world

U.S. Senate votes to overturn military gay ban

197 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

197 Comments
Login to comment

Cool

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sen. McCain is such a weasel. He previously fully supported the repeal, but the political winds shifted in his state, and he did an about face. This from a 74 year old who has served 23 years in the Senate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why do gays try so hard for their lifestyle to be "open and accepted"? Keep your bedroom habits to yourself, we don't need to know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And thats what they do. Gays have served in the military with the same distinction as non gays have. That's not the point. The point was someone could be serving just like anyone else, however if an accusation is made or something gets leaked out then they can be dismissed from the military.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't have problem with it but just wonder how the living situations will be in the dormitories. Obviously, in basic and other types of training, military members are all living and showering together. Men & women are in separate dorms. How are they going to address this? Being ex-military myself, I wouldn't have wanted to deal with knowing someone might be checking me out everytime I undressed. The training was tough enough to deal without that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I wouldn't have wanted to deal with knowing someone might be checking me out everytime I undressed. The training was tough enough to deal without that."

v4vendetta: Can you get some kind of communicable disease being "checked out"? Try being tougher.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's not the point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes it is. What's more scary, live combat or being seen naked by a gay person?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, it's not.

Were you in the military? Until you've lived and breathed it then you can discuss it.

So what you're saying then is guys and girls can dorm together because it wouldn't be a distraction. None at all? You're forgetting everybody is different and reacts differently to different situations. What doesn't stress one person out may make someone else uncomfortable.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with gays in the military. I just wonder how they'll address the living situation. That's it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am so glad to see this repealed. I served with gays and was proud to serve with them no less or more than my heterosexual compatriots. I never felt a threat or uncomfortable. I felt more uncomfortable around those who were so bigoted and racist.

sensei258 - Why do gays try so hard for their lifestyle to be "open and accepted"? Keep your bedroom habits to yourself, we don't need to know.

They aren't asking to take their lifestyle outside the bedroom. They are asking to serve next to their heterosexual comrades.

It's like when you finally get a chance to rest and you'd like to have a beer with someone without worrying that somebody is going to out you and get you discharged. There are still rules about open displays of affection, there are rules about places and times when you hold hands for instance. These aren't going to change.

It's a good move for America. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can you get some kind of communicable disease being "checked out"? Try being tougher.

A straight may may not want to share a shower with a gay man for the same reason a woman wouldn't want to share one with a straight man. Nobody gets hurt sharing the same shower but one group is deffinatly having more fun than the other.

live combat or being seen naked by a gay person?

Depends on the gay guy. Many can be quite imposing. Plus, it's just not fair, if gay men get to shower with their gender of preference why can't I?

Though it's largely a moot point as most military bases use private showers anyway. Field bases, and some older ones, are a different matter but if there are straight soldiers that have a problem with gay soldiers eyeing their goods they could give them option for seperate shower times.

It's good that gays can serve openly but I think that there's going to be some mild retooling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I too worked alongside gay people while I served in the military and got along fine. I never felt uncomfortable. In fact one of my best friends in the the military was gay. Of course, he had to keep quiet about it with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and did eventually get booted out because he came out. The stress of holding it in was too much unfortunately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

v4vendetta.

If you been in the military, it is possible that you already showered with a gay person(you just didn't know about it) and been checked out. So where is the biggie?

Right now the policy prevents a lot of people that want to serve to sign up and people that signed up can be removed quickly if their true nature somehow peeks through.

Not good as it also affects officers, etc.

I think it is a good move and won"t cause the chaos as so many predict. In another article majority of soldiers interviewed said "It don't matter as long as they are doing their Job".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11 If you been in the military, it is possible that you already showered with a gay person(you just didn't know about it) and been checked out. So where is the biggie? I'm sure there's a possibility and it really isn't that big of a deal for me but I just wonder what will happen when the first person who cries they've been sexually assaulted in the dorms? I'm sure the chances are slim but it could happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So how do we go from looks to getting sexually assaulted? Seriously. Gays have served in the military long before don't ask don't tell, you yourself have said you have served with them without problems. The only problem has been once found out they get kicked out despite that they have worked along side other soldiers without problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gays and Lesbians already serve openly in many other allied nations, without much or any problems in regards to performance of duties etc. The same has been in the US, Gays and Lesbians have served without any major problems, they just had to do it secretly. To think just because it is now free to talk about it openly will suddenly make the shower room a peep show is ridiculous, especially when we put so much high regard on those who sign up and fight to defend the country. Yes you do get idiots (gay or strait) who come in from time to time, those are the people you really don't want serving or representing the country to begin with.

Interestingly about Canada: "Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sensei258,

"Why do gays try so hard for their lifestyle to be "open and accepted"? Keep your bedroom habits to yourself, we don't need to know."

Who exactly is this "we" you're talking about? When a gay soldier is standing on a line, weapon in hand, defending with his or her life our safety and freedom, I personally don't think about what he or she does in the bedroom.

Do you? And if so, why? Maybe you should first start looking more deeply at the bizarreness of that before you attempt to question the "rightness" or "wrongness" of what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

15 percent unemployment in some states, but the Democrats fret about the 5 or 6 hundred gays kicked out of the US military each year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is too silly, Americans need to mature as a country. So a homosexual will see the same sex naked? However the Army has been letting felons into the ranks to fill quota. Perhaps the best thing to do is not to worry about sex segregation at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

v4vendetta,

"I wouldn't have wanted to deal with knowing someone might be checking me out everytime I undressed."

Welcome to the reality women have had to put up from men for the better part of human history. And yet they've soehow mananged to not implode, despite an endless barrage of unsolicited leers, jeers, and unwanted attention from men who believe by virtue of their sexuality, they have some sort of right to ogle unimpeded.

Please. If the rough and tumble American G.I. can't handle being checked out in a locker room, maybe s/he should find a different line of work that's a bit more gentle on his or her delicate sensibilities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For all those that keep giving the mantra that "gays already serve in the military" that is true but this issue goes a lot deeper.

Here in Yokosuka, the "massage" parlors are off limits to the military, and if you get caught coming out of one you can get busted (even the visiting of the legitimate places like the ones in Nevada are off limits too). The party line that is given is that it is illegal under the UCMJ, and that it is against the military's Trafficing in Persons and it is a morally wrong.

Well, if it is morally wrong as some commanders like to put it, then what does that mean if now, some staright people may feel that it is morally wrong to be homosexual. So a sttraight person, now is forbidden to go to a massage parlor due to morality, but yet a gay person can now be accepted. Where is the logic in that?

Some smart "sea lawyer" should challenge this case on those grounds. I wonder will the military place all of those places that have the "lady boys" off limits to military people in Thailand just like they try to curtail the straight troops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape: What in the world are you talking about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape,

"Well, if it is morally wrong as some commanders like to put it, then what does that mean if now, some staright people may feel that it is morally wrong to be homosexual. So a sttraight person, now is forbidden to go to a massage parlor due to morality, but yet a gay person can now be accepted. Where is the logic in that?"

Where is the logic in deed. To address that bizarrely structured, reeeeeeally-hard-to-follow logic, the issue of how the military defines morality has just been answered by the Senate's striking down of the ban. Our elected representatives have decided one's sexual orientation is not a moral issue.

As for your hypothetical presentation of rank-and-file soldiers trying to argue that homosexuality is immoral, see again the Senate's vote. The U.S. military being a civlian-controlled one, I imagine any rank-and-file with issues about homosexuality will see their efforts go the same way as those soldiers who in the past tried to argue that blacks had no place in the military.

"I wonder will the military place all of those places that have the "lady boys" off limits to military people in Thailand just like they try to curtail the straight troops."

I'll just be straight with you: This makes no sense whatsoever. Could you please rephrase it somehow?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

v4vendetta: "You're forgetting everybody is different and reacts differently to different situations. What doesn't stress one person out may make someone else uncomfortable."

So then you admit it's not a gay issue, but a personal one.

Alphaape: "So a sttraight person, now is forbidden to go to a massage parlor due to morality, but yet a gay person can now be accepted. Where is the logic in that?"

Are gay people as a result of this repeal allowed to go into massage parlors? If not, can't really see what your point is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The upside of this is that army recruiters can no longer be banned from our university campuses on the grounds that they 'discriminate' .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Totally agree with LFRAgain. It's about time that gay people in the military didn't have to tip toe around an lie about who they are. I don't see what sexual preference has to do with defending your country. Get on with it USA!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are now no legitimate reasons for separating men and women for any purpose in the military. If an openly gay man can shower with heterosexual men, why can't an openly heterosexual man shower with a woman? If an openly gay woman can sleep in the same quarters with heterosexual women, then why can't a woman sleep in the same quarters as men? There is no logical reason to make any distinctions based on sexuality anymore. Sex was the reason for separating men and women - now that rationale is gone. Based on this new social view that has been forced upon the military, to keep men and women separated now can only be considered discriminatory.

The sad thing is this policy change serves to crystalize what most people must surely see by now; and that is there is no longer any such thing as a commonly accepted morality in the United States. Personal character and honor are all relative and not anchored to anything in the nations culture. It's a shame to see this general decline of American values in one of the few institutions left in the country that had still been considered decent and honorable. What is the next perversion that is now generally considered unacceptable by all in society that will in the not too distant future become normal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The outstanding thing is DADT has been repealed. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape: What in the world are you talking about?

The point I was trying to make was that in the military, like it or not, certain sexual practices are outlawed. Going to massage parlors, sodomy, adultery aer but examples that straight service members can be charged with.

Now that the door is open for openly gay members, will they be allowed to practice those same acts and face the same charges as straights? Will the UCMJ be revised to indicate that the "bath houses" and other types of establishments will be off limits for gays as well as straights, and will the adultery charge be modified to indicate that it wil be for straight and gays. But, that one will be a bit harder since gay marriage is not deemed legal in the US.

