Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Former Rep. Duncan Hunter on 'Don't ask, don't tell'

By Ann Telnaes

Related story: Sources: Pentagon group finds there is minimal risk to lifting gay ban during war.

Related video: Duncan Hunter, Author, 'Victory in Iraq: How America Won'.

By Ann Telnaes  | November 11, 2010; 7:35 PM ET
Categories:  Human rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: George Bush on the legality of torture
Next: GOP freshman wants his government-subsidized health care

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

Posted by: thebump

"lufrank1 wrote: >

Then you and I would agree we should be working to find a cure.

lufrank1 wrote: >

That's either a boneheadedly ignorant statement, or a deliberate and slanderous lie. Nobody says any such thing."

???????????????????????????????????

Thebump must have been a bump on the head.
"Nobody Says any such thing" ?????

Nonsense, thebump, my statement that human sexual orientation is determined by genotype and hormonal events is true.
While searching for a cure - see if you can find one to prevent genetic/physiological determinants of mental capacity.

Posted by: lufrank1 | November 14, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Discrimination is discrimination no matter what one tries to justify it in religious, social or cultural terms.

Posted by: MyVoice3 | November 14, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

kchses1 wrote, "...Of course it will be difficult. But doing what's right is never easy. You do it anyway."

I agreed with your post completely up until this sentence.

Frankly, I think it's going to be extremely easy.

Openly gay service members serve in most Western Military, and it's been pretty much a non-issue.

Gay service members are already serving in our Military, and it's been pretty much a non-issue.

I don't see that NOT kicking someone out who has NOT done anything wrong is much of an issue at all.

Not sure why others see it as a problem.

You deal with problems all the time. And the problems can be based on anything. But having a blanket prohibition on a group of people who are doing absolutely nothing wrong creates more problems than it solves.

And removing that burden could take place immediately, and you wouldn't have to change anything other than taking no action where there is no problem.

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 13, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

This argument was used against the army integrating with blacks and was false then. It is clearly false now since gays have been serving in the military since the nation began.
-------------
Comparing the amount of melanin in ones skin to sexual desire and it's affects on behavior is laughable. Apples and oranges.


--------------
From my experience unit cohesion is the responsability of the squad leaders and company commanders and if they're not up to the job it doesn't matter whose in the unit or whose dating who. I never saw a unit where cohesion flowed upward. It always flows from the top down. Either that guy is up to the job or he's no good and it makes no difference whose in the unit.
---------------
Well, not every unit gets such highly effective, charismatic leadership that can make such primal differences amount to nothing. Again, this amounts to simply glossing over what are big differences in individuals. On one hand, the left tells us how big a problem it is that homosexuals are bullied but then on the other hand everyone can get along easily. Folks, integrating homosexuals into the military will bring challenges and have effects on readiness. You can still support the change all while acknowledging this. No need to deny it.

Posted by: crabstu | November 12, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

______________________________________________________________
1. I don't agree it is an apple and an orange. It on;y appears that way because we've successfully integrated society. So from where we stand now it seems like a foreign concept. 60 years ago when the military integrated this exact discussion took place. Turned out pretty good.

2. I agree 100%. Never gloss over the difficulties. Of course it will be difficult. But doing what's right is never easy. You do it anyway.

Posted by: kchses1 | November 13, 2010 6:11 AM | Report abuse

"Liberals are nauseating."

Agreed. That Thomas Jefferson, classic liberal, was nauseating.

As was Ghandi. And MLK Jr.

------------------------
Actually, Gandhi and MLK were both opposed to abortion. They were idealists, but they were not liberal in the contemprary sense of the world. They would not agree to the termination of human life in the womb simply for one's convenience.

Also, Gandhi's views on sex were rather puritanical. I doubt he would sneer at O'Donnell.

Posted by: rjpal | November 12, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Ann, you know, you are getting boring. It would be nice if one were to see something coming from you once in a while which was not totally predictable...

Posted by: rjpal | November 12, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

crabstu wrote, "...Sexual desire do in fact motivate people in a strong way. Melanin in your skin does not."

Race isn't the same thing as "melanin in your skin."

There are African Americans with lighter skin tone than many Caucasians.

Heritable characteristics like skin and hair are only a part of it. If that were the only part, it would never have led to the struggles we have seen in our own society over race.

It's about identity, just as sexual orientation is. It's about culture, and that often means it's who you grew up with, who you associate with, what music you like, what food you eat, often it's about speech patterns and dialect.

It obviously matters to a lot of people.

In many ways, it's more of an issue in our culture than sexual orientation is. Gay people are socialized among heterosexuals, and indeed, usually are startled when they realize, growing up, that there is this difference. Gay people use the same bathrooms, the same showers in high school, the same everything as their non-gay counterparts of their own gender. They aren't apart from mainstream society. They are fully a part of it growing up.

Whatever, I really think it's a mistake to say that race is trivial and superficial while sexual orientation is deep and behavioral.

Both are important in certain aspects and irrelevant in others.

They are both irrelevant to serving your country, witness the fact that lots of fine soldiers are black and lots of fine soldiers are gay.

