I served in the Marines from 1952 to 1955. I distinctly remember the name of every homosexual draftee that I served with but have forgotten the names of those in my platoon who were lost in Korea. I remember how one homosexual visited my bunk one night after hours and how I told him where to go. My fellow Marines never let me forget this encounter. Disgusting!!! I wonder if there will be separate quarters for the homos if DADT is repealed.

I am entirely in Mark Alexander's camp with respect to his "Do Asl - Do Tell?" column, but his statement that 115,000 survey responses from a population of 400,000 ". . . does not constitute an authentic statistical study with a genuine margin of error" is completely off base. A population of 400,000 can be represented with a cofidence level of 95% and a confidence interval of 5% (standard accuracy for most social/psychological studies) with only 384 responses. In fact, with a population of 400,000, you could achieve a wildly-greater-than-necessary confidence level / interval of 99/3 with only 1,840 respondents.

Well written with excellent points to the CINC's obvious concern for public opinion over the welfarer of the country or the military. However, to draw the line at combat troops is virtually impossible, at least on the Army side of things. Support troops are intermingled on and off the battle field. Supply operations take the supplies to the combat troops - the combat troops don't come back and get them. Thus the edict that all troops are soldiers (combat) first and then specialist in their field - not the other way around. Soldiers are taught to trust anyone who wears the same uniform - we are all in this together - as squad, as a platoon, a company, a brigade, a division, as AN ARMY. To allow gays to openly serve in non-combat specialties would still creat a devisive, volitile issue for unit commanders.

I think this has been asked before but I don't recall anyone giving a legal review of it:

What will it mean to "repeal" DADT with regard to the applicable law prior to DADT? Will this only return us to the law prior to Section 654 U.S. Code Title 10? And wasn't that law more restrictive? What action forces a change to UCMJ?

This is a good article on a very difficult topic. Here are some thoughts.

First, there is a growing body of evidence, as far as I can tell, that says that homosexuality is biological, not cultural. In other words, any talk of character, morality, etc., may be off the mark. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then this removes morality from the discussion.

Second, DADT never made sense to me. It didn't prevent homosexuals from serving; it merely made them serve under what amounted to false pretenses -- false on both sides. Not a good precedent for commanders and commanded.

Third, the statistical arguements don't matter, nor do the preferences. The military is not a democracy. When commanders send men into combat, all involved know that some will die; there is no vote. What the statistical studies may show is the opinions of warfighters, which woudl presumably show the effect on enlistment rates and reenlistment rates of the new policy. I think we can look at the effect that President Truman's integration of the forces in the late 1940s had on the services for a bit of guidance. There were some difficult times, but the forces figured out how to make it work, to the point where the US military is the most color-blind institution in, maybe, the world. I wonder if the same will happen with the homosexual policy -- a poeriod of confusion fololowed by a genuine effort to make it work.

Fourth, I think Gates's concerns were more about the time the forces would have to implement the policy. His statements indicate that he would prefer a bit of time to plan and get things right rather than an overnight change.

All in all, it appears that we will have had homosexuals in the military and we will continue to have them. The discussion is over the terms of their service.

Although I agree with the basic premise of the article, I strongly object to one thing Mark wrote.

First, Mark is correct that allowing openly-homosexual people serve in uniform is a VERY bad idea. The purpose of the military is to win wars... period. Human biology, not bigotry, makes the administration's position untenable.

I also agree that the survey is methodologically flawed as well. I don't recall it crossing my desk (although it may have), and the percentage of respondents makes it mathematically unreliable anyway.

Where I strongly disagree with Mark is in his assertion that only "frontline combat forces" should be polled. That is nonsense on stilts, Sir. Perhaps he is unaware of how the military actually works, but anyone in uniform for more than 20 minutes could tell him that people switch between positions MANY TIMES over the course of their careers. The guy in the rear with the gear "in a National Guard Armory in Kansas" today may well have been in a fire-fight in the Korengal Valley six months ago. The Civil Affairs guys that take a disproportionate share of the casualties spend their time doing... Civil Affairs stuff. Of all the news and opinion venues I visit the Patriot Post is the last place I expect to find commentators being dismissive of the validity of the opinions of ALL military personnel.

Mark, those support guys whose opinions you want to ignore come under fire too - in ambushes, by IEDs, by indirect fire on their bases, etc. Here's a test for you. Army personnel who have been deployed to a combat zone are authorized to wear their unit patch on their right sleeve under the flag. Go to your local National Guard or Reserve armories when they're drilling and see how many right shoulders you find without combat patches. My guess is that you won't find very many.

Agree completely. However, would like to point out that members "...in a National Guard Armory in Kansas" have served honorably in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are many disqualifying traits for military service; overweight, criminal record, et al. Homosexuality is one of the others. That is not a capricious, "anti-gay" concept. Homosexuality as a lifestyle is unacceptable in the military role. Warfighting, as an occupation, has no parallel in any civilian endeavor. Period.

The primary reason for disqualification, if known, is that homosexual concepts and practices do not incite trust. The contrary is more accuarate. TRUST is an absolute in a warfighting unit. Without it there is hesitation, question, and therefore a loss of efficiency. I, and many others, have served with known homosexuals. They can survive in spaces that do not demand absolute trust. Combat aboard ship is not the same as battlefield trust in the infantry. Marines are infantry. A suspicion of such behavior immediately creates distrust. It cannot be tolerated. Mission effectiveness is reduced. Open homosexual behavior, as a military proactice, will destroy the effectiveness of all fighting units. It is not acceptable, and those that oppose it will not enlist. Is this, after all, the purpose of this Republic leadeship? To destroy the military? It does seem so, and the Republic, one step at a time.

