Gates says he wants to soften gay expulsion rules

Good on the Republican Secretary. Gays have a right to kill people too!

This law should just be changed to "No one may disclose their sexual preferance" Case closed. Sexual preferance shouldnt affect your military performance. Whether the gay community likes it or not, there are still a lot of people who dont like the idea, dont accept the lifestyle, and think it is wrong. Do you really think the "Mr. Straight" guy is going want to be canned up on a sub with 27 men who think their asses have a purpose outside of bodily waste removal? I seriously doubt it. No one talks, fair to all.

Obama says he wants to build support for the change among military commanders before urging Congress to move ahead.

I served 20 yrs in the USN. I knew a few gays, I am for exclusion on personal matters. But having said that, Obama does not need Congress to do something. A simple thing called an Executive Order would lift the ban, and it would be over.

But I guess being President is not like being a Senator where when difficult things come up, you can vote "present" and not take a stand on the issues but just slide along with somebody else taking a hit in the polls.

Even though I am opposed to gays serving, I still don't think that means they should be discriminated against. Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. We have the choice of allowing who we want to serve. Before those come out and say they can say the same thing about minorities (which I am one) no being gay and being black (or any other minorty) are not the same thing.

They're letting ex-cons into the army these days, surely Adam and Steve can join.

Why not have an all-gay military? That would send the Taliban running

DarkKnghtZ and Alphaape - good posts. What is this 'jilted' stuff? Like it is a joke for Gates. It is very immoral behavior for many people.

DarkKnghtZ: "Whether the gay community likes it or not, there are still a lot of people who dont like the idea, dont accept the lifestyle, and think it is wrong."

That's the problem of 'Mr. Straight' (or Ms.), as you call him. It's no one else's problem but his, and if people have such problems, they should be punished if they violate anything as a result (ie. discrimination).

Do you guys seriously think some kind of 'exclusion of personal matters' law would mean anything?? Sure, no recruiting forms, I can see it. But out on the field? I can just picture the discussion:

Johnny: So, Buck... you got a lady back home?

Buck: Uhhh... not sure we're supposed to talk about this... you know... being exclusionary and all.

Johnny: What, you a fa&&ot, Buck?

Buck: No, not at all. In fact, here's a pic. of my girl.

Johnny: Sweet! How about you, Jim?

Jim: Uhhh... I don't want to talk about it.

Johnny: (to Buck) Must be gay. Let's frag -- I mean kill him!

It's insulting to the intelligence of soldiers so suggest they couldn't cope with gays in the army and are homophobic. The average soldier is not some redneck wife-beater from the South, a lot of soldiers have a reasonable education.

Alphaape: you are truly of the Jurassic age. To be against gays serving is almost laughable to the rest of the world except if you live in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe. It is such a backward position. It is like punishing some one because they are left handed.

Considering that the close relationship that men form in the services, it is hypocritical to deny the experimentation that is only natural. However, the real reason for this is more likely to be the desperation for recruits. Already lowered the aptitude test, and free residency for foreigners who sign up....

I'll never forget the episode in my unit where an enlisted man I worked with was recruited in a sting operation to catch a gay officer. The day after the alleged romantic night, both men were bundled onto planes, the enlisted man for immediate PCS ( permanent change of station ) to an undislosed location, and the officer for immediate separation from service. My thoughts were: What a waste of time and money.

To serve, one should be of sound mind. Gays are not. If they want to serve, thay have to stop being gay.

I knew of several gays in the service.

They did their jobs and did them well.

Whether gay or not, a Marine is a Marine. Semper Fi. < :-)

Homophobes are not of sound mind. Many are hiding from themselves the awful truth and can pop off at a moments notice.

The gay ban is all about gay fear, based on nothing real.

Dubya: "To serve, one should be of sound mind. Gays are not. If they want to serve, thay have to stop being gay."

Shame we can't say the same about posting.

Homophobes are not of sound mind. Many are hiding from themselves the awful truth and can pop off at a moments notice.

Isn't that just a gay mans fantasy ? That straight men 'can pop off at a moments notice' ? Don't over rate yourself, the vast majority of straight people are not interested in same-sex sex and taking one up the pooper thanks very much.

It's insulting to the intelligence of soldiers so suggest they couldn't cope with gays in the army and are homophobic. The average soldier is not some redneck wife-beater from the South, a lot of soldiers have a reasonable education.

