypes.
CJ
Pepe, I’m not confusing any issues. I’m bringing up an issue Obama has personally adopted to allow gays, lesbians, bisexuals AND transgendered Americans to serve openly. I’m not an idiot and know the difference. So, my concern still stands as it relates to the TRANSGENDERED individuals possibly signing up. I know that gay men wear men’s clothing and gay women wear women’s clothing. Try to keep up please.
Let me clarify it for you: Obama want to 1) repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and 2) allow gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgendered individuals to serve openly in the military. Period. Now, I ask again, how do I deal with that on a uniform basis?
Isaac
But what I still don’t get, is that if they do not what discrimination, why repeal the order? By forcing them to reveal it, it may affect their MOS, etc (which I frankly hope it will), thus turning it into discrimination.
Zoe Brain
First, thanks for your service. Regardless of differences of opinion we may have, you’ve “walked the walk”.
Some facts that may help with some of your questions. Other armies, and ones worthy of respect, have transsexual servicepeople in. I know a few of them, though I’m a civilian scumbag contractor myself, and more at home on a nice, safe submarine than on an M113 or M577.
What do you do with a man who dresses as a woman? Refer him to a medic. He’s nuts.
What do you do with a woman who looks like a man? Refer her to a medic. She’s transsexual.
What do you do with a woman who *used* to look like a man? Treat her as you would any other female soldier. After 2 years of hormones and surgery, she won’t be any different from other women in terms of physical capabilities.
So how do you tell the difference? What *is* the difference? I’d have to go into biological oddities, endocrine balances, hormone receptors, MRI scans… but I’ll give you the simple version.
Female brain in male body, or male brain in female body. One of the more common intersex conditions, where the body is neither 100% male nor 100% female. Like Miss Teen USA 1991, who had 46xy chromosomes, which are normally found only in men. But she also had CAIS, which made her immune since before birth to testosterone, the male sex hormone.
Most TS (transsexual) people wait till they’re out of the service before transitioning. Although being a woman with a male body (or often, merely masculinised, not completely male, the brain may not be the only area affected) feels immensely uncomfortable, perverse, horrid, worse than you can imagine in fact… some can live with it. For a while. That’s because transitioning is worse than merely dangerous, it’s incredibly embarrassing. Costly too, between 20,000 and 120,000 dollars, and the VA doesn’t help.
How do I know? I have on of the really, really rare Intersex conditions. One where the body normalises over time to match the brain, but looks cross-gendered at birth. Despite being medically and biologically female (well, more female than male), and despite having a strongly female “gender identity”, when you look like a linebacker not a cheerleader, there isn’t much point insisting on that. For as long as I looked male, I tried to be the best man any woman could be. Just like transsexual women, who require help to change their bodies when the wrongness becomes unbearable.
If you want the medical details, they’re in BiGender and the Brain.
One thing though – 60% of TS women end up serving in, or alongside, the military. When life is unbearable, charging a machine gun nest and saving your buddies is a way out with honour. And maybe being in SOF or the SEALS might cure your feelings, and “Make a Man out of you”. It doesn’t, of course. But you have to try. It’s easier than trying to tell family and friends.
If you don’t believe me – just think about it, imagine it if you had to do it.
Zoe Brain
The policy in the Australian armed forces is to have TS people on inactive reserve during the time of their transition. They have to resign while under treatment.
When treatment is complete, they can re-join with their old rank and seniority. And a new, more appropriate set of uniforms.
They may have to change branch of service though – the SASR doesn’t have billets for women, and a fair number come from the Special Air Service Regiment. A fair number hold high rank too – having cross-gendered neurology is enormously uncomfortable, but gives some neurological advantages – a 20pt IQ increase, access to both logical and intuitive thinking modes etc.
If openly TS people are allowed to serve in the US Army, *of course* NCOs are going to need yet another set of WOFTAM training to deal with it. But no worries, there’ll be yet another manual giving a SOP. They can either borrow the Israeli, Canadian, UK or Australian docs as sources. There’s probably some high ranking chairborne warrior in the Puzzle Palace working on a contingency plan for it now.
Oh yes, this happens to guys too. A lot of boys lumbered with female physiques join the army, as it’s an acceptable way for a “girl” to do traditionally male stuff. To be “one of the boys”, and some finally get their bodies and minds made consistent.
CJ – it could have happened to you. You could have been “Daddy’s little girl” when growing up, when you *knew* you were a BOY goldarnit! At puberty… let’s not go there. Maybe you’d join the army, to have as close a life to the male one you should have had. Given the lack of testosterone, and a brain mismatched to estrogen, you probably have would been asexual rather than “lesbian” (actually straight…). Then you might hear about “transsexuality”, and realise that there’s a chance you could reclaim your manhood… but at what cost? Being called a pervert, likely rejected by family and friends, 70% chance you’d never get a job again when you separate.. and having a Master Sergeant who wonders what the Sam Hill to do with a female Spec4 who now looks like a guy! Not realising that you’ve been a guy since before birth, since about 12 weeks into gestation in fact, when the neurology develops.