That is what I am trying to bring out. In the past, the US has enacted laws, and then by not thinking them through, you get all sorts of cases against the laws. I feel that in this case, this law will open up a flood gate of legal challenges like the ones I have described.

The sad thing is this policy change serves to crystalize what most people must surely see by now; and that is there is no longer any such thing as a commonly accepted morality in the United States. Personal character and honor are all relative and not anchored to anything in the nations culture. It's a shame to see this general decline of American values in one of the few institutions left in the country that had still been considered decent and honorable. What is the next perversion that is now generally considered unacceptable by all in society that will in the not too distant future become normal?

@Wolfpack, you said exactly what I was trying to say. Now let the lawyer frenzy begin as the examples I cited beging to play out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack: " It's a shame to see this general decline of American values in one of the few institutions left in the country that had still been considered decent and honorable."

So, homosexuality is immoral and now that a person who is already in the military can openly say they are gay (instead of hiding it) it is a 'decline' in a decent and honorable institution? Come on, bro, drop the bible and start to understand that sexual orientation does not matter when pointing a gun. As for the American military being 'honorable'... haha.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are gay people as a result of this repeal allowed to go into massage parlors? If not, can't really see what your point is.

@smithinjapan, well now the law says that they can practice their sexuality openly. So, what makes you think the same civil liberties groups, that brought up this issue, will just sit back and let them be regulated like the non-gays in which sexual activities they can participate in.

You forget, since their battle is won, they have no more enemy to fight. Now as some of these groups begin to fade away and loose significance since their challenge is over, they will begin to look for new ways to remain relevant, and more importantly to try to get money for their cause.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll just be straight with you: This makes no sense whatsoever. Could you please rephrase it somehow?

@LFRAgain: as a straight person, I am forbidden to go to a massage parlor, or in the case of ships going to Thailand, all of those bars that have the women available for prostitution are illegal for me to enter, and I could face charges for conducting business with them.

Will that rule also apply to gay members too? That is the question I am asking, since now the ruling says that openly gays can serve, will they be allowed to practice their sexuality as they choose, even if it means that they want to visit such places where "lady boys" (i.e. men who dress and act like women) are working, or will they have the same restrictions placed on when and with whom they can practice sex with, the same as straight members do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape: "Will that rule also apply to gay members too?"

So your argument about gays being in the military is that they might be allowed to frequent the prostitution places you have been forbidden? Wow... talk about misdirecting one's anger!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Finally justice prevails. This is and always was about human rights. The long time ban and then ridiculous DADT policy was about prejudice; nothing more. What will the arch conservatives say when there is no mass exodus because this fair policy has taken effect?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is unconstitutional and will fall. Gays cannot serve OPENLY and be embraced by our nation. All holy books condemn “gay” lifestyles.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution forbids the prohibiting of our religion; our religion demands warning homosexuals and separating from those who refuse to hear. Our religion and US law forbid taxing people to teach homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.; Accepting OPENLY “gay” personnel condones it and teaches our children it is acceptable. It is against our laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape.

Military rules apply to ALL military personnel. Where does it say anything about gender or sexual preferences in the code of conduct, etc.

Many women, etc today in the US Forces are still being harassed, etc and the offenders will be punished same with ANY other offender in the Military.

Of course there will be a readjustement time and some bumps same as was when african-americans and women started being accepted.

People who see it is a chaos, etc happening got very little confidence in their countries military forces and the soldiers that protect them.

Just my Opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

one down side of this that only those who've been in the military, is that saying your gay won't get you out of your contract!!! Knew quite a few who got out like that.

I never agreed with kicking a person out for being gay nor causing them harm.

There has always been gays in the military, that's a given, especially in the medical field... the only problem I really see is is the next step cross dressing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... the only problem I really see is is the next step cross dressing?

Sorry Wolfpack beat you to the slippery slope logical fallacy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So your argument about gays being in the military is that they might be allowed to frequent the prostitution places you have been forbidden? Wow... talk about misdirecting one's anger!

@smithinjapan: no I don't have anger becuase I can't visit prostitution places, what I am trying to bring out to the discussion is the point that Wolfpack brought up, that the rules in the military are based on a certain morality, and to enact a law that pretty much goes in the opposite of what that morality is can cause some concern.

So, if a straight person who does not wish to go to a house of prostitution based on his moral ethics choses not to do so, then what is he supposed to do when he is serving alongside a person who happens to be gay, and he may have a moral aversion to that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for the American military being 'honorable'... haha.

@smithinjapan: if the American military is not honorable, then why all the big ado about letting gays serve openly. By your logic, you should be telling gays not to enter and get as far away as possible, vice jumping on the bandwagon that this is a great day for human rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape.

You are also talking about Soldiers that are currently serving and saved fellow soldiers(regardless of their sexual orientation).

Moral aversion should NOT even come into play, the Soldier(ANY) is hired to do a job not for his oral viewpoints. If the person has such strong moral aversion he/she should quit the forces as he us UNFIT to serve.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

moral viewpoint

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Overdue. America is about freedom...right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Right. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Camp Zama club should become an interesting venue. Sarge Billy and Sarge Enrico, doing a slow dance and kissing on the dance floor. I have no problems with gays being open at all, but I worry about their health mentally and physically if they become openly gay on a base or outside a base, and quite often uneducated, ignorant, and or racist. The armed forces are important and brave people, but they will need to be educated by sympathizing commanders to make this work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... the only problem I really see is is the next step cross dressing? Sorry Wolfpack beat you to the slippery slope logical fallacy." So you're ok with military members cross dressing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Sen. McCain is such a weasel. He previously fully supported the repeal, but the political winds shifted in his state, and he did an about face. This from a 74 year old who has served 23 years in the Senate."

Ditto this. McCain has watched the world pass him by three or four times now. It is pathetic how he is trying to keep up by being a weasel, exactly as you say. Unfortunately, it is the only way he can survive as a moderate in the GOP these days. If he is nutty on some issues, they might let him keep his job.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No skipthesong I don't like enlisted dressing like officers or officers dressing like enlisted. Just gross. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know it is popular to turn this into a religious issue, but it is a civil rights issue. Some people used to think that black people should not be in the military, but that has changed. Citizenship and human rights are supposed to be independent of race, color, creed, etc. Why is that so hard to understand?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape: "that the rules in the military are based on a certain morality, and to enact a law that pretty much goes in the opposite of what that morality is can cause some concern."

This law goes in no way against morality, except for bible-thumpers, who's morality should be questioned to begin with.

" if the American military is not honorable, then why all the big ado about letting gays serve openly."

Thank you for making my point. The American military is not honorable in ANY respect so long as they deny a person's orientation, bottom line. Allowing gays to openly serve makes them more honorable -- YOU, on the other hand, are searching for some archaic, very subject meaning of what honor means.

"So, if a straight person who does not wish to go to a house of prostitution based on his moral ethics choses not to do so, then what is he supposed to do when he is serving alongside a person who happens to be gay, and he may have a moral aversion to that?"

He, or she, (I notice along with being a homophobe you are also being sexist) should quit. It's not up to the gay person to change the mind of the person serving aside him/her, it's up the to person beside them. You are a prime example -- YOU need to change your thinking, not homosexuals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape: "Now that the door is open for openly gay members, will they be allowed to practice those same acts and face the same charges as straights?"

Again, you're seriously more upset with the idea that gays might be able to frequent places that 'straights' cannot? You need to do a little something called prioritizing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama could have ended DADT with the stroke of a pen. And we know as soon as he did it somebody would be filing lawsuit after lawsuit. That's why he didn't do so and waited till it was passed as legislation. Challenging it would be much harder. Damn near impossible.

Smart move. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I had really hoped there'd be more discussion about implementation. A straight man (or woman, I think that angle's been largely neglected) may feel uncomfortable undressing around a gay man (or lesbian) in the same way a woman would feel uncomfortable doing so in front of a man. Having them on a separate floor or barracks might work if necessary.

Also there's an issue with chaplain services and if they are allowed to continue speaking freely in regards to their religious beliefs. Piss and moan about religion all you want but its still a legitimate issue in a military that is roughly 80% Christians with plenty of Baptist and Catholic chaplains to go around.

Soldier(ANY) is hired to do a job not for his oral viewpoints.

This topic makes the typo oddly applicable.

Come on, bro, drop the bible and start to understand that sexual orientation does not matter when pointing a gun.

I don't know, "this is my rifle" and all that jazz.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First Off,

DADT wasn't perfect but it was effective. There was no ban on gays serving in the Military under DADT as long as they held to the part of the don't tell end of the policy.

Having served 20 years in the Navy with an Honorable discharge let me bring some things here to table that those who haven't served on this change in the policy. The issue on the deck-plate level is pretty simple its about a person who declares "openly" that he or she is gay. "Big deal" for those that haven't served would say and a civil rights issue and those archaic military types need to "get with the program" and embrace this by force if necessary or get out.

Well it is a "Big Deal" because now the Military will have to make "special rules and regulations" to adjust to this policy and make it work. When you join the Military the first place they send you is boot camp. The first thing they do there is shave your head along with 60 or 70 other souls that have joined from all walks of life in the U.S, every race creed or color and yes sexual preference to re-enforce uniformity and break the individual out of you and remake me as a member of the Armed Forces Team. A person who joins can't hide the fact that he is Asian, Caucasuan or African American or Indian and no special treatment is afforded, we all get our heads shaved and the push-ups start.

A person can and in my opinion should keep his or private sex life just that private. Because now you have just changed that mix in boot camp and through-out a persons Naval career. You now have to single out and provide openly Gay Seaman Recruit Smith, because he has chosen to declare it in a most public way, his own special arrangements and singled out for special needs attention because maybe Seaman Jones his new bunk mate might not be so keen on the idea of Seaman Smith sleeping 3 feet away from him and submits a request for a different berthing arrangement.