Tell me about the bathroom situation. Tell me about the showers and the toilets. I know that men and women have separate facilities. Women wouldn't feel comfortable at the idea of walking around naked in front of a bunch of men. Regardless of whether the men made any sexually suggestive remarks, whistles or catcalls, it would definitely prove to be damaging to the morale of the women serving in our armed forces.

Take the same argument and add homosexuals to the problem. Straight men would be required to shower and perform other bathroom functions in the presense of men who might be sexually interested in them. Imagine if you were a straight heterosexual man taking a shower and looked over to see another man pleasuring himself while apparently looking at your naked soapcovered body. No, they're going to have to have three bathrooms at the very least for this to have any possibility of working.

Aside from "Dont ask , dont tell", my recollection is the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) contains a provision that sodomy is a violation of this code and is punishable by the appropriate military justice action.

Why not just do away with separate showers and sleeping quarters for everyone? That would only be fair to some horney heterosexuals.

Barry,

The "growing body of evidence...that says that homosexuality is biological, not cultural" is like the growing body of evidence that the planet is warming - "beyond debate" for those who know they'd lose the debate.

Search Mark's archives for the best discussions of this question.

I was one of the 114,000 who responded to this ridiculous survey. As reported by some, it didn't truly ask what we thought about DADT being lifted but what open homosexuality would do to our participation in life on an installation, a family support group, etc. Any conclusions that this surveys represents any REAL sentiments of those that it would affect is ridiculous. My husband just cam off active duty. I have three sons who serve and one who is joining this Spring. The quote by Washington sums my comments on my survey: I don't want to live next a homosexual couple anymore than I want to live next to an adulterer or a fornicator. It is a moral issue and an affront to all those who serve that are faithful to judeo-christian principles!

A quick comment in response to "First, there is a growing body of evidence, as far as I can tell, that says that homosexuality is biological, not cultural." I just don't agree that it is biological, and I feel quite qualified to speak because my older sister was gay "most" of her life, but not all of it. As far as I'm concerned, it is a choice. A choice that might be made earlier in life, or later in life, but it is still a choice. To say, "I was born that way" removes all PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your actions, and that is crap. So a murderer, an adulterer, a child molester, a rapist, they all just get to say 'I was born that way' and remove their responsibility? Nope, I don't think so. I also agree strongly with Jack's point of view on the bathroom, shower, and sleeping issue. Women do not want to shower or go to the bathroom with men mostly because of the sexual nature of the situation, we do not want to sleep in the same quarters as men, so having a lesbian woman sleeping next to me and showering with me is the same as having a man in that position. Same goes for males and gay men. I think what the repeal of DADT is trying to do is normalize abnormal behavior, and if we continue down the path of normalizing every abhorrent behavior, where do you think this road will end?

Another great essay from Mark Alexander. I pass them along and I re-read them from time to time while enjoying a cup of tea on the porch in the warmer weather or with a cup of cappuchino in my rocking chair by the fireplace.

Every Amercian Constitutionalist should read, study, and inwardly digest them.

Thank you for writing them. It helps one keep the faith in our Republic.

I think we should require every member of Congress to take a very long, very detailed test on our governmental history...from the beginning. Probably no more than 10 would be able to tell you what George Washington was engaged in at age 17. What a sad excuse for a government we have these days...pray for the America we used to have.

I don't believe there is one smidgen of homosexuality that is "natural". Homo Sapiens are the only creatures on earth that practice this obomination. It is not to be found anywhere else in nature, so how can it be "natural"? Nature is the root word of "natural" so logically if homosexuality is natural then you should find it everywhere in nature. I served in the US Navy in the 60's, and can tell you that homosexuality on board ship is an EXTREMELY bad idea. I dare say, there will be an increase in the "man overboard" drills. Or should that be "person overboard"?

"By way of defining the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) debate, let me say that it is not about the sexual habits of consenting adults. This debate is about making the normalization of homosexuality a matter of law in regard to Defense Department personnel, practices and policy."

This is exactly right and we need to realize that and stop all this political correct garbage. We always allow the left to define the terms and and frame the arguments (i.e., abortion is not murder - it is "choice;" homosexuality isn't sin - it is an alternative sexual orientation).

Biological? Google "born gay hoax"

The supposed "growing body of evidence" that homosexuality is a biological issue rather than a moral issue is hogwash! The "studies" that are sited when making this assertion are extremely flawed. The true test of any scientific study is whether or not it can be replicated. The "studies" that supposedly "prove" that homosexuality is biological CANNOT and HAVE NEVER been replicated, which proves they are flawed. In fact, the studies were, for the most part, conducted by homosexuals seeking to "prove" that they are "normal," and they threw out any results they didn't like. Do a little research, and you'll find I'm speaking the truth.

Janet: Romans 1:18-32

I'd just like to say I was in the Texas Army National Guard for 6 years. I did 2 deployments to Iraq as 11b, It was just as dangerous as active duty units and lasted just as long, 18 months the first time 13 months the second. In fact it may have been more dangerous than active duty deployment since we actually left the wire unlike all the active duty support units that sat around post collecting a check.

Having spent 22 years on active duty and the last eight years in Public Health Preventive Medicine

and having taught at the Academy of Health Sciences

Preventive medicine Division Ft Sam Houston

I wonder where is the argument against Homosexuality

based on the Public Health Disaster these sorts of activities engender. The reason such behavior was

and in some places still is illegal is because of the myrid of preventable diseases caused by sodomy and fallacio including Aids, several strains of syphillis. Pennicillainaise prodicing Niceria Ghonorrhea, deadly forms of Hepatitus and incurable TB?

