I would, however, like to clear something up that seems to be a common misconception about gays and the military: They’re not as you put it “brought up on charges, career – ruined”. It’s an administrative discharge and unless also tied to something else (fraternization, poor performance, crimes, drugs, etc.) rarely leaves a black mark. Which is not to say being discharged for homosexuality is a non-event, and I certainly don’t wish it upon even an enemy. But it’s hardly a life-destroying calamity.

On the other hand, the examples you bring up of “fornicating, or commiting adultry” actually are punishable under the UCMJ, and it happens often.

One’s “disposition” does NOT disqualify one’s “ability,” not because of any answer GPC has given, but because to make such a statement is totally incoherent. It simply does not make any sense. It’s an abuse of language. It’s a categorical mistake. It’s beyond illogical, it’s incohate. It’s unintelligible. You can’t get there from there. “Dispositions” and “abilities” don’t cross each other’s path. Can I make it any more clear? Isn’t it patently obvious one has nothing to do with the other?

And that is why GPC’s efforts, while valiant in extremis, are self-defeating. All his arguments “concede” the unintelligible, the incoherent, the senseless, the abuse of language, the categorical mistake. If we can’t make plain sense among ourselves, how in the hell will we we make sense to others. All his issues deal with capacity; DADT is strictly ad hoc “dispostion,” specifically GLBT disposition. GPC has unwittingly accepted “their” playing field, which “they” just love, because they know no one can ever win with a conflation of two, wholly distinct categories.

Sometimes it’s really is better to speak in plain English and think intelligibly (yes, intelligently helps too). But the whole DADT works because it’s unintelligible. People whose fears need explanation are satisfied with such things. The last thing WE need to do is fall into the same hole. DADT works only because it is unintelligible and people will accept that if they need it. Don’t surrender coherence! Disposition and capability have absolutely nothing in common. DADT uses capability arguments to make the disposition incapatible. That doesn’t even begin to make any sense. Guess what, it seems to be working even here.

Some people may justifiably be disqualified for certain functions if they lack “capacity or ability.” NO ONE has made that claim about GLBT’s ability to function. Are you the first? The entire proDADT stems from “disposition.” It’s entirely a different category and order. Is “disposition” sufficient, let alone necessary, to disqualify GLBT from serving in the military? DADT pros say yes. The Constitution says, no. For heaven’s sake. You seem to have a grasp of other tangetial facets, but when it comes to the most basic conceptual aspects, I think you missed the point.

I didn’t sense those were, as you portrayed them to be, “hard lined military perspective” on why the US shouldn’t repeal DADTDH. They sound more like banter from a group of guys (military and ex-military) having a few beers at a poker game on Friday night –with all due respect. I think there are arguments you left off the list that are hard lined military and really would have pissed off the gay civil rights activists.

I’m still smiling at the notion of gay rights activists trying to raise the banner of 14th A as a rationale for repeal –the 14th A has been so widely discredited in modern Constitutional scholarship that to argue its relevancy to this question is pure wasted breath.

I’ll look forward to those arguments you think are valid in pressing for the repeal of DADTDH, but for me the best one to date was by Calarato in an earlier post: because it’s the morally correct thing to do. And I’d amend it with a predicate, that the military’s tradition of honor, duty, service is so rich that to continue DADTDH undercuts the tradition and, therefore, it’s morally imperiative to repeal.

And this from a guy who doesn’t think DADTDH should be repealed.

Actually there is.

You have X number of non combat area secretarial positions. You have Y number of combat secretarial positions (and keep in mind that the line between combat and non combat positions is blurring more and more with modern warfare).

What ends up happening is that you would fill up all the X positions with people who are incapable of serving in the Y positions, so that those who are deployable to the Y ones, are unable to get positions that aren’t in combat, because they are filled with people who can’t serve in combat ever.

This sort of happened years ago with the Navy, when women couldn’t serve on combat ships. At one point that trained women to be nukes (the nuclear power plants that make the ships go, not the bombs), but slated them as non combat. The problem was that all the sea duty ships were combat ships, so women could only fill shore positions. This made it difficult for the guys serving on ships to get shore duties, because the billets were filled with women.

They opted to stop training women as nukes. Then this changed once again in the 90′s, when they decided to allow women to serve in some combat roles, and now women are nukes, and serve on both combat ships and shore duties like the men do.

So, the reason disabled people are prohibited from serving is because they are limited to only one type of role, which means you have a large number of people who can’t be deployed to do the job the military is designed to do. A military is strongest when all members who do a specific job can be deployed everywhere.

Not to mention, the idea of women (or anyone else) being safely tucked behind enemy lines no longer applies. In Iraq many of the people who are killed are people in “non combat” jobs.

That’s alright. I’m waiting for the mini-series anyway.

National Security will be enhanced through a stronger Armed Forces and America will be safer by allowing openly homosexual members to serve because…
I’ve been asking you to stick to the point I’m making, but as you yourself suggest, “I know I sound like a broken record, but maybe repeating the obvious will sink in:”…clearly it’s not working for you. The issue is absolutely not equality (a concept by your own words you’re not even dedicated to yourself). As long as we think it is, and try to gain ground from there, we’re going to lose.

And to say things such as “The only possible answer is some people detest GLBT” is to completely abandon the first rule of having a fair and open discussion: An honest attempt to respect the other perspective. To suggest that the “only possible” way someone can be in disagreement with you is that they “detest” us will get you one thing: dismissed. How do we win an argument that way, Stephen?

