Here
and
Now

opinions

With gay ban debate over, military impact in doubt

85 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

85 Comments
Login to comment

is the heavy republican opposition to allowing gays to openly serve just their way of saying that they want to save the gay people from getting killed in battle overseas? very noble of them. "send our straight sons and daughters into harm's way but save our gays, or at least the ones that say they are gay."

im not anti gay myself but I AM opposed to using the same toilet and shower facilities as gays because wouldnt they be staring at other guys junk? i know if i was allowed to shower with the opposite sex I'd be staring something fierce.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sharpie.

1st paragraph + Funny.

2nd: Not really a worry, IME, worked with a few gays and lesbians and been to their hangouts. Once it is clear that you are straight, the looks etc stop and they won't hit, etc on you. Granted you will always get the exception as was mentioned above. The same way a gay would be kicked out of the military would be straight guy taking advantage of a drunk female soldier. Granted good looking people will always get appreciative looks(from both sexes).

Said that I grew up in a society where nakedness is nothing unusal shared sauna, topless & nudity in public pools, etc.

Heck, when we did MA and Music Gymnastics(before it was called Aerobics), we shared the same shower-room with the ladies(only a curtain between us) and we often had to shoo the ladies to their side of it. Back than I was still a wee lad.

I think the real problems people have are more personal and got to do with a lot of insecurities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm with you "sharpie." What I can't figure is if military personnel follow orders as they are suppose to, then why was this EVER an issue? Do your job, follow orders and there's no problem.

The logistics of having four separate quarters would be interesting to have.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am with movieguy current regulations and order of conduct cover it.

But than we have people here that talk about GID, etc don't matter and say if you got a winky you are a man, same rule should apply to gays/lesbians.

Personally think separating gays/lesbians would cause more damage/harm than anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And this piece of local news from another country is on a Japanese news site because...?

Moderator: And your comment is relevant to the story in what way?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At least attribute the country you're talking about, Kyodo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sharpie, Unless you have something really special...don't flatter yourself. I doubt anyone will be looking at your "Junk"! You sound like a typical homophobic male.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In any event, it is an historical event whose time had come. If some of the better armies in antiquity were capable of being effective while having homosexual members, don't see why a modern army would be less capable. Now, perhaps to the chagrin of enemies of the US, the US army will be more capable in taking on its foe. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have a lot to offer, together they will prove stronger.

I mean, it's likely there will be some discomfort and confusion at first, in some of the rank, as most changes incur, but in the long run, it shall be better. And yeah, one more thing for some (less progressive) people to dislike the US for, but it's not as though they were people the US would hate to lose as friends.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Protect our country is all I ask. I am not able to do it. Live free or die.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kdt3272, i was merely stating that it's natural for someone to stare if they see a naked person of the opposite sex, no? do you completely disagree. i made no reference to my own junk.

what was the point of your post? to insult my homophobia? if you read my post again, i have no ill feelings toward gays, i have friends who are gay and close relatives as well. i come from the philippines, a country where gays are very well received and unalienated from society, unlike some 'advanced' countries, namely the one in this article.

please, kdt, have a little more class when attempting to insult someone, or at least try to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the military becomes like everywhere else men and women are together. Big deal. Only the homophobes like McCain and the rest of the rightwing fear mongers made this an issue. Militaries all over the world accept gay people to serve without any discussion.

When will the republicans grow up?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My one question is why exactly are the ones who say "I don't want to know/don't care about what people do in the bedroom" are so threatened by the idea that a person can finally say they're gay now without fear of consequences? If you really didn't care, if people really didn't care, this wouldn't have even been an issue in the first place. The issue is not homosexuals screaming their sexuality from the rooftops-- the issue is being penalized for something that's supposedly of no concern to anyone, but people can't stop ranting about it.

And what distraction? The only people being distracted are the ones agonizing over whether or not some guy is checking out their package-- give me a break! Do you think the women fighting with their male counterparts on the battlefield are concerned over whether the dude next to her is checking her out? If a woman complained about that, the same people ranting about this would tell her to get over herself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why are people so against gays in the military? It's not like they'll be going around raping the other straight troops at random or anything, or refusing to shoot at the enemy because they have the most adorable eyes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why are people so against gays in the military?

Due to faulty logic and or irrational thought. There are also some antiquated religious doctrines affecting some people's thoughts. But again, it comes down to irrationality.

