Pentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending 'Don't Ask'

[Ridgerunner]

The military is not now (and to my knowledge never has) enforced violations of Art. 125 if the acts were between consenting adults.

If this is true, and I have no particular reason to doubt you, then the only change repeal of DADT would bring about would be that homosexual soldiers could then “go public” as soldiers about their homosexuality. It would be nothing in the world but a governmental endorsement of pro-homosexual propaganda efforts.

I might mention as well that if what you say is true, then all the “tragedy anecdotes” of this or that homosexual who was drummed out of the service because his/her homosexuality became known, are simply bogus.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps I did not express myself well. I did not say that only homosexuals commit sodomy. I intended to say that all homosexual sexual acts cannot be anything other than sodomy. Consequently, one’s saying that one is an active homosexual is to say, necessarily, that one engages in sodomy.

It was not my purpose, either, to ask what the prosecutorial practices are in the JAG corps. If Article 125 is “tacked onto” another more serious criminal act, then obviously sodomy is considered a criminal act under the code, whether it’s the primary focus of prosecution or not.

I am curious then if DADT is overturned and a commanding officer observes two of his men having sex with each other would that be grounds for dismissal?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I am curious then if DADT is overturned and a commanding officer observes two of his men having sex with each other would that be grounds for dismissal?

Grounds for some discipline, obviously. Just as it would be grounds for discipline if a commander found two of his heterosexual subordinates having sex on duty or in public. It would be a serious lapse of judgment and discretion on their part if a homo- or heterosexual couple would act so blatantly where they might be observed - and by their commander, of all people!!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I am curious then if DADT is overturned and a commanding officer observes two of his men having sex with each other would that be grounds for dismissal?

Only if it is grounds for dismissal if he were to catch a hetero couple “doing it”. If a hetero couple is caught having some type of intimate contact that is grounds for discharge, then what’s good for the goose and gander is good for the gander and gander, so to speak. However, you watch, this case will come up, and this same sex couple will use homosexual discrimination to get the charges dismissed. And it will work.

And when same sex couples start showing up to military social events, the hetero population will begin to dwindle and they will be called “intolerant” and be sent to sensitivity training or accused of discriminatory behavior. Repeal of DADT will become the effective forced acceptance of homosexual couples as the new norm.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Grounds for some discipline, obviously. Just as it would be grounds for discipline if a commander found two of his heterosexual subordinates having sex on duty or in public. It would be a serious lapse of judgment and discretion on their part if a homo- or heterosexual couple would act so blatantly where they might be observed - and by their commander, of all people!!

It happens in mixed gender boot camps all the freaking time. And the recruits are sent packing, pardon the pun.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It happens in mixed gender boot camps all the freaking time. And the recruits are sent packing, pardon the pun.

Sure, if a couple is so stupid that early in their military “careers,” they ought to be sent home.

 

[Medic_Mark]

That is an extremely odd reaction to soldiers. Many of them are not even combat, they may be medics, mechanics, quartermaster(supplies).

My opinion of the military forces of the world is certainly not mainstream. I am not at all patriotic and that doesn’t always go over well. I am not trying to offend as much as I am to speak my mind on a forum and think through these things honestly, so I hope people don’t get overly excited about the issue.

I recognize that not everyone in the military is of a combat specialty and that not everybody is truly bloodthirsty. However, taken holistically and knowing that the military never does anything without a purpose, I still have to affirm my principle that every single member assists in inflicting suffering on the just and unjust alike. The mechanic keeps the war machine moving. The medic heals the soldier so that he can kill some other time. The quartermaster procures everything necessary for the gears of war to turn. And even the National Guard is a killing force, though they do help out when the floodgates fail. But in the end, they are hardly agents of mercy in the world despite what the warm and fuzzy commercial wants us to think.



I used to carry a concealed weapon, sometimes still do, and I once read a book about deadly force and the taking of life (for the life of me I cannot remember the title), In one of the author’s discussions, he basically asserts that only for the military do we praise people for their remorseless violence. We essentially encourage tenants of sociopathic behavior. It is a thought that has always stuck with me. I need to see if I can find his expanded discussion on that. It was interesting.



I often wonder how Christians can participate and are allowed to participate, but that is well beyond my level of comprehension and will be until the Lord makes all things clear.

PS - I’ve enjoyed this side paneled discussion, but I truly do not wish to derail the main points of the thread or its natural course.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Ok Sam you’re reaching here.

So because of 100 female soldiers all female soldiers serving in our military beside male soldiers is a bad idea?