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

"That's because DADT requires that gays act pleasantly. Removal of DADT will give each gay soldier the right to act with extraordinary offensiveness, and they most certainly will."

With respect, that's not even remotely the case. Gay people need not be any more "pleasant" than anyone else. And "acting with extraordinary offensiveness" doesn't depend on sexual orientation. If it's not acceptable now for heterosexual soldiers, how in Heaven's name do you think it will become acceptable for gay ones?

They just have to do their job. That's all.

And that won't --can't-- change when DADT is repealed. Behavior can be punished. DADT isn't about behavior-- it's about dismissing gay soldiers simply because they are known to be gay.

That's an insane and an inane policy, and it has resulted in the dismissal of good soldiers.

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

crabstu wrote, "What is germane is simply what is factual."

And here is what is factual:

Gay people are serving right now, today, in the Military, and it doesn't seem to affect their ability to do their job, to do it well, and to behave themselves.

Since the only thing that matters IS behavior (otherwise, it's not really all that different from levels of melanin in the skin), the facts support gay soldiers being completely able to serve, regardless of who else knows they are gay.

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

"Not openly. When they do become open about it now, that's when the issues begin. When they all are open about it, such will only multiply." crabstu | November 12, 2010 7:04 PM

1. Which "issues"?
2. What evidence is there that that's when the "issues" will begin?

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many gay soldiers who weren't asked and didn't tell died for our country?

I guess that just doesn't matter. Since they were gay, they went to the christian hell.

St. Peter asked them: Did you die for your country, did you sell your life so that your family and the people you loved didn't have to die?

The gay soldier says: I guess so. I was shot in the head by a sniper when I was trying to rescue one of my fellow soldiers, shot by a sniper who fought for the enemy.

St. Peter then asked: Did you like other men?

The gay soldier told him he did.

St. Peter, and all the other christians then sent him down to burn in hell in eternal agony forever.

But god loves him.


You people are sick.

Posted by: eezmamata | November 12, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are hideous.

Posted by: billybeer6 | November 12, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

"Clearly, those white soldiers felt this would have an unacceptable effect on unit cohesion and Military readiness."

Nope. WW2 soldiers would have said it was a violation of regulations to integrate the races. Under no circumstances would whites expect the races to be integrated. Even in the Civil War, African Americans fought in segregated units.

Many people of tolerant mindsets have pleasant stories to share of gays in the military. That's because DADT requires that gays act pleasantly. Removal of DADT will give each gay soldier the right to act with extraordinary offensiveness, and they most certainly will.

Why?

Because gays feel they have been on the receiving end of offensive conduct by heterosexuals. That may be true enough, but the people who gays will be acting wrongly toward won't be the soldiers who would respond with violence in return. It'll be the people of tolerance who have such nice stories of gays in the military today.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 12, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

The comparisons of the amount of melanin in one's skin to ones sexual desires is not apt in any way. Sexual desire do in fact motivate people in a strong way. Melanin in your skin does not. Whatever people thought about this in the past is also moot. What is germane is simply what is factual.

Posted by: crabstu | November 12, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Gay soldiers are already FULLY integrated in the Military today, right now.
Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010
------------
Not openly.
When they do become open about it now, that's when the issues begin. When they all are open about it, such will only multiply.

Posted by: crabstu | November 12, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

crabstu wrote, "Folks, integrating homosexuals into the military will bring challenges and have effects on readiness. You can still support the change all while acknowledging this. No need to deny it."

I would certainly acknowledge it if there were evidence of it.

But here's the rub:

Gay soldiers are already FULLY integrated in the Military today, right now.

It hasn't brought challenges. The only observed effect on readiness has been the dismissal of competent service members who had been doing their jobs effectively.

A sincere question: Can you please explain what you mean by "integrated into the Military"?

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

crabstu wrote, "Comparing the amount of melanin in ones skin to sexual desire and it's affects on behavior is laughable. Apples and oranges."

Except that it wasn't laughable before integration.

I remember my father, a WWII veteran from the North (Pennsylvania) describing to us kids a situation he witnessed at Fort Hood,Texas, where he was stationed before being shipped overseas.

White soldiers went to the commanding officer, up in arms because black soldiers were eating in the mess with them.

My father was in shock.

Clearly, those white soldiers felt this would have an unacceptable effect on unit cohesion and Military readiness. There was practically a mutiny. In the end, they moved the black soldiers.

It wasn't about "melanin" in the skin any more than sexual orientation is about "sexual desire."

It was about serving with people who were "different" and who some in society viewed as unequal and unacceptable. It mattered a great deal to those white soldiers.

I think the comparison is more than apt.

I also think it's a heck of a way to decide who should be able to serve and risk his or her life for us.

Some things do matter when it comes to ability to serve.

Race and sexual orientation aren't among those things.

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Duncan Hunter is no longer in congress. Why not use a quote from Jesse Helms?

Blacks are fully integrated into the military. They sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas as whites.

Women are not fully integrated into the militar. They do not sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas as men.

Shouldn't we complete the integration of women into the military before integrating gays and lesbians?