--but I think you already knew that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Gay rights activists say the complications and uncertainties are being overblown."

Hahaha, gotta love the double-entendre there, eh??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“I think this is going to pose a lot of challenges for the military,” Taylor said. When a soldier openly declares he is gay, “it does create an unnecessary distraction.” --Distraction? Why? Because straight guys will be thinking anal sex?!

I just don't get how anyone can say gay people serving with be a 'challenge'. As others have pointed out, if you substitute 'gay' with 'black' or 'female' or 'left-handed' or whatever it's quite easy to see that there is simply no logical argument to back up such a statement. Same goes for homosexual people.

Why are these straight bigots so insistent on making an issue about sexual orientation when it has no bearing on how effective the military is. If there is a problem, the people that should get kicked out are the bigots not the gays.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A few friends I discussed this online all said it is about "Insecurities" and the rule been stupid from the get go.

And the distraction comes from the insecure guys/gals(lets be fair).

When you consider that 20yr airforce aces, commanders, etc been kicked out solely due to their sexual orientation, etc.

Agree with Doplhingirl.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Very well said kokorocloud!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Personally and many agree we think that DADT actually hurt he military as it prevented some troops to do their best as they were to worried about being kicked out and having to put up a front. Many got kicked out when they slipped up.

Also you share a room/barrack with a guy/gal like they do in the military you get to know them better than your own spouse = so very little secrets left.

I would reckon most soldiers knew/know exactly which way their room-mates swing and it don't matter if they do their job and pull their weight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm guessing a majority of these comments have come from military members. The tone of the discussion encourages me greatly. The military has been a driving force in social change before as it is once again now. You are to be commended.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A few friends I discussed this online all said it is about "Insecurities" and the rule been stupid from the get go.

And the distraction comes from the insecure guys/gals(lets be fair).

@Zenny11: Here is where people fail to grasp the enormity of the subject. The law has been passed, and all in the military have to abide by it. Now comes the part that the general public doesn't see, that now the military will have to go through various levels of "sensitivity trainig" to make persons believe that being gay is just a ok and natural. Never mind that if you have religious beliefs that does not follow this teaching, you will still have to sit through it and if you don't, you can get negative marks.

But, in the military, it is not required that you go to a church service, and as we have seen from the Air Force Academy, when fundalmentalist chaplains were proseltyzing to non-christians, there was a big fuss about it and many people claimed that it violated their choice of religious freedom.

I myself consider myself a Christian, and don't hate gay people, and if it is their choice to do so, then I am happy for them. I just believe that they have to answer to God for that, and there is nothing I can do about it. I can't "change" them or make them straight. But, why do I have to sit through training now that says it is ok.

Now is that fair?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The issue is not homosexuals screaming their sexuality from the rooftops-- the issue is being penalized for something that's supposedly of no concern to anyone, but people can't stop ranting about it.

@ kokorocloud: see my post above. I hope you have the same attitude when you have to sit through hours of sensitivity training on making sure that you understand and appreciate gays.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fair to me I guess.

But again WHY should your training, etc change? This is what I and MANY others don't get?

Religion and Military is different. In the Military you are HIRED to do your job regardless of your creed.

Or is there special training for women, Jews, Africans etc too.

Tell me where the training comes in from a military point of view.

I been in the military too in my country and simply don't get your views and FEARS.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe you mean like the "Global Diversity Courses" I had to sit at some companies as we were global companies to make sure we didn't offend co-workers from other cultures, creeds and sexes. Here one 2-day course covered it all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Speaking as a former sailor (this was before even the DADT policy), we had guys on the ship who I would bet money on that they were gay, but it was never an issue to us. There were no lynch mobs demanding they leave nor were there any arguments (that I was aware of) regarding their off-duty activities. I certainly never felt uncomfortable working with them.

As long as their private preferences don't intrude on their military co-workers, this should be a non-issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe you mean like the "Global Diversity Courses" I had to sit at some companies as we were global companies to make sure we didn't offend co-workers from other cultures, creeds and sexes. Here one 2-day course covered it all.

@Zenny11, yes that type of training is what will be coming. But what the big difference between that and the gay issue is that to many people, their religious belief tells them that being gay is wrong. So now you are coming to a point where you have to face teachings that are contrary to your religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape.