Whoa!!! hold on this is the Military you do what you are told. You tell Seaman Jones request is denied and told to get used to it and follow orders. Seaman Jones isn't a real happy camper and neither is the rest of the division because they all have to now make adjustments to suit Seaman Smiths "private sexual needs". Trying to write this as best I can as to the real negatives and impact this will have on people who already have one of the hardest jobs on the planet as it is.

Liberals might feel good about this in a kumbaya sort of way, but it is unfortunate that real due consideration from the Liberal side should be looked at also to determine if this policy will accomplish the Military's real bottom line.......That line is "Does this support the warfighter and his mission". I say DADT did that in a flawed but effective way for Folks that happen to be gay. The jury is out if this new policy will support or actually hinder and harm the mission now instead. That is where most Military folks are at on this issue not because the are Homophobic, or right-wing bible thumpers or whatever stereotypes that those on the left who have never served carry in them about those who serve. They care about doing the mission and doing it with, and I'll be blunt...doing it with as less "Politically Correct Bullshit" as possible to accomplish it.

The Military will make this work as ordered and things will shake out in a manner that no one can really say with 100 percent real confidence right now. I do believe as a Country the U.S has moved forward enough with tolerance for gay folks to serve in a more tolerant way but make no mistake this is not a civil rights issue, this is about a persons sex life and when you bring sex into the mix, it is never going to be an easy comfortable adjustment, especially in a Military environment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To equate this with the civil rights movement whose goal to treat blacks fairly is dangerous territory. Blacks are born black and didn't choose their color. Homosexuals choose to act the way they do and piss alot of people off as they provocatively shove their "lifestyle" in the face of the rest of society. Keep your sexual perversions to yourselves. What is unnatural is unnatural. Can't you learn from the fact that two men together or two women together can't procreate and make another human being?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With this and the Kagan appointment my liberal friends tell me Obama will be remembered as our first gay president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yokohamarider: "Blacks are born black and didn't choose their color. Homosexuals choose to act the way they do and piss alot of people off as they provocatively shove their "lifestyle" in the face of the rest of society."

Please. Homosexuals are born homosexuals -- it's biological, not a life-style choice. Only fools continue to believe it to be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don"t see why the repeal is such a bad thing.

A person can reveal their sexual preferences or NOT, counts for everyone (Straight, homosexual, bisexual, etc).

And I am sure the Military forces been preparing for that eventuality already. Like I said it is not about turning the Military into a "Blue Oyster Bar" overnight or having gay sex-orgies in the Barracks.

Yes, some people "might" find out that their room-mate/buddy/etc is gay and they been sharing for years, etc.

Not like all of a sudden every gay will come out and start having Gay parades on the exercise ground. I am sure many will just keep doing their stuff as they been doing all along.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheQuestion: "I don't know, "this is my rifle" and all that jazz."

So why should it be any different if a gay man or woman is serving? Does it start being a 'rifle' because the person holding it is gay? What's your point?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - Well said. It is a sad day for the majority of the people in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most likely very little to none.

If you let having a gay in your company affect your performance you by definition are UNFIT to serve and are a danger to your UNIT.

That is YOU are the problem/risk not the gay person.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape,

"if a straight person who does not wish to go to a house of prostitution based on his moral ethics choses not to do so, then what is he supposed to do when he is serving alongside a person who happens to be gay, and he may have a moral aversion to that?"

Do us all a favor and replace the word "gay" in all of your arguments from now on with the word "black." Then let's see how well your logic pans out.

Meanwhile, while there aren't any actual laws defined as "moral" in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it's rather illuminating to note that Sections § 920 and § 925 are violated by military personnel on a regular basis without any appreciable disintegration of military discipline or cohesion.

With that in mind, it seems morally upstanding soldiers serving alongside soldiers who participate in carnal knowledge or sodomy have been able to cope with the indignity just fine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's interesting to note how many of the real top level military guys are being this.

Even the SecDef.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

312,000-odd soldiers have been discharged due to their sexual orientation?

That's a national disgrace coming our of a country as diverse as the U.S.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack is entirely correct... Now for the benefits. Hmm maybe some military members could take an umemployed person to live with them. Civil union can be platonic as well. More people could eat and have health care. Why not group unions? Imagine one joins the military and is open about his very close group be it platonic or not. Having more than one wife is a possibility as well. HIV health care AIDs. Many will join just for the health care for the other HIV positive partner. Cannot blame them. Many straight folks should and do do the same for their spouse and family. In any event the human heart does point to the natural moral order with mercy and compassion as life teaches us. We all fail at times and must deal with our own weaknesses. Morality cannot be legislated anyway. We will be OK. All of us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You don't have to be straight to shoot straight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moral aversion should NOT even come into play, the Soldier(ANY) is hired to do a job not for his oral viewpoints. If the person has such strong moral aversion he/she should quit the forces as he us UNFIT to serve.

@Zenny11, if moral aversion should not come into play, and the military is only there to "do their job" then why do they have chaplain's to offer religious ministry to the troops?

920 and § 925 are violated by military personnel on a regular basis without any appreciable disintegration of military discipline or cohesion.

@LFRAgain, tell that to the people I see going to CO's mast for going to off limits places of prostitution. They are bothering any of their shipmates, just doing their own thing, but they are getting caught and facing penalites for doing it. Violating military discipline.

Do us all a favor and replace the word "gay" in all of your arguments from now on with the word "black." Then let's see how well your logic pans out.

race has nothing to do with this issue. I am Black so what's your point. The logic I was brining up, if it is illegal for gays to marry in the US, then how is it that this law can trump the US law? My logic is, what gives one group the right to do a sexual activity, while another group is denied the same accords.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AIDS is not a gay disease, it is a human calamity that affect all, not just gays. To mention this fallacy on a board that talks about gay people and their right to fight for their country is just misdirection and malfeasance and should be nipped in the bud quickly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny11, if moral aversion should not come into play, and the military is only there to "do their job" then why do they have chaplain's to offer religious ministry to the troops?

Not being religious I couldn't tell you but maybe so they can cope with the stress of fighting, killing, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape at 04:27 PM JST - 19th December

My logic is, what gives one group the right to do a sexual activity, while another group is denied the same accords.

But DADT did deny "the same accords." Straight people were allowed to have sex and gay people were forbidden to do so. Please don't say something like gay guys could have sex with girls if they wanted because that is a totally ignorant statement.

It is just an added bonus for this law to piss off all the right people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not being religious I couldn't tell you but maybe so they can cope with the stress of fighting, killing, etc.

@Zenny11: true chaplains are there to help with stress coping, and in addition to religious degrees some do have clinical counseling. But the fact is, they try to approach helping people solve problems with both clinical and relgious methods. So there is a moral component to military service, and asking them to basically say something that may be against their religious beliefs is forcing some else's viewpoints on them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Correct me if wrong. I listen "Eagle 810" quiet a bit and there are also jewish, etc chaplains and they will also counsel atheists, agnotics, etc.

Not getting into a religious debate but serving with gays, etc is something that every soldier must come to terms within themselves, and yes chaplains can help there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The root of the whole problem here is that heterosexuals assume that other people are heterosexual. It's not like gay people in the military are suddenly going to be parading around shouting 'I'm gay! I'm gay!' but now at least they won't have to hide who they are anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is just an added bonus for this law to piss off all the right people.

More important to piss off people who don't agree with your politics than to do actually do the right thing and actually have the right policy for our men and women in uniform instead I guess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All of you are missing the point. The U.S. military simply needs more boots on the ground to send off to fight and maybe die in the wars started by bush and the GOP. To support my point, you'll note USGov also wants to grant citizenship to illegals who join the military. Talking about rights and regulations for gay soldiers is like talking about philosophy when the subject is bananas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind at 05:32 PM JST - 19th December

More important to piss off people who don't agree with your politics than to do actually do the right thing and actually have the right policy for our men and women in uniform instead I guess.

I guess you don't understand what added bonus means. I saw your long worthless speech.

The bottom line is that it is the best policy is to insist that the men and women in uniform obey this morally correct policy. This is a human rights issue and it is immoral to deny gays the right to serve without fear of reprisal.

I can't believe the liberals on here who concede the moral high ground to these homophobes. It is immoral to call gays deviants. It is immoral to kick gays out of the military because they had sex or were exposed in some manner including self disclosure.

This law did not get passed because America is declining morally. That is a bunch of bullshit that homophobes and bigots want to pass off. The vast majority of Americans support this. These are straight people who understand what the moral and ethical thing to do is.

This is not about being politically correct. It is about human rights and the losers, the bigots and the homophobes can cry all they want to and lie all they want to and make up their myriad of excuses for taking the moral low ground but that is exactly what they are doing. Make no mistake about that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess you don't understand what added bonus means. I saw your long worthless speech.

Personal insult....Check

The bottom line is that it is the best policy is to insist that the men and women in uniform obey this morally correct policy.

No insisting about it. They will be ordered to obey it period and their individual morals and social mores be damned. You do realize that some people in the military are from different states than California and New York don't you?

This is a human rights issue and it is immoral to deny gays the right to serve without fear of reprisal.

It's about having sex and proclaiming what gender you want to have sex with. I guess I could insist that I can have sex with any woman I want and call it also part of my human rights, though the object of advances may have a few issues with my insistence on my 'human sexual rights'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To support my point, you'll note USGov also wants to grant citizenship to illegals who join the military.

@sailwind: you need to find another item to support your point. The granint of citizenship to non US persons in the military has been a long standing practice. It is just the politicians these days in their attempt to try to pass the "Dream Act" are trying to make believe that this has not been the case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can see the law suits on both sides of this coming now... just like some guys in prison suing because certain needs weren't met... A christian or a Muslim is going to say this goes against their religion. A gay is going to say the military didn't provide him/her they were victims of sexual harassment. This is not going to go over smoothly for a while. GD: I've seen you rant before but this is tops today.. you are one cranky dude today.

smith: as far is it being biological? quit it. you know damn well that there have been finding all across the board on this. You are way too pushy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This was just a matter of time. The American population has already turned and support the DADT repeal, then the majority of soldiers don't mind the repeal neither, moreso with each succeeding new generation of young recruits.

