Did Pentagon Distort ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Survey Results?
He might want also to read the 267-page Report of the Comprehensive Review. As noted in the latter Report, Question 71 was:
If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission … [asked only] of respondents with combat deployment experience since September 11, 2001.
Here are the responses in three different contexts:
In a field environment or out at sea.
11.4% very positive or positive
44.3% very negative or negative
32.9% net negativeWhen a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit
12.5% very positive or positive
29.4% very negative or negative
16.9% net negativeIn an intense combat situation
12.4% very positive or positive
30.6% very negative or negative
18.2% net negative
Responses from those who had never been deployed or who had not been deployed into a combat environment since September 11, 2001, were substantially less negative than from those who had been so deployed.
Question 73, asked without regard to combat service, was:
If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would your level of morale be affected?
The responses:
4.9% — positively or very positively
27.9% — negatively or very negatively
23% — net negative
Question 75b asked:
If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s readiness?
Overall, 31.8% of Marine Corps members responded that the effect would be negative or very negative; 43.5% of the Marine Corps members in combat arms responded that it would be negative or very negative. Other questions providing comparable distinctions between personnel in combat roles and those not so assigned produced similar results. For the military overall, the positive/very positive response was 6.8% and the negative/very negative response was 21.2%.
The Report notes:
The responses of Marines and of Army and Marine combat arms were similarly more negative than the force overall in response to questions about unit cohesion. For example, question 68a asked Service members about the impact of repeal on their unit’s ability to “work together” — an aspect of task cohesion. While slightly under 30% of Service members as a whole predicted repeal would have a negative impact, that number was 43% among the Marine Corps, 48% among Army combat arms, and 58% among Marine combat arms.
The principal function of the military has historically been to kill people and to break things. That is a function of combat troops, and rear echelon, non-combat troops don’t do much of it. President Obama’s recent remarks to the West Point graduating class about his vision of the future of the military, as commented upon in National Review, seemingly disregard this:
Obama outlined for the cadets his vision of a new international order organized around bodies such as the United Nations. In Obama’s future, American military force will give way to American diplomacy joined together with new multilateral partnerships, while “stronger international standards and institutions” will replace unilateral assertion of national interests — including our own. Obama told West Point’s Class of 2010 that he sees them not battling our enemies but “combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth, [and] helping countries feed themselves” even as their citizens achieve their “universal rights.”
An Air Force officer called in to the Michael Savage Show yesterday and told how the poll was conducted. It was no more scientific than Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. In other words it was pretty bogus.
“claiming that it would not ‘unduly impair’ military effectiveness”
Ah. My nephew and my best friend are both in Afghanistan right now. I’d like to see “not unduly impair” quantified. How many additional combat deaths are we talking about, eh? My best friend’s seven children, her husband and I are kinda curious.
So Obama wants an Ec-Force that he can deploy to fight enemies, foreign and domestic, that thwart his eco-catastrophe and eco-terrorist cronies, or socialist agenda? I guess they’ll all stand around hugging each other? He will deploy them to arrest, and send to re-education camps, any that that didn’t quite, “understand,” his message? All this while the Jihadists murder more people, because their message is just not reaching the, “little people?” Then he’ll give NK, Iran, and their ilk a message that they need to take a time-out? Then give surveys and the resulting stats with the majority of the questions to people his policies won’t impact and will probably support him.
Did they distort the survey and report?
Huh? Come on, the conclusions and findings were written before they even ordered the review. They said a year ago that this WILL be done. The report and survey are shams.
I never really had a problem with the one or two gay guys I worked with while in the military. Hell, as a supervisor, it was easier to deal with them than the annual maternity crisis as females would get pregnant to skip deployments. Not all of them did it, but a significant portion would, and it would be a pain in the butt to deal with from a manning issue. The military has a much, MUCH bigger problem with inappropriate heterosexual relationships.
I feel the other big issue that no one seems willing to talk about is that the UCMJ needs to be updated. Article 125 says…
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.”
This is so open ended that technically, oral intercourse between a husband and wife is technically on the same level as raping a dog, and can be punished in the same manner. Obviously, the military doesn’t universally uphold the UCMJ rules equally, otherwise pretty much no one would be left in the ranks, but this in turn means that the laws governing our troops is not fairly applied throughout the military. One command may not care, where another will drive out anyone that even hints to be homosexual.
I do have to say this…in a war zone, you really don’t give a crap about anything but the safety of you and your fellow military member. Your priorities get straightened out very quickly and whether or not the person next to you is gay…turns out to be not important at all.
I’s pretty sure you mean to be speaking for yourself and your own position…right?
Now for the rest of UCMJ Article 125….
“….It is considered unnatural carnalcopulation for a person to take into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of ananimal; or to place his or her sexual organ into the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; orto have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or tohave carnal copulation in any opening of the body of an animal. Part IV, MCM 1984, para 51(c). Note:consent by the victim is not a defense regardless of the victim’s age.”
I do however, agree with you that the Article should be amended….but NOT repealed. The terms “opposite sex” should be stricken.
If the congress determines that a survey of the military is going to be of relevant weight in their decision, then by all means every effort should be made to include a “significant” majority of the standing active duty and active reserve force by tacticle and support units. Likewise, such study should be conducted by multiple scientific means for validity checking. I suspect that tacticle units will support the national divided as well as a signficant number of support units. However, the military mission and performance risk factor is significantly different than the mission and risk factors of Suzy and Johnny, the tellers, down at the bank.
Fortunately or unfortunately the risk effects accross the military, IF repealed, may well not come to fruition during the current economic and jobless environment. I know many of the Marines we’re talking to have indicated this concern.
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand this was a flawed study and most likely intentional!
Semper Fi!
Semper Fi, TTT… the context of the “survey” was bogus and implemented as a sham by the Pentagon – remember the Pentagon is the largest office building on the plant staffer by bureaucrats waiting for their retirement to arrive. There were so many questions with “survey-type” questions that could be interpreted either-way – pathetic and a waste of active-duty military calories.
TTT, my son is a combat SSgt. who saw through this in a heartbeat and responded as you would expect any combat Marine to respond (including a sprinkling of the “f” word).
To see an active Marine officer’s response, go here:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/12/027827.php
I’m not as active as I would like to be but thats part of aging, I supose. That said, our little group is well connected with the younger retired and active so I do get relevant information. Combat is all about the “mental” and anything that disrupts this required element is a trememdous risk to the unit and its members.
I’m old Corps (161850) and we wouldn’t have put up with this kind of garbage for a minute! The recruiter fellas would have sure been busy or……..them social misfits wouldn’t have been to eager to come join us.
Semper Fi
It is a simple fact that the propagation of the homosexual agenda in the United States facilitates subversion by marxism. It is only worse that it is entering the military realm. The aim is to attack and destroy the conservative christian worldview and disamgiguate the social cohesions that hold society together, such as the family. The most experienced special ops officers who study marxist insurgencies see this happening right now in the US. Whether it effects the fighting ability of units in the field is secondary to the threat marxism poses to our stability as a JudeoChristian nation.
Then why are non-Christians allowed to serve at all? I personally worked with Muslims, Hindus, and even a pagan. It all seems like silly jibberish to me, be it a zombie jew, multi-arm elephant man, or tree.
When I was a young Marine in the early ’80′s we were often asked what we would do if a member of our platoon, squad, fire team was a homosexual…what would WE do about it. The near universal response was that the individual in question would likely be shot by a sniper.
The combat arms, the guys in the foxholes don’t want someone in “their hole” who might be looking at their ass, sexually speaking, in such tight quarters…
That at least was my experience. I can’t speak for others, but I think that repealing this would be a bad idea for combat unit cohesion.
totally agree with you, and won’t be the only one with that opinion.
I refuse to believe that one good Marine would kill another good Marine just for being gay. Military or not, that POV is anathema to basic human rights. And where Marines are concerned , who have fought and sacrificed so valiantly to protect and defend those who are unable to do so for themselves, I put more faith in their intrinsic sense of justice and strength than I do the anger and fear of the few. To say that a Marine would or should kill a gay unit member, in cold blood, essentially shooting them in the back, is beyond intolerant. it is cowardly and, I would add, traitorous (in spirit if not legally).
Do you have any lines for bad moral [behavior] when it comes to the service? The military services are NOT part of the general society! They are NOT [trained] to act and think like the general public! Homosexuality is not genetic in any scientific sense. It is a learned bad moral behavior for which they choose not to control.
Amazing how many American’s have become indoctrinated for the progression of moral decline. Until the legitimate science community comes up with a gene that can be proven to dispose one to homosexuality, such moral behavior should continue to be banned from the services…PERIOD!
Of course I have lines I am not willing to cross re: our military personnel. Now a question for you – You seem to have stopped short of what you intend or want to say. Did you?
Now, to be clear, I DO believe that homosexuality is something people are born to and not something they learn. So, I realize we will have a different view on how that plays out. But what really alerted me was the assertion (#6 Rich Vail) that a Marine is justified – in some sense almost duty-bound – to kill another Marine (shoot him or her in the back, in essence) if he discovers that person to be gay.
Do you agree with that? Because that is one of the lines I’m not willing to cross when it comes to moral behavior in the military.
OK, but you don’t seem to be able to say that it is NOT appropriate to shoot a fellow Marine in the back because he is gay. And then you share your proposal of a “until they find a gene” ban. How about giving us a complete list of the moral, spiritual, or physical deficiencies or transgressions, which should make one ineleligible for the military. Adultery, assault, bullying, lying…?
Dwight…. See I’m an American traditionalist! Your question is an easy one to answer as is the refuting of the homosexuals “only” defense to their behaviors.
Your Q: ["How about giving us a complete list of the moral, spiritual, or physical deficiencies or transgressions, which should make one ineleligible for the military. Adultery, assault, bullying, lying…?"]
How about all the “LAWS” as prescribed and the traditional moral basis from which they were framed? Homosexuality has a religious and social rejection from the time of written history to include, by every form of religion around the world. This fact, in my mind, places homosexual rejection right up there as Commandment #11! Just because some “bunch” of socialist-progressives hells bent on destroying the fundamental riligious and social fabric of America says homosexuality is, in their opinion, all okay….doesn’t make it so! The same socialist-progressives succeeding in changing thousands of years of history and law, in America…still doesn’t make it all okay. The standing Laws of the UCMJ still retain the standards of homosexual rejection for military service….as ratified by ALL of America’s preceding 111 congress’!
Next! Any infractions of the law that, in addition to current morality standards, such as any behaviors that results in a felony conviction or plea bargining/Nolo Contendre to a less class charge than a felony conviction. I’m NOT one who is will for any level of anarchism to enter into our society OR our military.
The relatively new socialist-progressive crusade of morality “If it feels good then it’s right….and therefore, “lawful” crap is NOT in keeping with Traditional American values! Just because the socialists of Europe and the socialist segement of Israel thinks such homosexuality is a fine standard for their military, should not “force” the perverted standard on America’s military.
Sadly, Obama’s crusade is right! America is no longer a nation of exceptionalism and morality. We’re now just a “equal” brother to Europe’s anarchist standards.
America’s military is NOT a part of the general society, though that attempt is being carried out today. SAD!
I don’t see any response to the sniper issue. Is that part of “traditional American”morality?
The fact that you would see the anti-homosexual stuff as an “eleventh commandment” shows that there is more going on in your mind than maintaining military discipline and esprit.
Evidently, we have also come a long ways from the time when Marines told me; “the judge gave me two choices, the Marines or jail, and I chose the Marines.” I will grant you that some of them might be the first to make the “sniper” response, but some of it was macho pose, and only the most twisted and weakest, could I conceive of doing such a thing, to an otherwise decent comrade.
Look, they are 2% of the population; what do you want them to do, all kill themselves? Pray to the Lord and become straight? Sorry, but you definitely sound insular and prejudiced on this one. Your apparent revulsion at homosexuals celebrates the parts of our tradition that has condemned them. That is no longer the way to go and you will become more of a dinosaur every day on this issue.
Dwight…there was no “reply” thingy for your last comment to me so, I’ll respond here to your [dinosaur] assessment.
By all means, I stand proud of being a dinosaur on this and many other morality issues.
There are NO historic religions [of the world] who have ever, or today, condones as a social standard of acceptance….homoseuality. That rejection is based upon religious LAW….the same laws that form the fundamental sociatal laws for every society on earth…even those who reject and forbid organized religion in their countries. So, I have at least a dozen or so folks around the world to celebrate dinosaur reunions with.