Do Ask, Do Tell?

The only legitimate DADT survey is...

I am an evangelical Christian and former 20-year Army Veteran (Combat Arms-Scout, Operation Iraqi Freedom). I don't have a problem with gays serving openly in the military. Their sins are no worse than my sins. Why do we continue to treat homosexuals as lepers?

I think the current discussion overlooks the central points.

1) "Don't ask, don't tell" implicitly has other-sexual orientation folks agree that "sexual-orientation" is not the highest priority for folks serving in the military.

Hence I think third-parties who are "outing" other-sex folks should be legally restrained.

2) Legalization of the right to serve in the armed forces would force the services to conform to every political correct flavor of the month, now and in the future.

Both of the above hurt our ability to fight

I was looking for the unsubscribe button this morning, because of the homophobic and sanctimonious tone of Mark Alexander's letter in my in-basket. But I dallied, since I am usually in agreement with the positions taken here.

Barry's comments are on the right track:

"In other words, any talk of character, morality, etc., may be off the mark. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then this removes morality from the discussion."

I would strengthen Barry's comments however, and state that regardless of the nature or nurture "truth" behind homosexuality, any talk of morality with regards to homosexual behavior is offensive and un-American.

Your defense of DADT as being "not about homosexuality" falls apart when viewed through the lens of a simple scenario: If I kiss my wife in the presence of my commander before I ship out, nobody is going to get their feathers ruffled. But if Lieutenant Sally kisses her partner Denise in the same situation, she is putting her career in jeopardy - so much for constitutional guarantees of Liberty and "Equal protection."

Mark, I think your comments were degrading and disgusting and I think you owe homosexuals an apology. You need to learn the difference between personal convictions and public policy in a free country.

You and your ilk: those who are homophobes, anti-choice, pro-prohibition, anti assisted suicide, etc., are the reasons why the GOP has been unable to win the public support needed to pass truly conservative fiscal legislation and to shrink the power and size of government.

You own your religious-based convictions, but they are your personal religious beliefs - regardless of how many people share them. In a land with religious freedom, your attempt to impose those beliefs on others, by supporting public policies restricting their Life, Liberty, or Pursuit of Happiness, is the truly immoral and disgusting position in this policy argument.

Sincerely,

David Rogers

Seattle, WA

Your comments are right on! Keep up the good work.

The bulk of this debate is taking place in quarters outside of the military and it is being promulgated by those who do not wear, nor have ever worn, the uniform. As a currently serving Army Reserve officer, I feel qaulified to provide a perspective that has not been brought forth. My disclaimer: gays have served, and continue to serve, honorably. Nobody is advocating a witch hunt to purge them from the military. The issue is about their being openly gay and there are a number of issues surrounding that.

First, what problem are we trying to solve by repealing DADT? Other than the obvious political issues, what military problem exists today that would be resolved by repealing DADT? Why are we concerned with the discharge of a few hunderd military personnel? If the nation had 1% unemployment, would we think it wise to spend billions and billions of dollars to employ that 1%? I think not. So why are we so concerned about less than 1% of the military population?

Second, allowing gays to serve openly will, not may, lead to them asking for special treatment and provisions. Every special interest group in our society has advocated for special rights or privileges. Why do we want to invite this on the military?

Third, many, many good people will be discharged, disciplined, or have their careers ended because of some perceived slight by a homosexual. We already see this with minorities and women because of the number of false discrimination claims that are made every year. Any person in leadership will be able to identify with this problem. If a woman or minority is disciplined or if they have earned a poor evaluation, many times the first response is to lodge a discrimination claim. Imagine a scenario where an openly gay soldier files a discrimination claim because his commander saw him at a gay rights parade and this soldier now perceives that he's the "victim" of some discriminatory action. Sound far off? Not in the least.

Fourth, military installations will be forced to hold gay rights parades or some other gay-friendly event. Gay rights organizations will try to force the military's hand on this, and they will be successful because we have to be "tolerant."

I'm sure there are other consequences of repealing DADT, but these are the ones that roll off the tip of my tongue. When I completed my DADT survey this summer, I was struck that not one question asked if I thought repealing DADT was a good idea, nor was I asked if I supported the repeal. I suspect that, had either of those questions been asked, the politicians would not be able to claim victory and turn an institution on its head.

By the way, the current discussion about relying on the opinions of the combat forces to repeal DADT is misguided. In the Army, anyway, all forces are combat forces. In the blink of an eye, a transportation soldier can become an infantryman. I understand the point of those making that argument but, again, those pundits have not served. In my opinion, the arguments in favor of keeping DADT should be framed around the four points above.

Editor's Reply:

I knew some of our readers would mistake my assertion about polling combat units as discounting the service of non-combat units. The point is not that service in non-combat units is not every bit as honorable, but the issue raised by SecDef Gates pertains to combat unit cohesion, and it is those units whose opinion matters most. In regard to the tens-of-thousands of combat veterans now back in CONUS, obviously I would not exclude their opinion, and should have made that more clear. Point well taken.

/salute

Gates was correct in linking open homosexuality to loss of unit cohesion. The military exists to fight wars and win them. Anything that detracts from that is bad, and choosing to engage in homosexual acts detracts from that. As Milret noted, trust is paramount and adding an unnecessary element of same-sex sexuality to the grim business of killing is a distraction. Distractions get our people killed. I've been to too many funerals to give a crap what Mr. Rogers thinks about what "ought" to be. Maybe it's all unfair (I don't particularly care), but there is simply no civilian counterpart to combat. Even police work doesn't qualify, as they do not live in close quarters far from home for extended periods of time with hostile strangers trying to kill them. Let the professionals do our jobs without turning the finest military in world history into a social experiment.

