tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post7753129059402625795..comments2024-03-28T00:32:20.743-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: Straights in the MilitaryDan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-33526573937539108832010-02-26T05:29:08.411-08:002010-02-26T05:29:08.411-08:00This is why discussing anything with people like M...This is why discussing anything with people like MA is a waste of time. They will hunt and pick for any particular anecdote that supports their view, no matter how far outside the mainstream and call that the truth.<br><br>MA likes to pretend that he's reasonable and will listen to strong evidence. We've provided the views of any number of military leaders who have a combined experience of leading the entire military of literally decades. But MA finds one guy who agrees with him and that solves it for him. We've provided all sorts of evidence, but MA ignores it.<br><br>When MA looks for evidence to support his preconceived bigotry, I'm not surprised that he finds it.<br><br>MA's never met a bigoted opinion he didn't like.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-69165808420366189792010-02-26T03:55:50.979-08:002010-02-26T03:55:50.979-08:00But, of course, Marshall has found ONE CAPTAIN in ...But, of course, Marshall has found ONE CAPTAIN in the military who has spoken out in agreement with him, so that ONE CAPTAIN's opinion must surely outrank all those generals and the commander-in-chief, right?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-74737119790394822412010-02-26T03:54:20.619-08:002010-02-26T03:54:20.619-08:00Marshall...The concern is over less-than-good sold...Marshall...<br><br><i>The concern is over less-than-good soldiers</i><br><br>You mean like the ACTUAL bad soldiers I've cited in the post here? The straight male group of soldiers who misbehave and attack and are sexist and otherwise get in trouble? Are you suggesting that we ought to ban straight males from the military then, if your concern is over "less-than-good" soldiers?<br><br>If you're going to make a blanket condemnation of a whole class of people based on behavior, then the primary evidence in the real world is against straight males, as far as I can see.<br><br>But do you really think it is fair to ban all straight males simply because some misbehave? I don't.<br><br>How about this: We restrict people from the military (or not) based on <i>their own</i> behavior, rather than lump them into some class that may or may not reflect their actual behavior?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-60137888379385457592010-02-26T03:50:32.689-08:002010-02-26T03:50:32.689-08:00Marshall...You clearly aren't willing to liste...Marshall...<br><br><i>You clearly aren't willing to listen to points I've made and instead pretend they're all just "wild hunches"</i><br><br>You clearly aren't seeing that I've listened to your points and dismissed them as bigotry and ignorance and irrelevant to the matter. <br><br>If I provide some proof that a goodly number of fundamentalists are profoundly ignorant and prejudiced and divorced from reality, will you agree that we ought to ban all fundamentalists from the military?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-83716392212222942022010-02-25T22:23:27.036-08:002010-02-25T22:23:27.036-08:00Dan,You clearly aren't willing to listen to po...Dan,<br><br>You clearly aren't willing to listen to points I've made and instead pretend they're all just "wild hunches", which, not alarmingly, you counter with hunches of your own, but no solid facts, such as the CDC speaking of who's responsible for 60% of new syphillis cases. So, since I'm sure you didn't read this at my blog when you visited recently, I'll offer it again <a href="http://americansfortruth.com/news/a-retired-captain-writes-adm-mullen-against-homosexuals-in-the-military.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <br><br>One could say that a good soldier will do whatever the commander-in-chief commands, but that doesn't address the issue at all. The concern is over less-than-good soldiers and what THEY will do and how their behavior affects the unit. <br><br>The letter in the link I provided is to Mullen, if I'm not mistaken, and I'll leave it to the captain to deal with him. The more I learn of Powell, the more I find he's more political than military in his thought processes. His opinions are worthless to me. I haven't heard Patreaus expound at length on the issue and a brief comment does not an opinion make when he's got greater issues on his mind. I'll stick with the captain in my link as he has provided the most detailed and thoughtful argument on the subject of any military man yet.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-86851786745288242022010-02-25T08:20:40.163-08:002010-02-25T08:20:40.163-08:00Dan,I guess I have to wonder who you are disagreei...Dan,<br><br>I guess I have to wonder who you are disagreeing with. I clearly said that certain behaviors (we probably disagree on the degree, but that's not the topic under discussion) should be regulated or prohibited despite the sexual proclivities involved. <br><br>I do disagree with you equating dating with sexual activity, as I am sure you are aware there are still folks who can practice self control. Which seems a desirable trait for members of the military.