I had to smile when you mentioned those somewhat popular “criminal waivers” for entry into the services back in time. I use to get a lot of them as I was a perceived to be a rather brash, tough cow puncher, sod buster that demanded a lot and gave back a lot with my units. If you were to read the stories of those “waivered boys” in my diaries you’d be rolling on the floor laughing at their documented charges even though most were for low level felonies of the time…..many of them pranks on some of their communities perceived elites…..many malicious property damages over $50.00, etc. So, yes judges gave alternatives to charges that would have eventualy disappeared if they walked a stright line, so there were lots of those waivers were handed out. ALL of my boys became career and or become college graduates and professionals of one sort or another…at least those who came home alive. If I recall, I had 60 some in my commands over my career.
Apples and oranges!
i think the main issue is not whether or not someone is gay but the fact that it opens up the can of worms for a “militant gay” to demoralize the situation
dont ask dont tell should really be “who the f— cares…” it’s only when gays “act” gay there is a problem
there have always been homosexuals in the military but like most people they dont feel the need to flaunt their sexuality
what does the repeal of dadt achieve? other than laying the groundwork for the likes of those persons in zombie’s san fran pelosi voting bloc to infiltrate and demoralize the military and further handcuff our already hindered armed forces
The Communists used to have Generals who handled the military side of things, and commissars or political officers who handled the political doctrine. We don’t exactly mirror that system, but don’t doubt for a second that political reliability isn’t a factor in promotion to flag rank.
Nobody gets to that rank by being inept, despite slurs to the contrary. Politics is part of the job. Do you believe you will get an honest answer, in public, from a person whose prospects for further advancement are controlled by officials with agendas?
You will get the exceptional officer who will tell the truth, even at the expense of his career. You also have people in Congress who care more about the country than their own careers. Both are rare beasts.
Of course the survey results are reported to support the desired, political objective.
Do you think the benefits of changing the current system in the midst of a war are worth the risk is the real question. I’d vote no. What percentage of the combat arms would you say we can afford to have quit? Five? Ten? Twenty? You can’t easily replace people like this. Most people aren’t smart enough, fit enough, or brave enough to handle the job. Look at the recruiting statistics.
I’m sure I probably served with someone who was gay, back in the pre-DADT days. It wasn’t made an issue, so it wasn’t an issue. Let well enough alone. There is a war to win, or the gays are going to end up in a much worse place, along with the rest of us. Submit or die, remember?
Even so… only 55% were kinda sorta okay with it, 45% were vehmently opposed, overall.
When I went into the Navy in the late 70′s, the moral of the military was in the toilet. Politicians were busy fiddling around with it, and it caused problems. Instead of messing around with policy, politicians need to provide the resources required, and leave military policy to the military.
I spent my time on submarines. The staffing level for radioman in the submarine force was almost at 80%. Women had just started being allowed on ships, but that is somewhat deceptive. Many of the ships in the Navy are support vessels that spent all but one week a year tied up to the dock. So a huge share of radio positions on those ships were filled by women. Making those positions unavailable to men (this isn’t even addressing the communication centers on bases). The TOTAL number of radioman staffing level overall was almost 180% of required.
What ended up happening was the guys had to spend more time at sea, taking the men away from their families for more years. This often breaks up families. And because the support vessels were so heavily populated by women, they started being considered shore duty.
Finally, since these “shore duty” positions were basically manned by personnel who never worked in the fleet, they basically became clerks. Without the skills to work on the equipment that they should have been required to know to advance in rank, the positions filled with people who didn’t know their jobs, and didn’t appreciate the rigors of the folks that had to go to sea.
There lies the reason for the 80(ish)% manning level for the fleet. And because the bean counters only look at the overall staffing numbers, besides being stuck at sea for longer periods of time (I worked in the North Atlantic), when it came time to reenlist, there were no bonuses for radioman, because that position was overstaffed. So many senior enlisted men would just leave the service (wasting all that training and experience). Leaving a lot of less motivated or intelligent personnel in charge.
Which would further effect moral, causing a further decline in retention rates. A vicious cycle.
You try to force openly homosexual men onto submarines, and it will get ugly.
Until, of course the numbers of homosexual men as a percentage of this country’s overall population goes WAY up, at least to the point of being able to completely take over operating the submarine force.
No, I’m guessing that submarine personnel were not included in this bogus survey.
And no, I don’t hate women or gay folks. I’m married to the former(she’s the better half of this marriage) and my best friend belongs to the latter group (or is it the other way around ).
Social engineering has no place in an effective military.
Well, I guess that shows the legitimacy of distributing the questionnaires as they were.
Pick the desired results and distribute accordingly. Fortunately, even so the results were far from those apparently desired.
Dan, go here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/12/027827.php
The response by an active Marine officer tells how the online responses required a minimum of 15 character “password”. An anonymous survey? Hell no!
And it was done by DoD personnel standing next to a waste basket or using the delete key to get results they wanted to support the Secretary’s pre-stated position. Your government dollars at work – have you vomited yet?
Thanks for the link. Power Line is one of my favorite blogs.
I have no personal knowledge as to how the survey was conducted, but the linked article rings true.
Things in the military seem to have deteriorated since I was in the Army forty years ago and it’s sad. Back then, I was a JAG captain and my associations with officers — of flag rank down through company grade — and other ranks, regardless of branch of service, left me with a lasting impression of their almost uniform competence and uncommon sense of personal honor; there were few exceptions.
The Marine officer whose letter was reproduced at Power Line, and indeed even the survey results, suggest that there are still many left, which is encouraging. If the military is to carry out its proper mission, they are essential.
I also spent 13 years in the USN where the universal attitude towards gays was very unfriendly. I suspect this move to allow homosexuals to serve in the ranks, and especially in the officer corp, will prove to be an unmitigated disaster.
Imagine a young man serving under a gay officer, said officer takes a fancy to him and makes improper advances; this would be way outside the comfort zone of most heterosexual men. An enlisted man cannot just whip an officers ass, which is exactly how I would react, without expecting major problems. I can foresee a mass exodus of volunteers fleeing the military for their own sexual security.
If this policy is enacted there should also be a parallel policy that allows any serving member to be honorable discharged immediately at their request without prejudice.
Exactly right. The military will be opening the door to thousands of harassment and discrimination lawsuits. Ex: Sergeant Jones, isn’t it true the you ordered private Williams to go on that dangerous mission where he might be killed because he is gay?” The military will be weakened with the influx of all of the political correctness associated with this topic. Soldiers will spend more time in sensitivity training classes, than they will learning combat tactics. Then again, it’s always been the goal of the left to undermine the military–along with God, country and family.
I know exactly your problem. Women take up posts that men considered ‘great perks’. I was withdrawn from a posting by a woman who had married a man already posted to the same ship. She took my posting. This is happening everywhere,and most times they can’t do the job as well as a man.Not because of intelligence,but because of strength. That’s why I laugh when I see female ‘Firemen” and ‘Ambulance crews” trying to lift victims.They cannot,so why not leave it to a person who can.Our town crew has two women on Ambulance.If there is any lifting of patients to do,they call the firecrew to ‘lift’ the injured. The women cannot do it,but take fire crews away from their job……STINKS.
Does anyone really believe that the Marxists and their dupes
would allow for objectivity? Fairy Tales and the road to
civilisational oblivion is right up their alley.
Recently retired after 24 yrs in the military. Still keep in touch, personally and professionally with many officers (over one hundred). None of my contacts received a survey. Of those who have commented to me, two camps emerge. They either feel that readiness was compromised with DADT or that DADT works. All view homosexuality as a detriment to good order and discipline.
The Brass have a habit of lying to the troops. They also have a habit of lying about the troops. So it should come as no surprise to find them lying to the troops, about the troops. In statistics Survey referrers a specific process where ALL members of a given population (that would be everyone in the military in this instance) are questioned and ALL responses are recorded. What was actually done was a poll as such there are strict rules of sampling. Since this poll was directed at readiness (which means combat) front line units needed to be over or solely represented. Support units are increasingly being replaced by civilian contractors. According to Congress there are no Lesbians in front line units, because women are not allowed in combat. I have faith in the American fighting men and women to make the outcome work, whatever the denizens of the pentagram Puzzle Palace come up with.
Those pushing for the DADT to be abolished are all part of the CFR. The CFR is doing it’s best to destroy culture in America. With illegal aliens, the worshipers of Hubal, and making the United States military without morality is an attack on culture.
In the BLT Marxist’s New Age, there is no such thing as morality, just whatever feeeeelllsss good. All humans are good inside, not men’s hearts are evil as G-d stated. Also, all religions get you to Heaven.
As a Marine, I know for a fact the Marine Corp is full of Christians. Marines do not hate those who have a reprobate mind, but it is unbecoming of enlisted, or an Officer to be such a sinner.
I’ll bet a pay check, from what I saw of the 82ed Airborne during my active duty, they feel the same way.
I never met a Marine that had a problem with two hot chicks with DD’s getting it on. I was told that was good gay.
Is it time for the Marine Corp, and 82ed Airborne to attack Globalists who work towards the destruction of America? I would love to see it.
BZO, or Die!
The powers that be are in a hurry to scrap DADT in order to take advantage of the lousy economy. Recruiting and retention are high now thanks to the frozen civilian job market. I call it the “depression draft.” By contrast, civilian jobs were so plentiful in 2005 that the Army missed its recruiting quotas and stop-loss was rampant.
Scrap DADT now and everyone has to “grin and bear it.” Do so in an expanding economy and the resulting mass exodus and recruiting collapse would force TPTB to revive the real draft.
I find it interesting that the command staff that appears to have no problem with ending don’t ask don’t tell come from the navy–given the navel historical stereotypes–”You Hoo, Sailor Boy,” and carriers being referred to as “love boats” and what not. One can have a lot of fun with puns while explaining the studies “bias” for assuming no significant short term disruptions to unit solidarity. What about the long term though? Are we really to assume no future mass armies and a mass draft will never be necessary? Will “homophobic” be a recognized medical malady and get one a “4f” classification and exclusion from the draft during the next “unjust war.” Why is it only the left seem to think human nature is so plastic and malleable, and yet refuse to subject their natures to the military meat grinder? Don’t you just love selective toleration?
Curiously, the Obama regime was able to somehow get a poll out to active duty service people that would support the sodomy agenda …
But it was too hard to ensure that those same service people got their ballots last month.
Amazing how stuff works out.
Of course! Shoulders and sailors come from High Schools and so do homosexuals.All is normal and exciting. Bootcamp was a challenge and a passage thought not entirely to manhood. Patriots all! Somehow though id like to sneak a peek at the questionnaires from the submariners!
I am an active duty physician. I took the survey. It is flawed and biased. The questions were written by political hacks. At the end of the survey there was a comment box where you could speak your mind. In essence, this is what I said.
“as a health care provider with significant experience with the Marines, I can almost guarantee you that there will be violent crimes committed against homosexuals. This will be a morale killer. Chaplains will resign en mass and otherwise good men will never join. Do not tread down this path. Not to mention the increase in rape, std’s, and suicides.”
Admiral Mullen is a political hack. His ambition has blindfolded him from the obvious. At least the Marines and Army still have a clue.
A commenter on another forum stated that the survey form had a probably uniquely identifiable number on it, and that he thus refused to participate.
If this is the case, the study is certainly suffering from strong selection bias, as those who fear retaliation for expressing non-PC views simply refused to participate.
My experience as an enlisted man suggested that homosexuals serving would be a significant problem. You can segregate women from men, and the military spends a lot of its valuable resources doing so. You can’t do that with gays, so you would be creating a force where those who are potentially sexually attracted would be living in close quarters – dressing and showering together.
Perhaps we should require the military to end all segregation between women and men, as an experiment prior to gay service.
I suggest we wouldn’t need a survey, at that point, to understand the issues.
The response percentatges to the DADT survey would have been much lower. The results were manipulated in order to provide the desired and PC results. 1. For example, in order to address an early lack of response, many resources and reminders went to the force. Some of these reminders targeted parts of the military daily, parts that would have been more likely to support elimination of DADT. I do not believe the military has spent similar effort in soliciting responses to any other survey in history. This is a perfect example of statistical and survey manipulation to achieve an intended result. 2. Any leader who would argue that this survey was fair and similar to other surveys in the response rate is evidencing a lack of integrity. This is one issue which really needs to be explored by our media and Congress.
What would Patton and Halsey say?
Mark E@ 16: Excellent and on point.
J Will@ 9: From a fellow bubblehead-very good post.
Patton was gay. So, he’d probably say, “Hey, sailor, is that a mast in your pants or are you just happy to see me?”
We did our own survey within my family (Marine, 2 USAF and Army) – 4 to 0 against repealing the DADT.
What would a survey of troops opinion on the effects of racial integration of units revealed when Truman made the call, back when he did? Sooner or later, this change will be made and will, of course, cause some problems; but then, life, and especially life in the military is about dealing with problems. At least not many gays will get pregnant.
This is just stupid. We’re at war, we allow women into combat zones and worry about queers.
If we’re going to talk about diminished combat effectiveness, let’s talk about sending infantry to fight a war in the mountains armed with .22 carbines with an effective range of maybe 500-600 yards instead of .30 battle rifles that are effective up to 1000 or better. Let’s talk about an asshat in Kabul setting untenable rules of engagement for our soldiers who keep his ass alive.
I’ve talked to my son about this. He isn’t crazy about homosexuals being in his unit, but he points out that most of the women who went to Iraq with him didn’t finish their tours in the war zone because they got pregnant and went home, leaving the unit short. At least the gays can’t decide to get knocked up if they want a ticket home.
If they want to go get shot at let ‘em, If they want to get married and help support divorce lawyers let ‘em. Just make ‘em shut up so we can get on with what’s important.
Here is a well thought out (i.e., it agrees with me) article.
With all due respect, you sound like John McCain, who I admire greatly in spite of his ping pong position on DADT. Gays in the military has been considered, debated, analyzed for years. Now there is a survey that offers yet another analysis. More analysis seems like little more than a delay tactic, honestly.
Allow me to reframe the question: There are many gay soldiers buried in Arlington. Should we exhume their bodies and bury them someplace else? Was their courage and sacrifice any less than their brothers and sisters in arms? If we treat people equally in death, we should be able to treat them equally in life.
As a former Marine I would likd to know how many Jarheads have ever had a GENERAL of any branch of the service in the showers with them or for that matter ANY OFFICER. How nice it is to have your private toilet and even in the field while the enlisted urinated in the open in the tube, the pansy officers had a canvas around theirs so no one could see that they were indulged in natures call. Yes the numbers were rigged and the GENERALS are all out to kiss the arce of anyone that may be responsible for their promotions and or demotions. Patton slapped a kid for crying and not wanting to go back onthe line what the hell would he do if he saw one of his slodiers in pink panties???: one needn’t even think of what he would do as the answer is very simple.
Semper Fi
Semper Fi, Mustang!
I wonder how many readers know what a Mustang is? My Marine Ssgt. son works with one now, and earlier he had a platoon leader who was pretend-Mustang whom he wrote-up as unfit for combat leadership – he drove a desk for the rest of his career.
“mustang” — in military parlance, an officer who moved up from the enlisted ranks. During my USAF days, I called it “defecting to the enemy.”
Just kidding — I knew quite a few, and all of them were OK, meaning they knew enlisted people were human too. The wing commander at my 1st base was a mustang, and later made brigadier general.
Navy chief petty officers pretty much ran the Navy, and most Mustangs were once chief petty officers. Those whom I have met have been among the best. It’s been a long time, but I hope that hasn’t changed too much.
If three-quarters of the people sent the survey on a controversial issue don’t respond, that is significantly more important in calculating the margin of error than those not responding to a political poll or a JD Power’s survey of new car quality.
Considering how politically incorrect it would be for most military members to tell how they really feel about this topic, saying this survey shows the military goes being being a stretch to propaganda or even out right lies.
I have had the impression that Obama Administration wants to reduce the size of our military. What better way to shrink the military than to implement repugnant policies to encourage people to leave without the cost of draw-down incentives or saved retirement pay for those who leave voluntarily before being eligible for retirement?
As an Army retiree (31 yrs active and reserve) who has served in both Infantry and Medical units I can unequivocally say that the end of DADT would adversely affect the efficiency of operations especially combat operations. The commingling of men and women presents significant challenges to a commander. Fraternization and abuse of power by superiors is always a distinct possibility in coed units. In the reserves every year we were required to have training classes on these topics. It is a fact of life that people working and living in close proximity will enter into relationships. I am personally aware of at least two incidents where husbands/significant others of female reservists were involved in altercations involving firearms and at least one reservist was killed.
Now shift that problem over to a combat arms unit where James is upset with Bill because he was flirting with Dan who is upset because he’s straight. Wasn’t one of PFC Manning’s motivations being dumped by his gay lover? If that unit is in a combat zone what is the effect on unit cohesion? If you don’t know the answer you don’t understand meaning of cohesion of soldiers within a fighting unit.
Now this is not to say that all military units have the same state of mind when in a combat zone or that women should not be in the military. There are functions which are better suited for female soldiers, but if you put them in combat arms units I guarantee there will be inter personal relationships, jealousy and a decline in military combat readiness.
Bottom line – social engineering of this type which flies in the face of human nature can only have a detrimental effect on the military. Worst of all, the political generals know this but will sacrifice the very best units to promote their own careers.
Of coarse they screwed the polls in favor of the gays. Obama is trying to SUCK up votes from anywhere he can. Just look how Obama and the democrats have use one group of people against other groups of people in this country. I thought we were all Americans. Obama and the democrats have done nothing but divide and hurt Americans since taking office. Telling the world how bad America is and how we are racist and miss treat people. Funny thing is people are still coming to this awful place in droves. Getting back to DADT, just think of the military personal we would lose if DADT is repealed and trying to recruit people would become that much harder. Plus unfortunately our friendly fire death rates would increase if gays come out in the open. My oldest son served 8 years in the Navy on subs and I asked him about DADT and he replied that everyone knew who were the gays, but the gays stayed in their part of the sub and kept a low profile and no problems.
The entire “Pentagon response” was composed of weasel words.
As pointed out, members of the military give up several ‘constitutional rights’ when they join up.
Seems gays are the first to figure that they should be ‘exempt’.
And in perusing the Constitution, I find no ‘right’ for anyone to automatically be a member of the armed forces.