RB
I sometimes wonder about the true reasons why gays so want to join the military. Is it really that they want to go to war? Is it about assaulting every traditional value held by conservatives, (which gay marriage seems to be aimed at, considering that most conservatives who are opposed to gay marriage would have no problem with legal civil gay unions.) Or, perhaps what this is really about is to fulfill sexual fantasies, whereby gays infiltrate the military in order to be around hard body young troops. To live in close proximity to large groups of physically fit young adults that perhaps they can entice to convert to their the homosexual’s own orientation.
Ryan
Please see my above post. I’m gay and will be enlisting after I earn my college degree. Sure, I won’t be letting everyone know about my sexual preference, but that’s because this country still has a long way to go until people start becoming more tolerant and stop clinging to their bibles.
I want to join the military to serve my country. I want to make a difference. I’m much more mature than other 19-year-olds I know and the “close proximity” issue is only an issue if you make it one. As much as you hate to believe it, there are gays in the military right now, and if they have wanted to check you out, it has already happened. Get over yourself and stop being extremist.
Also, homosexuality is not a choice. I would know.
Critical Facts
RB:
In answer to your rather biased question, maybe gays just want to serve their country!
EG
It’s simple,the military DOES NOT fairly represent the demographics of America. The vast majority of us enlisted folks come from a culture that is not totally tolerant of the LGBT lifestyle. I say lets set two ground rules:
1. LGBT follow the rules and policies set in place. If they are disruptive to good order, discipline them under the UCMJ.
2. To more closely align the demographics issue; Reinstate the draft to allow
those who most actively support the rights of the LGBT to also serve their country.
Zoe Brain
EG, I have to say I disagree completely with your second point, while agreeing with your first.
Yes, I’m concerned that many of the orificers coming out of West Point these days are Young Earth Creationists who believe that Science is a Vast Anti-Christian Conspiracy. But the problem there is that the “Intelligentsia” of the USA has the motto “no dogs or soldiers allowed”. It’s not up to the Rabid Right to tone things down, it’s up to the moderate Left to step up and actually put their money where their mouths are. To pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, not just to sit around and kibbitz.
There are two issues. The first is military effectiveness. The draft destroys that, by dragooning the unwilling into being effectively state slaves. Slaves make poor soldiers. So do Religious fanatics who want ballistics calculations to be done in accordance with biblical teachings, and not Man’s. Having something worth fighting for, but not the means to do it is a disaster.
The second is the defence of the nation from all enemies, foreign *and domestic*. Making sure that we have the capability to fight is useless if there’s nothing worth fighting for. The Draft is state slavery, and is contrary to the principles of liberty. If we want a more representative demographic, then coercion is not the way, education is. We have to show people that the society they’re in is worthy of defense, and that defending that society is a worthy and honorable occupation.
The Copperheads (and I don’t use the word lightly) within the Left have all but destroyed the liberal demographic in the US Armed forces, by slander and denigration of anyone who thinks their country is worth fighting for, and purely out of partisan politics. They will find it difficult to reverse course now the POTUS is a Democrat. And many on the Left who did remain in the US armed forces have moved to the Right in disgust at this treason.
I can say things like that – I’m Australian, I don’t have a dog in this fight, so can speak uncomfortable truths without being partisan. And treason it is, though not out of malice, nor stupidity, just out of a misplaced sense of wanting “our team” to win. When “our team” is the DNC, not the USA. (And no, the GOP is not immune to this either).
And meanwhile we have First Segeant CJ who thinks WHISKY TANGO FOXTROT INTERROGATIVE and who can blame him?
If he, and people like him, are to be convinced that we’re not the usual bunch purveying the usual PC snake-oil, we have to give hard data, facts, and let him make up his own mind. Not tell him what to think. We need to talk, have a dialog, and listen too, because we have no direct line to Truth, and it just may be that in some areas at least, he’s right and we’re wrong.
EG
Zoe,
I must admit I throw the 2nd one out at liberal, affluent civilians that want to social engineer the military but are unwilling to serve. After all, “Shouldn’t the military fairly represent all people demographically?â€
CommanderMom
CJ~totally get where you are coming from on this~a tricky topic/situation~were just discussing these exact same things the other day, here at home.
PS
This argument about gay marriage and marrying animals and children isn’t a slippery slope; it’s apples and oranges: You like apples. Someone else says they like oranges. So you argue, “I only like apples, and liking a thing that isn’t apples is the same as liking *anything* that isn’t apples. So, if I approve of your eating oranges then I’ll also have to approve of someone else’s eating of children.” The point being that there is a fundamental moral difference between liking fruit and cannibalism.
One could argue similarly that if we accept interracial marriage, then we have to accept incestual marriage. But, interracial marriage has nothing more in common with incestual marriage than the fact that is isn’t same-race marriage. It’s beyond a leap to equate different things like that — and to separate things that are mostly alike, in comparison to that.
So, it’s a ‘bogus’ argument. Unfortunately it’s human nature to more often see the unfamiliar as being all-the-same, even when it isn’t.
CJ
Morals are not apples and oranges, sorry. I’m not comparing or linking the three…again. I apologize that I have to AGAIN explain this to you. I brought up three DISTINCT issues. If we allow homosexuals to serve because it’s supposedly natural, well that is the exact same argument an incestuous couple would say. “I can’t control who I love.” If a man really enjoys his sheep or a woman really enjoys her horse (*shiver), who are to say their love isn’t natural?
It’s not a bogus argument. Please try to keep up so I don’t have to keep repeating myself.
Hazumu Osaragi
DISCLAIMER: SFC USA (ret) Male-to-female transsexual who completed transition including surgery and court-ordered change-of-gender. I also spent the first four years of AD in the air wing of USMC (Eat the Apple, and…)
Why do paranoids believe they have enemies that are out to get them? Well, one must be in some way very important if one has enemies who expend energy to do them in. The alternative (having NO enemies,) would be that one is worthless and insignificant. So paranoids have to have enemies (or make them up…)
Now apply the above to the posters who have suggested teh gayz are joining the military to get a shot at REAL dudez. I see the same dynamic at work — “I’m so manly/sexy that not only do I have women falling all over me, fairies are sneaking in just to sniff my jock!”
Remember, I walked the walk for 22 years. I was a dual-qualified 46Q/R which got me to a lot of places — I saw pure infantry, gun-bunnies, tread-heads, combat engineers and mortar crews up close. I listened to the He-Man-Women-Hater’s-Club talk and tried to understand why they said such things about women and about gays.
And it made no logical sense. It was all lame attempts to justify an irrational involuntary eww/gross/yuck reflex that some of us have, and some few of us have very strongly.
I served. And the whispers behind my back about my being gay reached my ears. I think some needed to apply that label — as a way of defining who they were by comparison of what they thought they were not.
I’m one of four transwomen who all served in the same MACOM. I served in the same unit with one, another worked four offices down when I was at HQ, the third — we know so many people in common we wonder why we never crossed paths. The highest rank is COL.
Lastly, how do you explain COL Diane Schroer. Google her — it makes interesting reading.
Mainer
CJ,
I have to admit that I haven’t read every response so what I am saying may be a repeat. I have agreed with you and I have disagreed with you on several subjects.
I have to totally disagree with you on this one. I admit that I have no military background, but why would you have to ASK what a person’s sexual preference is? When you enlist, are you also asked whether you prefer blondes, brunettes or redheads? (Keep him away from his preference since it might cause trouble.) Buxom or smaller chested?
Maybe a more important question for men would be: “Do you like to assert control over women, thus increasing your chances of being a rapist?” (This could also be relevant to women liking to assert control over men.) There are many reports (and many unreported) of rapes in the military. Are these homosexuals or heterosexuals doing the raping?
There are currently homosexuals serving in the military and everyone knows it. They have a right to serve their country. They may even have a better reason to fight for freedom since they are still being held prisoner by society’s belief that they are dangerous to others.
I won’t comment on the other opinions you stated since I don’t see how they have any relevance to DADT. I think DADT should be repealed. I don’t think you’ll find any flagrant homosexual behaviors suddenly popping up in the military. ALL military personnel (heterosexual and homosexual) are trained professionals and want to continue that way.
This is, of course, MY opinion.
Mary
sweeet! As soon as Obama changes this I am going to enlist as a transgender and insist that I am a dude in a woman’s body. Yeaaah! Men’s barracks here I come!!
Zoe Brain
Mary, I don’t think you’d like the effects of the testosterone shots though. The beard for one thing. And the baldness. The, er, extra length you’d get. The attraction to women.
