BLOG: DADT Repeal Is Big Mistake

Bryan Dubois
Dec 22, 2010

This is, of course, only my opinion.

The Unites States Armed Forces exist for one purpose and one purpose only:  To wage and win wars.  Anything that runs counter to that objective lowers the effectiveness of the armed forces.  Allowing gays in the military won't necessarily harm a war effort, but having them serve openly in a combat unit would be just as detrimental as having women serve in a combat unit.  We don't allow that because mixing sexes provides an atmosphere of possible distractions that runs counter to the overall goal of creating unit cohesiveness. 

The military should not be part of some kind of social experiment, though it appears that some folks think they can tinker with the system because "it's the right thing to do" in their spectrum of social righteousness.  Their priorities run counter to the purpose of the armed forces.

Big mistake.

Again, just my opinion.

Other veterans, what say you?


Return of Dragon

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained racist or discriminatory remarks. Discussion Guidelines


 I am a US Marine "Once a Marine,Always a Marine". who served in the `70`s.  We had gay Marines in our unit and knew who they were. They were good Marines so nobody said anything. They didn`t "put the make" on anybody.  I served with Marines who cheated on their wives,beat their wives and girlfriends and were into some very kinky stuff.   BUT,they were good killers and that is what counts when the stuff hits the fan.  As far as having eachothers back,it goes both ways. If a gay Marine has my back,then I have his. Period!!!!   There are much more important things in war than someones sexual habits.  I would rather sit in a foxhole with a gay man for a week,in the rain and mud,with rounds flying over my head,knowing my back is covered,than to walk down the street with some of you commentors on here. I am not gay in any way and never have been attracted to men.  I am very secure in my manhood and am not afraid of being around a gay person.   As long as it isn`t a child or an animal,,I don`t care who anybody has sex with as long as they are good people.


I have mixed concerns about this.  I know of a few gay people involved in gay relationships and they are some of the best employees I ever had.  To me it is about performance and work ethic by EACH individual.  What they do in private is their business.  If their performance is stellar and they perform as expected, can shoot straight, fly like an insane ace and willing to die for this great nation, then I am for anyone.  This will be a wait and see thing.  I really do not see any open ticket for gays to "hit up" on others with impunity.  But, I could be wrong.  As a Christian, I do not agree with it.  As someone who worked with them or had them work for me, I could care less.  EVERYONE is responsible for themselves.  I am NOT of the liberal mindset that you have CONTROL over me or OWE me welfare, reparations, free housing, free health care, free food, free college, a job, unemployment benefits, a car, appliances or a lifetime membership in the freeloaders club.      


Its not a Social Experiment, Canada, Britain, and Isreal, all allow gays to openly serve. Its like ,been there done that, this is not a new thing.


I was in a combat unit that earned a Presidential Unit Commendation amoung other awards, that had both women and gay individuals (some were even both....).  Obviously the gays could not be "open and practicing" but we were adults and acted like adults. To think that if the person standing next to you being female or gay or both hampers your ability to do your job is....well kind of ignorant.

To ask someone to change or hide who they are so that other adults can feel more "comfortable" is kind of ignorant.

brutus smith

 Reagan played on people's worst fears. He unleashed people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to exploit the fears and use them politicly. People like bryan have picked up the torch and keep these fears alive. They actually can't see that their fears pushed on others has actually harmed our country to a point that we have now become a 3rd world country. That's what they do in 3rd world countries, promote and instill fear in people.

Captain Gutz

mjm writes "...if a hetero man cannot keep his mind off the possibility of sex with some woman in his unit, or the possibility of sex among other soldiers (men and women), then that hetero man is the problem and the one unfit for combat."

Hetero men will be unable to keep their minds off these things 100% of the time. How about all combat troops consisting of ONLY gays and women? Keep the heteros behind the lines in support roles.

brutus smith

 bryan can you document these instances in combat history where the actions of gays or women lead to our defeat?


Bryan I would comment, but are you a Veteran?

We know Smith6079 isn't.


Byran check these bloogers & see if they hold a DD-214.


(You did ask for Veterans comments).

Kinda like having an "educated" person give advice on how to raise a child; yet they a parentless.

6079 Smith W

@ kURT:

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only approximately 10% of the U.S. population are veterans. 

So how exactly does it make sense in your mind that Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Lady Gaga and others who are non-vets are expertly qualified to decide on DADT for the benefit of the military?

Reid tweets to Gaga - "We did it!":

Have a wonderful Christmas Pork Chop.

Lily Von Schtupp

Mr  Dubois:  I think you have been rightfully spanked for this biased blog based upon the number of posters who have served in the military and didn't give a rat's behind their fellow soldiers sexual proclivities.

In fact--me thinks thou dost protest too much........ 


Lily Von Schtupp

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained obscenity. Discussion Guidelines


 SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!  Well, unless of course they are different from us in any way.


No pretending


BTW:  Mr. Sandusky, which combat unit did you serve?  It wasn't a co-ed surface vessel, by chance was it?  I served on co-ed surface vessel too -- and one of the major events that happened on our ship during a Med deployment was a senior NCO getting court-martialed for running a heterosexual prostitution ring out of the ship's library closet.  I suppose your ship must've been much different than mine though, right?

I served on a nuclear powered carrier....we were part of a number of missions over Kosovo and Iraq and many times we had aircraft comeback with "less ordinance than they left with".  We did not have such things as prostitution rings.  I can only remember one person being punished for having a relationship with a junior person.  That was because these two were in the same division.  We had rules, no dating if you were in the same division, but otherwise it was ok as long as it was made known.  I believe that the same rules are in place at most other workplaces throughout the country.  

Maybe we were unique in the fact that we were a group of mature acting adults that were more focused on our mission and our jobs that if Mary Jane Rottencrotch down in the weapons magazine was wearing panties or not.


