"The only people who care are retirees. No clue why."

I don't think so. Stories of anti-gay attacks/bullying in American high schools emerge on a regular basis. And its from these high schools that the soldiers, airmen et al of today and tomorrow are emerging. Now you may argue that the trend towards acceptance is well in place. But let's not delude ourselves that simply because the troops respond more or less obediently to external directives--vice internalized beliefs--in this matter as in all others, they are all in acceptance mode.

Remember--they don't spend much time promoting their "ideas" on these forums or elsewhere, so the absence of evidence...

It's too early--for me at least--to know what the eventual consequences will be. They may be significant--or not.

Just look at every poll taken on American attitudes toward the subject. it breaks down purely by age.

This is a country of over 300 million people. the occasional incident tells you nothing more than this is a really big country.

Well, OK, but your original point above is not nearly as as nuanced your observation that polls show higher rates of tolerance among young versus older people. You said, "the only people who care are retirees," i.e., old people. My point is, that's an over-generalization.

And like anything that is occurring essentially while we speak, we have no real perspective on how exactly it will develop.

of the population I'd place a great deal of money on the prediction that nothing will happen at all.

or we could like look at every other western military.

I get the impression that these retirees think some massive percentage of the population is homosexual...maybe the entire godless northeast or something. (nevermind the percentage of good old southern boys with a little twist....it wasn't very long ago that there was a certain GO at Bragg who was secretly a drag queen)

of the population I'd place a great deal of money on the prediction that nothing will happen at all.

or we could like look at every other western military.

I get the impression that these retirees think some massive percentage of the population is homosexual...maybe the entire godless northeast or something. (nevermind the percentage of good old southern boys with a little twist....it wasn't very long ago that there was a certain GO at Bragg who was secretly a drag queen)

I'm confused. What are the odds that homosexuals are a tiny proportion of the population, yet all this political noise was made over them, one of them became a GO at Bragg and you ran into a couple at Ikea the other day? How tiny is tiny?

is the standard figure in various studies (the 10% figure was long ago discredited...it essentially counted everyone who has ever had a same-sex experience...by that rationale it would seem like 50% of college-educated women are lesbians).

as for why a big deal was made, partially because gay folks are more affluent, educated and politically active than average; partially because folks like you make a big deal out of them.

I am writing a term paper on this topic and came across your post which was very helpful. Do you know where I can find more information about this?
birthday wishes

I would like to thank you for your nicely written post, its informative and your writing style encouraged me to read it till end. Thanks
funny jokes

I take it you meant to say LtGen Krulak hid his Jewish ancestry? He also falsified a document about a previous marriage as well. . .However, you have to admit, although Colonnello Frapollo comes off as somewhat wound-up tighter than Dick's hat band (unusual for a Marine aviator), he isn't hiding his opinion.

Yes, Krulak claimed to be Episcopalian. Even his children didn't know the full details for decades.

Details in "Brute" by Roger Coram

Walt

he served 45-60 years ago. there have been a few minor changes in the world since then.

Has human nature changed?

Did human nature change between Ancient Greece and today? Nah

I get very skeptical of any attempts to claim something as immutable human nature...historically, it almost always turns out to be someone's personal cultural prejudices.

why don't you try listening to those of us who are serving today? but you know better....got it.

The Spartans engaged in their fair share of homosexual initiation. Didn't really affect their fighting prowess. The "gay mafias" quip is laughable.

I believe the inclusion of a highly debatable (and dubious, not to mention self-serving) assertion by WILLIAM BURROUGHS (!) in this post is what's known as irony. That's enough to make Ginsberg "howl" all over again--but for altogether different reasons....

BWDIK? I just learned that religion and violence are evidently mutually exclusive. So I'm clearly new here.

I predict that someone in the next five minutes is headed out to (naked) lunch...

Are you cool with Spartan-like homosexual initiations in the US military as long as it doesn't affect fighting prowess?