Unfortunately most soldiers are exactly that and the reason why they became professional soldiers in the first place is because they could not find work elsewhere. It's a known fact that Army's around the world recruit from unemployment hotspots. What I saw in the British Army is good reason for not inviting gays into the Army. A fellow recruit was merely suspected of being gay and he had the crap beaten out of him by almost the whole platoon. That is a good example why there is a ban on gays.

I am under the impression that the only people here who really understand the problems involved in allowing gays into the forces, are those who have served (sarge/ Alphaape/ DarkKnight). Those others here criticising Alphaape and DrakKnight are more likely not to have served and are just gay men posting pro-gay comments.

northlondon: "Those others here criticising Alphaape and DrakKnight are more likely not to have served and are just gay men posting pro-gay comments."

Hahaha... you completely undermine your own comments with your extremely homophobic remarks. Of COURSE anyone who thinks gays should have more say are gay, right? hahaha! Stick to trying to call everyone who doesn't like Samurai Japan's baseball score Japan bashers -- at least a few people will side with your extremism and make you feel a wee bit more confident about your posts.

"A fellow recruit was merely suspected of being gay and he had the crap beaten out of him by almost the whole platoon. That is a good example why there is a ban on gays."

No... that's a reason to do what you do in any other work place and stop pretending the military is above the law -- you prosecute all of them and put them in prison, or at the very least, if you can't identify the direct culprits you make them sit through hours and hours of sensitivity training before you discharge all of them dishonourably.

smithinjapan, your argument goes absolutely nowhere and I'll say it again, the only people here who have any understanding of the implications of allowing gays into the military are people who have served and who have seen it for themselves.

and stop pretending the military is above the law -- you prosecute all of them and put them in prison, or at the very least, if you can't identify the direct culprits you make them sit through hours and hours of sensitivity training before you discharge all of them dishonourably.

Again, your scenario is out of the realms of actual reality. The guy had the crap beaten out of him and there was no way he was going to testify against a whole platoon. Even the NCO's would have advised him not to do that. You see my friend, the military is not a normal place of work is it ? Do you think there are human resources officers and coffee machines in an Army barracks ? Hours and hours of sensitivity training ? Thanks, I'll go to bed laughing loudly tonight.

Liberal thinking and anti-diversity are fine for civilian life. The military, and specifically the Army, is a whole different ballpark as smithinjapan would like to put it. Infantry soldiers are by and large young men with no college degree and from areas of large unemployment. No disrespect to any soldiers here, but that's the truth people. And the Army wants to train young men to become fit killing machines. Simple as that. So when posters here talk about hours and hours of sensitivity training to soldiers to accept gays and discharging soldiers just for beating-up a fellow soldier in the barracks, then there is absolutely no understanding of what the Army is all about and what it requires from its soldiers.

I am under the impression that the only people here who really understand the problems involved in allowing gays into the forces, are those who have served (sarge/ Alphaape/ DarkKnight). Those others here criticising Alphaape and DrakKnight are more likely not to have served and are just gay men posting pro-gay comments.

hahahahahahaha. then you go on to talk about reality...hahaha

hahahahahahaha. then you go on to talk about reality...hahaha

That is correct. Good evening fatfrench, a bit early for you isn't it ? Do you actually have anything to say ?

yeah sure do. you are wrong as usual

"Isn't that just a gay mans fantasy ? That straight men 'can pop off at a moments notice' ?" Before posting you should do some research, I suggest internet, or, if you are really in the army, you will know where the special "glory holes" are on base. I think you are confusing a very common temporary sexual release with a lifestyle chosen by 10% of western citizens. Just because you pop off occasionally, doesn't mean you are gay, but you can't be a hypocrite and attack those you live a life of their own choice.

Dubya at 10:19 PM JST - 1st July To serve, one should be of sound mind. Gays are not. If they want to serve, thay have to stop being gay.

Leadership has nothing to do with ones sexual orientation. If an officer or enlisted man/woman can handle him/herself under fire who cares what they like.

Your claim is more of personal beliefs than of any research ever done.

northlondon at 12:53 AM JST - 2nd July No disrespect to any soldiers here, but that's the truth people. And the Army wants to train young men to become fit killing machines.