Isn't killing, etc also against your religion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this has to have been the most wasteful example of politics gone wrong. stupid! Of course there have been people serving in the military whose sexual preference is not within the "Normal" ( whatever that is) bounds. and "Gays" have served throughout the centuries and we didn't know it. Why not ask the service people on the line what matters most to them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gee, it's not like gay people haven't served in the Civil War, WW1&2, Korea, Vietnam ... etc... and it's pretty ridiculous the word "gay" here tends to be focused on men only. I'll bet there are a ton more gay women serving than men ... I mean have you seen those broads? Fonzie - ehhhhhh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever next. Will they allow cross-dressing gays to wear female uniforms... Where do you draw the line?

I think mixing gays with 'normal' men is a slippery slope.

I think they should have platoons or battalions especially for gays so they can feel comfortable being together. Also, I think they should wear a pink lanyard to warn normal men that they need to cover up and/or be careful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can see toyokawasaki wants a return to the tuskegee squadron, etc.

Like I said before, you most likely mix with some gays in civilian life(unknowingly) and quiet likely already have shared a shower with one at a communal shower(school, gym, pool, etc).

So what is the hysteria?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And I thought the USA was anti-discrimination, etc. Looks like I thought wrongly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape-- I'm not commenting on sensitivity classes. I'm commenting on the fact that people are freaking out over the so called "homosexual agenda", rather than actually looking at what this whole debate was about. It IS supposed to be about serving REGARDLESS of your race, gender, sexuality-- yet people are focusing on the sexuality aspect, and people were being punished and kicked out for this. While I'm sorry you might have to take classes, let's think about why they have to take such a precation in the first place-- because of insensitive people reacting irrationally to things they don't understand or things that are different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11 - I was being sarcastic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tokyokawasaki.

Gotcha and my apologies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the military is saying it is okay for it's soldiers to have gay sex and serve in the military.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, they are saying they no longer care what type of sex you are having and thus can serve.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isn't killing, etc also against your religion?

@Zenny11: No it is not, you should not murder, but you can kill as in war or retribution for a crime.

While I'm sorry you might have to take classes, let's think about why they have to take such a precation in the first place-- because of insensitive people reacting irrationally to things they don't understand or things that are different.

So basically you are saying that I have to sit and listen to what I may call irrational things, i.e. gay rights agenda. I understand that is what they want, and if they do it fine, but why should I have to be subjected to trying to understand why they do it and how, after all, it is just as natural as straight sex.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape-- But that's not what it is, is it? They're not going to be going into the finer points about gay sex, it's about learning tolerance, learning to work with different kinds of people, because apparently it's just too hard to do without someone telling you. At least, that's supposed to be the GOAL. I don't like it anymore than you do that we have to take classes to learn how to accept/work with our fellow man, even if your beliefs are completely different. When you believe in anything, there's ALWAYS going to be someone who thinks differently. That is life. Homosexuals face that all the time, but it's hard for people who aren't GAY to realize that. Whether you have to deal with it in a class or in your workplace or elsewhere, that's going to happen regardless of the military chaps sitting you down for a lecture for a few hours.

Anyway, the classes thing is one thing, something that could be solved, and it certainly doesn't justify not repealing DADT. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like you're saying they should have kept the ban because then you wouldn't have to take annoying classes. Meanwhile gay men and women are still being banned from serving their own country for their sexual preferences.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kokorocloud,

but I feel like you're saying they should have kept the ban because then you wouldn't have to take annoying classes. Meanwhile gay men and women are still being banned from serving their own country for their sexual preferences.

I am not against lifting the ban due to the fact that I would have to take classes. If people would have been following closely, the military was not really enforcing the DADT unless they really had to in order to get someone out of the military.

For those who say that this is not agenda driven, don't believe that. If you were gay, and did your job then I wouldn't care how you spend your time and with whom. But now, just because you like to have sex a certain way, you are making yourself a "protected class" and we have to treat you as such.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape-- Protected class? Protected from getting kicked out based on who you sleep with? Yes. Special treatment? No. How is being able to acknowledge what you are special treatment? No straight person in the military ever had to worry about someone ratting them out. No straight person was turned away from applying because of who they were married to. Isn't THAT special treatment?