And if they were gonna do it, this is the way. If DADT was overturned in the courts and the Supreme Court, the repeal would have been immediate (it's not up to the SCOTUS to make accomodation) and giving the military no time to prepare. At least this way, there's a plan to ease the adjustments and training.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also, there shouldn't be much effect on military efficiency. Israel has one of the most organized militaries in the world, and the Israeli military allows gays to serve and defend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

then the majority of soldiers don't mind the repeal neither" Have you seen the questionnaire? If its anything like the one they gave out in 91/2' it kind of leaves you an a or a b..... No one is against a person being gay in the military, however, there are a lot of questions that should have been settled before they arrogantly repealed this. I asked it above, in a sarcastic manner, but it is nevertheless a point. Will they now consider instead of separating sexes, make everyone co-ed? If not, how to they deal with this? Again, what if someone is a devout Christian or even Muslim, do you put him/her as a bunk mate with a gay? What about some Christan or Muslims saying the military is now discriminating against their religion and therefore want to be released from their contracts? And I'm only asking questions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

It is up to the US military to make the necessary preparations. This allows them to do that before implementation. The US military can handle it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good news for gay people wanting to serve their country, bad news for those not equipped to deal with people of the same sex being atracted to one another....

...And horrific news for those amongst us with a wide stance in the showroom.

Oh, and John McCain is an old fart. He should be in Florida with all the other old gits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bah showeroom

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well they did cut taxes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Republicans followed through on what they said: once the tax issue was out of the way, they would move on the other issues.

Priority on cutting spending, yes. Stimulating the economy - apparently the $800 trillion stimulus bill just passed. But there's no timetable about correcting an injustice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This law did not get passed because America is declining morally. That is a bunch of bullshit that homophobes and bigots want to pass off. The vast majority of Americans support this. These are straight people who understand what the moral and ethical thing to do is.

totally agree with you, well said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SecDef Gates and Mullins are in favor of this bill. Does that mean that everyone against it is an anti-American non-patriot? And that former servicemen like Sailwind are up for dereliction of duty?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SecDef Gates and Mullins are in favor of this bill. Does that mean that everyone against it is an anti-American non-patriot?

And the three Commanders of the Army. Marine Corps and Air Force were opposed to it. I certainly would not call these gentleman anti-American or non-patriotic.

The commanders of three branches of the U.S. military told a congressional committee Friday that they are opposed to an immediate repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the policy that keeps openly gay individuals from serving in the armed forces.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Nolan Schwartz said they might favor a repeal eventually, but not now.

"I do not agree with the assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low," Casey said.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos refused to express his views on repeal at all.

The three commanders' lack of support stood in sharp contrast to testimony by Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, in which they urged Congress to act quickly to repeal the ban before the courts have a chance to do it. The two men testified before the Senate committee Thursday.

Schwartz and Casey argued that repealing the ban would have short-term risks and would be difficult for combat units, especially the Army.

Casey also expressed concern over adding another layer of stress to military forces already plagued by nearly a decade of war. And while Amos would not express his personal beliefs about the ban, he said that for now, he won't turn his back on Marines who have expressed concern about serving with openly gay men and woman.

According to the survey, released Monday, 45 percent of Marines said they believe repealing DADT would negatively affect troop effectiveness, readiness and cohesion.

And that former servicemen like Sailwind are up for dereliction of duty?

I would be derelict in my duty if I did not voice legitimate concerns that will have now have to be addressed to implement this policy and letting those who have not served to stop with the talking points and instead understand that if not implemented properly the potential for a unit to lose combat readyness and fighting cohesiveness may well result in our people getting needlessly killed. I would derelict if these concerns were not mentioned was not implemented properly.

I will return you to now to your duty of just playing politics to score points and calling those such as myself as 'homophobic racists' instead of a serious discussion on this policy and all its implications for American serviceman and woman the good and the bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is still a voluntary army. That is by far the most important thing. This vote derails the democrat-progressive movement to reinstate a draft.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This vote derails the democrat-progressive movement to reinstate a draft.

You could at least try to make a coherent comment you know, and not just bang out buzzwords on your keyboard. Or is this just a repeating of today's "reporting" on Uncle Rupert's vacuum-up America's money network?

Bet it is, usually when I read a "what is that guy smoking" comment I later see that that is what they talked about on Faux News on that day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Decorated gay soldier: "Don't ask, don't tell? I think we should be allowed to tell."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "smith: as far is it being biological? quit it. you know damn well that there have been finding all across the board on this. You are way too pushy."

So why should I quit it if there have been findings 'all across the board'? It means that I might be correct. Should I instead just sit by why people say homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice' (and I notice you do not admonish them)? Sorry, bro, but facts are facts -- homosexuality is biological, and one in ten people are gay. That the American military has decided to come out from the dark ages and allow gay people to openly serve is a GOOD thing, much as homophobes cry about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "Decorated gay soldier: "Don't ask, don't tell? I think we should be allowed to tell."

That decorated gay soldier allowed you to be sitting at your keyboard and typing (instead of fighting).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge at 11:07 PM JST - 19th December

Decorated gay soldier: "Don't ask, don't tell? I think we should be allowed to tell."

Good point Sarge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey - Thanks. I got that line from an episode of Boston Legal.

But I've always thought the U.S. military's ban on gays was dumb and a waste of time and money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I knew a guy many years ago that found out his roommate was gay the hard way. He wasn't very happy with that. The fellow was posted out very quickly. I believe that they should be able to serve but I think they should keep it to themselves so was very happy with DADT. Otherwise I think that there should be the same efforts to give segregation to straights from openly gay just like women are allowed segregation from men. That could prove costly though so DADT is the best compromise. Why overturn it? Also no one should be getting "kicked out" based solely on hearsay if another decides to rat on them unless for example it comes down to a sexual assault like what happened to that fellow I knew back in the 80s.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dolphingirl - The root of the whole problem here is that heterosexuals assume that other people are heterosexual. It's not like gay people in the military are suddenly going to be parading around shouting 'I'm gay! I'm gay!' but now at least they won't have to hide who they are anymore.

And the parades will be "fabulous" what with all those jazz hands and spangles. One - two - three - kick. One - two - three - kick. (Just kidding.)

Seriously, does anyone know how this repeal affects the cross-dressers and change-sex types? Will Sgt. Rock be allowed to wear his very manly, female blouse? Is he permitted to wear a female cover instead of his usual male type on parade or in the PX? Will the taxpayers have to pay to surgically alter Sgt. Rock into Sgt. Rockette or visa versa?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mikehuntez: "I knew a guy many years ago that found out his roommate was gay the hard way. "

Yeah, we all have a 'friend' that did this or that.

"I believe that they should be able to serve but I think they should keep it to themselves so was very happy with DADT."

Most homophobes ARE happy with DADT -- they know the troops are desperately needed, but so long as their sexual orientation is denied it's all good. Anyway, the ban being repealed in no way means they cannot 'keep it to themselves', it only means they have the right to express themselves openly if they choose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan:

So, homosexuality is immoral and now that a person who is already in the military can openly say they are gay (instead of hiding it) it is a 'decline' in a decent and honorable institution? Come on, bro, drop the bible and start to understand that sexual orientation does not matter when pointing a gun. As for the American military being 'honorable'... haha.

First of all, I do not carry a bible as I am agnostic about religion. Although there is a bible in my house along with a lot of other books. You shouldn't assume that everyone that considers morality to be important to be a Christian or a member of any other religion. Yes, in my opinion homosexuality reflects a decline in Western cultural morality that corresponds closely to the overall decline of the West in general. Europe and North America taken as a whole have in the literal sense - become culturally, morally, and financially bankrupt. As for the ability to point a gun, all kinds of bad people are able to point a gun; but that isn't really the point now is it? The point is forcing other people to accept homosexuality as acceptable. Don't Ask Don't Tell was itself a ridiculous policy but it was at least tolerable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the armed forces and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.

The american military needs the gays now. Are they planning another war?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

klein2:

I know it is popular to turn this into a religious issue, but it is a civil rights issue. Some people used to think that black people should not be in the military, but that has changed. Citizenship and human rights are supposed to be independent of race, color, creed, etc. Why is that so hard to understand?

I agree, this is not a religious issue. What is hard to understand is why some people conflate acceptance of homosexuality in the military as a 'civil rights' issue similar to allowing blacks to serve on an equal basis in the armed services (by the way, blacks have always served in one capacity or another going back to the Revolutionary War). The issue with black Americans following WWII was integration. I don't know how you can integrate a person who identifies him or herself by their sexual practices. Integrating blacks in the military was a civil rights issue because race is not something based on a persons behavior. One's "race, color, creed, etc." is not a behavior, it is a physical characteristic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The democrats may not get everything and may even lose some fights, but this has passed. Cry republicans, blubber and whine....it's law now.

And as far as bringing back the draft, the democrats aren't even looking at this. Yes, the US Military is a volunteer organization. And this new law won't change this. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack,

There's plenty of religious cranks that support your intolerance.

Don't change what it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mikehuntez: "I knew a guy many years ago that found out his roommate was gay the hard way. " Yeah, we all have a 'friend' that did this or that.

Ok friend is a strong word. A guy that lived in the same barracks is better. He was never a friend. But hearing his story of what happened I think he has the choice to live with someone he knows will not check him out and try to take advantage of him when he comes home drunk. I also knew the other guy who suddenly was not welcome in the barracks. I was fortunate. Any roommate I had either was not gay or hid it well enough for my comfort level. So DADT works in my opinon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts:

Intolerance? You cannot engage in facts so you call people names? That might score points with your Liberal buddies but it reveals a shallowness in your thinking on this matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape: In reference to your comments to smithinjapan-

@smithinjapan: if the American military is not honorable, then why all the big ado about letting gays serve openly. By your logic, you should be telling gays not to enter and get as far away as possible, vice jumping on the bandwagon that this is a great day for human rights.

I've always believed that there are two reasons that Liberals were pushing to have the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy changed. 1) a method to train society into believing that homosexuality is moral, 2) to damage the military - an institution that they have loathed for decades. With this reply, my second point has been made.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan:

Please. Homosexuals are born homosexuals -- it's biological, not a life-style choice. Only fools continue to believe it to be.

So you are saying people don't choose who they have sex with? You are going down a path that you probably don't want to go with this line of reasoning. There are other sexual preferences that are also prevalent in society that could also be considered 'biological' that even Liberals and homosexuals would still find repugnant. A fuller discussion of this would likely be off subject but give it some thought and you will realize what I mean.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What is hard to understand is why some people conflate acceptance of homosexuality in the military as a 'civil rights' issue similar to allowing blacks to serve on an equal basis in the armed services (by the way, blacks have always served in one capacity or another going back to the Revolutionary War). The issue with black Americans following WWII was integration. I don't know how you can integrate a person who identifies him or herself by their sexual practices. "

Sorry you can't understand that Wolfy. THe fact is that homosexuals have been discriminated against, AND STILL ARE. Many people spend more time having sex than practicing their religion. Many women who have never used their genitalia at all are still discriminated against because they female genitalia. So I don't see why you would be confused about this being a civil rights issue. You think the only discrimination is RACIAL discrimination? You need to re-examine that.

I think the US should be a country where people are not discriminated against because of race, gender, religion or other unimportant things that have nothing to do with their basic humanity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I knew a guy many years ago that found out his roommate was gay the hard way. He wasn't very happy with that. The fellow was posted out very quickly. "

Gee Mike. Spare us your euphemisms. You are being vague. You mean he was raped? Why not say that? Because I had a roommate who was gay and I had to figure it out and wound up changing my quarters so he could be with his friend and I could get my own room. That is how civilized people handle things in the real world.

Gay men are not looking for a chance to jump straight guys any more than black people are looking for a chance to jump white people. If such people exist, they are individuals and should be treated as individuals.

What you are trying to get people to believe is that homosexuality is equal to child molestation or rape or other such crimes. It isn't. People like you and me go through life with different sexual practices of all kinds and should not be persecuted for them if they are legal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

6bncapitalists

"The upside of this is that army recruiters can no longer be banned from our university campuses on the grounds that they 'discriminate'"

Wrong. The Supreme Court decided six years ago that the federal government can withhold funding if Army recruiters are banned from a university campus--even if they're banned because of a discriminatory practice.

Universities can still ban them on any grounds they like. They just can't expect federal funds if they do so.

Surely you already knew this. Or was that just your smarmy way of insinuating that repealing DADT was a bad thing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DADT works on the level that it is supposed to--equal volunteerism and treatment--but it is also carries the sting of intolerance. Mullen has the right track here, when someone is willing to put their life on the line for you and the rest of their country, does it matter whether they go home to a man or a woman at the end of the day?

Repealing this standard does not mean suddenly every gay man and woman in the military is going to be open about their sexuality, only that, should they choose, they can be honest about their personal preferences without the danger of official action being taken against them. It's a part of one's personal life. Straight or gay you can share it with others if you want.

As for the issue of potential sexual harassment, women are already in the military. Should we kick out all the men who leer at a pretty girl? An unfair comparison perhaps, but so is worrying that a gay man (or woman) might check you out just because you're male (or female). They might, but there's no law against looking, is there? Nor should there be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack - Thanks for standing up for what is right - That LGBT (sounds like a sandwich) is really just abuse of human sexuality. So is using females as pieces of meat. The fine gift of human sexuality is really a gift of self to another. A beautiful encounter that can produce life. Now if we think that the military will act honorably, none of the abuses stated should be allowed as a good thing. They are not honorable but can happen and should be private. Should those who abuse their and others sexuality be kicked out of the military? Probably not because youth will be youth. Maybe that is all that is happening here.

However, why good people are fooled into saying it is a civil rights issue is beyond me because it is really evident, before our eyes, that that behavior is an abomination. It is similar to the abortion debate where it is also evident that a human being is involved and some people cannot see that. I do think that most in society are tolerant, including yourself, but are afraid of the mass delusion that this behavior is normal and something worth teaching our children to emulate. Would we stand up to defend our children and will we be put into prison for it? Will freedom of religion, speech and press be curtailed to stop "hate" speech? I do not know but one thing is certain is that nature will not be mocked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Should those who abuse their and others sexuality be kicked out of the military? Probably not because youth will be youth." - I want to add that this is true only if no crime has been committed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OneForAll,

However, why good people are fooled into saying it is a civil rights issue is beyond me because it is really evident, before our eyes, that that behavior is an abomination.

Thankfully, your silly notions of what is abominable are irrelevant.

And really...who tries to argue from the theory of natural law and expects to be taken seriously in the 21st century?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LGBT (sounds like a sandwich) is really just abuse of human sexuality

Says you. Next you'll say it is an abomination, right?

that behavior is an abomination

You did! Congrats!

It's good to get a laugh first thing in the morning, before going to work. Thanks for that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With mounting challenges to the legality of Obama Care and with the extension of the "Bush Tax Cuts" this was probably a sop the GOP threw to our poor, beleagured president. But the unforeseen consequences will be in the civlian sector as well. Obama's base is going to push harder on legalizing gay marriage, even as the rest of his party does everything in their power to otherwise destroy the institution of marriage and the family.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've always believed that there are two reasons that Liberals were pushing to have the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy changed. 1) a method to train society into believing that homosexuality is moral, 2) to damage the military - an institution that they have loathed for decades. With this reply, my second point has been made.

Hey wolfpack, if you hate gays so much why don't you go out and kill some? And who ELSE is on your list of hate? Hmm? I am sure you right-wingers have a LONG list of people you hate. It is par for the course, isn't it? It is what you are all about!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the armed forces and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.

Pure nonsense. DADT was a way of allowing gays to serve. Now that it's being overturned, we're at last returning to the days when gays were discharged for being homosexual.

Also, this article doesn't address the issue of how the UCMJ factors into the equasion. For those who have never served a day in the U.S. military -- i.e., most people who support the repeal DADT -- the UCMJ sets down the rules of conduct for those choosing to wear a military uniform. Laws against things like sodomy, homosexual behaviour, oral sex, etc., are still on the books. Only a moron would think the military leadership is going to rewrite those laws saying those are now acceptable actions.

This Senate vote is going to ricochet on the pro-homosexual crowd. As an Army retiree and combat vet, I know from experience that the U.S. military has a way of taking care of business at a boots-on-the-ground level despite what some people think can be forced upon them.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is the focus on Gay SEX and why should military rules be changed to accomodate them.

Same rules for behaviour, etc will still apply, all it will mean is that people will possibly know who is gay and that many good & decorated soldiers can no longer be thrown out for their sexual preferences.

I am with RomeoRamenII somewhat here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Klein2: Gee Mike. Spare us your euphemisms. You are being vague. You mean he was raped? Why not say that? Because I had a roommate who was gay and I had to figure it out and wound up changing my quarters so he could be with his friend and I could get my own room. That is how civilized people handle things in the real world.

I guess you can't read. I had a second post that explained it more. You chose not to read. Not my fault. It was about a straight guy who lived for some months with this other guy no one knew was gay until he decided to take advantage of a drunk straight guy. The straight guy was not impressed. I sympathized with the straight guy because I would not have wanted to be put in the same situation. He did change his room very quickly. The gay guy was lucky he didn't lose some teeth but the other guy was pretty easy going. The gay guy got posted to some other base. The Canadian Forces don't kick people out for being gay. But the gay guy was very lucky he didn't get charged for sexual assault.

What you are trying to get people to believe is that homosexuality is equal to child molestation or rape or other such crimes.

No you are trying to make it look like I am doing that so you can get people to call me down on my opinion. Typical liberal. Smoke and mirrors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romeo,

Pure nonsense. DADT was a way of allowing gays to serve. Now that it's being overturned, we're at last returning to the days when gays were discharged for being homosexual.

I can't tell if this is satire or self-delusion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strange how those banging on so much about gays are always the right wingers and religous.

Who cares is someone is gay or if they are ? A bigot maybe!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strange how those banging on so much about gays are always the right wingers and religous.

This can be explained by the Haggard Theorem whereby the degree of one’s homophobia is directly proportional to the depth of one’s closet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do not know but one thing is certain is that nature will not be mocked.

you do not know, that's right. If you knew about nature you would know that homosexuality is quite natural and practiced by mnay species. It is a genetic disposition that naturally occurs in a fairly high percentage. stick to god if it makes you happy but don't bring nature into it because you'll just sound wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laws against things like sodomy, homosexual behaviour, oral sex, etc., are still on the books.

"You're nearly a laugh, You're nearly a laugh but you're really a cry." Only a moron would interpret this as nothing short of an utter repeal on gay sexuality. Gays will be able to have anal sex, oral sex and girls will be allowed to share sex toys. RR just wants to alleviate his own pain of being on the losing end. We have already seen RR use other screen names on this thread to denigrate gays, try to label them as degenerate and call for them to be killed (put on the front lines). So now the losers are trying to rewrite the law in their favor (in their mind). Too bad. The gay soldiers and future gay soldiers (sailors and airmen etc.) are the champions and nobody including RR can take that away from them. I can just hear Freddy Mercury singing "We are the champions, no time for losers, cause we are the champions . . ."

Homosexual behavior against the law. Too funny. The UCMJ will be free from all such language once they implement this law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This Senate vote is going to ricochet on the pro-homosexual crowd....