Things sure have changed since I left in 2011, making my opinion outdated and irrelevant.

Look, when I have questions on CQB, I'll ask ESIII. When I have questions on homosexuality, I can refer to Burroughs. Or do you have a better vantage point?

frat house?

Thanks _B_ for you dire warning about the coming "gay mafias" in the Army! I'll be dropping my ETS packet asap!!!

Seriously, though, I served with lesbians as an enlisted MP and as a judge advocate and it was no big deal. The repeal of DADT so far has had zero impact so far as I can see...

I take it B that you never actually read William S. Burroughs and are just using a quote-mined statement. The guy was also a junkie with a flair for mixing genres at will.
I am sure if mugwumps start enlisting, his word can be taken more seriously on the subject of the military.

B you're a bigot and an ignorant one at that.

While people are blubbering about "what could happen if gays serve openly in the military" its already a reality for much of the developed world. Guess what, everything functioned BETTER since soldiers didn't feel the compulsion to lie about their personal lives in order to keep their jobs. Your hypothetical bullshit is trumped by experienced reality.

... is huge and really important, to start with names of places: Los Angeles, San Antonio, Santa Fe, San Francisco, San Diego... and to ontinue with the franciscan settling in California.

Can anyone tell me somethein about the influence of Spanish troops from La Florida in the war of independece? That was catholic help that no one rejected, I guess.

in our rush to judge the Know-Nothings we don't take context into account. A good parallel would be the Red Scare of the 20th century, which many Catholics gleefully took part in. People allow that the Red Scare was based on the fear of the very real Soviet Union, well what about the reach of the Hapsburgs or Bourbons?

I think much of this is to blame for the pervasive influence of Catholic Irish-Americans on American pop culture, before anyone else it was the Irish who made a cult of resentment for past victimization. And it wasn't just Anglo-Saxons, btw. My Palatine forebears came to this country, in the 18th century, with none too kind memories of the Catholic French monarch Louis XIV.

B has a point, there is a homosexual lobby vested in getting all the perks of a our identity politics spoils system. I'd be interested, however, to get his take about night clubs, strip clubs and prostitution around bases. If we were truly worried about stds, shouldn't those places be closed down or should "boys be allowed to be boys"?

I say this because mainstream "conservative" opposition to homosexuals in society is often the easy scapegoating found amongst people lacking in genuine introspection. I doubt most "conservatives" would advocate a return to Victorian era morals, or the more traditional peasant mores of our ancestors, despite what their detractors on the Left say. Thus one can't regard most mainstream conservatives as anything other than hypocrites who like the tacit freedoms accorded suburban heterosexuals in the post WW2 era. It's the same sort of easy hypocrisy one sees amongst the same sort of people who take their "earned" social security, medicare, or who take for granted government subsidizing the post WW2 suburban lifestyle and who would vote for a portly, white-haired gentleman who is a "big ideas" kind of guy.

Santorum is to be credited because the man is more consistent than most conservatives, opposing homosexual initiatives, but also opposing easy access to divorces. I suspect this is the influence of Catholicism which continues to be more intellectually consistent than Evangelicalism.

.. and by that I mean your headline "Catholic heritage in the USA", which seems to suggest that place names like Los Angeles and San Francisco were created in the USA. Los Angeles. to take one example, didn't become part of the USA until 1848.

The current commentary reminds us all that violent interdemnominational bigotry presents one of the best arguments against the idea that Christianity -- a faith devoted to worship of a deity known as the Prince of Peace -- is a real religion. European historians record that arguments about which brand of Christianity was the good stuff cost close to 100,000 died within a century of Martin Luther's posting his statement of principles in 1517. Catholics felt as feree to kill non-Catholics as the reverse. All the snottiness in recent years about Sunni-Shi'a differences in Araby have been wrong in suggesting that this is a peculiarity of Islam. Naah, just another example of how religion empowers nuts to kill under what they think of as God's direct and goodly command.

