Oh, I see. I had imagined you were referring to something heart-shaped and satin-lined.

"I had imagined you were referring to something heart-shaped and satin-lined."

Which could explain a lot.

OK, and the joint chiefs say that gays should be allowed to serve openly, will you agree?

It sounds like a bad idea to me.

"Logic"?  It looks like you pulled this argument out of your poop deck.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

Then if an admiral appeared before Congress and advocated lifting the ban, you would argue that we should take the idea more seriously because the Navy said so?

If the argument against "weighing anchor" was that it reduced the effectiveness of the military, then yes, I would, because if the Navy has been "weighing anchor" for years with no apparent ill effect, then what good reason is there to ban it?  Here's another analogy.  Let's say you ran a division in a software company and a directive came down from above that all employees had follow a new rule that was onerous, arbitrary, and deeply unpopular.  Ten of your most productive programmers told you that they would quit and go to the competition if you enforced this rule, so you told them that you wouldn't make a big deal out of it if they didn't flaunt their extra privileges.  Your unit maintained its productivity while other units' productivity dropped as the best employees quit right and left.  If you went into a meeting with your boss and he asked you how to increase productivity in the other units, wouldn't one of the first things you told him be to relax that rule?  Would the fact that this advice is coming from you (who, smartly, refused to enforce the rule) somehow make that advice invalid?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

...a directive came down from above that all employees had follow a new rule that was onerous, arbitrary, and deeply unpopular

None of which applies to the military ban on homosexuality. (Unless you meant that it's unpopular among a small subset of civilians.)

Your unit maintained its productivity while other units' productivity dropped as the best employees quit right and left

I'm not sure why you believe that the Army has been less productive than the Navy of late.

I'm not sure why you believe that the Army has been less productive than the Navy of late.

Do you believe the Navy is less productive than the Army?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Yes.

Yes.

Proof?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Also - do you think the US has the best Navy in the world?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Best dressed? Without a doubt.

Boys boys...both are stone cold killing machines.  The only difference between the two is the army has to get its hands dirty and with the navy you get to die clean.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

"Clean" is about the last word I'd use to describe shipboard life.  Or sailors.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Don't forget...the Navy has its own "army" as well.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

They are sort of fabulous, though.

Meet my friend, Admiral Mullen.  He has a basis to say whether it will affect unit cohesion.  He thinks we should repeal the ban.

Let's compare:

ADMIRAL MULLEN
--------------------
Served in military > 40 years
Commands a whole lot of people
Understands unit cohesion

ANONYMOUS GUY ON THE INTERNET
--------------------------
Served in the military x years, where 0 <= x < 40
Commands his web browser
Read about unit cohesion online

(and yeah, for me, x = 0)

My opinon is independent, whereas Admiral Apple polisher has a boss he wants to curry favor with. Mullen has no problem with current Navy policies regarding women, despite the fact they damage unit readiness.

See also Gen. James Conway. He supports the ban, as do a majority of top military officers. Unlike Mullen, he's been in combat.

Gen. Conway's denunciation is apparently secret.  "Asked by The Washington Times whether Gen. Conway has expressed opposition to the president's proposed policy change, his spokesman, Maj. David Nevers, did not answer directly."  Scathing!

If you are right, and the Joint Chiefs just tell their boss what he wants to hear, then we have a huge governance problem.  That means that the President cannot get reliable advice on military matters from career officers--not just on personnel policies, but, conceivably, on any other issue where he needs advice.

"Some military leaders, including members of the Joint Chiefs, have resisted any change, saying the armed forces are already strained from fighting long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Among them is Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps. "Our Marines are currently engaged in two fights, and our focus should not be drawn away from those priorities," Conway's spokesman, Maj. David Nevers, told the Washington Times in October. "When the time is right, we have full confidence that we will be asked to provide the best military advice concerning the readiness of the Corps as it relates to this issue." On Thursday, Nevers said Conway's position had not changed."

"When the time is right, we have full confidence that we will be asked to provide the best military advice."  The best advice!  When the time is right!  (When the time is wrong -- no advice? bad advice?)  Scathing!!

No doubt there is a debate in the military over this issue, just as there is a debate out of it.  On that point, here is some interesting reading:

One of the sharpest demographic divisions pollsters have ever seen on a public policy issue occurs around gay marriage. Two-thirds of Americans over the age of 65 are opposed to gay marriage, while the "Millennial Generation" -- those under 30 years of age -- favor it 59-37 percent, says Gallup.  ... The contrast of that attitude with older generations came into sharp focus Tuesday when Republican Sen. John McCain, arguing against repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' law, brandished a letter signed by "over one thousand retired general and flag officers'' united against allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. Indeed, opposition to gays and lesbians serving in the military seems to come mostly from those who are no longer serving in the military, or from those who never have.

Gen, Conway isn't going to "scathingly" criticize the President.

"the "Millennial Generation" -- those under 30 years of age -- favor it 59-37"

Which is more evidence in support of it being a bad idea.

...opposition to gays and lesbians serving in the military seems to come mostly from those who are no longer serving in the military

So he says, but without any data to back that up. (Though it's likely true due to the mundane reason that there are vastly more veterans than active military.)

You have no basis for asserting it won't effect unit cohesion

Her basis is her inadequate understanding of what "unit cohesion" is, i.e., like everything else she comments on here, her assertion is based on ignorance.

Even if it does affect unit cohesion, so what?  If sacrificing babies and banning Jews from the military improved unit cohesion, would you favor implementing those practices?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

There is no equivalence between requiring homosexuals to restrain themselves and "sacrificing babies".

And by "restrain themselves" you mean "keep their sexual preference secret."  Because I have heard not a hint that the rule against sex on base is going to be changed.

If sacrificing babies and banning Jews from the military improved unit cohesion, would you favor implementing those practices?

If grasshoppers had machine guns, the birds wouldn't fuck with them. But they don't, so why discuss it?

informally (blanket parties, etc.)

Very nice...we don't like the guy in that bunk so we're going to hold him down and beat the snot out of him.  Dude...if takes a whole barracks full of guys to beat up ONE homosexual, I think we should be actively recruiting the gays.  To paraphrase King Arthur, "That homo's dynamite!"

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

You're suggesting that the present existence of violent attacks on suspected homosexuals IMPROVES unit cohesion?   I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Sure. Ask anyone who has been in the military.

Okay, I was in the military, and I don't give a fuck who serves with me as long as the job gets done. But hey, I was only in the National Guard, was never in combat, so let's ask some people who were. My brother-on-law was in Vietnam during Tet, is a member of a motorcycle club composed of Vietnam vets. He was a bad motherfucker before he got old and his health declined. All of the guys with whom I spoke were in combat (and I mean infantry, down and dirty shit). All said they didn't care which way a soldier swings, as long as he was reliable when things got hot. And somehow, I think it really wouldn't matter to you either in firefight.

Aren't we fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside troops whose countries don't have such a policy in place? Doesn't Israel, whose troops have (rightly or wrongly) plenty of combat experience, allow gays in their military? Please give me current examples where this has led to serious problems.

Doesn't Israel, whose troops have (rightly or wrongly) plenty of combat experience, allow gays in their military?

Israel does more than allow gays in the military; it compels them to serve, just like it does straights.

Exactly, and I haven't yet heard of massive unit cohesion problems in the Isreali military as a result.