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-35252315586191606882010-02-24T16:51:30.696-08:002010-02-24T16:51:30.696-08:00Craig, Alan and Dan appear to all agree. Go figure...Craig, Alan and Dan appear to all agree. Go figure.<br><br>Craig said...<br><br><i>If as we agree, there should be a ban on certain behaviors, then that should be enforced across the board regardless of predilection. Then I do agree that the military has an opinion. Again, you seem to conflate dating with sex.</i><br><br>No, not really. <br><br>As I noted earlier, I'm fine with REASONABLE policy about BEHAVIORS. This would include inappropriate sexual conduct (gay or straight), officers dating non-coms and other reasonable restrictions. We appear to mostly agree.<br><br>The problem (as I suppose you see) with restricting a class of people (gay folk, in general, or Baptists, or straights, etc) is that it is a class-based discrimination. Bigotry. The "thinking" is, "Some X (insert your group - gay, straight, Baptist...) folk are promiscuous, therefore, ALL X folk will be promiscuous, therefore ALL X folk ought to be banned from serving in the military.<br><br>It is, by definition, a class-based discrimination and, thus, morally wrong.<br><br>Reasonable restrictions on dating, sexual BEHAVIORS are not being opposed by me or anyone I know of (in fact, I suspect we mostly all support it), just class-based discrimination and bigotry.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-7782284953069364952010-02-24T14:54:26.492-08:002010-02-24T14:54:26.492-08:00I thought you were going to say Hell, Cayman Islan...I thought you were going to say Hell, Cayman Islands. The road to which is also paved with fairly ordinary asphalt (or was many years ago).<br><br>We're going to have to stop this people will talk ;)Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-15912959132673992672010-02-24T13:43:05.773-08:002010-02-24T13:43:05.773-08:00Probably at least as pleasantly surprised as I was...Probably at least as pleasantly surprised as I was to see you laying out a reasonable and consistent position on this topic, Craig. I guess what they say is true, even a broken clock is right twice a day. (That was a joke.) ;)<br><br>It is snowing in Hell today, actually. Though it hasn't frozen over yet.<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_MI<br><br>Not surprisingly to most of Dan's readers I'm sure, I live mere miles from Hell and have visited there often, mostly for the ice cream.<br><br>(Interestingly enough, the road to Hell is paved with common, ordinary asphalt, not good intentions. The road's name, BTW, is Darwin Road. heh.)Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-90184369058387845692010-02-24T12:58:41.305-08:002010-02-24T12:58:41.305-08:00Alan,Imagine my shock at seeing your last comment....Alan,<br><br>Imagine my shock at seeing your last comment. It must be snowing in hell.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-5315098009327995652010-02-24T12:42:28.772-08:002010-02-24T12:42:28.772-08:00Dan,Just saw this today, which addresses every all...Dan,<br><br>Just saw this today, which addresses every all the "arguments" made here so far, and then some.<br><br>http://mediamatters.org/research/201002240012<br><br>BTW, I'd pretty much agree with Craig. *gasp!*<br><br>There are already many regulations that address the interpersonal relationships of service members. Those should be followed in any case, regardless of the gender of the individuals involved.<br><br>On the other hand, I would actually *support* DADT if it were simply applied to everyone equally. As long as straight service members were equally prohibited from mentioning, discussing, or alluding to their sexual orientation or their girl or boyfriends, wives, husbands, and/or children back home on penalty of discharge, that would be fine with me.<br><br>Frankly, it has been my experience that an overwhelming number of straight people spend considerably too much time discussing their personal lives at work anyway. I'm not sure why they feel the need to continually flaunt their lifestyle choices at work.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-36309324140603763122010-02-24T09:43:35.307-08:002010-02-24T09:43:35.307-08:00One more thought. When one takes to oath to enter...One more thought. When one takes to oath to enter military service one accepts certain restrictions on ones civil rights. Since the oath (and hence the restrictions) are taken freely and without ant mental reservations it seems that people who enter military service are prepared to accept those restrictions as foreign as that may appear to those of us not in the military.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-65972343023676556142010-02-24T09:40:06.546-08:002010-02-24T09:40:06.546-08:00Dan,I'll try to hit the high points of your qu...Dan,<br><br>I'll try to hit the high points of your questions.