I understand what you're getting at, but I still think it's fear mongering. Everyone thinks asking for equal rights = special treatment, and that is simply not the case. Gay people do not care whether you agree with what they do-- all they want is to serve without fear of being reproached for it, just like everyone else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape: Why do you keep mentioning these 'sensitivity classes'? Perhaps because you are the one who needs them. To me this seems totally off topic because we are only talking about gay people being able to openly say they are gay. If your religion says that being gay is wrong, then that religion is bigoted by definition. (ie: not tolerant of people who are different) No one is saying that you will have to to be 'subjected' to anything! Gay people are not getting any special treatment here. It's about gay/bisexual people getting the same rights as heterosexuals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does anyone know what the jietai's policy is on this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am against this whole thing. It will attract gays to the military and it may change the entire military culture depending on the ratio of gays to straight men. I could damage national security, it will not have any good impact to the mission.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sexual feelings with your workmate is a serious distraction not needed in the military. Would you want your pilot and copilot alone in the "cockpit" living out a fantasy? How about the air traffic controllers playing grabass in the tower. Guard duty with two gay men? I highly doubt they will be paying attention to the job. Men have high levels of testosterone, giving them a very high sex drive. Like the old saying goes: Women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place. This is more true now that the partener is more available.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan: Let's see..gay people make up only about 5% of the population so why do you figure that the military will suddenly be taken over by gays? And even if there were more gay men than straight men? Can you explain how exactly that would damage national security?

Actually, it will be no different from having women in the military. The straight guys will be 'distracted' by the girls and the gay guys will be 'distracted' by other gay guys. Seems fair to me...Come on! You are suggesting that homosexual men have no work ethic or self control and they are only joining the military so they can grab butts! Get real!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dolphingirl; Perhaps vulcan thinks they are going to make it compulsary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan-- Please tell me you're joking. National security? Are you serious? And by your logic, as dolphingirl wisely pointed out, there should be no women in the military either, since men just can't control themselves... I'm so sick of that excuse. And before this ban was lifted, what about all the gay men who served and did their job JUST FINE? I guess they don't count? By your assessment, it wouldn't have mattered whether they could say they were gay or not, they would just be acting on their urges, consequences be damned.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Phwee!...President Obama seems to be doing a good job. Washington is in full throttle!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dolphin,

Let's see..gay people make up only about 5% of the population so why do you figure that the military will suddenly be taken over by gays?

Because they have more than equal rights in the military. Straight men cannot room with their girlfriends in the dorm's, Gay men are allowed to room with their partners. It discriminates against straight men and women. Men aren't overly distracted by women in the military because many women in the military are being hit up on by guys every damned day due to the ratio of men vs women. Also a lot of women are married. Women never really posed a problem like that in the military. Some got favoritism from heavy lifting or whatever, but not much of a problem. Gay men would love the military adn the word would get out and an infestation would occur... Yes, I said infestation.

kokoro: Nope I said that women aren't sex crazed maniacs like men. They have lower testosterone levels and need a reason to have sex. Gay men don't need much of a reason, just a place. Some women have self hate and think they are trash and punish themselves by having sex with any man, just because they are psycologically f'd up. Women would turn you in to your supervisor in a heartbeat if you tried to screw them unless they really liked you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vulcan, I read your submarine story but I kept imagining a porn song from the seventies playing in the background!! Funny and scary post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The gays were always there anyway. It's puzzling why some soldiers who are afraid of or wary about of gays would be more upset about the gays they will now know rather than the "stealth" gays they previously didn't know about.

There exists a faction that is opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds however. They see any evidence of homosexuality as a sort of promotion of homosexuality and thus prefer to keep it buried - lest others be tempted.

The USA is still a rather puritanical - sometimes almost 'Talibanistic' - culture and "sex=sin" has been a longstanding cultural feature/fetish/obsession there since the first religious fanatics fled to those shores from europe. Ordinary sex is bad enough in the puritans eyes, so out-of-the-ordinary sex causes their brains to implode into a tiny dense mass which neither logic or civility can penetrate. It's why the gay soldier issue is such a big deal for the US military and population.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'so out-of-the-ordinary sex causes their brains to implode into a tiny dense mass which neither logic or civility can penetrate'--LOL!