Let me be sensitive about how I say this... Actually, no. Do us all a favor boss and keep your social norming activities in house. Our combat units do not need to be social experiment labs. We got enough problems already. I am a career Marine officer with a lot of time in the Korengal Valley in eastern Afghanistan, and I can tell you my USA officer counterparts are of the same opinion. Semper Fidelis Patriots

Politics (my definition): A game of "look over here" while we rob you blind over there!

Jack: I love the discussion that your points bring up.

Current Military:

Men's locker rooms are for men; women's locker rooms are for women.

Post-DADT Repeal Military:

Confusion - Men's locker rooms are for men; women's locker rooms are for women

OR

Men's locker rooms are for men and sodomite women *raised eyebrow*; women's locker rooms are for women and sodomite men *raised eyebrow*. BUT WAIT...sodomite women would not be allowed to shower with other sodomite women nor sodomite men with sodomite men because that would be like having normal men and women showering together and lusting for each other. So can A sodomite man and A sodomite woman then shower together? That might be the safe alternative. But how many deviants might see an opportunity to proclaim to be a sodomite to indulge a heterosexual fantasy?

When the problem gets this complicated, you know sodomy isn't moral (among all the other excellent reasons presented above)!

Take a look at his blog on DADT.

Title: LEADERSHIP? DERELICTION OF DUTY? OR, INSANITY?

http://www.acoloneloftruth.blogspot.com

It was also reported on Fox News that the survey was sent mostly to those living in base housing, not those who would have to "share a bunk" in the barracks with gays. The response of 'combat' troops was mostly negative, especially the Marines.

I've read, with great disgust, the requirement of BHO to undermine the morals of my military. I say 'my' because I spent 22 years of my life protecting and defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Army. I've held various positions on active duty and in the Reserves. I know if 'gays' are allowed to serve freely, there will be many more beatings, murders, and problems resulting from soldiers retaliating against them. To bring this on the military while we are fighting a war on two major fronts and the sad shape we're in is going to cause the military to implode. Of coure, this could be what this SOB is trying to do. As a friend commented to me, the military draws it's supply of blood from it's own soldiers. This means if 'gays' are allowed to serve and allowed to donate blood, the supply will be tainted. How about that for another problem for our leaders to think about? Additionally, if 'gays' come down with an AIDS, they are automatically undeployable. And, because this is a service related disability, we, as taxpayers, will have to pay for their medical bills during his term of service and after he is discharged. This is another item leaders will have to deal with.

As a veteran of the USN Submarine Service, where quarters a pretty damn close for extended periods of time, I can tell you, openly gay servicemembers will present problems.

Bill Scott and Rob Risko make valid points. How are the heads (shower and toilet facilities for you civies) to be divied up? The largest vessel in our submarine fleet is the Ohio (or Trident) Class balistic missile boat. There is the Officers head (15), the Chiefs head (12-15), and only two heads for the remaining crew, which numbers roughly 125-130 enlisted crew.

Now that the Navy has seen fit to allow women to serve aboard subs, my guess is one of those will have to become the women's head. Do we divvy up the facilities further to account for the gay community? Or do we just not take into consideration the idea that some men and women do not care to be ogled by gay members of their own sex?

Maybe Bill and Rob are right. Men or woman, gay or straight, doesn't matter. Mix 'em all up, everyone uses the same facilities, and let the sexual harassment chips fall where they may. Great,... that'll sure help accomplish the mission.

"A good moral character is the first essential in a man..." --- George Washington

At the time when General George Washington needed EVERY MAN he could find to fight the British, he ousted sodomites when they were found.

An example:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin28 of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief (George Washington) approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

I am a veteran and though I am also a christian and do not believe in gay/homosexual activity coupled with the belief that God says it is wrong. I do have to say that in my squad when in combat, the gay individual fought just as hard and courageous as the non-gay. We all suffered injuries without any hesitation in the exhibition of our duties. Any single individual in my squad was willing to lay down their lives for our cause. "The cause of freedom". It is our job as christians to share about God and His love for us, but it is the individual who must face Him in the end. They(Gay/homosexual)'s are not the enemy, but rather they are our target to share God's love. After all, He gave us free will and the responsibility of that free will is judged by only Him.

I agree with your conclusion about the invalid statistics, but not because of the number of respondents. In order to get a valid sample you must do a random sample of the population, not a biased sample of those who responded. The population that answered was biased because those who oppose the president have reason not to answer the survey.

I started to take the survey on line but backed out when I read the details of how they might not keep my input anomyous. Its like voting against unionization with a union boss looking over your shoulder. The bias was built into the study.

In fact, the study was not designed to find the views of the population and each instance spoke only to the views of those that responded.

So you are absolutely correct, the statements in the media suggesting the study accurately represents the views of the military are factually challenged.

Editor,

By stating my opinions, I am shutting off debate? Kettle, meet Pot. Since I said your stance on the morality of homosexual behavior was immoral and un-American, you are going to "take your toys and go home?"

Do you think your proselytizing on the immorality of homosexuality serves other than to "preclude discussing this issue consequentially."

You made many other points in your article which I agree with or have sympathy for, however I think you have stepped over a moral line with the one point I have challenged.

And with regards to your "homosexual advocate" label, you are wrong. I do not advocate homosexuality. I do, however, advocate adherence to the teachings of the founder of my religion, our country's founding principles and to our Constitution - this is something I believe we share.

Sincerely,

David Rogers

"By no means am I suggesting that Uniformed Service in a National Guard Armory in Kansas is any less honorable than serving in the Korengal Valley in eastern Afghanistan, but it is much less dangerous."