Incidentally, DADT discharges of females comprised about half of all DADT discharges, while females comprise only 14 percent of the military. The issue of gays in the military is actually the issue of lesbians in the military.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 12, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

This argument was used against the army integrating with blacks and was false then. It is clearly false now since gays have been serving in the military since the nation began.
-------------
Comparing the amount of melanin in ones skin to sexual desire and it's affects on behavior is laughable. Apples and oranges.


--------------
From my experience unit cohesion is the responsability of the squad leaders and company commanders and if they're not up to the job it doesn't matter whose in the unit or whose dating who. I never saw a unit where cohesion flowed upward. It always flows from the top down. Either that guy is up to the job or he's no good and it makes no difference whose in the unit.
---------------
Well, not every unit gets such highly effective, charismatic leadership that can make such primal differences amount to nothing. Again, this amounts to simply glossing over what are big differences in individuals. On one hand, the left tells us how big a problem it is that homosexuals are bullied but then on the other hand everyone can get along easily. Folks, integrating homosexuals into the military will bring challenges and have effects on readiness. You can still support the change all while acknowledging this. No need to deny it.

Posted by: crabstu | November 12, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

lufrank1 wrote: >

Then you and I would agree we should be working to find a cure.

lufrank1 wrote: >

That's either a boneheadedly ignorant statement, or a deliberate and slanderous lie. Nobody says any such thing.

Posted by: thebump | November 12, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Just because it doesn't matter to you, doesn't mean that such doesn't matter to many young men. It's a real concern among some and again it is being casually dismissed with claims that it makes "no sense" that those feeling that way are bigoted or some other white wash. When you have 100 men living in a room of 1000 square feet and throw a feel gay guys in there, you are going to have issues and someone is going to get hurt. I've seen it happen. Personally, I'd rather be dealing with maintaining combat readiness of the unit instead of having to devote my time to making sure homosexual service members are being integrated properly. But, the American people can set the priorities.

Posted by: crabstu | November 12, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

___________________________________________

This argument was used against the army integrating with blacks and was false then. It is clearly false now since gays have been serving in the military since the nation began.

From my experience unit cohesion is the responsability of the squad leaders and company commanders and if they're not up to the job it doesn't matter whose in the unit or whose dating who. I never saw a unit where cohesion flowed upward. It always flows from the top down. Either that guy is up to the job or he's no good and it makes no difference whose in the unit.

Posted by: kchses1 | November 12, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I've been following this debate for years. The 'unit cohesion' argument was a johnny-come-lately argument, put in after most of the other arguments fell by the wayside. Really. Watch the original Senate hearings (and debates before that) that led to DADT.
------------

Funny, I remember that argument distinctly some twenty years ago when those of us in uniform were discussing such back then.

---------
Add to that the obvious: ANYTHING could be "deleterious to unit cohesion." You don't think that having an openly Muslim service member could be "deleterious to unit cohesion"? Or a flaming "liberal"? Or a Tea Party right winger? Or an atheist? Someone who thinks Southerners are morons? Or who thinks anyone who went to Yale is an effete East Coast liberal?
---------
Indeed, many things can affect unit cohesion. In fact you forgot to add the addition of women to such environments which has indeed had negative effects (though the Pentagon would never admit it). We have to remove "square pegs" all the time from the ranks. I personally don't see any value in adding more such problems.

-------------
There is simply no evidence that gay soldiers are any more "deleterious to unit cohesion" than any other group. A rather comprehensive Rand study commissioned by the Government and conducted years ago reached that conclusion, and no one has ever found evidence to contradict its findings.
------------
Well, I get sort of suspicious of most such studies given who is doing them and not only because of their motivations. Quite often those doing the surveys have no clue about military life. At the end of the day, I can only rely on what has been my experience and having openly gay individuals in the ranks causes trouble. I'd think much more of those who are for the change in policy to simply admit as much but maintain we should do it anyway. The continual dismissals that there are no issues is just silly.

-----------
With respect, I haven't dismissed anything casually. I have thought about just about all the arguments presented over the years that says it's important somehow not to know which of your fellow service members, showering or urinating next to you, may or may not be gay.
------------
Just because it doesn't matter to you, doesn't mean that such doesn't matter to many young men. It's a real concern among some and again it is being casually dismissed with claims that it makes "no sense" that those feeling that way are bigoted or some other white wash. When you have 100 men living in a room of 1000 square feet and throw a feel gay guys in there, you are going to have issues and someone is going to get hurt. I've seen it happen. Personally, I'd rather be dealing with maintaining combat readiness of the unit instead of having to devote my time to making sure homosexual service members are being integrated properly. But, the American people can set the priorities.

Posted by: crabstu | November 12, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

FACT: Homosexuality is DETERMINED by genotype and sexual hormonal interactions and events (like failure in a male to experience a testicular burst of testosterone during a narrow window of time at birth - - to "masculinize" the hypothalamus of the brain).
Posted by: lufrank1 | November 12, 2010
--------------
That's all we need in this debate, pseudo-knowledge and myth masquerading as science. That above is not "fact." If we are going to have this debate, let's at least stick to facts.