vulcan: I almost laughed at your post, thinking--this guy must be joking, right? Infestation? Sounds like some bizarre horror flick like 'Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!' --The straight guys are in their dorm quietly reading, playing cards or doing push-ups when suddenly....bum,bum,bum,bum....hundreds of gays come in gabbing butts, stripping their shirts off, pulling out bottles of lubricant, having hot sex on the cots...(ooh, I'm feeling a little hot...) You certainly have a good imagination. The scary thing is that I think you are actually serious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It will have a negetive effect on everyone except gay people. An infestation will occur in the ranks and straight people will be expected to shut up about it and press one. Their bad morale will be blamed on themselves and obvious suspicions of favoritism will be turned around on the straight members; they'll be accused of trying to spread rumors or being a homophobe. It will get out of control. I want to see the next generation of AFN commercial showing unwanted sexual advances by a gay man against a straight man. It won't happen, proving that straight military men will be expected to turn a blind eye and "understand"... no one will want to admit a problem, noone will want to tell how things are working, they will be expected to talk of "how good things are."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Vulcan envisions new recruitment films with scenes ala "Monte Python Flying Circus" or "Here come the Spartans".

I would take him serious if he addressed points raised and didn't repost the same stuff over and over, ditto for Wolfpack.

Or atleast how it was that the gays in the Military up till now didn't act that way, etc and why they should act differently now.

Disorderly conduct was, does and will always exist in the military and be punishable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zenny, the gays had to hide in the past, so they weren't as open and didn't flaunt it. Now they will not have the need to hide it. It'll be in your face. I repeat some points because you can't come up with a good enough reply to counter them...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The military kept this down, but now they have no choice but to accept it so mark my words, it will get out of control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would counter your points with good replies if your points were good and valid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny, we all know about gay pride parades and how they like to flaunt what they do in an in your face way. Now they will be free to do it in the military. These seem to be character traits for them the "came out of the closet". It is best, in a military environment to stay in the closet so to speak, in order to preserve good order and discipline. Military is mission oriented and shouldn't be a place for social experimentation and unequal rights. Unequal rights? Yes because these gays will be cohabitating and flaunting it, straight men and women won't be able to cohabitate in the dormatories. This is unequal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vulcan.

Again the same repeat stuff. You like to cope/paste your own comments.

Cast your mind back about the discussion on the Gay parade we had hear and what the Guys and Lesbians in that discussion thought about the parades, etc.

You will see that many felt that the parades hurt them as many as the participants are NOT gay but transvestites, etc.

From experience I can tell you that it is hard to spot a gay person in real life and even tougher when in military Uniform.

Not sure how they going to flaunt it in your opinion, modify their Uniform(punishable), etc. So they can cohabit now too.

You are way too focused on the sexual aspect, which is not what being gay is actually all about.

BTW, married couples can live together on bases.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, typo. Gays and Lesbians

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From experience I can tell you that it is hard to spot a gay person in real life and even tougher when in military Uniform.

It won't be hard anymore.

BTW, married couples can live together on bases.

I know this, I was talking about the dormatories.

You are way too focused on the sexual aspect, which is not what being gay is actually all about.

This bill is about equal rights, and as I've pointed out it gives more rights to gays in the dormatories than single straight members.

Again the same repeat stuff.

Because I know you don't want to deal with "checkmate" because the points are valid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vulcan.

It won't be hard anymore.

How so? Pls, explain what will change, give us details, explanations not sound-bites.

Keep your ad-homimem attacks and start discussing things properly. By validating your views and opinions.

This bill is about equal rights, and as I've pointed out it gives more rights to gays in the dormatories than single straight members.

How is that? The new Bill has NOT been implemented yet and we don"t know what rule changes/restrictions the military will make if any.

Under DADT it was not possible to par 2 gays from sharing as their sexual orientation was a taboo and no-one knew if the guy next to him, his doctor, etc was one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DADT means don't flaunt it. Repeal means they are free to flaunt it, and the gay pride parades etc.. are a testament to how they will. Some people who are different and are going against the grain like to shove it in societies face. Rachel Maddow is one of them, Ellen Degeneris, Anderson Cooper also like to "emphasise" certain news items. Certain hollywood types like Madanna like to shove their values in the mainstreems face. If given the freedom, they gays will do it in the military also. This won't be good for the morale of the troops which effects the mission. I can tell you that the military brass knows this, and is scrambling to give commanders guidance on how to deal with these flaunts if they occur, how to deal with morale issues. The UCMJ needs revamped and commanders need good legal advice from military lawyers to keep good order and discipline. If commanders don't care, that affects mission also. If all commanders and SNCO's cared about was their retirement date, the Armed Forces will suffer. The attitude of the troops will follow the attitude of those in charge, they will sense it. If the commanders have their hands tied to their balls in such matters, everyone will know and you may have a hollowing out of the middle ranks. The middle ranks are the front line supervisors and trainers, the sources of knowledge. DADT was the best option.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What makes you THINK(give valid reasons) that they will start flaunting and thus violate current military protocol and face expulsion from the Military.