You feel that the National Guard of today is the same as it was during Vietnam? Negative, ghost rider. The National Guard deploys as much, if not more than Regular Army. My LAST deployment to Iraq had an AVERAGE soldier on his second tour, nearly all with the National Guard, doing the most dangerous job in Iraq (route clearance...going out, looking for, finding and destroying IEDs and those putting them in). We were replaced by an active duty Regular Army unit out of Ft. Carson, CO. Most of them were "slick sleeves" (no combat patch, 1st tour). And about half of those that went with me and returned in Mar 09 have completed ANOTHER tour since then, are involved in one or are preparing to deploy. Its not the fat guy in camo drinking beer and grilling burgers National Guard anymore. I found the above quoted statement to be offensive. We don't "play Army". We aren't "weekend warriors". We're Soldiers. And we're better at it than most that do it all the time.

Gays in the military (and women in combat rolls, which I'm sure is coming up soon) should be left for US to decide. You silly-villians who have never had these kinds of bonds will never understand the need for cohesion and trust. If you want to make decisions that will alter the way we do business, fine. Pick up a rifle and a demo bag and join us then. PT is at 0630.

Okay! Can o' worms time, folks!

How about this: We are all God's creations, and God does not create without a purpose. Since God would never create a person for the sole purpose of stoking the hellfires, it seems pretty foolish to think of homosexual people as cordwood.

Thus, there is a choice involved in homosexuality. It is not, however, to BE gay — it is to ACT gay.

My firm belief is that gay people have a purpose ordained by God that requires the predilections chracteristic of being gay. However, since God has set His statute - as recorded in Scripture - against sodomy and the other sexual immoralities that spring from the homophilic/homo-erotic predisposition, there must be some purpose that these children of God are to fulfill that falls within His mandate.

That purpose, I believe, is to be examples of quiet self-sacrifice to the self-assured, sanctimonious, and prideful among men who think themselves specially blessed because they belong to a church, because they have served in a war, because they were born to a privileged world of contemptful lordlings, or some other laurel they wear as proof that they are somehow better than the lowly order of social pariahs and whipping boys. By turning from the base desires to satisfy the flesh or inflame the soul with immorality, gay people can be exemplars to the falsely upright who privately indulge themselves while believing themeselves secure as a result of their public service. As God spoke through His prophet, Ezekiel (33:13-16), the righteousness of the righteous shall not save him from committing a wicked act - and the wickedness of the wicked shall be forgotten if he turns from his wickedness and does that which is righteous in the eyes of The Lord

In a nutshell (and I know you were all wondering when - or if - I would sum up) - hate the sin, not the sinner; God's will prevails.

I thank you all for your patience.

I could not agree more wholeheartedly with Mr. Alexander's comments on Obama's DADT attempt at demoralizing our military just to put a feather is his political cap..... Surprised at Gates comments.. If that is where he is then TAMU is well rid of him.

Regarding the statistical confidence of the survey, it is indeed highly statistically relevant. 115,000 respondents out of 400,000 sampled gives a margin of error of +/- .32 percentage points, at 99% confidence. Because 285,000 didn't respond doesn't necessarily mean the poll could be significantly swayed one way or the other if they were to respond. In order to truly assess that, one would need to know the sample population that was selected. Assuming the population sampled was representative of all services and all branches of service, we assume this sample population is representative of the entire population. The Nielsen ratings have this selection process down to a science. They can sample less than 5000 people in the US, and be surprisingly accurate in assessing the country in total, because they are so good in defining their sample population. Given that 400,000 were polled in this particular survey indicates to me less precision in the sample population selection, but no less accuracy in assessing the overall population, merely due to the sheer percentage of the total population sampled.

Cheers!

Everybody with a brain knows the proclivity of liberals to slant, lie, fabricate, or pervert information. I seem to racall an article somewhere, decades ago that Alexander the Great was homo- or bisexual. Nobody can dispute his combat abilities. I would say that, should this law be repealed, rules governing fraternization in the UMCJ be strictly enforced, on both hetero-and homosexuals.

If gays join just to expand the availability of potential "partners", they sahould be able to be excluded. Love the unit patch. Perhaps we could hvae combat units comprised of gays and/or lesbians

I may have offended the cross-dressing, trans-gender and bi-sexual communities by not inicluding them in my closing sentence. I can only imagine a front line unit comprised of cross dressers in all their finery and cosmetological abberations. That could easily scare the sxxx out of any enemy, and make them swear off any drugs or other mind altering substances of which they might partake to enhance their own ferocity. The Germans used to call Scots infantrymen the "ladies from Hell" due to their ferocity, and being uniformed in kilts.

Random thoughts from an active duty warrant officer (PG-13 WARNING):

1. Repealing DADT would deprive new privates their 'out' when they have buyer's remorse from enlisting. "Uh, Drill Sergeant, I'm uh, well, I'm homosexual..." stammer, cough. "that's it, you're outta here." ... "Whew, that was easier than faking suicide..."

2. From what I've seen, I agree with Mark's assessment: rear echelon homosexuality has much less negative impact - the real survey should happen with combat elements. They can't afford distractions. And no, I'm not gay.

3. How is it possible that oral sex is banned in the military (between husband and wife or any other combination), but being gay is out on the table for discussion? As G.W. would say, "Only in Amer-ca."

Dave, as an active duty warrant you're well aware that today's "REMF" is tomorrow's battlefield casualty, so I don't understand your assertion that "the real survey should happen with combat elements." I've been in support and combat billets at various times in my career, as you probably have yourself. I did have to laugh at your first comment though.