This is nothing more than getting the camel’s nose in the tent. In those states recognizing gay marriage, you can expect the gay’s in the military to start DEMANDING military housing, medical care and allotment checks for their “spouse”. As soon as this happens, gays stationed in other states will also start screaming about “equal rights”.
Gates is a fool if he thinks repeal of DADT will end his problems.
good grief! what’s with all the tortured reasoning to make it appear that gay troops (some 60 thousand of whom are serving at this very moment) pose some sort of existential threat?? this is all just bigotry thinly veiled by pseudo-intellectual blather. now we are to believe that the pentagon is so in the grip of political correctness and the gay community that they would skew their own survey.. which, frankly, was made up of questions that were actually slanted against accepting gay troops.. because some people are suprised by the results??..(and since when does the pentagon survey troops about ANYthing anyway?!) some folks just need to get a grip themselves and the military needs to simply stop hounding and dishonorably discharging brave soldiers, not for anything they’ve done, but for who they are.. and this ‘issue’ will be solved.
Sounds like another investigation for the new congress to take on, They can find out if the DOD and President O’Dumbo lied to congress. That will be ground to fire a bunch of DOD slime and impeach the slime ball in the white house.
So basically what the report says is the soldiers are against while the pencil pushers are all for it. Why didn’t we just poll all combat troops as that is where it will have the largest ramifications?
You are questioning our intellectual politicians? Your question to ask a guy in a fox hole putting who is putting his life on the line means nothing to the much wiser politicians or the upper brass in the military as they party on. Do not tell me how good are military is show me, let them do their job. We are so top heavy at the Pentagon and Washington that we could cut their numbers in half, with a much better run military and government through cutting a lot of bull. Maybe we could pay down our debt, we do not need congress any more Obama has his Czars to do their jobs.
… whoa………. http://WealthBoost.org
When I was in before DADT, Homosexual behaviour was prohibited.
Presidetn Clinton’s DADT was actually a concession to Gays. They are now allowed to serve, just dont tell me about it and I wont ask.
What is wrong with that.
Well, I think what’s wrong is that a gay person can be “fired” from the military, have their career destroyed, and have their opportunity to fight for their country taken away from them for being a gay person, whether anybody asked or told or not.
I’m a conservative, and that doesn’t seem right to me.
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” …
Feel free to credit Mark Twain, Disraeli, or whomever, but it still holds true.
It should be obvious even to a Journalism 101 student at a left-wing, State-controlled indoctrination center (aka university) that something stinks. A graduate student in Survey Research (statistics) would destroy this “study” in a keystroke or two.
As an Army Combat Arms Vet during the “conflict” in S.E. Asia, I can say without hesitation that homosexers were in my Battalion, we knew who some of them were, and we DIDN’T CARE! What they did in their free time was their business and none of mine – unless of course it disrupted “unit cohesion”. Okay, so that might have a different meaning to the pink brigade, but it is all too true.
BTW …
What the hell does “serve openly” really mean?
Am I one of the few who sees a whole host of ramifications, interpretations, court cases, and Courts Martial to distill this down into its common, and most base, denominator?
SecDef Gates (of hell) has been an embarrassment. Admiral Mullen along with his CNO actually APPROVE of repeal? Maybe what Marines have said about the Navy has been true all along.
That’s just ONE reason why a squid, er, sailor should never the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The other service Chiefs know where THEIR joints belong.
~(Ä)~
@sdk Semper Fire (35): What’s wrong with DADT is that it decreases unit cohesion; those who are gay can’t even answer simple questions about what they did over the weekend, if they did anything outside of the heterosexual norm. The guys who worked with me and for me thought I was a bit of a snob because I refused to discuss my personal life (or lack thereof) like the rest of them. I wasn’t leading a wanton, licentious life (far from it), but discussing anything outside of the most anodyne of topics risked revealing a part of my existence that needed to be concealed. Having a supervisor who you think is a stuck-up jerk doesn’t do much for morale. If I had been permitted to serve openly, I wouldn’t have put a rainbow banner over my desk and a picture of Brad Pitt on the wall, but I would have been a little less stand-offish with the people who worked for me.
Several commenters worry about sex amongst the troops–it’s worse with straight couples, because of the pregnancy issue and their greater numbers. The last time I deployed on an aircraft carrier, there were over 30 M/F couples on restriction together, busted for violating the fraternization regs already in place. Adding in one or two gay couples would not have made much of a difference there.
And for those of you who worry about sexual harassment from another guy (and yes, the ones who are squawking the loudest are all men), unless you cannot control yourself around an attractive female (in which case the problem is yours, not everyone else’s), understand that gay and lesbian sailors are professional enough to behave in an appropriate manner too. I never acted inappropriately towards another servicemember in the 20+ years I served in the navy, and the vast majority of my shipmates (gay and straight) also acted appropriately. For gay servicemen, who we choose to share a bed with does not impact our professionalism any more than those of you who like the ladies.
There are a bunch of “professional gays” who would be very unsuited for military life, but most of them wouldn’t be caught anywhere near the military, because they’re crazed leftist morons who wouldn’t be able to hack the regimentation of the military. Gays who *do* join tend to be more responsible and mature than the bozos who you see protesting on TV, and allowing them to be a little more open isn’t going to destroy the military.
The fix was in from the beginning. Does anyone believe that this survey was anything but a humbug way to achieve the predetermined conclusion?
First, the Military is under political control, unless we recently changed the constitution. The politicians do not need to listen to the military, but the military must listen to the politicians. It would be stupid to not listen to the military when making combat decision, but I believe people here are forgetting how the founding fathers set up our command structure. Second, look at how many Arabic translators were fired because of their sexual preferences. Think about how many lives were lost replacing those positions. Also, how would having gay translators in some office have a negative impact on the front line? People like you put up a fuss when the military was being racially integrated as well. Sorry, but things change, learn to adapt and quit whining. So much Whining!!
I served over 40 years. Most of that time in a Combat Heavy Engr. units.
My last in Iraq with an I.D. Bg.
The hetrosexual soilder is not allowed to hardly speak to a soilder of the opposite sex without fear of charges being brought. This is were the discrimination is. It was unwritten that we not notice the homosexual soilder(s) interaction. Expecially the female soilder. I have know where partners were sent to different F.O.B.’s and they created so much disturbance that they would be reassigned inorder to betogether. On the opposite side of this if there is hetrosexual involvement they are brought up on charges, reduced in grade and loss of pay. What more can I say.
There is resentment of this disparity. Looking at the numbers, given in this article on the percentages of who voted, they speak for themselves. When in combat situations you can not affort partners of any gender. This results in the Urajah effect. (King David, Old Testement). All distraction to the mission must be limited. In my observations the hetrosexuals do this much better that the homosexual. Volumns can be written about that.
George Wideman U.S. Army Retired…
This is a “hot potato” issue if ever there was one. First and foremost it involves sexual orientation! To the extent that appearance alone more often than not does not allow for an accurate assessment political correctness renders that exercise moot. So what the hell do we do?
Once again and seemingly for all time, sex rears its head, no pun intended. We are inundated, fascinated and, secretly or otherwise, obsessed with it and especially its more, dare it be said, deviant aspects. Most have, after much twisting, turning and agonized reflection, come to accept homosexuality as an integral part of what we have been admonished to consider and then accept as that ever evolving term, “normal.” And, as intelligent, rational individuals, so it has become despite the ever present and nagging question in the minds of heterosexuals, “how do they do it and, even knowing that, how can they enjoy sex with the same sex? Fascinating, even more so when the same behavior in the mammal world, humans excluded, is unknown and complicated by the fact that this rarely is openly discussed even among confidants. The human animal is complex…….end of story!
Be all that as it may, sexuality, of any stripe, involves urges that require some action on the part of the individual; male, female of any sexual orientation. Marriage is of course the most socially acceptable and preferred response but among the unmarried, that would be the majority in the military, suppression is the preferred and most widely claimed response, the proverbial “cold shower” or some physical activity designed to offer sexual relief, with or without a willing partner in the enterprise of the preferred sexual orientation. Sexually aberrant behavior is not considered here because it exists among all sexual orientations.
A thoughtful, intellectual “dance” can be indulged in for as long or as often as it seems polite and adequately enlightened to do so but the fact remains that sex, whatever the rational and however it is perceived in the civilized human mind, is why each and every damn one of us walks on this planet, yes, Mom and Dad did “the nasty” and, of course, that obvious assertion does not end or perhaps even have much to do with the story. I’m struggling here.
DADT (Don’t ask don’t tell) in the military or its replacement DADT (Do ask do tell) each present the same problem and one that I would bet my entire modest estate has been in existence long before homosexuality became a kitchen table issue. Homosexuality is not a modern day phenomena and Gays and Lesbians are generally not as they’re so entertainingly and amusingly portrayed in the media.
Perhaps it all comes down to motivation. If a homosexual enlists in the military motivated by a patriotic love of country and a desire to protect and defend it, then his or her sexual preferences, self professed or otherwise, should have no more or less bearing on their ability and qualifications to serve given that any military restrictions on the practice of normal sexual activity for all individuals will be applied equally and without prejudice. These rules and regulations have been in existence and evolved over time.
Problems ensue when the motivations are more devious and sexually oriented a fact that may become apparent very quickly or not manifest itself until one is confronted with a life and death situation and other lives are also in jeopardy. The former is easily taken care of before the latter ever takes place and the latter exists no matter the DADT policy in effect and no matter the sexual orientation of the individual involved; in other words it can happen with anybody.
So what’s the solution to DADT? I don’t know but confess that I’d probably feel uncomfortable strolling around, buck naked on the way to or from the community shower facility knowing that someone, of the same sex, might be lusting after my body! But that’s just me. If you are or have been in the military and especially if you are a homosexual, what do you think?
Thank you Dan Miller for raising two underexposed issues: 1) what combat troops really think about homosexuals serving in trusted, intimate, supporting positions in a combat team; and 2) terms of engagement.
Combat teams develop a state of mind in which not letting your buddy down is more important than any one members life and it helps everyone to do the right thing under unbelievable stress. I was a B-29 gunner during the Korean conflict and I can tell you that no one I know, nor any of the Army guys we talked to, would want a homosexual with them in combat.
So here is what truly will answer the effect on retention and recruitment of allowing homosexuals to enlist for military duty. Prior to any new legislation taking effect, allow all current military personnel to end their enlistment if they choose. This of course is only fair, since Congress is changing the rules that they didn’t sign up for. And second if there is no change in retention or enlistment then the question is truly answered by the people that are most directly affected.
In addition Dan Miller brought up “Terms of Engagement”. The terms of engagement in Korea, kept us from winning, and sicken those of us who lost friends. Someone of the correct talent should do a paper on the effect of the terms of engagement on Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan conflicts, and include combat experienced personnel’s comment’s.
Thank you, sir. Here is a report of the views of LTC Allen West(Ret) on the subject. To condense them a big,
That pretty well sums up my views as well. There are important differences between the military, particularly the combat troops, and the rest of society. They are necessary.
There is another point to be made. Social experiments have their place, and in the absence of compelling circumstances the military is not a good place for them. When I was in the Army in Korea between 1967 and 1970, the Korean Conflict had been over a long time. However, the Vietnam war was in progress simultaneously with a social experiment. Many people were drafted or enlisted voluntarily who, due to their very low intelligence test scores and prior antisocial conduct, should not have been. Some could not even read and it was hoped that military service might prepare them for better civilian lives. Some were sent to Korea. They were referred to as McNamara’s One Hundred Thousand, had more disciplinary problems than other troops and thereby adversely affected military discipline. A failed experiment, it was a distraction for the military and of little benefit to the men it was created to help. I don’t mean to suggest that homosexuals are similar to members of McNamara’s One Hundred Thousand; they are not and that is not the point. The point is that social experimentation has little if any utility in enhancing or even preserving military combat effectiveness, particularly during time of military conflict. And that is crucial.
Funny how familiar the arguments sound if you replace “gay” with “black” isn’t it?
Bottom Line: homosexuals are citizens. They vote, pay taxes, and have the same rights as you and I under the Constitution. Get over it and deal with it.
Ragnar…How bout some reality now?
Your comment: ["Bottom Line: homosexuals are citizens. They vote, pay taxes, and have the same rights as you and I under the Constitution."]
Seems I recall, that not ALL citizens who vote, pay taxes and have the same constitutional rights, QUALIFY for military service.
The Articles of the UCMJ that prohibits homosexuality come from the very same laws that governed the nations entire general population for…..oh, a very, very, very, very long time. NO historic religion of any stripes, has, or condones it even today!