Posted by: crabstu | November 12, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Arguments to that effect have been made, but with all due respect, no "case" has been made to support those arguments. They're just unsubstantiated allegations to justify excluding gays from the military.

Posted by: luridone
--------------
So says you. I guess "case closed."

Posted by: crabstu | November 12, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I remember fellow white males in the service who were absolutely torn to emotional pieces when our Navy LT instructor turned out to be black!
Sigh! . . . the same IGNORANCE today, especially by the Vatican and other Dark Age ignorant Bible Thumpers.
FACT: Homosexuality is DETERMINED by genotype and sexual hormonal interactions and events (like failure in a male to experience a testicular burst of testosterone during a narrow window of time at birth - - to "masculinize" the hypothalamus of the brain).
It's PAST TIME for Dark Ages Religious ignoramuses to accept and UNDERSTAND biological SCIENCE. Geeze! So many of you self-righteous fundamentalist believe that YOU are made in God's image - BUT are too DENSE to accept that IF that is TRUE . . . GAYS are MADE BY THE SAME "GOD".
Religion is Mankind's Bane.

Posted by: lufrank1 | November 12, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I just don't understand the problem this policy actually solves. It does not make a gay person any less gay if they don't tell any more than it makes a black man, less black. So why have it in place except to appease the whining of people who, somewhere in the recesses of their mind, are fighting the urge to be uninhibited sexually. How could one compare sex between consenting adults to pedophilia? This is nuts and the cartoon is ignorant.

Posted by: cymp65 | November 12, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

It's about removing a policy that prevents individual service members from serving and risking their lives for us based on no good reason.
Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010
-------------

With respect, that is a gross oversimplification. Cases have been made that allowing openly homosexuals to serve will cause both discipline problems and affect unit cohesion. Again, you may disagree but to casually dismiss such concerns is a bit short-sighted and shows a lack of understanding of the military ethos.

Posted by: crabstu | November 12, 2010 1:52 PM
___________________________
Arguments to that effect have been made, but with all due respect, no "case" has been made to support those arguments. They're just unsubstantiated allegations to justify excluding gays from the military.

Posted by: luridone | November 12, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I tell you what is nausiating:

men raping toddlers and 10 years old girls and boys. It's men who do it, whether straight or homosexuals, but mostly straights. The problem is men. We need to do something about them.

Maybe other men who don't do this type of things could come with a solution. Don't count on priests, though, for help.

Posted by: coqui44 | November 12, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"It's a hard(no pun intended)case to make that anal intercourse is a consummate act of human affection." Posted by: slim21

It's a hard case to make that that behavior is particularly relevant to who people fall in love with or why.

It's an even harder case to make that a specific behavior engaged in by a minority of gay people (based on numerous studies over many years) is at all relevant to this discussion.

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

crabstu wrote, "With respect, that is a gross oversimplification. Cases have been made that allowing openly homosexuals to serve will cause both discipline problems and affect unit cohesion. Again, you may disagree but to casually dismiss such concerns is a bit short-sighted and shows a lack of understanding of the military ethos."

Well, honestly, I don't think it is.

I've been following this debate for years. The 'unit cohesion' argument was a johnny-come-lately argument, put in after most of the other arguments fell by the wayside. Really. Watch the original Senate hearings (and debates before that) that led to DADT.

Add to that the obvious: ANYTHING could be "deleterious to unit cohesion." You don't think that having an openly Muslim service member could be "deleterious to unit cohesion"? Or a flaming "liberal"? Or a Tea Party right winger? Or an atheist? Someone who thinks Southerners are morons? Or who thinks anyone who went to Yale is an effete East Coast liberal?

There is simply no evidence that gay soldiers are any more "deleterious to unit cohesion" than any other group. A rather comprehensive Rand study commissioned by the Government and conducted years ago reached that conclusion, and no one has ever found evidence to contradict its findings.

With respect, I haven't dismissed anything casually. I have thought about just about all the arguments presented over the years that says it's important somehow not to know which of your fellow service members, showering or urinating next to you, may or may not be gay.

And frankly, the arguments make absolutely no sense and are not supported by any data I've ever seen.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

It's a hard(no pun intended)case to make that anal intercourse is a consummate act of human affection.

Posted by: slim21 | November 12, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are nauseating.

Posted by: billybeer6 | November 12, 2010 6:24 AM
___________________________
Then why don't you go somewhere where there are no liberals? Like North Korea, or Iran.

Posted by: luridone | November 12, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

It's about removing a policy that prevents individual service members from serving and risking their lives for us based on no good reason.
Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010
-------------

With respect, that is a gross oversimplification. Cases have been made that allowing openly homosexuals to serve will cause both discipline problems and affect unit cohesion. Again, you may disagree but to casually dismiss such concerns is a bit short-sighted and shows a lack of understanding of the military ethos.

Posted by: crabstu | November 12, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Ridiculous cartoon. I'm an active duty officer in the military and have served with all sorts of individuals, both or good and bad moral character. I can still label a fellow officer's behavior, say cheating on his wife during deployment, repugnant all while not insulting his military service to include the ultimate sacrifice. Fact is, many believe homosexuality to be a disordered lifestyle, repugnant behavior and counter to natural law. Now those who disagree with the position are certainly free to voice their opinion, but no need to mischaracterize it as Miss Telnaes has done here.