<br><br>"As long as they're doing the job, I don't know that anyone's sexual behavior (gay, straight, whatever) is really the business of the military."<br><br>Historically it has been, there are restrictions on sexual relations between officers and enlisted, as well as between a member of the military and another members spouse. (gay or straight) This seems to make sense for two reasons 1) Discipline and unit cohesion. 2) When you take oath you bind yourself to a different set of rules than in the civilian world. Having said that the military should enforce these standards consistently.<br><br>"If straight folk in the military have a sexual affair, then no one cares, right? As long as they're doing so responsibly (ie, not in the barracks during duty!), then I don't know that the gov't ought to be playing nanny to a bunch of adults to say who can and can't have a crush on who."<br><br>Again, in the military they agree to different standards of behavior than civilians. They knew the rules when they took the oath, and shouldn't complain when they're enforced. <br><br>Mo opinion, is that it probably won't make much practical difference if they repeal it. However, that should come with a corresponding increase in enforcing behavior standards.<br><br>"Do you think there's some legitimate reason why the military ought to say who can and can't date who? On what basis?"<br><br>Yes, discipline and unit cohesion. Although I'm not assuming that dating necessarily implies sex. So, within the established guidelines I'm ok with dating.<br><br>"Do you think that the military should have a position on whether straight folk have an affair (on their own time)?"<br><br>I would suggest two possible objections. 1) security; do you really want the guy with the nuclear codes sleeping with everyone in sight. 2) trust; if a member of the military won't honor their marriage vow, why should it be assumed that they would honor their oath of service. <br><br>"On whether straight gals affectionately pat their straight guys' bottoms? "<br><br>Sorry, this is (or could be) straight up sexual harassment which is illegal in all US workplaces. So, no I don't think I or the military should condone behavior that is potentially illegal.<br><br>"Or do you think the military ought to have an opinion about gay folks' dating behaviors but not straight folks'?"<br><br>If as we agree, there should be a ban on certain behaviors, then that should be enforced across the board regardless of predilection. Then I do agree that the military has an opinion. Again, you seem to conflate dating with sex. I'm not sure I would agree that that is always the case. <br><br>"Do you see the problems of discrimination and how it really isn't the business of the gov't or the military who their soldiers do and don't kiss?"<br><br>Do you not think that if Captain X has had a sexual affair with 1st lieutenant Y, (regardless of the gender of either or both X&Y) that Captain X just might send Lt. Y out to clear a minefield or some such because Lt. Y broke up with him? It would seem that anything the military could do to minimize these types of situations would be of great benefit to morale, unit cohesion, and discipline. I would also say that if folks aren't able to live up to the standards they agreed to when they joined, they should be liable for the consequences they agreed to abide by.<br><br>I think moral folk do have an opinion about it. I agree that human sexual relationships are best within certain parameters. (obviously we probably have different parameters) The problem is that in joining the military one obligates ones self to s different (higher) standard of conduct. So one must be willing to pay the price if one transgresses the agreed upon standard of conduct.<br><br>...and this is when I pretty much agree with you.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-5208717371063896532010-02-23T19:40:23.940-08:002010-02-23T19:40:23.940-08:00Craig said...Personally, I'm leaning toward th...Craig said...<br><br><i>Personally, I'm leaning toward the it doesn't matter if they repeal it or not side of the fence.</i><br><br>That strikes me as curious. Do you mean that you don't care one way or the other, or that you are leaning towards the military repealing it, although with some ambivalence?<br><br>Do you think there's some legitimate reason why the military ought to say who can and can't date who? On what basis? Do you think that the military should have a position on whether straight folk have an affair (on their own time)? On whether straight gals affectionately pat their straight guys' bottoms? <br><br>Or do you think the military ought to have an opinion about gay folks' dating behaviors but not straight folks'? Do you see the problems of discrimination and how it really isn't the business of the gov't or the military who their soldiers do and don't kiss?<br><br>I'd think moral folk concerned with our civil rights and God-given liberties would have an opinion about it. I, for one, am opposed to loose sexual behavior - flitting from lover to lover. Having said that, I don't really want the military to be a nanny to our soldiers. Gay or straight.<br><br>Do you?