Two catholics were at the Constitutional Convention - Daniel Carroll from Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimons from Pennsylvania.

Was there really that much antipathy for them in his country at that time?

Walt

I'm not a conservative, I'm a neoreactionary. To me, Trotskyism starts left of Queen Victoria.

You can read my hate-filled ranting on military towns here: http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/03/profile_of_an_army_base_after_the_wars.

And yes, I believe that we would all be better served by a return to something like Victorian morality. Not that it would solve the strip joints etc., being that the whore is the soldier's female counterpart, but it would make things better.

I e-mailed Jpwrel's commet to a friend of mine.

He returns:

"This guy is carrying the same religious prejudices that he pretends to dismiss in the
final paragraph. By saying that "the Catholic Church used every device at
its disposal especially bloodshed to ‘cleanse the people of heresy", he is
just stirring the pot with a version of history from the anti=catholic
point of view.

Further, he isn't correct on his history. The Edict of Nantes recognized
Protestants rights to practice their religion; he has the cart before the
horse. He later states that "The founders of our nation the men we hold in
such venerable esteem today generally held the Catholic Church in contempt
", is just inaccurate. They riled against the Church of England and it's
control over the English government and had no real experience with the
Papacy.

So what is the purpose of his message? To be sure that " one must remember
the context of that Anglo-Saxon hostility to Catholicism whether in the new
world or old". In other words, they deserved it.

I find his whole message to be vitriolic and prejudicial as though it had
been written by a Suni about a Shia, however, with a mea culpa at the end
to make him feel better. Anti-Catholoicism apparently is alive and well
and being discussed openly in churches and newsprint in America. What a
shame."

Walt out

but more gay soldiers would, um, help that you know? they're not out hitting the strip clubs, making babies with illiterate 19-year-olds and so forth. far from it.

but, anyway, the only real solution I see for all that is one of the following, either:

A. make it regulatory policy that any SM under E-5 has to live in the barracks even if married (and they don't get BAH either); or,

B. do away with BAH/W and dependents' benefits (medical and so forth) for anyone under E-5.

remove the ability to get out of the barracks and you remove the incentive to get stupidly married. remove the benefits and you remove the young SM as cash cow. problem solved. it'll never happen.

B, agree with a reactionary or not, they are intellectually consistent and generally honest, and as my comments were more of a general, cultural nature, can't really add to that.

Walt,

First, ask your friend where all the French Protestants went. Why did so many leave France? Indeed, it reaffirms my point that anti-Catholicism in Colonial America wasn't just an Anglo-Saxon thing and was due in part to historical memories. Huguenots, some directly from France, many via England, the Netherlands or Germany, also settled in the colonies. I can't imagine they helped the cause of Holy Mother church in their new homes. Ask him also about the fate of the French settlers at Fort Coligny (Guanabara Confession of Faith) and Fort Caroline.

We are so far removed in time we forget how much power Catholic elites wielded in the Early Modern era. Auto-da-fe's happened as late as the 19th century, and in the New World. And the 19th century was really close in terms of historical memory to the 16th and 17th century religious wars.

I'd also suggest your friend re-read his Jefferson and Adams, while both were tolerant of religious freedom, neither had much good to say about Catholicism.

I think the problem with the treatment of Catholic immigrants, or any immigrants, as well as slavery, or any of our other sins, and roots of particularly harsh condemnation and self-flagellation is that the US has never lived up to its stated ideals. And, to be honest, a group of well-educated, idealistic men wrote our founding documents. Your average guy on the street didn't, and thus I'm not sure he should be held up to a higher standard than his counterparts in any other country.

I'm not arguing that Ancien Regime Catholic regimes were any worse than Protestant regimes or the revolutionary period that followed the collapse of said Catholic regimes. But this historical revisionism that downplays any and all wrongdoing of Catholic powers is dishonest, attributing it all to Anglo-Saxon Black legend stereotypes won't ignore historical facts.

if average guy on the street wraps himself in the mantle of American Exceptionalism and Messianism, then it is acceptable, if not necessary, to judge him on a harsher scale.

"I predict that within a decade, we will see the following pattern emerge: open homosexuality will become a predictor of career success, as those displaying it will be an untouchable protected class. Pretty quickly, "gay mafias" will form in some units. The hazing of new guys will take on a sexual context, going as far as rape in some cases (as it did in the Soviet and does in the Russian army.) If William Burroughs and others are right about human sexuality being fluid in most cases, a not insignificant number of servicemen will get "turned out" by their peers and superiors. Sexually transmitted diseases, both trivial (herpes) and serious (hep) are going to increase in prevalence among servicemembers."

This is easily one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. Somehow, the group that comprises about 10-12% of the general population will come to dominate the military by forming a “mafia.” Anyone who doesn’t pay protection money will “turned out” (slathered in baby oil and tickled to death? ) Have you been watching too much Oz?

"On this: Anti-Catholicism was a function of the history of the Protestant struggle for survival against the Church of Rome whom they considered as never friendly to the liberties of man. In fact, the Catholic Church used every device at its disposal especially bloodshed to ‘cleanse the people of heresy’. Not exactly an attitude to engender respect and tolerance among its victims."

You can’t look at religious bigotry in isolation apart from nationalism, economic competition, social conflict, etc. There certainly was a strong feeling of anti-Catholicism among English society, but to say that religion was the sole (or even primary) factor in the perennial wars between England and France/Spain would be a vast oversimplification. Religion certainly didn’t stop Protestant England from allying itself with Catholic Austria and Portugal, for example. The constant fighting between France and England had a LOT more to do with overseas colonies and influence in Europe than it did the fine points of theology or the evil, scheming Vatican. The Catholic Church certainly behaved brutally in its attempts to suppress Protestantism, but we could easily dig up examples of repression of Catholic populations as well. To quote Monty Python, let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who. The point is that the antipathy between England and France (and by extension the Colonies and Quebec) had more to do with nationalism/competition than religion. The fear of French armies might have found expression in anti-Catholic sentiment, but the former drove the latter, not vice versa. As to the idea that Catholicism implied hostility to “the Rights of Man”, there are multiple examples of Catholic states that were not absolute monarchies. The Italian republics, to start.

To bring the bickering about history back around, the point here is that all this old world back and forth should have had no place in the United States. We’re supposed to leave that behind when we hit Ellis Island, specifically because we want to avoid the Thirty Years War v2. That many of the Founders had anti-Catholic prejudices is not evidence that the danger of the Papal armies occupying Baltimore was legitimate. It’s just an example of the United States failing to live up to its ideals that all men are created equal. For most of our history, this has been glaringly obvious with respect to African Americans and women, and to a lesser extent, non-Protestants. Anti-Catholic feeling is almost completely gone…I mean, consider that the two Republican presidential candidates most favored by right wing evangelicals are Roman Catholics (Gingrich and Santorum). Hopefully, anti-homosexual prejudice will be just as thoroughly tossed on the ash heap of history.

"The anti-Irish feeling in this country had little to do with being Irish and everything to do with being Roman Catholic, the evidence for that is the Protestant Irish who fit into the culture of this country with ease and little notice. "

I think you're failing to take into account that the majority of Protestants in Ireland were of English or Scottish extraction and controlled most of the wealth and influence in the country, by virtue of physically displacing the native Gaelic population into the remote, poor corners of the island. Is it any surprise that the wealthier, professional class was able to more easily integrate into polite society than the impoverished tenant farmer? I’m not denying anti-Catholic sentiment by any means, but it’s tied into a larger question of social class and national identity that I think you’re ignoring.

WHISKEYPAPA, I inadvertently failed when mentioning the Edict of Nantes that I was referring to its ‘revocation’ – pardon me, my mistake.

