Comments on: Max Boot’s Misplaced ‘Study’ of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:34:39 +0000 hourly 1 By: fhennipen http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-62396 fhennipen Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:56:39 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-62396 Frederick the Great, for one. Baron von Steuben was also reputed to be gay. T.E. Lawrence was reputed to have either been gay, a masochist, or both. Homosexuality among soldiers was actively encouraged in Ancient Greece. See Burg, Gay Warriors, 2002. It is relevant to the discussion because the history of gay military leadership makes it clear that sexual orientation is essentially irrelevant to soldiering. The real issue, as we all know, is that gays make some people feel "icky." My advice is to get over it and get on with your job. Frederick the Great, for one. Baron von Steuben was also reputed to be gay.

T.E. Lawrence was reputed to have either been gay, a masochist, or both.

Homosexuality among soldiers was actively encouraged in Ancient Greece. See Burg, Gay Warriors, 2002.

It is relevant to the discussion because the history of gay military leadership makes it clear that sexual orientation is essentially irrelevant to soldiering. The real issue, as we all know, is that gays make some people feel "icky." My advice is to get over it and get on with your job.

]]> By: @chris_renner http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-62172 @chris_renner Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:38:55 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-62172 It depends on what you mean by "okay". If you mean that it's legally protected, that's not the case. If I as a male Marine were to, for example, constantly tell the women in my unit what a great lover I was, particularly if they were of lower rank, they could claim sexual harassment and I'd probably be punished. If you mean that you're not going to get in trouble if you're sufficiently discreet, then yes, spouting off about your heterosexuality is something that you can do. As is coming out - but again, the key is discretion. I've served in units with gay guys, and it was never problematic, because they weren't in anyone's face about it. Now if you repeal DADT as is being proposed, what you're going to have happen is that some folks of a gay persuasion, somewhere, are going to push the limits, and start confronting people with their sexual identity. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the gays and lesbians in the military are not going to be behaving so. Just one person doing that, and getting away with it, will have a devastating effect on the unit's morale and unit integrity. How many units' integrity are you willing to destroy for your notion of equal rights? And how many commanding officers are going to be willing to punish such violations of military discipline when Congress and the executive branch have taken away a key legal avenue for them to do so? The average field grade officer isn't going to be rewarded for sticking his neck out to save a cohesive military unit, and will have to face opposition from his superiors and Congress if he tries to punish someone for being disruptive, since they've adopted the more "enlightened" attitude that such disruption is the right of the individual in the service. It depends on what you mean by "okay". If you mean that it's legally protected, that's not the case. If I as a male Marine were to, for example, constantly tell the women in my unit what a great lover I was, particularly if they were of lower rank, they could claim sexual harassment and I'd probably be punished.

If you mean that you're not going to get in trouble if you're sufficiently discreet, then yes, spouting off about your heterosexuality is something that you can do. As is coming out – but again, the key is discretion. I've served in units with gay guys, and it was never problematic, because they weren't in anyone's face about it.

Now if you repeal DADT as is being proposed, what you're going to have happen is that some folks of a gay persuasion, somewhere, are going to push the limits, and start confronting people with their sexual identity. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the gays and lesbians in the military are not going to be behaving so. Just one person doing that, and getting away with it, will have a devastating effect on the unit's morale and unit integrity. How many units' integrity are you willing to destroy for your notion of equal rights?

And how many commanding officers are going to be willing to punish such violations of military discipline when Congress and the executive branch have taken away a key legal avenue for them to do so? The average field grade officer isn't going to be rewarded for sticking his neck out to save a cohesive military unit, and will have to face opposition from his superiors and Congress if he tries to punish someone for being disruptive, since they've adopted the more "enlightened" attitude that such disruption is the right of the individual in the service.

]]> By: aspacia http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-61994 aspacia Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:07:20 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-61994 Kathy, are we to live according to God's law, a law that encompasses numerous faiths, or according to human laws, secular laws? I prefer secular laws to Allah's, Christian, Jewish, or Pagan laws. This is my opinion, not demand. Kathy, are we to live according to God's law, a law that encompasses numerous faiths, or according to human laws, secular laws?

I prefer secular laws to Allah's, Christian, Jewish, or Pagan laws.

This is my opinion, not demand.

]]> By: Kathy Leicester http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-62056 Kathy Leicester Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:02:05 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-62056 There's a whole lot of people that would agree with you, I'll bet. And I think you've hit on the foundation for all the arguments, discussions, and comments on this issue (or any other issue for that matter). I had it put this way to me years ago, and this is the easiest way for me to remember: In every argument, there are two sides: Man says, and God says. All that I'll add to this is that what God says is eternal and unchanging; what man says is changing every day. I am hopeful that this issue, contentious though it tends to be, can be resolved in a way such that all sides are heard, even if the end result is not to everyone's liking. Blessings to you! There's a whole lot of people that would agree with you, I'll bet. And I think you've hit on the foundation for all the arguments, discussions, and comments on this issue (or any other issue for that matter). I had it put this way to me years ago, and this is the easiest way for me to remember:

In every argument, there are two sides: Man says, and God says. All that I'll add to this is that what God says is eternal and unchanging; what man says is changing every day.