Brehon, you're correct: Alexander was bisexual and one of the five greatest military leaders in history. The ancient world was a very different place than ours though, and was more akin to what we see among Muslim armies today - "Men are for pleasure - women are for breeding." (Google the term "Man Love Thursday" to see what I mean.)

Stats guy, the problem with the accuracy of the poll is not the numbers in absolute terms, but the methodology of the poll itself. The sample probably was not representative and the questions were worded poorly. You mentioned Nielsen, but since you're a stats guy I'm sure you know about the infamous Literary Digest poll in the 1936 presidential election. They distributed 10 MILLION polling forms and received nearly 2.5 million back. Based on their giant sample they confidently predicted a landslide victory for Alf Landon over Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The Gallup organization polled only 3000 people and correctly predicted a win for FDR. The difference? Gallup's poll was statistically meaningful while the Literary Digest poll, although HUGE, was not.

What happens when through strategic transfers of personnel, a military unit becomes dominated by homosexual officers and noncoms? What does that straight PFC, Seaman, or Airman do when commanded to perform some perverted activity? This whole proposition (repeal of DADT) stinks and is designed to cause the disruption of our professional military through mass resignations. The Left has been looking for a way to defeat us without firing a shot and here it is!

Let me make this short and sweet. Opening the Armed Forces to homosexuals is providing them with an unlimited fresh meat locker. I am basing this on30 years of military service and three wars.

C. E. Busenlehner

USN, (ret)

navybus1@aol.com

Rob Risko,

Romans 1: 18-32,

You are absolutely correct. The Word of God that liveth and abideth "FOREVER."

I reckon that it is hard for this generation to think about the "Wrath of God". We've had so many false interpretations of who God is, this foolish notion of a "smushy, lovey-dovey image of God" has clouded our reasoning.

God Almighty is the God of Truth. He is the Creator, and "if you do this, He'll do that". The Romans passage is hated by the wicked because it says this, "Wherefore GOD also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves." The wicked DECIDE what they will do, God, because He is the CREATOR, has the prerogative, "To give them up to their own wickedness." It is His act of JUDGMENT - "For This cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."

So the Truth is this, "God rules and reigns in the affairs of men", "Be sure your sins will find you out." As George Washington declared, "A good moral character is the first essential in a man..." --George Washington. Soldiers represent their Country, we must not send out those who are "ripe for judgment" because they left the "first essential in man, a good moral character." And by the way, jeopardize the lives of good, moral men who "hazard their lives" for this Christian Nation in our Valiant Military.

I believe our Rulers are being "weighed in the balances", Will they be found "wanting"???? That, too, is shown in Scripture, Daniel 5 tells about the Ruler Belshazzar. He did not rule much longer.

"God does rule and reign in the affairs of men" B. Franklin. God established this Christian Nation (Supreme Court ruling, 1892) and we'd better keep it that way.

For God & Country

The American

I am a US Navy/Desert Storm Vet. It seems the powers to be continue to overlook the implications of their pending decision.

1. Homosexual behavior is still unacceptable behavior by the mass majority of the world. To that end, is makes these people high security risks in any capacity they serve. Cold war is not completely dead and espionage still rears its ugly head.

2. Homosexual behavior is a learned chosen lifestyle (sin), not an unchangable entity like gender, nationality, race.

3. Rights are given to all equally by our constitution and to say that they have a right to be in service because they are homosexual is extending them rights that rest of us do not have.

Lastly, if we will not longer be able to deny them service based on lifestyle, then we can no longer deny those who are handicapped or physically unfit to serve. We need people who are fit in all respects who are able to fight and defend. Many are called few are chosen. Military service is and has always been a privilege not a right!!

The central premise of this article is that homosexuality is immoral. If that premise is built on faulty logic, then this entire argument crumbles. Where is the evidence that homosexuality is immoral? In what way does homosexual orientation, a biologically static human trait that one does not choose, cause harm to others? All our gay servicemembers want is to not have to fear dishonorable discharge and loss of benefits because someone finds out about their orientation. If a man carries a picture of his partner instead of a wife on him and others ask about it, he should be able to respond, for example, "That's my partner," just as a heterosexual male might respond, "That's my wife, girlfriend, etc..." Equality, freedom, and liberty is the objective here. That and nothing more. The same rules that apply to heterosexual troops should apply to homosexual troops in the same way. To quote former GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, "You don't have to be straight to serve in the military; you just have to shoot straight."

Aubry Short how very sad for you. It is a sad day when you can't remember those that have fallen, but remember those that may have been gay. Sounds as though those that don't want it repealed are not so secure in thier own sexuality....

America signed on to God's Covenant and responsibility for observing His biblical code of law when our Founders asked for His assistance in establishing this nation. Our victories and other blessings depend upon God's blessings, not solely our soldiering. Why would a nation under God prevent God from blessing our troops in battle by allowing homosexuals in the military and especially on the battlefield?

let every soldger vote and see how they feel about having a gay body next to them? also (being in the guards doesnt make it as dangerous) if you check it out you will find that being in the national guards has put us right in the thick of things Iraq and Afganistan,2 and 3 tours a year at a time, where the regular army only does 6 months at a time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rob Risko---a paragraph of Your earlier post--------------------, "Men's locker rooms are for men and sodomite women *raised eyebrow*; women's locker rooms are for women and sodomite men *raised eyebrow*. BUT WAIT...sodomite women would not be allowed to shower with other sodomite women nor sodomite men with sodomite men because that would be like having normal men and women showering together and lusting for each other. So can A sodomite man and A sodomite woman then shower together? That might be the safe alternative. But how many deviants might see an opportunity to proclaim to be a sodomite to indulge a heterosexual fantasy?"-------------Reminds me of an early comedy routine of Ron White's of Blue Collar Tour-----------"you guys can back me up, once you've seen one woman naked, you want to see them all".