Secondly, the experience of most of these men with Catholicism was basically from a historical inheritance and the experience of England with the Roman Catholic Church and its state champions. They were influenced by people such as John Locke and events such as the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and believed that Catholicism was not so much a theological threat as a threat to liberty.

Thirdly, then or now I don’t think Catholics deserved intolerance any more than Calvinists in France or Jews in Spain deserved it. But there is a historical context to all religious discrimination that needs to be understood. However, I suspect that some people are emotionally and intellectually incapable of discussing the issue.

Lastly, you are attempting to paint me as a religious bigot. Since you don’t know me or anything about me you are not in really in a position to judge. Your feeble attempt at character assassination insults yourself more than it does me.

I should clarify after the wall of text I vomited out that I wasn't accusing of any sort of bigotry.

Gay soldiers would not help that, as straight lower ranking guys would have yet another reason to flee the barracks into Fayetteville.

>This is easily one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. Somehow, the group that comprises about 10-12% of the general population will come to dominate the military by forming a “mafia.” Anyone who doesn’t pay protection money will “turned out” (slathered in baby oil and tickled to death? )

I know, privates getting raped is hilarious. I remember there was a gay gang rape in the tent city at a FOB in CS Iraq back in the dark days of DADT, and we all though it was just funny as all hell. I don't know if they tickled the victim or slathered him in baby oil, but it was sure a knee slapper of a caper!

Also, Italians form a small percentage of the total US population. The Chinese even less. So, obviously, La Cosa Nostra and the Triads stand no chance of dominating any neighborhood, right?

Do you really think that strawman is going to pass muster here? I never said that rape was funny, or even implied it. I was clearly mocking the idea of a gay "mafia". By your logic, I could just as easily claim that if we allow black soldiers to serve in the military and codify protection against discrimination, then clearly they'll band together to rape and pillage with impunity.

Just replace "gay" with any other group and you'll see how fantastic and hysterical what you're saying is.

PS There were gay (and straight, and white, and black, and Asian, and etc. etc. etc) rapes in the military since, well, forever. Even during the Victorian period.

Obviously, a gay mafia in a military unit is just as implausible as a hispanic or black mafia. Or a Sisterhood. It's not like it's in people's chimp nature to band together around a common identity in a mass situation and leverage their cohesiveness to seize informal power. Nor is gay rape a recurring scenario in militaries as diverse as that of Russia, Britain, Sparta, etc. You're totally right, just me being paranoid.

So if you acknowledge that a black or Hispanic "mafia" in the military is just as possible as a gay one, what do you think the answer is? Should we ban non-WASPS from serving? Why do you trust the chain of command and the IG to counteract the possibility of a black mafia and not a gay one? Both are, to use your phrase, "protected classes." As an aside, we're ALL a member of protected classes. It's not like rules against discrimination apply only to minorities.

And I never said gay rape would never occur. It will, just like heterosexual rape, and the perpetrators in both cases should be punished harshly. I just don't foresee an explosion/epidemic of it because of the repeal of DADT. If you have some data from say, the Canadian or UK military (those being probably the most culturally similar to the US), please do share.

Let's play thought experiment. PFC Jones is black. One night, dirtbag that he is, he drugs and rapes a female soldier after a night at the bar. PFC Jones is clearly a criminal and ought to be behind bars, but his crime doesn't reflect on every black service member in any way. The crime is rape; the fact that Jones is black is incidental.

Now, PFC Smith is gay. One night, he drugs and rapes a male soldier. PFC Smith is a criminal and belongs behind bars, but in your mind the issue here is somehow homosexuality, and not non-consensual sex. That's where I can't follow your logic, and you seem like you're just getting hysterical about ickiness.

Well, that's progress-you're at least admitting the possibility that even though a group is some small percentage of the country's population as a whole, its representatives can form a mafia within a unit provided there's a high enough local concentration with a couple in positions of power. The protected class thing, BTW, works in theory, but I have yet to see straight white males EVER get treated as a protected class. The theory is we're all special snowflakes, the reality is a class hierarchy.

Let's see if you can follow this: the issue here is not just straight up rape (PFC Jones rapes a girl at a bar, PFC Smith rapes a guy in the barracks-a red herring if I ever saw one.) The issue is that you're mixing people who are sexually attracted to each other in a hierarchical environment where discipline and sadism often merge into each other, where you can't get away from the group, where there is no outlet, where violence is the order of the day (why else have a military?) and where moral standards tend to shift or break down (in-group/out-group morality is basically unavoidable.) Add to this that most people outsource their morality to whoever is in power around them most of the time, and rely heavily on groupthink, and that this is encouraged in the military. What do you think is gonna happen, if not sexual predation and the turning out of straight soldiers?

BTW, I'm opposed to gender integration for similar reasons (among the many listed by ESIII,) but at least there it's mitigated by natural male protectiveness of females. I've even seen this go to such an extent that guys I know for sure were not rapists got crushed on a say-so allegation by females who later turned out to have histories of false rape allegations. Anyway, the vast majority of heterosexual fraternization is consensual; looking at diverse militaries across history and this evo psych study (http://tinyurl.com/2utyxay), I fear that this won't be the case for homosexual fraternization in a post DADT military.

The chain of command steers WAY clear of little mafias like this, as does the IG, and it will doubly do so with homosexual ones. They know which side their bread is buttered on. How the hell do you think CAPT Holly Graf made it to where she did?

_B_: Good job on the posts of 1:02 and 1:04, especially the 2nd paragraph of the 1:02 post.

Thanks, Carl.

Check out the linked study by Kirkpatrick above, who theorizes that the adaptive value of homosexuality lies in the propensity of its practitioners to form intra-group alliances with each other, presumably increasing access to resources within the group. If you had to summarize this in two words, they would be "gay mafia."

He looks at numerous cultures as well, and points out that the adaption of homosexual behavior is highly culturally driven, which jibes with what we know of prison.

But maybe I'm just a bigoted retard too immature and grossed out by the mechanics to accept the joys and wonders of acceptance and join all progressive humanity in rejoicing at the repeal of a nonsensical and wicked policy which was only adopted through the ignorance of our predecessors, who were much, much stupider than we are.

I can't prove that gay "mafias" aren't possible. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that a unit could have a disproportinate number of homosexuals, who decide to band together to harass, rape, and assault straight soldiers. I just don't think it's overly likely, certainly not likely enough to justify the exclusion of a whole class of people, and you haven't presented much in the way of evidence to suggest that it's likely.

You also dodged my comparison to racial/religious minorities. Let's take the component of sex out of the equation. It's equally possible that a unit could have a disproportionately black makeup, with black soldiers in key leadership positions. It's possible that they could band together to start beating and assaulting non-black soldiers. This kind of conspiracy depends on a bunch of unlikely scenarios, namely that all these random people happen to all be complete sociopaths. But, it's possible. Are you opposed to racial integration of the armed forces?

As to the scenario, I meant to imply that Jones had raped a female soldier in the barracks after drinking. I'm not sure where the red herring is here. But, I see you also oppose gender integration, so I suppose you're not inconsistent.

Let's also consider traditional mafias. Two points I'd raise here: first, ethnic mafias like the ones you cited tend to prey within their own ethnic groups and communities. In general, they do NOT start shooting up the streets of Mayberry. There are exceptions, of course, but that's a general trend. Second, mafias tend to form within marginalized groups that feel they can't appeal to the fair protection of the law. The original Cosa Nostra formed in Sicily precisely as an alternative system of protection in response to ultra corrupt occupying governments. My point in all this is that gay mafias are actually MORE likely to form when the gay population has diminished rights before the law, as they're forced to seek alternate forms of protection from the larger group.

And yes, I believe we are superior, both morally and intellectually, to our predecessors on this issue. I can't convince you of that, I'm sure, but I don't think history will be kind to DADT, any more than it looks favorably on racially segregated regiments.