I am hopeful that this issue, contentious though it tends to be, can be resolved in a way such that all sides are heard, even if the end result is not to everyone's liking.

Blessings to you!

]]> By: aspacia http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-61993 aspacia Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:04:49 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-61993 Kathy, We are agreed regarding discipline, fraternization and adultery. I hope you understand my claim, as many do not. With regards, aspacia Kathy,

We are agreed regarding discipline, fraternization and adultery.

I hope you understand my claim, as many do not.

With regards,

aspacia

]]> By: Kathy http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-61988 Kathy Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:39:22 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-61988 Really. Who? And why is that relevant to the discussion? Really. Who? And why is that relevant to the discussion?

]]> By: Kathy http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-61984 Kathy Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:38:03 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-61984 Within very strictly defined limits, yes, it is. Doing so, again within strict limits, defined by regulations it would take months to read, does not undermine good order and discipline. Now, if a man or a woman engages in sexual behavior that is prohibited by the UCMJ, such as fraternization or adultery, they're penalized under the UCMJ and often kicked out. Within very strictly defined limits, yes, it is. Doing so, again within strict limits, defined by regulations it would take months to read, does not undermine good order and discipline.

Now, if a man or a woman engages in sexual behavior that is prohibited by the UCMJ, such as fraternization or adultery, they're penalized under the UCMJ and often kicked out.

]]> By: Kathy http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-61979 Kathy Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:34:05 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-61979 Of course, but I think we need to separate God's creations from their behavior. The concept of equal rights already applies, in my opinion. Rights come from God, the Creator. Some of these rights are codified into the Constitution. There is no "right" that a person who engages in behavior contrary to what the military folks call "good order and discipline" be allowed the privilege to serve. Of course, but I think we need to separate God's creations from their behavior. The concept of equal rights already applies, in my opinion. Rights come from God, the Creator. Some of these rights are codified into the Constitution. There is no "right" that a person who engages in behavior contrary to what the military folks call "good order and discipline" be allowed the privilege to serve.

]]> By: aspacia http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-61949 aspacia Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:34:26 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-61949 However, it is okay to spout off regarding the fact you are heterosexual viral female or male in the military? However, it is okay to spout off regarding the fact you are heterosexual viral female or male in the military?

]]> By: @chris_renner http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-61933 @chris_renner Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:10:46 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-61933 They <b>aren't</b> banned from fighting for their land. The question at hand is whether or not gays and lesbians should have a legally protected right to tell everyone they please about their sexual preference, and whether that would be beneficial or detrimental to the overall effectiveness of the military. As much as you might dislike it, military service entails giving up a lot of the legal rights available to civilians. You don't have the same free speech, freedom of assembly, etc. that a civilian has <b>during your period of service to the country</b>. They aren't banned from fighting for their land. The question at hand is whether or not gays and lesbians should have a legally protected right to tell everyone they please about their sexual preference, and whether that would be beneficial or detrimental to the overall effectiveness of the military.

As much as you might dislike it, military service entails giving up a lot of the legal rights available to civilians. You don't have the same free speech, freedom of assembly, etc. that a civilian has during your period of service to the country.

]]> By: aspacia http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-61932 aspacia Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:09:33 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-61932 Thanks jhimmi. Besides, some of the great military minds were bisexual or homosexual. Thanks jhimmi. Besides, some of the great military minds were bisexual or homosexual.

]]> By: jhimmi http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/06/max-boot%e2%80%99s-misplaced-studies-of-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell/#comment-61921 jhimmi Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:48:25 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=38940#comment-61921 I'm right in the middle on this one, but when I substitute the opposite sex for homosexuals, it becomes an easier decision. In other words, if the question becomes, "Why can't men and women serve together in the same combat unit?", then the answer seems obvious to me. All the same arguments would apply. Once don't ask don't tell goes away, all of the same issues that could potentially arise if hetero men and women served together in the same foxhole/barracks would be put into play. If heterosexual men and women haven't successfully lobbied the military to allow them to sleep in the same barracks as the opposite sex, why would homosexuals be allowed to sleep in barracks with their sexual partners? What if openly gay men were told they could serve in units with women, and openly gay women were told they could serve with men - would that make any more or less sense? I'm right in the middle on this one, but when I substitute the opposite sex for homosexuals, it becomes an easier decision. In other words, if the question becomes, "Why can't men and women serve together in the same combat unit?", then the answer seems obvious to me. All the same arguments would apply.

Once don't ask don't tell goes away, all of the same issues that could potentially arise if hetero men and women served together in the same foxhole/barracks would be put into play. If heterosexual men and women haven't successfully lobbied the military to allow them to sleep in the same barracks as the opposite sex, why would homosexuals be allowed to sleep in barracks with their sexual partners?
What if openly gay men were told they could serve in units with women, and openly gay women were told they could serve with men – would that make any more or less sense?

]]>