By "pro-homosexual", you mean unprejudiced and sane, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack,

You shouldn't assume that everyone that considers morality to be important to be a Christian or a member of any other religion. Yes, in my opinion homosexuality reflects a decline in Western cultural morality

I'm very curious. If you're truly agnostic, how do you logically arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral and that repealing DADT is indicative of the "decline of American values"?

If a non-fallacious argument exists, I have yet to hear it. If you have one, please share.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, in my opinion homosexuality reflects a decline in Western cultural morality

A decline? From when? When exactly was that Golden Age before someone invented homosexuality?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Love watching this boil down. But I guess unless you actively encourage gay people to shout their sexual preference to the world you're a homophobic bigot who's opinions are utterly worthless. Same song different verse. While I'm favor with DADT being removed as grounds for dismissal I think it can still be used in principle, nobody wants to know your sexual preference and it's rude to ask.

So why should it be any different if a gay man or woman is serving? Does it start being a 'rifle' because the person holding it is gay? What's your point?

Cool your jets, it was a joke. "This is my rifle, this is my gun" google it or watch Full Metal Jacket, honestly everybody's seen that movie. I was simply pointing out that some people may take issue with where a gay serviceman points his gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Men are funny, egotistical creatures. Many assume that if a woman talks to them, enjoys their company, it means she wants to have sex with them. In the same way, the main concern of many here is that all these openly gay men are going to want to have sex with them. Really, boys, you're not the stud muffins you think you are. gay man does not equate rapist

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A decline? From when? When exactly was that Golden Age before someone invented homosexuality?

I think a strong case could be made for Harry Hay in the 1950's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great,now we can see a different type of sexual harrassment commercial on American Forces Network. Takes some of the "victimhood" off the women.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think a strong case could be made for Harry Hay in the 1950's.

Quick clarification, that was in regards to the invention of the modern GLBT movement, not the decline in morality part. As for the morality, pfft...I just take solace in the fact that everybody around the world is just as awful as everyone else.

Really, boys, you're not the stud muffins you think you are.

I'm a cuban/irish mix, a catholic, I disdain most physical activity, I'm an auditor, and my wardrobe consists of nothing but hawiian shirts, my business clothes, and a collection of truely hidious neckties that I'm very proud of. I doubt my status as a stud muffin is in dispute here.

gay man does not equate rapist

I've only been spared thanks to my catlike reflexes and quick thinking. Otherwise I'd have been used and discarded by the men in my theatre group years ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've only been spared thanks to my catlike reflexes and quick thinking. Otherwise I'd have been used and discarded by the men in my theatre group years ago.

Do you mean you said something like, "I appreciate the compliment, but I must decline, as my interests swing in other directions" ? Kept a civil tone and your back against the door?

Catlike reflexes, eh? I think your country needs you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: So why should I quit it if there have been findings 'all across the board'? It means that I might be correct." yes, it does and it doesn't.

Should I instead just sit by why people say homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'" smith, my sister is a lesbian. She's had boyfriends and was married twice before.... I asked what was up with the change, and she said that she is please more from a woman then a man (well, she pretty much only went with Anglos which might be part of the reason). Explain that Mr. Smith

"one in ten people are gay." globally?

Let me ask you this.. as you are aware, I was in the medical field in the Army and for three years after getting out. I have stuck my fingers up hundreds of butts and squeezed hundreds of testicles... but all were men. for females, a female medic performed these. So, what are we going to do now that its wide open? Can a gay soldier specifically ask to be treated/tested by a gay medic?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know, there's a lot of things in the UCMJ that are odd and I think they are anti-minority. did you know that even having an orgy is illegal? DADT is now gone, I hope this now stops the yelling and screaming... now you guys need to focus your energy to the middle east, Africa, and Cuba.... all three have been bastion of the left, so go get em

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know, there's a lot of things in the UCMJ that are odd and I think they are anti-minority. did you know that even having an orgy is illegal?

Doubt it, skip. Most of the posters at this site applauding the repeal of DADT either have never served a day in uniform or are foreigners.

The Powers That Be will never rewrite UCMJ laws to accommodate less than 1/8th of one percent U.S. population that volunteer for the military. Watch for more homosexuals to be drummed out of the service for violating provisions of the UCMJ.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who is asking for a rewrite of UCMJ, etc laws?

Seems you are the only one that thinks a need to rewrite those laws is needed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unless you think gays that been serving for years honourably will go hog-wild raping fellow soldiers, etc in order to get kicked out and throw their benefits away.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unless you think gays that been serving for years honourably will go hog-wild raping fellow soldiers, etc in order to get kicked out and throw their benefits away." He posted a question really...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, don"t see a any question in his post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheQuestion:"I've only been spared thanks to my catlike reflexes and quick thinking. Otherwise I'd have been used and discarded by the men in my theatre group years ago."

I find it interesting that of all the developed countries only the USA is this preoccupied and scared of homosexuals.

I have never been in the military but my uncle was a lifer in my country and his best friend then and now is gay and he said that he was the one person he trusted with his life the most.

I myself worked in a quasy military civilian organization in a region of my country and in virtual isolation in very close quarters for 6 months at a time in a very unforgiving environment (no sun for 3 months) where an error could mean the difference between life and death, this was all before the Internet satellite phones, etc.. so my coworkers and I spent a lot of time together we had gays and lesbians and never had any problems and I trusted all of them on many occasions literally with my life.

Since then I have worked a long time in and with the fashion industry with many gay people and trust me I am not your macho guy so it is not unusual that some think that I am also gay but once they realize that I am not I am never bothered, I respect their choice and they respect mine.

I find it quite funny when people (read men) get so upset if they are asked if they are gay or it a gay person make a pass at them, this has happened to me more time then I can count and I have never taken offence.

Grow up guys and drop your macho egos and look at it this way if both women and men make advances towards you then you must really have it all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Limboinjapan.

Well said and echoes many experiences of mine.

Some of my gay friends are they ones that came through when things got tough/rough, today I still don"t know how they got to know.

And let me tell you some of those guys are tough fighters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

some comments and a quote from the recent Pentagon report on DADT...

"69 percent of them acknowledge they have fought or worked alongside gay men and women already. A staggering 92 percent of those were fine with lifting the ban. Again: when you know someone is gay, all the fears and stereotypes tend to evaporate. This is not a surprise. The men and women of the US military are among the finest in the land; they want to do the job at hand, not deepen social division or posture politically. They are not bigots. I note one colorful quote from a special ops fighter:

“We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”

The point of getting Congress to repeal this was to give the military time to work out a smooth transition. One court has already ruled against the policy with more surely to follow.

@goodDonkey... "Oh by the way which one's Pink?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Watch for more homosexuals to be drummed out of the service for violating provisions of the UCMJ.

The answer is self-delusion then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Grow up guys and drop your macho egos" all the gay guys I know are all in a shape I wish I could achieve. They dress better and they look a lot better than I....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look at it this way... All those that have been twisting themselves in knots over this can NOW GO ENLIST!

Yea... yet, again... those that scream the loudest now have the right to do something they never had the balls to.

Will the Ivy league schools, who refused recruiters or ROTC because of DADT, continue to draw taxpayer funds without allowing ROTC or recruiters access to their campuses? I mean... their entire opposition was based on DADT... so what now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Loki: that's a good point in a way.. I wonder if there's going to be some stats on that.. as for those Ivy league types, man, they ain't gonna enlist. They will however probably wind up getting an elected position, become a prosecutor/lawyer, etc...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You liberals. Always blabbering on about equal rights and separation of church and state and all those others principles our nation was founded upon.... now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go invest in gold because Glenn Beck told me to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have a bigger question.

What happens now to the guys that were kicked out because they outed themselves or were outed by mistake, will they now be let back in?

I can think of at least one who was an officer in Afghanistan and served with distinction who was kicked out and that his men want him back and he was ready to go.

Will he now be let back in at his original rank and rejoin his men?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What happens now to the guys that were kicked out because they outed themselves or were outed by mistake, will they now be let back in?" Are you referring to the ones that just wanted to get by any means? I know 2 that did that and they weren't gay at all...

I'm going to go invest in gold because Glenn Beck told me to" don't know what this dude has told you, but I really wish I bought some gold recently.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Will the Ivy league schools, who refused recruiters or ROTC because of DADT, continue to draw taxpayer funds without allowing ROTC or recruiters access to their campuses?

You're in serious need of a history lesson if you think university ROTC bans--many of them forty years old--are based "solely on DADT".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're in serious need of a history lesson if you think university ROTC bans--many of them forty years old--are based "solely on DADT".

What where the bans based on then? Just curious, it could not be for religious reasons such as the Quakers sect or Jehovah's witnesses, now that would be really ironic after all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well at least we know they can actually do SOMETHING in the Senate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kept a civil tone and your back against the door?

Back against the door? Heck no, my theatre group rocks. A couple of them ask if I've given any consideration to it but my response is always the same. We go to practice, we’ve gone to opera performances, they’ve all met my family, sometimes we even go to the firing range before practice, those guys are pretty awesome, but we don’t talk about sexuality. I don’t care what they do in bed but that doesn’t mean I want to hear about it and they really don’t want to talk about it with me. I’d say it works out quite nicely.

Catlike reflexes, eh? I think your country needs you.

Tried to right out of high school and again in 2001 but apparently my stature would prevent me from being able to properly do my duties. The 20 lbs I can lose but I can't get shorter.

I find it interesting that of all the developed countries only the USA is this preoccupied and scared of homosexuals.

You need to open yourself up to all aspects of the world my friend, it's full of hate and resentment. Because the U.S is a nation of immigrants it stands to reason that all of our bigotry had to come from somewhere else too. Ireland, the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, and France all have their bigots, I've met some of them myself. For example, the most homophobic, racist, truly unpleasant person I have ever met is a Dutch dairy farmer that lives in northern Wisconsin. I could only understand half the words that came out of his mouth but they were all filthy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

most of you are missing the point. soldiers should not have to shower and live with gays. the separate showers for men and women thing totally applies, deny it all you want. yea maybe they can point a gun as good as the next soldier, but I wouldn't want to be splattered with HIV blood if they take a head shot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

klein2:

Sorry you can't understand that Wolfy. THe fact is that homosexuals have been discriminated against, AND STILL ARE.