Posted by: crabstu | November 12, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

kchses1, I disagree with you, but I do it respectfully. God did not make you or me, our parents did; but God has made three people and they are Adam, Eve, and Jesus. All other people are products of other people.

Posted by: editor20 | November 12, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Capn0ok, stealing a piece of gum is a sin just as killing someone is sin. Only man puts levels of severity upon sin. You eating shrimp is no different than me helping myself to an extra stir stick at the paint shop. A sin is a sin.

Posted by: editor20 | November 12, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm already damned for eating shrimp.
Leviticus 11:9-2
What does it matter what else I do?

Posted by: Capn0ok | November 12, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

For the love of God. Homosexuals are people. People not animals. Stop treating and referring to them like animals. They have committed no crimes. Not even against nature you ignorant baboons (done delibertly) as you can find homosexuality in nature. They want the same things everyone wants. To be productive, build a home and be loved. Nature and nature's God made them the way they are so leave them alone. Treat and respect them like people. Your discomfort, repugnance, loathing or whatever is just that YOURS. Keep it to yourself.

Posted by: kchses1 | November 12, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

chatard wrote, "It is repugnant."

The thing is, repugnance is not really relevant to much here. After all, if we were to be completely honest, we'd have to add that you can generally find someone who thinks something or someone else is "repugnant":

Conservatives who find liberals "repugnant."

Liberals who find conservatives "repugnant."

Devout fundamentalist Christians who find atheists "repugnant."

And plenty of atheists who find fundamentalist Christians "repugnant."

There are those who find pierced tongues or tattoos "repugnant."

Or wearing jeans down low with underwear (and behinds) hanging out.

Or wearing furs.

Or clothing made of two fabrics.

Or rap music.

Or some expressionist art.

Or...well, you name it.

I think the bottom line has to be that we don't legislate purely on the basis of what some -even many- feel is "repugnant".

There have to be other, more rationale bases for legislating.

Otherwise, we'd each find ourselves the target of what others don't like.

Cheers,

Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

OccHealthNurse: "Sex is a matter between 2 consenting adults and it should not be anyone's business but the 2 consenting adults."

You narrow-minded old bigot! You duoistic polyphobic numerical supremacist! How DARE you claim that sex is a matter for TWO?! Shame!

Posted by: thebump | November 12, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"The President wants to criminalize the normal man's utter loathing of gays..." Posted by: shreir | November 12, 2010

With respect, a couple of points:

1. This isn't about criminalizing who people loath. It's about removing a policy that prevents individual service members from serving and risking their lives for us based on no good reason.

2. I suppose it's always been the case that "normal" folks will find other people to loath--doesn't seem to matter for what.

That's too bad. It also isn't a rationale for turning that loathing into official policy.

After all, it was official policy in Germany in the 1930s to give in to those who loathed certain others. Now we look at it and wonder how such dark forces could have taken over otherwise "cultured" people.

Doesn't matter WHO the target of the loathing is -- and there's an unlimited list of potential targets, FAR beyond innocent gay people. Unless something actually harms others, we can't translate loathing into policy.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"The President wants to criminalize the normal man's utter loathing of gays..." Posted by: shreir | November 12, 2010

With respect, a couple of points:

1. This isn't about criminalizing who people loath. It's about removing a policy that prevents individual service members from serving and risking their lives for us based on no good reason.

2. I suppose it's always been the case that "normal" folks will find other people to loath--doesn't seem to matter for what.

That's too bad. It also isn't a rationale for turning that loathing into official policy.

After all, it was official policy in Germany in the 1930s to give in to those who loathed certain others. Now we look at it and wonder how such dark forces could have taken over otherwise "cultured" people.

Doesn't matter WHO the target of the loathing is -- and there's an unlimited list of potential targets, FAR beyond innocent gay people. Unless something actually harms others, we can't translate loathing into policy.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

In a recent poll reported by this newspaper, servicemembers overwhelmingly stated they had no problem serving with openly gay colleagues. That should end the should we repeal DADT debate right there, but for some reason it hasn't.

Posted by: WickedRose | November 12, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Telnaes. It is repugnant. As is bestiality. As is pedophilia. As is necrophilia. You want more? There is a lot more. You can insist that the people succumb to your tastes all you want. You will be met with unyielding opposition. You do have freedom of speech. You will not deprive others of the same.

Posted by: chatard | November 12, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

It's a good thing George Washington didn't discriminate against gays in the military, or very likely the United States would not exist.

General Washington actively recruited the well-known homosexual Prussian military genius Lieutenant General Frederick Von Steuben to come and train the terribly disorganized Colonial troops. Von Steuben arrived at Valley Forge with a young French nobleman who was his 'assistant'. Washington assigned two young inseparable officers, who were fluent in French, to work with Von Steuben, who spoke very little English. The Colonial officers were 20 year old Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Hamilton and 24 year old Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens (son of the President of the Continental Congress that year, Henry Laurens). Laurens later died in battle; Hamilton was killed years later in a famous duel with Vice President Aaron Burr.

Posted by: CellBioProf | November 12, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

It's a good thing George Washington didn't discriminate against gays in the military, or very likely the United States would not exist.

General Washington actively recruited the well-known homosexual Prussian military genius Lieutenant General Frederick Von Steuben to come and train the terribly disorganized Colonial troops. Von Steuben arrived at Valley Forge with a young French nobleman who was his 'assistant'. Washington assigned two young inseparable officers, who were fluent in French, to work with Von Steuben, who spoke very little English. The Colonial officers were 20 year old Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Hamilton and 24 year old Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens (son of the President of the Continental Congress that year, Henry Laurens). Laurens later died in battle; Hamilton was killed years later in a famous duel with Vice President Aaron Burr.

Posted by: CellBioProf | November 12, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

shreir, you're right.

Posted by: editor20 | November 12, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Liberals are nauseating.

Posted by: billybeer6 |
=========================
Well I hope it kills you

along with your Blatant Racism

ISA

Posted by: vettesport | November 12, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are. It doesn't matter what the Bible/Talmud/Quran says. The only thing that matters in the United States is what the Constitution says. As I recall it states ALL men are created equal. (And yes, women too.) It doesn't say a word about race, religion or sexual orientation.

Posted by: jcrrt | November 12, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

The President wants to criminalize the normal man's utter loathing of gays. That loathing will multiply tenfold underground, and irrupt with pitchforks. Normal men are as happy to be called homophobes as they are to be called cannibalphobes. Hate the sin and love the sinner? And how is that done, if the sin becomes the all-consuming badge of your identity? The natural man and his children will never have anything but the most unmitigated wrath against that identity, and reserve nothing but the most utter contempt for it. Propaganda may dull that instinct for a time, but it will revive with all the more fury. Because it's an eternal impulse, wired in nature, as alive in atheists as in religious. Societies tolerate vices underground, and seek no more than to manage them. But force them upon the masses, and nature will lash out with a vengeance.

Posted by: shreir | November 12, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

@ xaxton: "It has always been my theory that straight men who are opposed to the mere existence of homosexuality are afraid of some other man treating them the same crappy way they treat women."

Yes! However, as for every woman needing at least one gay male friend, not so sure. Some of the most alarming and annoying misogynists are gay men - not to mention as catty as teenaged mean girls. And I've never understood gay men who hold a blanket policy of hating all lesbians. Guess a good man is just hard to find, gay or straight.

Posted by: streetnoise | November 12, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

To editor20,

Well, I am not from Minnesota, but I do know that there are politicians in Minnesota (Bachman, Emmer, and others) who regularly rail against gay people, who claim we want to "destroy" the American family (I don't), and who have compared gay people to animals, and worse.

I am afraid that animus toward innocent gay people shows up everywhere, even in Minnesota, and regardless of what gay people say or don't say, do or don't do.

This isn't a new phenomenon, as I've written.

Minding one's own business has to include letting others live their lives.

And that includes the lives of gay people.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

To editor20,

Well, I am not from Minnesota, but I do know that there are politicians in Minnesota (Bachman, Emmer, and others) who regularly rail against gay people, who claim we want to "destroy" the American family (I don't), and who have compared gay people to animals, and worse.

I am afraid that animus toward innocent gay people shows up everywhere, even in Minnesota, and regardless of what gay people say or don't say, do or don't do.

This isn't a new phenomenon, as I've written.

Minding one's own business has to include letting others live their lives.

And that includes the lives of gay people.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

ricklinquist, I was treated pretty poorly in the shower in ninth grade. It was urinating and spitting. All the abusers were as far from being gay as a fence post. For months I didn't say anything. I thought my dad would be disappointed in me. One night after supper I told him and my mom. That night using the telephone he took care of it. I never knew what he said or who exactly he called, but I was never abused like that again -- and no one said the next day, "So and so's daddy fights his battles." I need to be like my dad every day, and now at the age of 42, I look back and I'm glad I had good direction.

Posted by: editor20 | November 12, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

It has always been my theory that straight men who are opposed to the mere existence of homosexuality are afraid of some other man treating them the same crappy way they treat women. This is why every straight woman needs at least one gay male friend. If the guy they're seeing has a bad attitude toward gay men, they should dump him right away!

And OccHealthNurse: You Rock!!

Posted by: xaxton | November 12, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"It was still uncomfortable.Posted by: editor20

Indeed. I remember back in high school when Dave B., a classmate, urinated in the shower next to me. Made me pretty uncomfortable. Didn't have anything to do with being gay or straight, but it made me uncomfortable.

I got over it, it's true. Some individuals are jerks-- that's true as well.

As I expect you'll agree, that certainly doesn't justify a blanket policy kicking out openly gay service members who don't misbehave-- anymore than it would justify a blanket policy for any group, heterosexuals included, just on the basis that some members of that group might.

When individuals misbehave --for whatever reason-- THEY should be held accountable for their behavior, right?

So someone who leers or someone who pees or...you name it...should face the consequences.

But a service member, gay or straight, who simply takes a shower and minds his own business?