You are still saying the same things with not justifications for them.

We all know that there will be an adjustement period needed as happened when women were allowed to join as well as american-africans. And back than people used the same arguments(with NO justifications) as you do.

Again give me examples of how they will flaunt it while NOT violating military protocol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My point is you judge people based on a parade alone. It is like judging people solely based on a New Years party.

When it is party time people let their hair down and tend to go a bit overboard and stick it to the man(so to speak).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What makes me think it? The way they act in Gay Pride parades and other times when I seen gays kissing each other in airports etc.. I hope you're right though and I hope it is all a low key thing. But why would they want anything more than DADT? Seems those that got discharged from the military were the ones that actually came out and stated that they were gay to their command. Almost looking for trouble and headlines. Wanting to be a martyr. Personally I don't care what people do behind closed doors, but I do care what people do in public. I care very much. I don't want the US military to turn into a gay circus with guys in the dinning hall wearing black short shorts kissing their partner even a rare occurance. Keep it behind closed doors. Want to be gay? Fine, but not in front of me and my kids.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan-- Yeah, because heterosexuals never kiss in public or do anything like that. And a lot of the fears you have are just ridiculous stereotypes-- black short shorts? Really?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan, grow up! I am sure gay people are like anyone else. All of this talk about a gay seeing me in the shower naked is stupid. I have seen lots of naked men, so what? You are just going to have and live with this new law. As a soldier you have to obey the commands of your civilian government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vulcan.

I also found heterosexual couples(teens) smooching in public offensive, lets face it some of them act like a pron movie but still got clothes. Walked up to quiet a few hetero-sexual couples and told them to get a room already.

So I am against the whole smooching in public circus(gay or not). Which should be offensive to christians too as there shouldn't be any form of sex before marriage. In any group there will be people that will try to stand out.

Don't see why gays/lesbians are singled out for behaviour that is common accross humanity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vulcan.... you do realize, don't you, that the overly flamboyant ones... the one's who get wild and crazy in those parades.... are NOT the type of people who are joining the military anyway, don't you?

The gays that serve, both now and in the future, aren't the loud "in your face" type. They are the type that have worked next to us for years without us ever knowing, and for the most part... caring.

There ARE problems to the repeal. I'm not necessarily for it, more based on the logistic's of the whole thing. But getting all up in arms over "parades" and "in your face behavior" is simply nothing more than unfounded "fears".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yuri:

I have seen lots of naked men, so what?

I'm sure you have yuri.

Loki:

you have to have a solution to any of that behaviour as it WILL turn the military into a farce, demoralized the straight soldier adn cause an exodus of many good troops.

Zenny:

I also found heterosexual couples(teens) smooching in public offensive

I agree, keep it behind closed doors. I think there should be a well enforced regulation to it. Kissing your spouse before deployment isn't what I'm talking about. Excessive PDA (personal displays of affection) are not necessary and more than likely are attempts to get attention and rub into society's face how "different" or "dirty" one is, almost challenging moral America due to ones own self hatred.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan: All of your arguments are based on your own stereotypes of gays. You seem to have this idea in your head that all gay people strut around in short shorts with a rainbow flag shouting I'm gay! or are constantly acting on their sexual urges. And public displays of affection are irrelevant as well. First because heterosexuals are just as likely to kiss in public as homosexuals and second because if you were kissing someone in the military I'm pretty certain you would be reprimanded for doing so. Still have yet to any rational reasons to back up your opinion which is completely fear based.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dolphin, all it takes is two gay guys shoving it in moral america's face, and that would be the talk of the entire base. Dependents and Active Duty. There has to be a regulation to deal with this, it must be enforced without fear of the entire event being turned around on the one who complains about it. DADT was the perfect solution. You could be gay, but shove it in our faces with your leather short shorts and black leather hats and kissing your partener while squeezing his ass cheeks, then you're gay and you're discharged!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What controlling authority is there to prevent this type of behavior? In the post above? No regulation and watch it happen, just to spite moral christian America (on base).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Read an interesting post on the actual JT forums.

Poster said DADT was actually put into place to prevent soldiers from the bible-belt, etc to disrupt the Unit coherency if they knew that gays/lesbians were in their Unit.