I’m sure we all could come up with other examples, though, of people who are constitutionally ill-suited or unsuitable to any military service. But then they are ill-suited and unsuitable for ANY job. For example, a schizophrenic individual, paranoid delusional, or amnesiac (e.g., people with severe psychological issues) are a case in point. I can also imagine where some handicaps would make military service untenable, at the very least (such as quadrilateral amputees), but their disqualification for military purposes applies also to the civilian society, and both have to do with “function.” Inability to “function” is an obvious disqualification for any job, civilian or military.

So can we agree that some individuals are ill-suited and unsuitable for military service for the very same reasons they are ill-suited and unsuitable for ANY work? But don’t you see how you’ve shifted a petard into a meaningless objection? No one is proposing that the impossible or absurd be done, but once you “go” there, and start responding to untenable situations, you’re totally subservient to “their” scheme! You’re off message, because you let them make a categorical mistake, and what’s worse, you bought into it!

That’s my point. No one denies incapacity is a viable disqualification, but how does that insignificant fact apply to DADT? Denyng GLBT for being GLBT is not even in a parallel universe. GLBT is not a known handicap, either physically or mentally. Being GLBT, qua GLBT, does not in itself affect one’s ability to function (maybe in bed, but certainly nowhere else). So what does the one have to do with the other? Absolutely nothing. You’ve allowed a disposition vis-a-vis a function to be drawn in the same circle, but the one has nothing to do with the other.

It’s one thing to concede that certain functions require certain abilities, such as a fireman being able to climb tall ladders. Whether one sucks cock or dines out on Thursdays has absolutely nothing to do with one’s ability to climb ladders. If the function is x, but y cannot do x, then I’ll concede denying y the opportunity to do x. But if y can or cannot do u, v, w, z, what relevance is that to x? Nothing.

Having “gone there,” you’ve bought into their categorical mistake, and even though it’s an obvious non-sequituir, your already off message. What’s most annoying is that all of this is obvious, and yet some of us get sucked into these blind alleys. I know I sound like a broken record, but maybe repeating the obvious will sink in: The issue is equality, nothing else. Whatever dysfunction disqualifies A obviously disqualifies B, and if true in the military universe is likely true in the civilian one. But that isn’t even in question. Yet look how much space is devoted to an irrelevant consideration!

The only question is, Why aren’t GLBT allowed to serve militarily openly? The only possible answer is some people detest GLBT (and certainly for no other reason). A disposition has absolutely nothing to do with a person’s ability to function. They are wholly distinct and different categories. So the only possible answer is a majority’s prejudice against a minority who express themselves sexually different. Nothing about function is involved. It’s simply about dispositions, We heterosexuals don’t like them queers! So what does that have to do with anything? Heterosexuals are the majority, and we’ve decided to exclude the minority. Oh, so don’t you subscribe to our Constitution’s guarantee of equality and due process? Well . . . . ?

Yes, well indeed!

What CP is getting at, is that you have to frame your arguments in more than just that phrase, you have to show them why their position is wrong. I think this is what CP is leading up to in these various posts.

But talking past the other side isn’t going to do much to convince anyone of the rightness of your position, you need to consider the arguments the other side is making, and counter each point with an argument of your own.

For instance, the one on why disabled or old people are excluded-there are some very clear and reasonable arguments for why they shouldn’t be able to serve in the military, where the argument falls apart is applying it to homosexuals-especially given the fact that everyone knows there are homisexuals serving now in the military, and they are doing their jobs just fine. But just shouting “you’re wrong” isn’t going to make things better, you need to address why they are wrong.

How can private, consenual behavior that the Court says states can’t ban is still grounds for dismissal from the armed services?

Actually the military infringes on a lot of rights, and does have the right to infringe on private consensual behaviors (fraternization policies, adultery is also an offense that can get you dismissed from the service), the key is that these rules, many of which should be in the UCMJ, can easily be applied to homosexuals serving in the military, so that relationships outside of those perameters can be open.

I realize what GPC is trying to do, but the whole matter depends on one solitary issue: Equality.

This, and the 14th Amendment, is irrelevant: There is no right to join the military.

Unfortunately, the U. S. Supreme Court missed a chance to end the debate, as far as military service is concerned, when it failed to apply its decision in Lawrence vs Texas to the armed services. How can private, consenual behavior that the Court says states can’t ban is still grounds for dismissal from the armed services? Now that the Court has moved to the right, it’s doubtful the error will be corrected anytime soon.

Only Congress can repeal DADT and allow openly gay men and women to serve in the military. And as I commented in response to Part II of CP’s essay, even if the military brass were to request the change Congress is unlikely to do it in my lifetime — unless you can figure out a way to silence the American Taliban.

I look forward to the remaining installments of CP’s essay.

Daniel Patrick Moynahan once had a brilliant saying: “I can only explain it to you, I can’t understand it for you.”

I’m not saying I agree with it. I’m saying these are the facts. A good friend of mine recently told me that you have a choice sometimes: You can be right, or you can get what you want. If you continue to insist that we’re right, that’s great…we’ll be right. But meanwhile, the entire game is being played on a completely different field and we’re being left behind.

Be as right as you want, I’m saying. The rest of us are going to try to fix stuff. Come along, won’t you?