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-85409944538558858812010-02-23T19:34:19.553-08:002010-02-23T19:34:19.553-08:00Craig said...Personally, I'm leaning toward th...Craig said...<br><br><i>Personally, I'm leaning toward the it doesn't matter if they repeal it or not side of the fence. <br><br>But, I am curious if you would agree that there need to be restrictions on sexual activity between members of the military.</i><br><br>I'm fine with having reasonable restrictions on BEHAVIOR. What I object to are blanket discriminations on all gay folk (straight folk, women, Baptists) just because they happen to be gay, straight, female or Baptist. That's the discriminatory sort of behavior that I think increasingly more folk are seeing as, well, discriminatory and, as such, immoral.<br><br>As to behavior, if one soldier wants to date and eventually marry (or not) another soldier, I don't see that as being the business of the military. If one soldier wants to engage in sexual activity with another soldier (either within or without marriage) I don't see that really as the business of the military. As long as they're doing the job, I don't know that anyone's sexual behavior (gay, straight, whatever) is really the business of the military.<br><br>And it isn't really. For straight folk. If straight folk in the military have a sexual affair, then no one cares, right? As long as they're doing so responsibly (ie, not in the barracks during duty!), then I don't know that the gov't ought to be playing nanny to a bunch of adults to say who can and can't have a crush on who.<br><br>Do you disagree?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-61346339152735017792010-02-23T11:58:24.374-08:002010-02-23T11:58:24.374-08:00Dan,Personally, I'm leaning toward the it does...Dan,<br><br>Personally, I'm leaning toward the it doesn't matter if they repeal it or not side of the fence. <br><br>But, I am curious if you would agree that there need to be restrictions on sexual activity between members of the military.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-50483941681269536162010-02-22T20:23:55.243-08:002010-02-22T20:23:55.243-08:00Marshall said...if standing up for Biblical truth ...Marshall said...<br><br><i>if standing up for Biblical truth and God's will makes me a "homophobe" (another lie used to demonize opponents), then make sure you capitalize it when used against me.<br><br>Hey Dan, "homophobe" is an ugly slur to many upstanding Christians and others who don't buy the lies.</i><br><br>If the shoe fits, Marshall.<br><br>You make wild accusations based on nothing but fears and innuendo. You advocate discrimination against a group based upon the fear and innuendo (not facts) about a group of people. And when offered a chance to give any real world reasons, you turn it down and blindly chase the fears and slurs.<br><br>And then, you're surprised when people guess that you're a homophobe?? If you don't want to be considered a homophobe, don't give crazy homophobic answers to legitimate questions or call for mass discrimination based upon your fears.<br><br>Good advice, brother. Prayerfully consider it.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-23495238502685327432010-02-22T20:19:27.639-08:002010-02-22T20:19:27.639-08:00Marshall did not answer the question posed to him,...Marshall did not answer the question posed to him, instead saying...<br><br><i>My whole point is the problems that would be faced by the military in overturning this tradition. Try reading my comments first and THEN make your reply. Do that and the blank of the next question if more than filled.</i><br><br>I know you've offered some wild hunches about how madness and hedonism will happen if gay folk are free to be free in the military. But that's it.<br><br>So, perhaps you're right. Perhaps you DID answer the question.<br><br>The question: Marshall, what do you fear will happen if gay folk are freely in the military?<br><br>The answer: <br><br>SYPHILLIS CASES WILL RISE!<br><br>GAYS WILL ATTACK OTHER GAYS AND STRAIGHT GUYS, TOO!!<br><br>REPORTS OF ATTACKS WILL GO UP!<br><br>CATS AND DOGS WILL START LIVING TOGETHER!!<br><br>MASS HYSTERIA!!<br><br>I know that's your wild and unsupported hunch. I was just wondering if you might have any real world answers that might allow people to take you seriously, rather than as a caricature that rightly deserves mocking.<br><br>You chose the mindless bigot caricature. Tis a shame. I doubt you are as bigoted or mindless as you make yourself out to be.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-76974744014469039322010-02-22T20:14:45.029-08:002010-02-22T20:14:45.029-08:00Marshall said...Your Baptist analogy is stupid and...Marshall said...<br><br><i>Your Baptist analogy is stupid and intellectuallly insulting and dishonest. Apples? Meet oranges.</i><br><br>It is comments such as this, Marshall, that causes folk not to take you seriously. I offered a valid analogy - SOME Baptists misbehave, ought we ban Baptists from the military because some misbehave is analogous to SOME gay folk misbehave, ought we ban gay folk because some misbehave. That IS a valid analogy.<br><br>Your response? To say it isn't valid. Well, you can say that all day, but it does nothing to dispute it. If it's not a valid analogy, then you can feel free to say WHY it isn't valid, but you chose not to do that.<br><br>I would guess you think it "obvious" why it isn't analogous - because in your fevered imagination, ALL gay folk (or nearly so) misbehave ALL (or nearly so) the time, therefore, there is no comparison to Baptists, SOME of which (you might hazard to wildly guess) only misbehave some of the time. It's a fine, if biased and unsupported bit of hunchery. But it causes people to write you off as a mindless and hateful bigot.<br><br>And now you know.<br><br>You're welcome.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-23658215528834921852010-02-22T12:55:04.067-08:002010-02-22T12:55:04.067-08:00And now...From WaPo:"War general: gay, straig...And now...<br><br>From WaPo:<br><br>"War general: gay, straight should be OK to serve"<br><br>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022202452.html<br><br>So add Odierno to the list of other experts who, according to bigots like MA, don't know what they're talking about.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-62190888650333735672010-02-22T09:53:41.983-08:002010-02-22T09:53:41.983-08:00Sorry. Been busy. I'll comment when I have a c...Sorry. Been busy. I'll comment when I have a chance.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-62387671117338790992010-02-22T05:46:54.331-08:002010-02-22T05:46:54.331-08:00Add Gen. David Patraeus to the mix. He appeared on...Add Gen. David Patraeus to the mix. He appeared on Meet The Press and he acknowledged that he had served with gay soldiers in the past. Patraeus added "I'm not sure that they do" when asked whether non-gay soldiers even care if DADT is repealed.<br><br>But then, actual evidence from military commanders on the field (you know, the sorts of folks who have actual experience) isn't persuasive to bigots and like MA, who think that Cheney is for repeal because he has a gay daughter (What? she's going to be serving? Ummm... What??), Powell is too black, Mullens is too unknown, and Paatreus has a funny name. Therefore none of them know what they're talking about. But MA does because of his vast experience with men's showers.<br><br>See how useful this conversation is Dan? LOLAlanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-37949689866563312622010-02-22T05:39:44.241-08:002010-02-22T05:39:44.241-08:00MA's yapping again. Someone should let him ou...MA's yapping again. Someone should let him outside so he can do his business instead of leaving his crap around here.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-50699970670205085862010-02-21T15:35:49.254-08:002010-02-21T15:35:49.254-08:00I asked a friend of mine who is in the military ab...I asked a friend of mine who is in the military about this. His response, verbatim, was: "If it is an order from the President, I will follow. It's that simple."<br><br>Apparently Marshall and the rest of these folks don't understand that, before the military is anything else, it is quite willing to follow an order from the Commander-in-Chief.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-80484337149120086012010-02-21T15:28:12.861-08:002010-02-21T15:28:12.861-08:00"And you still haven't answered the quest...<i>"And you still haven't answered the question: What real world problems are you afraid of?"</i><br><br>Bearing false witness here, Dan. My whole point is the problems that would be faced by the military in overturning this tradition. Try reading my comments first and THEN make your reply. Do that and the blank of the next question if more than filled.<br><br>Your Baptist analogy is stupid and intellectuallly insulting and dishonest. Apples? Meet oranges. Talk about batshit nutty!<br><br>You haven't answered the question of why the sexes shouldn't all be housed together, showering together, using the same restrooms, etc. THAT'S an analogy that is apples to apples. <br><br>As for addressing "folk like Marshall", I AM a reasonable person and you have yet to make a reasonable argument in favor, OR responded to my question with a reasonable answer. Either of you have yet to show why you think anyone has a "right" to be accepted into the military simply because they want to be or thinks they should be. Nor have either of you come close to showing the lack of reason in my comments. Alan just cracking wise doesn't do it. <br><br>But then, there's never been an honest, substantiated argument in favor of ANYTHING from the pro-homosex side of the debate and lies do not build up the body of Christ, they only make it as dead as the rest of the world. And once again, if standing up for Biblical truth and God's will makes me a "homophobe" (another lie used to demonize opponents), then make sure you capitalize it when used against me.<br><br>Hey Dan, "homophobe" is an ugly slur to many upstanding Christians and others who don't buy the lies. Doesn't bother me personally, but I just thought you'd like to know. I know how your are about such things.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.com