In short they would cause the military to malfunction and not the gays. After reading posts here and other places that view somehow makes sense too.

Whoever disrupts unit coherency needs to be gotten rid off, gay or not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan, you know that many armies in the world allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military, right? You know that in many countries, gays and lesbians can and do get married and even have families of their own, right? And that without being detrimental to the army or society at large. On the contrary, these countries are proud of themselves and their accomplishments on that particular front.

Reading your posts, it feels as if you think that American gays are these sub-humans that do not have control over their own behaviors but in my own opinion, you are just delusional and in need of a lot of help. American gays and lesbians are the same as regular Americans, and they are the same as every other human being on this earth. They just want to be loved, have a family, security and pride in what they do. What's so wrong about that?

Give it up buddy. You haven't made a bit of sense since this thread started and even after having been asked to give justification and validation to your point of view you've continued with this tired excuse for an argument. So, enough already

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OneForAll, I see nothing wrong with love betwixt two adults and I definitely do not think that they should feel guilty for their love. Wish there were more love in the world actually.

Now, I really hope you won't be one of the left behind! That'd be too funny!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny, I agree.. unit cohesion = mission accomplishment...or a better chance of it.

peacewarrior,

Reading your posts, it feels as if you think that American gays are these sub-humans that do not have control over their own behaviors but in my own opinion, you are just delusional and in need of a lot of help.

I need help if I wanted to be you, but I don't. Nothing stopped the Gays and Lesbians from serving in the US armed forces under DADT. Why do they have to serve openly? If they (or a minority of gays) weren't interested in flaunting, why want anything else? They still can't get married and as a result put in for preferential joint assignment. No change except they can now tell the world they are proud.. something noone really cares to hear or see. No different from someone walking around with a tshirt that says "black power".. with a scowl on their face looking for a challenge. I don't advertise that I like asian chicks with light skin and slender bodies and straight black hair cut like cleopatra.. why? Because noone cares to hear it, just keep it to ourselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Odd, I seem to remember under dadt admission of homosexuality was still grounds for discharge. This goes away under the new policy? If so that's a substantial change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There will be no difference between DADT and this new policy of serving openly gay, except for the 1 percent that have to make a point of being gay and dressing in stereotypical (Mango from saturday night live) attire. It doens't make sense. Also, what does Lady Gaga have to do with our militay's policies? She isn't even American and wouldn't join the military anyway. Most of these openly gay rights in the military people are the liberal type that would never join the military anyway.

Junnama, I think a lot of people who were kicked out because they admitted to being gay, during the DADT days did it to get out, because they wanted out. Otherwise why would they tell their supervisor and command about it and have to repeat it over and over and sign papers of discharge etc. You don't just say it once, you have to sign documents and have witnesses, set up appts with the legal defense office etc. The guys made a point of pressing the gay issue until they were discharged. Noone really wants to deal with kicking someone out, they are too busy doing other things to deal with such a distraction of kicking someone out. You would have to force the issue to some extent for the discharge.

Anyway I repeat, I don't care if someone is gay or not or what they are into behind closed doors. Keep it behind closed doors is all I say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yes British,where homosexuals can freely be open and have civil unions and most thankfully are not religous. Why so many homophobes in America?

Homosexuals can have civil unions in many US states. It is a states rights issue, so I can't speak for states like Alabama and Georgia or Arkansas, settled largely by people from Ireland, Scotland and N England who were turned away by the Puritans and the Quakers (from more "respectable" parts of England) up north. Why so many "homophobes"? America is not England, for starters.We have far more diversity than you do there. Maybe you should research opposition to gay marriage according to race. You might be surprised to see it isn't whites who as a group oppose gay marriage with the solidity of certain other groups...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, 86, not 89.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've seen alot of gsys in the military already.

America is a free country, so this decision is to give the gays more freedom. I respect the government decision.

Since I've been in the military I've seen so many gays. So what's the deal anyways ???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't want the US military to turn into a gay circus with guys in the dinning hall wearing black short shorts kissing their partner even a rare occurance.

no polite way to sat what I want to say to you so will just have to give a big PFFFFFFTTT in capital letters. If you aren't being sarcastic (I hope you are) then the message is read the headline again, "debate over". In fact it's far funnier imagining you shakinh in fear over marines with pink ribbons on theit gun barrels twirling batons. ahahaha what a prat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites