I concur that leadership on the issue needs to meet the ‘emotionalism’ head on, and I believe, as does RAND, that leadership is key to successful, long overdue change.

I try to imagine what I would do if I had tension in my own unit. What would I say? How would I diffuse a ‘situation’? How can I anticipate problems and deal with them before they occur, on a person-by-person basis (not platitudes, but pulling someone aside).

I think the answers to these leadership issues are available. It’s not completely necessary to wait for JCS to ‘hand them down’. These forum are as good as any to overcome ‘imagination bias’ in terms of finding solutions to problems that seem unsolvable.

Why not have some, er, ‘pocket coaching’ cheat sheet, that could help if you have to pull someone aside?:

1. You didn’t join the military to proclaim the gospel or to evangelize, but to lay waste to our country’s enemies and fall in line to do so … country, corps, unit.
2. You can live a good, clean, Christian life (or any other), in the military, if you want. There are better ways to show your ‘moral strength’ is not to put down others or exclude them.
3. Keep eyes on the objective and don’t stand in the way of the full functioning of the team. Whether you like them or not, the enemy is NOT he competent, dedicated, sworn, and true gay sailor/soldier next to you.

Since there are two-sides to any push-shove, you can probably imagine the talky-talk to gay servicemembers as easily as I can.

You are getting close to the bullseye. These issues have to be very carefully considered, including those tho don’t necessarily read Leviticus the way you or I do. But “should” and “ought to” are not directive in nature, and would be very difficult to make them so when they involve personal beliefs of a significant portion of military personnel.

One thing that will not help is the shrieking emotionalism of either denying such issues exist or worse, declaring those who hold those beliefs have no right to do so. Such things will do nothing except make whatever potential problems that may be involved with repeal of DADT exponentially more difficult.

Still, as surreal as it is, there is no doubt that the ‘religious question’ is on the table.

A more friendly exegetical reading of Leviticus is that, if you are not gay, don’t have gay sex. The passage is silent about gays.

I think the focus can be that one can continue to lead a good, clean, Christian life and serve the country. Most people will fall into this category, many who would call themselves devout.

And even for those who still have trouble with that, they ought to be able to see that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That’s an appeal to the same secular oath that got them a place in the fight in the first place, right?

I am actually on your side with this one – the #’d points are URR’s questions from further above.

Now imagine the response that would get if the same scenario was told by the gay man to his heterosexual shipmates. LOL

I can visualize it, but I hope it never happens.

As an enlisted man, during war service, I can tell you that most of what you thought and talked about was sex, lies, and sea stories about sex.

I think it would not be the same if half the group was gay!

Oh, hell, maybe it would be different and not affect the group, but I don’t think so.

Yes, indeed I was one of the enlisted sailors that fought that war, and saw what the future was, and I was wrong about the future!

But, here I am, a member of the institution and still care about the USN!

Why? My father put 42 years in the canoe club, my brothers were in the canoe club ,my sister was in the canoe club, and my son put 6 years underwater in attack nukes!

And, I tried desperately to get my grand kids in the canoe club, but world conditions and society have made that service an anathema to some civilians.

DADT did not help, imho, DKDC will not help, imho, but what I think will never override the political decisions of the staff, whatsoever they may be!