I have read the poll given to the services and can tell you without equivocation that it is fatally flawed to achieving its goal of finding out what it is that those in service desire re:DADT. There were NO questions that clearly asked: "Do you support the repeal of DADT?" Or others, similar, "Would you continue to serve if gays were allowed to openly serve alongside you?", "Will you re-enlist if DADT is repealed and homosexuals are placed in your unit?"

Dancing AROUND the question served no one well except those who formulated the questions in the first place. As ANY pollster knows: You can get exactly the results desired simply by how you frame the questions.

Anyone reading the distributed questionaire can easily see what the intended outcome of the "survey" was intended to be.

An after thought- How will our Muslim fundamentalist enemies decide to treat prisoners who "support" homosexuality by serving with them? Guilt by association? Remember, the penalty for being homosexual to the aforementioned is death.

The left, with media collusion, has framed the debate on the repeal of DADT carefully to avoid any serious discussion of the only issue that must be answered absolutely and truthfully before a decision can be made: will allowing homosexuals to practice sodomy and other sexual perversions enhance or interfere with our national defense. Being a service member is not a right, it is a privilege, a calling. The military must discriminate in order to defend our nation. One legged infantrymen perform poorly in combat. Other debate points: morality, genetics, patriotism, discrimination, etc, must be ignored, dismissed as irrelevant, until the effect on defense is answered with no remaining questions. Anything less can put Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines in immediate mortal jeopardy, and is inexcusable.

Only a naïve ignoramus would read the survey results as reported by the leftist mai- stream media and conclude that the debate is settled in favor of repeal of DADT. What few details has been revealed about the survey itself strongly suggests they asked the wrong questions, did not ask the right questions, asked vague and misleading questions while limiting responses to vague and misleading interpretations, did not permit the respondent to express their candid opinion and/or any combination of the above. Yet it seems incredulous that our military leaders should need to resort to polls among the ranks to make a decision. The polling method is a perversion to thousands of years of successful military decision methods. However, dare we wonder that polling is consistent with politics of the current administration and liberal leaders who are tossed about among the polls like a ship at sea in a storm and without a rudder?

Let’s not fail to recognize the real dangers:

Jeopardy to our national defense. While one act of sodomy is not a grave threat to our national security, the federal endorsement of homosexual conduct will have a tremendous impact upon our military services. Reasons for joining the military are many, but it is doubtful that the ability to engage in homosexual conduct ranks high. One of the attractions to military service has been the “finishing school” type effect upon young adults. Mom and dad are the strongest influencers upon those joining the military. Will mom or dad be so inclined when they consider their Johnny or Susie will have to learn to accept homosexual flirtations and open homosexual conduct among very intense and very intimate settings? Mom and dad have always been a tough sell for the recruiters, but the objection that their son or daughter would have to accept open homosexual conduct will be very tough for the recruiter to overcome. The US won the cold war in no small part due to the success of the all volunteer service. Volunteers are motivated from the start, while many conscripts have to be dragged kicking and screaming. No, our national defense will be jeopardized.

Jeopardy to states rights. Right now, every state has jurisdiction over same sex unions. When the federal government endorses same sex unions in the military, the states with military installations will be soon pressured to acknowledge their legal federal status, and pressured to cooperate with similar legal authorities. States without a military installation will have homosexuals from their state join the military, become united with a same sex partner, and will have to make legal concessions. Finally, as homosexual military couples depart from the military, with honorable discharges, or as retirees, they can settle into and pressure those states to accept homosexual unions. If DADT is repealed, state sovereignty will soon be in conflict with federal laws.

Jeopardy to the family. As the states acquiesce to federal acceptance of same sex couples, the traditional family will collapse. There has never been one credible study that demonstrates that the traditional family is not the very best environment in which to raise children. In fact, the entire history of the entire human race has demonstrated overwhelmingly that the traditional family is the very best method of raising the child. Exceptions do occur, of course, but the precedent value of the traditional family to the preservation of the society can not be questioned by anyone with a modicum of intelligence above the level moron. If any wish to cite science, simply consider the theory of evolution demands that homosexual behavior is a perversion to survival of the species.

Jeopardy to our society. As the family falls, the society will crumble. Without the traditional family, the society soon will become populated by egotistical, self centered pleasure and power seekers. Today’s news reports lots of results of the adverse consequences of persons who consider they should be free to do as they please without regard to the rights of others. But that is the exception, and that is why it is still news. As the society devolves into Sodom, that will be the norm, and the exception will be the few who are self sacrificing. Do we need to be reminded of the self sacrifice demanded by military members?

Jeopardy to freedom and future of mankind itself. It is the epitome of irony to assert that accepting open homosexuality is consistent with freedom. There is no freedom if there is no law. When the society devolves into Sodom and Gomorrah, the ten remaining righteous will flee (Genesis 18), and the rest will consume their selves. Anarchy and freedom are not the same thing. Furthermore there are only two possible resolutions to anarchy: rule by overwhelming force, or annihilation by self emulation. Neither is freedom.

The likely outcome would be very similar to Europe in the middle ages. The vast majority in abject poverty and oppression with no realistic hope of anything better for themselves or their progeny, while a very few elite and powerful routinely enjoy extraordinary privileges and fight between themselves using the blood of those they oppress.

If DADT is repealed, be afraid – be very afraid. Of those who advocate the repeal of DADT, consider them as fools and pawns, or traitors to freedom.