I know you don’t mean that because that’s just silly. Ok what I post next is for everyone not just you Sam, I don’t want to offend you bro; this is not about you. It’s about me.

As I stated on other threads I have no agenda I am stating from my experience of over twenty years as a dogface. I’ve been in combat units and combat support units from carrying a backpack radio on my back to satellite communications; I’ve been at Cavalry Squadron level busting track on armored vehicles to General Staff I never went above a combat division level. There were homosexuals at all those levels.

Ok War Story:
In the Army you shoot, move, and communicate:

My last combat tour was Desert Storm I had remote signal teams spread across the battlefield some with units others by themselves. Had a Staff Sergeant in charge of a team of five men that was alone at the FLOT [Forward Line Of Troops] the MLRS’s would come to the FLOT, right down from my teams location, fire missiles and move back to the rear.

My team had to stay to provide communications the only thing between my team and three Iraqi Armored Divisions was one Bradley Fighting Vehicle from the Second Armored Division we were at their fallback position. This was done numerous of times before G-Day to draw Iraqi Divisions to the Tri-border; a deception plan.

This Staff Sergeant was awarded yes I recommend it THE BRONZE STAR MEDAL for the outstanding service this Non Commissioned Officer did going beyond the normal line of duty.

This Sergeant is female and lesbian has never done any misconduct let alone sexual misconduct. Today she is still active duty and a Command Sergeant Major with three tours of Iraq under her belt.

Should we kick her out just because of her sexually? If we do it; that is discrimination and that is against Church teachings.

BTW; I had another team on the other side of the Divisions AO that did same thing the Staff Sergeant was a heterosexual male and he was also awarded and yes I recommend it THE BRONZE STAR MEDAL for the outstanding service this Non Commissioned Officer did going beyond the normal line of duty.

That was just to show you I recommend promotion or awards on peoples duty performance not their sexually!!!

If these young men and women want to serve putting their lives on the line for our and their freedom—let them serve man. How is that going to harm anyone?

Interesting. What I infer from all this is that the gays serving in the military are typically NOT the kind of people who want to draw attention to themselves with behavior that screams “LOOK AT ME! I’M GAY! I’M GAY! I’M GAY!” That’s more typical of politically-oriented gays–whom I tend to find to be a pretty loathsome bunch.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Interesting. What I infer from all this is that the gays serving in the military are typically NOT the kind of people who want to draw attention to themselves with behavior that screams “LOOK AT ME! I’M GAY! I’M GAY! I’M GAY!” That’s more typical of politically-oriented gays–whom I tend to find to be a pretty loathsome bunch.

The “flaming queer” net-stockings-and-makeup-wearing drag queen sort of homosexual is NOT found in the Services - by my experience.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The “flaming queer” net-stockings-and-makeup-wearing drag queen sort of homosexual is NOT found in the Services - by my experience.

Not yet, anyway. Once we allow openly gay members to serve, what is to bar openly transexual persons from allowed to serve? I mean, they are willing to fight and die for the country, what matters if he wants to do it in a woman’s uniform?

 

[Marie5890]

I subscribe to the Washington Times online edition I know about this story and if you go by his logic we should ban married couples from the military also.

There are regulations of conduct; have been for years.

What do people think is going to happen; orgies in the tanks?

Like I posted before on these boards I served with homosexuals since Private to Senior Non-Com and nobody really cares about it—just kill the enemy—complete the mission and try to bring everybody home standing up.

I could care a rats butt who anyone sleeps with as long as it’s not my wife. That’s between them and God.

I don’t care about what questions or think tanks anyone’s talking about I just know from boots on the ground experience inside and outside of combat I also did seven years in the barracks—it’s not a big deal and when it goes away it’s going to be the biggest yawn we will never hear.

If you think about it a lot of the same stuff people are saying today was said about females serving side by side with males—another big yawn.

First Stanmaxkolbe, thanks for your service.

I have family members how also have served, and they happen to be gay.

It’s like you say. No one serving really cares. Kill the enemy, get the mission done, get everyone home.

It’s only those sitting back here all warm and safe who get all worked up over who is sleeping with who.

When you are looking at the enemy, you dont care who your buddy next to you is sleeping. You just want to get the job done and you both out alive.

 

[edwest2]

Only if it is grounds for dismissal if he were to catch a hetero couple “doing it”. If a hetero couple is caught having some type of intimate contact that is grounds for discharge, then what’s good for the goose and gander is good for the gander and gander, so to speak. However, you watch, this case will come up, and this same sex couple will use homosexual discrimination to get the charges dismissed. And it will work.

And when same sex couples start showing up to military social events, the hetero population will begin to dwindle and they will be called “intolerant” and be sent to sensitivity training or accused of discriminatory behavior. Repeal of DADT will become the effective forced acceptance of homosexual couples as the new norm.

That is correct. People need to understand that this is not about laying down covering fire. Gays already serve in the military. This is about a social engineering experiment to get the military and civilians to accept gay behavior as a variation on normal. The people have voted it down, so the LGBT groups’ only other option is to force other institutions to do as they say.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

First Stanmaxkolbe, thanks for your service.

I have family members how also have served, and they happen to be gay.

It’s like you say. No one serving really cares. Kill the enemy, get the mission done, get everyone home.

It’s only those sitting back here all warm and safe who get all worked up over who is sleeping with who.

When you are looking at the enemy, you dont care who your buddy next to you is sleeping. You just want to get the job done and you both out alive.

This a Catholic forum. This is an issue of concern to Catholics. It has nothing to do with being warm and safe. The last group of young people that I had the privilege to meet before they shipped out stood for something, We have to be concerned about what this country stands for. People don’t seem to get that. You don’t put your life on the line for nothing. A few years back, I received a call from a soldier stationed overseas. He wanted to thank me for a few of my company’s books that he enjoyed. I had to thank him for his service.

Why are they killing the enemy? Out of some psychopathic love of killing? Like it’s just another job - like picking up the garbage? This Country Had Better Mean Something Or No One Will Want To Die For It.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Not yet, anyway. Once we allow openly gay members to serve, what is to bar openly transexual persons from allowed to serve? I mean, they are willing to fight and die for the country, what matters if he wants to do it in a woman’s uniform?

Once we allow black men to serve in the same units as whites, and let them use the same facilities, what’s to stop them from hitting on white women in the NCO and Officers’ clubs and trying to take them out on dates…and worse?

Comes from the same Catalog of Horrors.

 

[estesbob]

Once we allow black men to serve in the same units as whites, and let them use the same facilities, what’s to stop them from hitting on white women in the NCO and Officers’ clubs and trying to take them out on dates…and worse?

Comes from the same Catalog of Horrors.

Once again we see the racist proposition that engaging in sodomy is equivalent to being black. I would suggest people might want to Google up what black ministers think about this proposition. Perhaps if they did they would quit making the assertion

 

[Ridgerunner]

Once we allow black men to serve in the same units as whites, and let them use the same facilities, what’s to stop them from hitting on white women in the NCO and Officers’ clubs and trying to take them out on dates…and worse?

Comes from the same Catalog of Horrors.

One should not assume what might be in Mr. Lafrance’s “Catalog of Horrors” without inquiring of him. Frankly, I doubt very much that he is troubled by racial integration in the military. But he can speak for himself if he thinks it important to do so.

 

[edwest2]

Once we allow black men to serve in the same units as whites, and let them use the same facilities, what’s to stop them from hitting on white women in the NCO and Officers’ clubs and trying to take them out on dates…and worse?

Comes from the same Catalog of Horrors.

100% false Rich, and I think you know that.

From a black lady: “I know people who used to be gay but I don’t know anyone who used to be black.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

100% false Rich, and I think you know that.

From a black lady: “I know people who used to be gay but I don’t know anyone who used to be black.”

Peace,
Ed

Well, you know with the exception of Michael Jackson…

And I don’t know anyone who after 15 years of marriage has had to break the news to his wife, “Honey, I love you and our kids, and I cherish the life we’ve had together. But I can’t keep living a lie. I’m black.”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

One should not assume what might be in Mr. Lafrance’s “Catalog of Horrors” without inquiring of him. Frankly, I doubt very much that he is troubled by racial integration in the military. But he can speak for himself if he thinks it important to do so.

Ya, everyone knows for a fact that people with peach colored skin are superior in every way to people with chocolate-colored skin (because a peach is a fruit and chocolate is candy, and we all know that the government has declared that fruit is better than candy). Well, I know Abraham Lincoln believed this, and proclaimed it publically.

[/sarcasm]

And I am trying to find in Scripture where being born with a certain skin color in inherently immoral. Can someone refresh my memory of that? Okay, Thanks!

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Once again we see the racist proposition that engaging in sodomy is equivalent to being black. I would suggest people might want to Google up what black ministers think about this proposition. Perhaps if they did they would quit making the assertion

You utterly, utterly missed my point, that point being that in 1948 false reasons was put forth for why racial integration was a bad thing, just as false reasons are being forth today as to why integration of gays will be a bad thing.