So you are saying that a gay person can not be a lean mean killing machine?LOL I would put money against that statement of yours.LOL

I would bet, that right now there are many, many, many gay men and women serving in armed forces throughout the world. I would also bet that they are fine Soldiers/Sailors/Marines (Royal Marines)...LOL Funny

northlondon at 12:53 AM JST - 2nd July So when posters here talk about hours and hours of sensitivity training to soldiers to accept gays and discharging soldiers just for beating-up a fellow soldier in the barracks, then there is absolutely no understanding of what the Army is all about and what it requires from its soldiers.

The Army (all Military forces) is all about discipline, if you allow soldiers to fight in the barracks then there is no discipline.

Do not know what force you served in but, in the U.S. Navy sailors were brought up on charges if caught fighting each other.

The only folks that had problems on my Submarine were the ones who had no discipline or the lazy ones. You did your job no one cared what you did on your time.

The Army (all Military forces) is all about discipline

Well said. For them, gay culture could be a huge detriment to the military organization where your drill sergeants give you folks a lot of hell in an ordinary training. Even though some gay soldiers have special skills in foreign languages that enable them to translate the foreign sources or open up communication in foreign/international relations, they’re gonna be discharged once they reveal their identities.

northlondon: boy you sure took a beating, so to speak, on this thread. Just goes to show you shouldn't inject your personal fear of homosexuality into a debate about the ability of individuals. Being gay has nothing at all to do with leadership ability.

10% of the human population is gay; that's a statistical fact, and runs from people on your favourite football and rugby teams to men and women in the military. Try learning a little -- might make you a little less scared.

While I was in the Army, I too knew of a few gays and I had no problems with them serving along side me nor did I ever even think about not performing any medical assistance that was needed for them (medic) however just as much as I would support keeping men separate from women in terms of barracks/bunking, I think there is a need thought that of gays as to where they should sleep. I wouldn't like to go as far as having separate bunking areas, but why should one sacrifice their comfortability for another person's? No, I am not saying I would fear getting raped but just as a woman would feel uncomfortable sleeping around men due to unwanted thoughts, I am sure a many hetros would feel just as uncomfortable sleeping in the same area as homosexuals. Or are we, those who are straight, to drop that? My brother was in the Navy, on small crafts and the bunks are basically only two if less inches apart. if you understand a woman's concern, you should also understand a straight person's concern.

Some people would feel uncomfortable about that Skip but if that person is there to do their job, especially in the military, they'll do their job (most intelligent people have good work ethics). I was in college where I had to share my dorm room with 4 openly homosexual men. I was able to sleep very well without any crazy stuff going on, or worry about anything weird happening. So while I understand the concern, I don't think it will be that big an issue (except for maybe a few incidents by the bad apples).

Alphaape,

I'm not sure that Obama can, by Executive Order, set aside a law passed by Congress and upheld 5 times in the federal courts. If he could, there are a lot of other laws that I'd like to see him overturn by Executive Order. What a nuisance this Legislature is!

northlondon You're so wrong. I served active duty and I served with gay Marines. I never had a problem of any kind with them. They did their jobs as well as anybody.

Except for the fact that they were gay, they were Marines. < :-)

I was in the military and just wanted to add to the consensus that northlondon is full of crap. He might have been able to scare people into his beliefs 20 or 30 years ago but most people are not superstitious about gays anymore.

I guess that's the difference between those of us who were in the reality military. It has been over 30 years since I entered the Air Force. I knew gays in the military back then. It is about time the law catches up with reality. As far as northlondon catching up with reality. I won't be getting my hopes up any time soon.

Honestdictator: Well, why, instead of having a bedding area for women and one for men, why not just make one?

but by no means is being gay a reason to be disregarded nor is it a reason to get discharged.

"Liberals" like to say Clinton was our first black president. (I still don't quite understand - or care - what they meant by that...) But I reckon if that was the case well then Obama must be signaling the identity politics crowd that he is ready to be our first gay president.

"Liberals" like to say Clinton was our first black president. (I still don't quite understand - or care - what they meant by that...)

It's actually meant to be a joke, and not a very good one. It's a stereotypical and rather racist way of saying that Clinton was a "player" by screwing around on his wife while in the White House...literally...and then denying it even after being caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Somehow that's supposed to be viewed as ghetto cool and a very "black" thing to do.