Again, I think you'll agree that where there's no problem, creating a blanket policy punishing those who have done absolutely nothing wrong is a pretty gross overreaction.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

ricklinquist, well, around here my comment is accurate. I live in southern Minnesota. Things are different here. For example, respectfully, it's sometimes an entire month before I see a black person, and I'm out and about a lot. Tempers are cool but ideals and opinions run deep. Most everyone is polite -- all the time.

Posted by: editor20 | November 12, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

editor20 wrote, "Most all of the people I know who don't like homosexuality all keep their comments to themselves and don't tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do."

I think that should be the general approach we take toward others. We can always find people we have an opinion about.

For instance, fundamentalist Christians think devout Jews who don't accept Jesus as their Savior are going to Hell. I don't, however, think that's a reason to force Jews from disclosing they are Jewish or to keep them from serving in the Military.

And I am pretty sure that most devout Orthodox Jews think that worshiping a human being, Jesus, as a god, is pretty offensive, too.

Conservatives find many liberals to be "objectionable" (some even going so far as to deem them "unpatriotic", and liberals don't really find conservatives to be acting in the best interest of their country--yet liberals and conservatives alike serve in the Military. And there is no proscription against them making their views known.

We can NEVER tell you will object to who we are or what we do. And that should never be an excuse for how we treat them. The Golden Rule has shown up for millenia in many cultures, independently, and for good reason.

editor20 also wrote, "The only time anyone ever says anything is when they've had enough of the constant toilet humor like is found on NSL every week..."

Well, with respect, I am not quite sure that is accurate. After all, many politicians have railed against innocent gay people for decades--the attacks on gay people predate any mention of them on television (and predate television itself).

In fact, I am pretty sure that they were burning innocent gay people during the Middle Ages.

We never seem to need excuses for mistreating others.

But we should recognize that that never excuses the mistreatment.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

shreir, about 20 years ago I worked at a 3M facility. We manufactured and packaged rustproofing powder. Company policy required our department to change into coveralls at the beginning of our shift and take showers at the end of our shift before dressing back into our street clothes. There was an openly gay man on our crew. He would often glance down at someone's crotch in the locker room as they were toweling off or walking to or from the concrete shower stalls. It upset everyone and nothing was done about it -- no one complained because it was only 10 minutes a day they had to be around him in that environment and he was a good worker. It was still uncomfortable.

Posted by: editor20 | November 12, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Can normal men opt out of showering with the gomorrahites? Should women be allowed to opt out of showering with men? This is an attempt to legitimize depravity, just as gay marriage is. Let the state create a gay marriage institution confined to depraves, likewise separate facilities for them. But do not force men to shower with leering gays.

Posted by: shreir | November 12, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Most all of the people I know who don't like homosexuality all keep their comments to themselves and don't tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. The only time anyone ever says anything is when they've had enough of the constant toilet humor like is found on NSL every week. One can't deny that there's a gay joke on practically every episode of every sitcom every week.

Posted by: editor20 | November 12, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Wow, being the mother of a gay son and the aunt of a gay nephew, I am appalled at the ignorance of people. Gays are born: it is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of genetics (or nature)!!!! Get it through all your Bible thumping heads. They did not have the science 2000 years ago to figure this out. Would you ban blue eyed people from serving our country? Hey, why not, blue eyed persons have recessive genes for eye color..... therefore fewer of them, just like gays. Or let's ban persons who were born with a hare lip? Well, you get the picture (or may not, if you are not intelligent enough to understand the science involved in genetic disposition). Sex is a matter between 2 consenting adults and it should not be anyone's business but the 2 consenting adults. Enough said.

Posted by: OccHealthNurse | November 12, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

The military, like all American institutions, has ALWAYS had gay and lesbian members---today, intelligent folks now realize the stupidity of "type casting" and bigotry so prevelant in earlier times...we are now in the 21st Century and should rapidly end this farce of a ban.

Posted by: fairness3 | November 12, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Homosexuality has always been with us. Otherwise, why would the Bible mention it at all? And yet, somehow civilization and the human species has survived.

Gays have always been in the military. They have not always openly served, sure, but they were there. And yet, somehow the military has survived.

DADT will not end homosexuality. DADT will not end homosexuality in the military. All DADT does is prevent the open acknowledgement of what is in fact true: homosexuals exist and they serve in the military.

Yet people still want to suppress what is in fact true.

Amazing.

Posted by: egc52556 | November 12, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

The military, like all American institutions, has ALWAYS had gay and lesbian members---today, intelligent folks now realize the stupidity of "type casting" and bigotry so prevelant in earlier times...we are now in the 21st Century and should rapidly end this farce of a ban.

Posted by: fairness3 | November 12, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I'm going to peg the percentage of vile rightwingnuts posting on this board who are in fact self-loathing, deeply closeted homosexuals at, oh, 100.

Posted by: Observer691 | November 12, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad I am old enough that I won't live to see where this ultimately is going but ashamed to be an American.