I too am sorry "Klieny" that you are not able to understand. However, the bottom line is that the repeal of DADT is not the end of debate about public policy issues and human sexuality, it is actually just the beginning. The entire rationale for the repeal opens up a pandora's box of other groups of people that define themselves by their sexuality and whose "rights" cannot no longer be logically dismissed.

I think the US should be a country where people are not discriminated against because of race, gender, religion or other unimportant things that have nothing to do with their basic humanity.

I believe in equal treatment under the law. But when you say you are in opposition to some general idea of 'discrimination' regarding one's 'basic humanity' then you are saying that there is no longer room for any concept of differentiating peoples character or in defining their morality. Morality is a cultural and social contract that is based upon a common understanding among those within a community. The acceptance of homosexuality within the armed forces and therefore pretty much completely accepted by the society in general, will have huge ramifications for the whole idea of morality in the US. The impact will be very negative to society in much the way that the sexual revolutions' impact has led to a dramatic rise in divorce, out of wedlock births, and juvenile criminality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

proudnippon:

you do not know, that's right. If you knew about nature you would know that homosexuality is quite natural and practiced by mnay species. It is a genetic disposition that naturally occurs in a fairly high percentage. stick to god if it makes you happy but don't bring nature into it because you'll just sound wrong.

Not a good argument in defense of homosexuality. Incest, multiple partners, and sex with juveniles is also practiced by many species. So what is your point again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SiouxChef:

I'm very curious. If you're truly agnostic, how do you logically arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral and that repealing DADT is indicative of the "decline of American values"?

If a non-fallacious argument exists, I have yet to hear it. If you have one, please share.

I see it this way, there had been a 'traditional' Western morality regardless of the state of morality today. Until about 50 years ago, Western morality had been primarily influenced by Christian teachings and principles. Since then, morality has been dominated by a secular relativism that rejects religions role in society outright (it is relegated to the privacy of each individual only). Along with traditional religious morality, America's Founders based their governing principles on Natural Law. Since most of the Founders were very well educated and well read individuals, this popular view of the world put forth by certain philosophers became infused into America's founding documents. Despite the ridicule from the Left, there could be no America without the founders belief in Natural Law. This is the cultural and historic tradition that I grew up in.

The moral guidelines of Christianity and most other religions by themselves are not mystical, they are more apt to be influenced by thousands of years of human experience and observation of the world we live in. So the bottom line is, I can support the values and moral teachings that have been a traditional part of American culture, but have not been able to accept the mysticism associated with religion (miracles, wine from water, rising from the dead, etc.).

I do not accept homosexuality because it has no basis in my cultural or historic tradition or in how I see a properly functioning natural world. Alternatively, the abolition of slavery and segregation for example, makes sense within this cultural tradition. I know that homosexuality has always existed but so have many other sexual practices (such as polygamy and incest) that society doesn't generally accept as moral today but that are now open to re-interpretation. How can a homosexual say that incest is wrong among two consenting adults? It occurs in nature and they are adults. If they conceive and the child is "genetically challenged" then they can just get a legal abortion. By our new standards, none of this is any business of anyone else.

I think that those that favor full acceptance of homosexuality in Western society feel that they are only making arguments for same sex couples to be given a normalized status in society. However, they also make the case for undermining the committed relationships that the rest of society is based upon. If one man and one woman are no longer the standard, then what about all of the other arbitrary limitations put on relationships? If you think about it, there are many. A bisexual person can't marry two other people, marriage to a close relative is not allowed, relationships with people under 18 are forbidden, and there are many others. These are all arbitrary limitations that society has placed on what constitutes a legitimate relationship. You can debate the merits of each, but the rationale for excluding these relationships dissolves when you consider the winning arguments for normalizing homosexuality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Double dip recession, an ongoing invasion of our country because the federal gov refuses to seal our southern border, unemployment at 10 percent, oil approaching 100/barrel, but the whole nation is forced to focus on DADT? This is another bogus "crisis" Obama ,the Democrats and their lapdogs in the media have manufactured.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SolidariTea:

Double dip recession, an ongoing invasion of our country because the federal gov refuses to seal our southern border, unemployment at 10 percent, oil approaching 100/barrel, but the whole nation is forced to focus on DADT?

This is the current state of decline that America is in I am sad to say. The West is definitely past it's prime in so many ways. The 'gaying' of the military is just one more sign of the misplaced priorities and cultural failures that are slowly eroding away America's leadership and respect in the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not a good argument in defense of homosexuality. Incest, multiple partners, and sex with juveniles is also practiced by many species. So what is your point again?

my point was homosexuality is a part of nature. not a defense of it, just a statement to counter the 'against nature' bible bashers. it was very clearly worded. read it again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For all the people that say they don't want to shower with Gays, etc in the Military.

Might I also suggest to avoid all communal showers like at gym's(Sports clubs), public pools, company(many do offer those), etc.

More than likely that you will more aware of who is gay in your barrack than in any of those settings. That stud-muffin at the gym the ladies drool over might just be one. ;)

And I also thought that when you signed up for the Military you basically became goverment property and thus many priviledges of civillan life no longer apply.

I just find the whole paranoia sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack.

Thank you for the response. However, I must confess I'm still waiting for a logically sound argument for homosexuality being immoral and the repeal of DADT being wrong.

Along with traditional religious morality, America's Founders based their governing principles on Natural Law. Since most of the Founders were very well educated and well read individuals, this popular view of the world put forth by certain philosophers became infused into America's founding documents. Despite the ridicule from the Left, there could be no America without the founders belief in Natural Law. This is the cultural and historic tradition that I grew up in.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem....a history of discrimination--no matter how long--and your personal nostalgia for it aren't logical arguments.

That the founders may have believed in the theory of natural law is also irrelevant; conclusions do not logically follow from false or unproven premises. And natural law theory--which might be to divine command theory what Intelligent Design is to creationism--is anything but sound.

I do not accept homosexuality because it has no basis in my cultural or historic tradition

Again, argument from antiquity... The conclusion that homosexuality is immoral doesn't follow from the premise that homosexuality has been condemned in the past.

or in how I see a properly functioning natural world

You admit that homosexuality exists naturally but then label it improper without offering a logical reason for doing so; your personal opinions on propriety don't qualify. It's either "unnatural" or it isn't...and if you are appealing to natural law then we must also assume that you find masturbation, birth control, and post-menopausal sex to be equally improper.

Furthermore, studies that suggest homosexuality is naturally selected for also hurt your position here; nature can't "function" more "properly" than that.

The moral guidelines of Christianity and most other religions by themselves are not mystical, they are more apt to be influenced by thousands of years of human experience and observation of the world we live in.

This is patently false; see Levitican law and all of the divinely-sponsored slavery, genocide, infanticide, and rape prevalent in the so-called good book.

Also, I was asking how you logically arrive at your position. Answering that you don't believe in the mysticism but think the ideas--once again, even those that are really old--are correct doesn't explain why they are correct.

If one man and one woman are no longer the standard, then what about all of the other arbitrary limitations put on relationships? If you think about it, there are many. A bisexual person can't marry two other people, marriage to a close relative is not allowed, relationships with people under 18 are forbidden, and there are many others.

This slippery slope is a distraction from the issue at hand: whether or not the U.S. government should be allowed to discriminate against some of its citizens based on their sexual orientation. This isn't about incest, polygamy, nor statutory rape.

So the bottom line is, I can support the values and moral teachings that have been a traditional part of American culture, but have not been able to accept the mysticism associated with religion (miracles, wine from water, rising from the dead, etc.).

The bottom line seems to me to be that you illogically accept religious moral teachings.

Your argument--which includes non sequitur religious talking points like "[those who would accept homosexuality as moral] . . . undermin[e] the committed relationships [of heterosexual people]"--causes me to wonder if you're really as unsure as you claim to be about the man behind the curtain (you know, the one defining all the "purposes" that natural law theory requires).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack at 04:03 AM JST - 21st December

the repeal of DADT is not the end of debate about public policy issues and human sexuality, it is actually just the beginning. The entire rationale for the repeal opens up a pandora's box of other groups of people that define themselves by their sexuality and whose "rights" cannot no longer be logically dismissed.

That is the slippery slope logical fallacy I was speaking of earlier. You beat skipthesong to the punch the first time you eluded to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Excellent post @ SiouxChef at 01:04 PM JST - 21st December

SiouxChef basically refuted every point Wolfpack has made concerning the evils of homosexuality. I do thing Wolfpack would make an excellent pointman for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He could explain why it is just to execute gays in Iraq. He has already shown himself quite worthy of the front man task.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's almost 2011, and i find the bigotry that still exists astounding. The sexuality of someone has no effect on their ability to be a soldier or do anything else. And the idea that "gays" (copyright Roningaijin) shouldn't be allowed to use the same showers as normal people (which was implied) is just baffling. Some people clearly protest too much. They should just accept who they theselves are and let other people be who they are.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Good Donkey: I posted a question, you could have at least answered it. You go around calling people stupid doesn't help. Again, as a medic, I was only allowed to males... will there/can there be a cause to make a third category and if its not made in due time, will that be enough reason to call for a discrimination suit? second: If they are out in the open, and they go to an allied country, say Saudi Arabia, how is that going to go over? You are yelling at me as though I'm a bigot when I clearly said I support the repeal but with certain measures in place. What's your problem the last two days?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And just so I don't get flamed, I acknowledge it's actually the Declaration of Independence in which that appears. My mistake.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

168 comments.....

Certain people should just get over their wide stance in the bathroom, or at least learn how to be tolerant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are yelling at me as though I'm a bigot when I clearly said I support the repeal but with certain measures in place. What's your problem the last two days?