Here’s what Transmen look like in reality:
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TSsuccesses/TransMen.html
CJ
That’s hilarious! Great thinking there.
daniel
I truly think that is the most ignorant thing I have ever read. While everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, some are best kept to themselves. I guess its is easier for you than it is for my brother. You have never had to endure the pain that is cause by people like you, you don’t have to feel the feelings of being different. I guess if everyone was like you: an average white male, the world would be a better place?? Not hardly, this country is what it is because of diversity, all races, religions, genders, and yes SEXUALITIES. People like you are funny to me, all caught up in your on moral self-rightiousness. You have all the answers huh?? Its even funnier that you put so much effort into writing a blog about a subject you don’t and never could possibly understand, and for what?? Your opinion is just that, yours, no one will care or listen to what you have to say, because society has left you behind, and just a news flash, society is what controls change, no the president, and society says its time. So lock all your doors and windows, get your guns ready, the gays are coming. And there is nothing you can do to stop it.
CJ
“no one will care or listen to what you have to say, because society has left you behind”
But, Daniel, you obviously care and/or listen. Otherwise you wouldn’t be here. The 25,000 so visitors to this site each month seems to care and/or listen, even if they don’t agree with me.
Don’t patronize me about what I will and will not understand about homosexuality. are you gay? If not, take your own advice. Is YOUR experience because you have a gay brother? How do you know if I have gay family members or not?
I’ll keep speaking my OPINION about whatever I would like, whether I’m a Ph.D. in that topic or as ignorant as a turd on another. I’m entitled to it and you won’t take it away from me.
I have no problem with gay people. I’ve made that clear. I still think homosexuality is wrong, but I also think liberalism is wrong. Does that mean I can’t have liberal friends as well? There’s a saying I like which is something like “comdemn the act, not the actor”.
I don’t know what rock you’ve been hiding under, but gays aren’t “coming” anywhere. They’ve been here for a long time. And there’s nothing you or I can do about that either. Oh, no pun intended up there either.
daniel
Yes this is a “Drive By Comment” if you will. I haven’t got the time or desire to enter into a dialogue with you. You have your opinions, however prejudicial they may be and I have mine. I would never entertain someone one ignorant enough to compare homosexuality to beastiality. I mean are you serious? Well after looking at your picture and reading your article again, I am very sure that you are. I think you really need to research the subject a little further before you try and speak on it, because you sound foolish. So I am done now, i’ll leave you to boast over how the world is gonna end due to homosexuals in the military with the rest of miscreants who agree with you.
CJ
Listen, Daniel. Not only are YOU the ignorant one, you’re also a complete moron. Do you know how to read anything? Do you take the time to inform your self about your target before you pull the mouth vomit trigger? No wonder you don’t want to enter a dialogue, you’re a zealot. You can’t even read my comments where I have NEVER compared homosexuality and bestiality. I’ve even clarified that more than once. Look, if your brother wants to love on other men and you want to keep screwing your sheep, I’m okay with that. Just don’t put words in my mouth.
Kele Haldwart
thanks for the article, didnt realize that was happening, were leaning towards a soft tyranny
Pingback: Casey Speaks Up About DADT (And So Do I) | A Soldier's Perspective
Pingback: Don't Ask Don't Tell: The Law « A Soldier's Perspective
jeff o h
Hello friends of the constitution and the USA,
freedom was and still is the great vision,
and what else?
The government guards the constitution and the voters through senate and congress put up the limits. The government is not alone, never. We live in and under the system called democracy that makes us all responsible for freedom.
What is freedom?
There is no simple answer. Can you find something more basic than life and with respect for the other and respect for the common good and respect for heritage (all that is around us)?
So what is “life”?
I did put life before respect. Life comes first and then respect, but I find that “and” is right to put there. Can we agree?
Please follow me down to a detail.
Why not gay marriage?
We are not used to it. When did it exist in the history of mankind? Why should we have it now?
There may be a need for social contracting options adapted to modern needs. The culture of all kinds of contracts has always developed. It has usual as goal to ensure and assure mutual respect and balance of interest. I guess you are not against it.
Back to GM – gay marriage.
GM is more than a social contract. It is also asking for a kind of equality that is not there because man and wife can never be equal in all aspects, and the difference is intimately associated with the “label” and term “marriage”.
GM is against our feel for what “tings” are.
Under the term “freedom” it would damage all of us if it should mean something else than before. The same goes for many other important key words while our language develops and changes as an instrument for our good (and, sorry to say, not always only in that ddirection).
So let us drop GM.
Feelings that include also sexual interest (more or less) outside the “great public center” must have the social limits set by the constitution. The constitution is there for “life and respect” or am I wrong?
If you are between 1 and a hundred percent gay or lesbian can you find that the respect that you must give and can claim, can exist freely with traditional language combined with due “life-freedom” and mutual respect?
I believe we need now as before and ever a language in development. In the case discussed here I find that “remodeling” the term marriage is not what we need just now, not me not USA.
Have a good day, a really good one.
*
Jeff
sitting abroad with a perspective in space and age.
February 2011
**************************************