Let me tell you a story about a Security and Intelligence (S-2) Officer in an Armored Calvary Squadron, early to mid 1990's. Not only was I put in a very uncomfortable situation, I also had to "fight" to keep "professionalism" while interviewing a young Sergeant (E-5) who had to get his Security Clearance revoked. The fact I was revoking his Clearance was not the issue, it was the reason I had to revoke his clearance that made me want to "redecorate" my office with his head. He had used his position as a leader to perform unnatural sex acts with Soldiers that worked for him. He not only betrayed any trust his Soldiers had for him but any trust they might have had to the Leadership within the Military. That undermines any and all Moral and Discipline the Unit had. That was just one situation in "Peace time" I can easily see where other situations could arise in Combat that would put not only peoples lives at stake but compromise the Units Mission. When you have three to five Soldiers out on a "Recon" things are dangerous enough without those Soldiers trying to second guess another’s actions or worse because of sexual orientation. I do not want to be put in that situation and I do not want any Soldier put in that situation. That is why homosexuals in the Military is a very Bad idea.

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT A HOMOSEXUAL WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE A "SEXUAL ORIENTATION"- CAN NOT SHOW WHERE OR HOW THAT PERSON GOT HIS/HER "ORIENTATION"! THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE WITH VARIOUS ORIENTATIONS, AND MANY OF THESE "ORIENTATIONS"(DESIRES) ARE AGAINST OUR LAWS!

SOME HAVE THE DESIRE TO ROB BANKS,MOLEST CHILDREN,HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS,OR MARRY A FAMILY MEMBER, AND WE DISCRIMINATE AND SAY, "NO,OUR SOCIETY DOESN'T ALLOW THAT!"

BUT THE HOMOSEXUALS (A 2 OR 3% OF OUR POPULATION) HAVE PUSHED AND CLAMORED FOR OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR DISGUSTING, DISEASE SPREADING SEXUAL ACTS-TO THE POINT THAT OUR MAJOR LEADERS, COURTS, AND NOW OUR ELITE MILITARY ACTUALLY BELIEVE AND ACCEPT THESE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS!

BILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT ON THE ATTEMPTS TO CURE, OR AT LEAST SLOW DOWN THE AIDS HOLOCAUST.

TELL THE TRUTH- SODOMY IS WHAT IT IS- AN UN-NATURAL SEXUAL ACT AND A SIN!

I was in the military. I hung a poster of a scantly cald female and the bosses made me take it down, even though I was in an all-male combat unit. Does this mean you can serve gay openly, but have to hide the fact that you're straight?

I think it should go back to the way it was in the 40s. I am not against homosexuality, but it breeds an atmosphere of distrust, and distrust cannot show its ugly face in a combat zone.

Mark,

We are on the same page. Strong national defense requires descriminating selection process, a process the Joint Chiefs of Staff ar required to use. Congress has decided the need to elevate any politically dificult decision to the Judicial Branch of Government. Real men are not politically correct. Where are they today? Where is their voice? What motivates their intrest in the restoration of America. We must all contribute in our NATION.We should visit our Congressmen and hand write letters to them. 85% of strong national defense is in preception.....We must correct this weakness once and for all, remembering we are a Judeo-Christian Nation.

Lets see how many more deaths from friendly fire occur. BHO brought this on the left. It's time for live target practice!

MAJ USA Ret got it just right. The objective of the Left conforms explicitly with what Marx and Engels detailed in the Communist Manifesto; to destroy "bourgeois" morality and ethos, then to build the "Socialist Workers Paradise" upon its ashes. They have spent decades, accelerating in the 1960's, embarked upon a strategy to corrupt and co-opt our core institutions of marriage, family, schools, courts and militia. Other commentators have already quoted Vladimir Lenin on this classic Communist strategy.

Obama and his sycophants (major media reporters, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, et al) are clearly Communist and/or anti-American at their core. His childhood mentor was Frank Davis, a card-carrying Communist, and he openly expressed admiration for the Communist cause throughout his career. Today he is simply following the Saul Alinsky strategy of how to overturn a democratic republic and replace it with a Communist society.

Patriotic Americans have abandoned the modern Democrat Party leaving only Socialists and Communists in their wake who have as their objective destruction of our free society; replacing it with their delusion of paradise on Earth. They are attacking our military with their social engineering since it is a core bastion of the bourgeois ethos. They have already taken over our universities and major protestant seminaries.

It is an evil philosophy perpetrated for the benefit of the Evil One and his followers. Only they will profit from its implementation. The masses will live in misery while the Marxists enjoy unparalleled luxury at their dachas in the countryside. Algore makes millions from his carbon offset business; riding around the world in his private jet while extolling the rest of us to ride bicycles to work.

None of this is new. Read Paul's Letter to the Romans. We will suffer their same fate. The Holy Bible makes their strategy clear; corrupt the shepherd and the sheep will follow. And, all the while they will make the most glorious promises of idyllic society to people hungry for better lives; like "ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing," "Judas Goats" leading us all willingly to our own destruction.

I have spent the last 30 years living and working part-time in SE Asia and I know the shattered lives left in the wake of a Marxist-Socialist-Communist-Fascist victory. I have heard all the false promises and sophisticated propaganda that allow such a victory to happen. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Guevara, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Ortega, Chavez, Obama; the stories of human misery left in their wakes differ only in degrees, not kind.

The 2008 Obama campaign, with all its messianic overtones, recalled Hitler in his prime. Hopefully, the American people are now waking up to the scam perpetrated upon their body politic and it won't take too long beyond 2012 to undo all the damage done. I am reminded today so much of 1979; Carter's "malaise" and dark, depressing movies like "Taxi Driver" and "Apocalypse Now.;" the 55-mph speed limit, cold homes in winter and cardigan sweaters. God help us all!