First of all, Welcome Daily Kos and Huffington Post readers. I’m the evil conservative Soldier CJ Grisham who believes that the DADT policy is just fine the way it is. I’m the guy who personally attacked the partisan – yes, PARTISAN – VoteVets.org representative Brandon Friedman. Actually, I didn’t attack Brandon, just his policies. I don’t want Brandon to fail, I want his organization to fail. I don’t even want his organization to fail, just be honest with the American people. But, I digress…

BLUF: I have no issues with gay people. Just gay people openly serving in the military. And to those who say that isn’t possible, we should go ahead revisit that old “you don’t have to support the mission to support the troops” argument.

Mr. Friedman used a poll taken of NON-MILITARY Americans about whether or not openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military. I find it interesting that the majority of the country has never served a day in uniform and thinks they have the audacity to tell us what they think is best for the troops!

The Military Times poll that Mr. Friedman doesn’t like because it doesn’t present numbers that agree with his stance on the issue, noted that 24% of the TROOPS (yes, people that the policy would actually affect) would either “definitely” or “probably” leave military service at the end of their obligation. You think recruiting is bad now? My question stands that Mr. Friedman refused to answer: Are there enough openly gay people willing to sign up if even half that number kept their word? In other words, are there nearly 300,000 people in line at the recruiting station the moment Congress repeals the law? I doubt it.

In choosing to assume that military life is 100% comprised of combat operation, Mr. Friedman has presented a false logic. 80% of our time is NOT in combat, but in a “garrison” environment where more intimate close contact and personal relationships flourish, homo- and heterosexual alike. His photo of “Dan” does nothing to support his argument. Watch this, I’ll use Mr. Friedman’s own words to describe this photo with a twist:

As you can see from the photo, Mike is a combat veteran of Iraq. Mike is not only an infantry noncommissioned officer. Now, notice that Mike is not wearing a dress. He’s wearing the Marines’ standard MARPAT uniform. Also, notice that Mike is not wearing makeup, eyeliner, or dangly earrings. He’s just wearing the normal Kevlar helmet and protective eyewear that you typically see infantrymen wear in Iraq. Observe that Mike also looks as though he’s barking orders, something infantry NCOs sometimes have to do in dangerous situations. What he’s not doing, however, is hitting on the other female soldiers in his unit. And he’s not spying on his fellow female soldiers in the shower.

I’ve highlighted the changes I made from his own words. Mike is a straight man. Dan is a gay man. Some might look at this on the outside and think, “Gee, so what’s the big deal. Obviously gays will do just fine in the military.” But, combat is only a small part of the Soldier (or Marine, Sailor, or Airman) story. There is no room in either my photo or Mr. Friedman’s photo for ANY type of sexuality to be exhibited. So, false argument.

The majority of our time is spent, as I said, at home station. So assume that openly gay men wouldn’t be out trying to hook up with other men or openly gay women with other women back home and this wouldn’t affect good order and discipline is seriously kidding themselves. Heterosexual males and females do it back home, so why wouldn’t the gay population? Are they better than straights?

The “shower issue” is only part of the story. The fact is that Soldiers ARE required to shower with others of the same sex frequently. But, while I’ll concede that this only encompasses perhaps seven hours per week of our time, it doesn’t account for the rest of the time where our troops are required to bunk with individuals of the same gender.

I still fail to see how allowing two males to bunk together, one or both of whom may be homosexual, is any different than a male and female to do so? Are the base instincts that are supposedly “natural” in gay people more subdued than they are in straight men and women? If not, then the argument against openly gays serving in the military speaks for itself. Do gay men not lust after other men the way women and men lust after each other? Does a gay man perceive a bulging crotch area differently than a straight man perceives large breasted women? I think just as there are perverted straight people, there are perverted gays, so if we apply the same arguments across the board, I see an increase in EO complaints from straight men and women unable to be treated the same in a barracks environment.

I have no terror in seeing cross-dressing Soldiers. I never said such and I never alluded to such. What I did blatantly say and allude to is that a cross-dressing Soldier is contrary to good order and discipline. It’s a distraction in a profession where distractions get people killed. And I’m not so ignorant as to think that all gay people are cross dressers, it’s simply not true. I also don’t insinuate that gay behavior leads to cross-dressing, bestiality, or other more base acts.

What I offer is the question about where do we draw the line on morality? I’m not talking anything about religion here, so don’t go there. If we allow openly gay people to serve, why can’t we allow openly incestuous people to? Why can’t we allow cannibals to serve? Why can’t we allow people in love with sheep? Why can’t we allow people who have been abducted by aliens? Being gay does not lead to any of these things nor is it an indicator of behavior.

Now, let’s assume we do get rid of DADT. Do we have separate barracks for gays and straights as we do for heterosexual males and females? After all, the only reason they’re segregated is sexual attraction. Do we have co-ed showers? Do we allow those cross dressing Soldiers to wear the female dress uniform for inspections if they so choose? If a transgendered individual joins, do I grade him on the male or female APFT scale?

Then, how do I deal with the 58% of troops that clearly stated they do NOT want OPENLY gay people to serve alongside them? Regardless of whether the policy is overturned or not, the increase in “harsh discipline” doled out to deal with the problems would destroy military readiness.

The argument would be made that “maybe people just need to grow up and just accept gays then.” Why? Because our opinion of right and wrong is different than your opinion of right and wrong?

Cliche time. I have gay friends. I have no problem with them. But, I’m also not required to have constant, intimate contact with them in a barracks or training surroundings.

Still others would seek to the past for justification as to why gays would not cause problems to the active force. Supposedly, when women joined many men would get out. It did not happen. But, what DID happen is that our service academies and installations were forced to spend billions of dollars in upgrades and construction to accommodate them. Why not just truly integrate them? If, as the women’s rights lobby wants us to believe, women are equal, why go through all the trouble? And quite frankly, it DID cause problems. We had to create separate standards for men and women that to this day piss off a lot of men! If we all fight the same enemy, why not train to the same standards? Don’t get me wrong, I wholly support my sisters in arms and i’ve addressed this issue as well on the show on which we had Mr. Friedman.

Finally, let me state something that you Kos readers WEREN’T told by Mr. Friedman. The initial purpose of my inquisition of him was to debate the “bi-partisan” nature of his organization. VoteVets.org claims to be a bi-partisan organization when, in fact, it is not. Mr. Friedman was unable to provide proof other than three individuals who happened to be liberal Republicans that the organization supported – out of dozens! The organization has done NOTHING to criticize individuals like John Murtha who pre-convicted innocent Marines and tarnished their image. He could not answer why the list of candidates they support on their site are ALL Democrats and why their board is comprised of liberals and Democrats. He also could answer what his platform was that all the conservative veteran candidates didn’t embrace. As a defense, he resorted to saying that these conservative candidates had not reached out to his organization. Does that mean that EVERY candidate VoteVets endorses approached THEM for that endorsement? I doubt it. I know quite the opposite in fact. And isn’t it just desserts that Brandon posted his stories on Daily Kos and Huffington Post, two of the most liberal sites out there. Now THAT is bi-partisanship!!

I now gleefully await your reaction and all your anecdotal stories.