Posted by: medic2010 | November 12, 2010 7:22 AM
**************************************

Yes, I'm also glad that a lot of ignorant old pigs like you will be dead soon.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | November 12, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

"If everyone did it (something, anything in question), how would the human race be affected?" Posted by: editor20 | November 12, 2010 8:38 AM

Excellent point.

If everyone were a neurosurgeon, we'd soon starve to death for lack of food, freeze to death for lack of shelter, and even die of diseases that neurosurgeons are well versed in.

But somehow, we don't claim that being a neurosurgeon is a bad thing.

Extrapolating from one to the many is fun, but really doesn't tell us much about how society should treat that small segment of humanity has same-sex orientation.

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

"Everything about homosexuality is perfectly marvelous! It's given us such innovative uses for the human anatomy! And only a old Neanderthal still thinks that sex depends on sexes! Hooray for homosexuality!!!" Posted by: thebump

With respect, and I recognize the sarcasm in your post, but this isn't about "hooray" for anything except the courage of individual troops willing to risk their lives for me and for you. A completely celibate gay person --who has never used his or her anatomy for any "innovative" purposes-- is still kicked out of the Military for saying he or she is gay.

The human race needn't depend on gay people for populating the planet. There are apparently plenty of heterosexuals more than willing and able to do that.

It also isn't about anatomy. Earlobes definitely weren't "intended" to be pierced and to hang ornaments from. Yet people do pierce their earlobes and think nothing odd about it.

And more than a few Marines have ink inserted under their skin for decorative purposes (violating Biblical proscriptions against tattoos, by the way). Yet they serve proudly.

Innovative uses of the human anatomy--yet perfectly common in many cultures, including ours.


And many heterosexual couples commonly engage in intimate sexual behavior while the male covers his member in a sheath of plastic in order to avoid what Nature clearly "intended" for male-female sex. Innovative. And pretty much accepted across the board.

And not grounds for dismissal from the Military.

Again, I say this with respect, but none of what you wrote justifies dismissing gay people from the Military.

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

If everyone did it (something, anything in question), how would the human race be affected?

Posted by: editor20 | November 12, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

"...There will be no end in sight. Every splinter group or minority group or special interest group or whatever you want to call them, will demand "rights" that grant them special status to the detriment of all the rest of us..."

With respect, the only "splinter group" being singled out are gay people. There is no DADT policy for heterosexuals who like to wear diapers or who fantasize about dead bodies. The latter, by the way, has clear associations with psychoses--but, well, no one seems to think that warrants a special DADT policy.

Nope.

Only gay people, apparently, warrant the special, targeted and wholly unsupportable animus of those with slippery slope arguments like yours.

The better question is: why not let individuals serve, and if an individual rapes another (adult, child, dead body or animal), then try and incarcerate that individual? Why pass a policy that says a gay person who has done absolutely nothing to warrant dismissal MUST be dismissed?

I don't get it.

But please explain.

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 12, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Everything about homosexuality is perfectly marvelous! It's given us such innovative uses for the human anatomy! And only a old Neanderthal still thinks that sex depends on sexes! Hooray for homosexuality!!!

Posted by: thebump | November 12, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

My, isn't this a clever cartoon!

The cartoonist is so intelligent and tolerant! So insightful! So original! So creative! A true genius! A credit to her sex!

Posted by: thebump | November 12, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

1) The left cares not at all about access to the military they publicly despise

2) "Gays" in the military is to undercut the institution
...(just like Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan was the 'right' war to the left when Bush was in office, today Afghanistan is less loved by the left.....)

3) Homosexuality is as biologically normal as pedophilia or necrophilia.

4) Homosexuality was rightly classed as a mental illness until a 3 to 2 vote by the governing body of American psychiatry in the early 1970's at a convention where no papers on related topics were presented...a "global warming" bit of political science...

Posted by: georgedixon1 | November 12, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

"Liberals are nauseating."

Agreed. That Thomas Jefferson, classic liberal, was nauseating.

As was Ghandi. And MLK Jr.

Posted by: TheHillman | November 12, 2010 7:39 AM | Report abuse

"What is next? Legalizing pedophilia because men SHOULD be able to love boys without the rest of us judging them harshly? "

You do know that the vast majority of pedophiles are straight, right? In fact, the ratio of straight to gay pedophiles is believed to be about the same as the overall population of straights to gays.

As for living long enough to see change in society, you have a valid point. Kids these days have no problem being around gay people.

So it'll be sortof fun to watch old bigots like you slowly lose your hold on society.

Posted by: TheHillman | November 12, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

jmounday is totally correct.

There will be no end in sight. Every splinter group or minority group or special interest group or whatever you want to call them, will demand "rights" that grant them special status to the detriment of all the rest of us.

What is next? Legalizing pedophilia because men SHOULD be able to love boys without the rest of us judging them harshly?

I'm glad I am old enough that I won't live to see where this ultimately is going but ashamed to be an American.

Posted by: medic2010 | November 12, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Liberals are nauseating.

Posted by: billybeer6 | November 12, 2010 6:24 AM | Report abuse

I wonder where this will stop.There are some other lifestyles who will demand and rightfully so fairness.I harken back to the senate page scandal.

Posted by: jmounday | November 12, 2010 3:41 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company