I and most of the worlds sane population takes exception to your inference that a small MINORITY of behavioral misfits should control the worlds or militarys moral policy and law.
That bad behavior needs psychological help just like the rapists and child molesters and it’s morally, no different in the attempt to justify! If you have legitimate evidence to the contrary, submit it!
You look back fondly at your waivered Marines who made it through and did well later. Imagine yourself with gay students, who survive the slings and arrows of middle and high school bullying…or just being and go on to productive lives. That’s what this is about. You are quite willing to give the waivered guys their shot, but the gays are somehow evil, warped, whatever. Certainly they have their issues, but all people do. I want them to succeed as I wanted all my students to succeed, whether they had had run-ins with the law, were gay, or just immature.
It obviously has become an essential part of your identity to be a moral dinosaur on this one, so I hold little hope of changing your mind, but try to think of them as people with a particular predilection. Did you and I choose to like females because we were trying to be moral, or because we just liked females? Ditto for gays and lesbians.
This voluminous discussion of DADT prompts me to raise a related topic: Social Engineering of the Military. I served two years in the Army, 1952-54 and 28 more years in the Army Reserves. In 1978, I was evaluating a training program at Fort Sill, Oklahoma for the Lance Missile System.At that time, Lance units were in only two locations: Fort Sill and the Seventh Army in Germany. The Seventh Army was in the field nine months a year, which meant sleeping many nights in Two “man” tents and using slit trenches for natural functions. Our enlightened President Carter had decreed that the services would open up more slots for women. We had this young lady, about 5’3″ and 115 pounds, enrolled in the Lance Missile crew training program. I don’t have any idea what her sexual orientation was, but she could only be posted to Ft. Sill or germany. In Germany she would be in the field a great deal. Who would she share a two “man” tent with? The Section Chief or Platoon Leader? The Lance system required some equipment that seemed too heavy and bulky for her. Does the Platoon Leader assign her a less physically demanding job? Could this cause dissension in the unit? Other commenters have noted the tradition of civilian control of the military. But civilian bureaucrats need to pay close attention to the opinions of military types who must carry out their orders. The earlier comment by the former Navy radioman on how female radio operators ended up being assigned to what amounted to shore duty assignments to the detriment of male sailors, is a classic example of unintended consequences of social engineering by by civilian bureaucrats.
I am an infantry gunner in northern Iraq. Unlike the stereotype of ignorant grunts, I have a bachelor’s degree and experience in journalism, and even out here I read extensively about current issues, etc.
I and other infantrymen I know are decidedly opposed to lifting the ban on open gays in the military, for a host of reasons. We know non-combat troops to be generally more liberal than us in many ways. This is accepted as obvious, and we tend to take a bit of pride in the differences.
None of us even heard about the Pentagon’s survey until its results came out in the news. Even if it had been an option, grunts are not known for being vocal about politics.
But that doesn’t mean we are unaware or apathetic about attempts by morons with some weird egalitarian utopia in mind trying to perform their social experiments at the expense of proven Army traditions and values. That was a mouthful.
Suffice it to say that personally, if DADT is repealed, I will definitely not be reenlisting when my current contract is complete.
you can talk about it all you want, the fact of the matter is if you choose to be gay that is your choice, and you shouldn’t be discriminated against for it, however the military is not the place to discuss your sexuality whether you are gay or strait, and if you are gay in the military keep it to yourself, why should all the other men who serve with you have to hear how sexy you think other men are, especially if it makes them uncomfortable. The issue should be dropped all together, the policy is in place and that shouldn’t be changed!
DADT Repeal: Civil Rights Milestone or Military Millstone?
“We righted a wrong. Today we’ve done justice:” Sen. Joe Lieberman
“When breaking down the specifics, more respondents answered unfavorably or remain uncertain about a policy change than those who favor repeal:” Rep. Duncan Hunter
Whether it represents justice or uncertainty, homosexuals are beyond giddy in some instances over the long-awaited, long-Obama-promised repeal of Bill Clinton’s cure-all for inclusion of outed gays in the United States’ military, the misbegotten policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” unaffectionately known as DADT.
Bubba’s sop to his homosexual supporters essentially boiled down to a policy of advising gays to keep their sexual inclinations to themselves and instructing their military superiors not to ask how personnel got off sexually as long as they didn’t overtly get off in mess halls, barracks, shower rooms, foxholes, etc.
The repeal of Bill Clinton’s 17 year old policy of DADT was an insult to our millions of heterosexual men and women in the armed forces and an insult to the intelligence of the American people who are being led to believe that our military will be able to continue to function as it should and must.
DADT was a farce from the beginning. Its repeal could be farcical catastrophe.
The lopsided, Democrat sponsored repeal vote of 65-31 in the Senate was assured after the Pentagon released the results of its extended study/poll of those in the military and their families which allegedly, unexpectedly, showed that 70% had no problem with gays serving openly. That conclusion depends in large part on who counted and who interpreted the votes and why those “respondents [who] answered unfavorably or remain uncertain” were ignored.
Rep. Hunter, a Marine colonel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, noted, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3098)
In my 29 years of service, the only “gays” that were discharged were those caught in the act on the ship. Once, while on deployment on a large deck amphib, 7 were caught in a fanroom my a master-at-arms while patrolling, having a “gay fest.” They were quickly flown off the ship as soon as we were in range of Okinawa. They were ranked E-2 to E-6.
DADT compells them to keep it to themselves. It is up to them to act professional and keep their sex life private and off the ship. Having spent the first 12 years of my career as enlisted, my concern goes out to the enlisted folks. They are in close quarters with little room or privacy. But even as an officer, I shudder at the thought of having to share a stateroom with a homosexual. Morale WILL suffer.
LCDR, USN(Ret)
Yeah, because straights NEVER have sex with each other. Oh wait they do. But that is ok, right? They just don’t get dismissed over it. And gays have not been in the cabins and dorms for years. Oh wait they have. Well, soldiers just havn’t KNOWN the gays were there. Oh wait. They did, they just didn’t care. In fact the only ones who DO care the most are people who ARN”T in the military. Things that make you go hmmmm…
You can certainly see your expertise in the work you write. The world hopes for more passionate writers such as you who aren’t afraid to say how they believe. All the time follow your heart.