Also, under DADT you did not have to engage in sexual activity to get busted.  You just had to declare that you were a "practicing homosexual".  Using this loophole many people were able to "steal" taxpayer money.  See a first time re-enlistment bonus for nuclear qualified engineers, like myself, was around $30,000.  So what some guys would do is reenlist while we were in a hostile fire zone so the bonus was tax free.  Then a few months later they would go their chain of command and declare themselves "practicing homosexuals" or say that they "practiced last night at a friends apartment".  If they kept this story up they would be discharged and be able to keep their full bonus (some of the second term bonuses for nukes are up to $100,000 now).  So some guys and girls would abuse this loophole. 

All in all DADT was as effective as an screendoor on a submarine.


 DADT was terrible legislation. I'm glad it's gone. We lost way too many expensive to train linguists who suddenly became gay.

If someone is gay and serves with distinction and keeps their personal life in it's place, excellent. Their peers will respect them and they'll advance. It's pretty much how it is now.

If they are flamboyant and not professional, then it'll be a shame when they go overboard during a deployment, accidently of course, and are never heard from again.



this is a somewhat lengthy response by me.. concentration and attention to detail required to not "get me wrong".. note: i read comments from the bottom-up as that is the order in which they were posted..

NOTE: i notice mjm has made more than one comment.. my comment to him was regarding his first comment near the bottom of the page

first off i would like to say that my opinion on the matter is undecided.. it should be left up to people who actually serve in combat units.. i cannot speak for them because i have no experience in what their life and job entails.. and neither should any of you if you do not know either.. do not assume that you qualify as being capable to make intelligent decisions for these people if you are not currently one of them..

as far as whether or not the end-goal should be equal rights for openly-gay servicemen/women.. yes it should be.. but how to get there is something i doubt should be left up to some (if not many) of the commenters here.. and i am intitially going to assume the generals are right that it should not be done in a fast-track manner during a time of war.. that seems reckless.. HOWEVER.. i would also add that it would be truly awesome if we COULD successfully fast-track a transition of this type during a time of war.. it would truly be inspiring.. and a sight for our enemies (and friends) to behold..

@ red baby-shoes: how stereotypically ignorant of you.. sorry, but.. it is the same with gays as it is with heteros.. some make good decisions and some make bad.. in both camps i see some with high standards and some with low.. i know some drug-addicted gays as well as heteros.. i see both gays and heteros who are sloppy in appearance.. and who sleep around with people frivolously and un-protected.. and there are violent offenders and rapists and molesters on both sides as well.. so, come out from under your "pretty" rock you are living under before you attempt to influence public opinion..

@ mjm: i agree with you on point 1 but you went downhill from there.. as to point 2, he/she did not contradict themself.. he/she is clearly stating that having gays in the military (in general) is not harmful but they are saying that openly serving in combat units would be a bad idea.. where is the contradiction?.. and sexist? are you serious?.. i have to wonder if you are emotionally stable enough to contribute viable ideas to this discussion.. because you already could not connect the dots to figure out that the structure of his idea was not contradictory to itself.. and now you are calling it sexist to suggest men and women in combat together might result in distractions.. you need to calm down.. as for point 3.. it is irrelevant and it makes you appear to be grasping at straws.. because how well a business in a civilian environment runs is in no way applicable to how a combat unit runs.. it is just ridiculous to try and compare them and i should not have to explain to you why that is the case, should i?.. as for point 4.. i am not interested in what some survey is claimed to be suggesting.. i would rather see a website setup where all  who serve in combat units have to log in and vote on the issue.. or some better idea along those lines

@ answered: perfect example of how "blanket responses" do not work.. i really wanna pick your comment apart like i did for mjm but i have not even made it halfway up the page of responses yet and yours might not be worth the time.. anyone who says "mouth-breathers" is disqualified anyway.. the most healthy way to breathe is inhale through the nose and exhale through the mouth.. case closed until a new study proves otherwise.. and as for your other insults.. even if gays serving openly in combat units was not moving backwards.. your entire comment is definetely inching that cause backwards

@ bryan dubois: oh look, the first comment that is relevant.. an actual servicemen.. who isn't making emotionally-charged statements..

OK, i could be wrong but as i look further up the page it looks like some healthy debate is actually going on.. but there may be a few more tards, i do not know.. i am out of time tho


VERY WELL SAID illuminoctis


Think about this. Think long and hard. Just how much time does a person spend involved in sex in an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year....   Think about it.


No matter , it is now law. The issues will have to be dealt with and the military's mission will be met. I wouldn't want to be in charge of the logistics or who sleeps where or how it will be implemented. They have accomplished the mission after being downsized in the early 90's and stripped of resources needed for their mission. They got it done. I'm retired so I don't have to go through it. The active duty military does. I would like to see a different situation, but the military does not dictate their accomodations. If in fact gays will just do their jobs and keep sexuality out of the workplace, then everything will be fine. It never happens that way when you live 24 hours in your work place. The civilians decide what is good for the military, and it usually reflects the standards of the public's situation. This is one case where it doesent, the public still won't accept gays fully, like the military does now. Gay marriage couldn't pass California, but with the military forced to allow gays, the gay agenda now has more clout to get marriage pushed through. It's all politics, with our active duty men and women used as pawns. 


@ illuminoctis:  Accusing fellow commenters of stereotypical ignorance, emotional instability, and of being "tards," while claiming you have no intention of insulting them makes me wonder if you might just be trolling here.  But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assure you that I have concentrated on and given attention to detail to your comments and I have thought thoroughly about this issue.  Despite your devastating critique, as well as your concern for everyone's emotional well-being and future intellectual habits, I stand by my earlier comments (and those further up the forum if you get the time to read them).