People have a tendency to forget that sweeping repeals of long standing programs are complicated and require a whole lot of fine tuning. There are a variety of issues that need to be addressed in this and ignoring them simply for the sake of feeling good about removing DADT is irresponcible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip, I was simply stating that by saying, "what's next cross-dressing?" you are presenting a slippery slope fallacy. The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.

Glad to hear your not a bigot about gays in the military. I was only pointing out your logical fallacy and although you did it in a benign way others use it to support their bigotry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

Again, as a medic, I was only allowed to males... will there/can there be a cause to make a third category and if its not made in due time, will that be enough reason to call for a discrimination suit?

Surely you're not suggesting that male medics/corpsmen don't currently treat wounded females (and vice versa) on the battlefield now?

If they are out in the open, and they go to an allied country, say Saudi Arabia, how is that going to go over?

What do you mean by "out in the open"? Are you suggesting they won't be able to resist public displays of affection which are offensive even for heterosexual couples to engage in? Or are you concerned about them holding hands like Arab men already do?

Or are you imagining they'll be issued rainbow-colored badges for their uniforms?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't ask, don't tell was the better policy. Accidentially catch members in the act and they're out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vulcan.

How did it work under DADT when 2 gay members got assigned to pull duty together? Nothing happened because the Military Code of Conduct overwrites it all.

Accidently catch a male soldier having fun with a female soldier what happens? Bad people, don"t do it again(Nice arse on you Ms Soldier) or a discharge?

Yes, some were caught. Including ace-pilots, commanders, etc and the military lost some good soldiers due to DADT.

Losing good soldiers for a stupid reason like sexual orientation is a good policy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

siouxchef: Surely you're not suggesting that male medics/corpsmen don't currently treat wounded females (and vice versa) on the battlefield now?" I don't know the policy now and no, not in emergency cases of course not. I was talking about routine checks, like STDs, hernia's, etc.. Even in emergencies, a female (only females) were allowed to request a female. Even in several areas of combat, we were clearly told that we needed a female present to our jobs and that included Somalia, Bosnia, and should the event happen, we were off limits in Saudi Arabia.

Or are you concerned about them holding hands like Arab men already do?" I take it you may have traveled to the middle east on business, not military... You heard about the British couple getting arrested for kissing in Dubai correct, well, what would have happened had they been gay? I'm sure a lot worse. We were clearly told what we can and can not do when we landed, even bibles, crosses, Jewish stars, and especially porn were confiscated.. Lets say two guys grab a hotel room and the clerks get suspicious... how do we deal with it on such a case?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is most interesting about this issue is that most if not all those opposed to the lifting of DADT seem to be only concerned or refering to males and that the military also seemed only interested in the males.

Even during WW2 and since then it was (though unofficially) viewed as a fact that many of the female members would be lesbians ( though I have my doubts as to the accuracy of this).

During WW2 and since there have been many memos and reports (though none backed up by any facts or statistics) in regards to probable lesbian members of the USA military and most if not all these so-called "reports" were dismissed as an "unavoidable" consequence of having women in the military, (I'm guessing because the men who run/ran things think/thought that "real" women would not join or would rather get married or something along that line).

It seems to me only the men that seem unusually frightened or feel their manhood challenged by gay men being in the ranks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems that the core of this issue is that the U.S. military is afraid that homophobia will cripple the military. The solution therefore is to ask all those in military service if they're homophobes, and if they answer yes or show any sign of homophobia then they should be dishonorably discharged... but to be fair we'd allow them a chance to lie so long as they didn't show any sign of being uncomfortable around homosexuals.

... Yeah, this issue isn't going to go away.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

show any sign of homophobia then they should be dishonorably discharged" Well, you've just cut the military by a third I'm sure...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I take it you may have traveled to the middle east on business, not military...

I'm not sure why my occupational travels are relevant.

Your proposal that there is risk in having gay soldiers in the middle east is pretty ridiculous...especially considering that we deploy gay soldiers, sailors, and marines there already. Or are you convinced that they're suddenly not smart enough or don't have enough self control to conduct themselves accordingly in those places now that DADT has been repealed?

Lets say two guys grab a hotel room and the clerks get suspicious... how do we deal with it on such a case?

You've just described a post-DADT hypothetical scenario in which there are no new relevant variables. How would we have dealt with it before? Exactly the same way as now but the 'two guys' would have also faced discharge for being gay . . .

As for your concern at sick call, I see a mole crawling out of that mountain, too. Again, there are already homosexuals treating heterosexuals (and vice versa). How does DADT change the professional behavior of medics/corpsmen/nurses/doctors? If someone was being attended to by someone they knew to be gay and had a problem with it, I suppose they could request someone else . . . someone else who could gasp also be gay without the patient's knowledge.

Personally, I just think anyone that has problems like that should engage in a little personal growth; normal people don't question the sexuality of their doctors and nurses as if it's relevant to their healthcare.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't put much faith in your ability to sniff out who is/was military and where they've been in an internet forum (you're not very good at it, as it turns out).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh boy, clown time

"I'm not sure why my occupational travels are relevant." It would mean you didn't hear the orders I've heard...

Your proposal that there is risk in having gay soldiers in the middle east is pretty ridiculous..." It was a question that was given out.... just like if you were Jewish getting off the plane to protect the Kings sand.

especially considering that we deploy gay soldiers, sailors, and marines there already." We've established that fact

Or are you convinced that they're suddenly not smart enough or don't have enough self control to conduct themselves accordingly in those places now that DADT has been repealed?" People slip at times.... its human. A married guy is not supposed to do a lot of things but sometimes it can't be helped and he slips and in a public place.

Lets say two guys grab a hotel room and the clerks get suspicious... how do we deal with it on such a case?" I was referring to ME and African countries where off base liberty is allowed.

You've just described a post-DADT hypothetical scenario in which there are no new relevant variables." I just showed you how a hetrosexual person slips....

How would we have dealt with it before?" NJP

Exactly the same way as now but the 'two guys' would have also faced discharge for being gay . . ." But not now. But there is my question. If its illegal to be gay in an allied country where military is stationed and this happens, what is to be done? Tell the guys/girls they can't do anything while there (sometimes you could be there for months), tell everyone they can't do anything because its not fair, dog the country that is letting us use the place as a base? What?

As for your concern at sick call, I see a mole crawling out of that mountain, too." No, you're getting hyped. "Again, there are already homosexuals treating heterosexuals (and vice versa). How does DADT change the professional behavior of medics/corpsmen/nurses/doctors?" I've been in predicaments where the patient for a slew of reasons didn't want me to touch them... and that included driving an ambulance. Be it that I was Hispanic/Arab looking, too young, I recall one guy specifically wanting another African American to open him up.

"If someone was being attended to by someone they knew to be gay and had a problem with it, I suppose they could request someone else . . ." I hve not seen that happen and where do you get off posting to me as though I raised the question on that? Can't you read?

someone else who could gasp also be gay without the patient's knowledge." The gasp gives me a clue you are still a freckle face w... boy playing on XBOX

Personally, I just think anyone that has problems like that should engage in a little personal growth; normal people don't question the sexuality of their doctors and nurses as if it's relevant to their healthcare." Maybe you should do the same and raise the issue to someone who's against it, I'm not.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't put much faith in your ability to sniff out who is/was military and where they've been in an internet forum (you're not very good at it, as it turns out)." So, I guess you want me to salute you? I mean, you're so good at these internet forums.. maybe I should pay you a consulting fee and teach me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or are you convinced that they're suddenly not smart enough or don't have enough self control to conduct themselves accordingly in those places now that DADT has been repealed?

Soldiers break regulations off duty all the time, difference is that in some countries two gay men displaying affection might get them killed. It's a legitimate concern and a potential international spit storm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheQuestion: thanks for clarifying my question. I guess I should have went to those ESL classes with my mom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Took long enough to end that silly law.

You have to be living in the dark ages and believe the myth that gays can not fight to support that law.

Gays men and women have been serving and dying in the military as long as there has been wars.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You guys are pulling out weird and wacky theoreticals, when the actual problem of DADT was that people WERE NOT broadcasting their sexual orientation and were having other people crack into their private emails and such to out them. DADT only really works if people aren't on the prowl to find all the homosexuals and out them against their will. Which they were.

And now they can't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DADT only really works if people aren't on the prowl to find all the homosexuals and out them against their will. Which they were. And now they can't." If I were gay, I would make some bank... I can see hundreds of sue holes even without any harrrasement

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh boy, clown time . . . you are still a freckle face w... boy playing on XBOX

Ad hominems already? Disappointing…

But not now. But there is my question. If its illegal to be gay in an allied country where military is stationed and this happens, what is to be done?

Your question is a non-starter as far as I can see; nothing relevant is different now. It was illegal before when gay service members had the same opportunities to “slip up”. The only difference between now and then is that they don’t also face non-judicial punishment.

Homosexuals either suddenly have less self-control than they did before and are at risk because of the repeal . . . or nothing relevant has changed. I ask again: which is it?

Maybe you should do the same and raise the issue to someone who's against it, I'm not.

I didn’t raise any issues with you. I took you task for your straw men.

I have not seen that happen and where do you get off posting to me as though I raised the question on that? Can't you read?

Can I read? I admitted that someone might take issue with being treated by a known homosexual (precisely the issue you raised) but that I personally think it’s nonsense as normal people don’t ask for another doctor when they don’t like their race or perceived sexual orientation.

So, I guess you want me to salute you? I mean, you're so good at these internet forums.. maybe I should pay you a consulting fee and teach me.

Does "good at these forums" mean "winning the argument"?

I didn’t say you’re bad at the internets*, Skip. What I was pointing out is that your experience isn’t as rare as you seem to think it is and that it’s rather silly to assume things about someone online who you don’t know because you're bound to be wrong (like today).

*But I would recommend you use the right arrow to signify others’ quotes; your posts can be really hard to read.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

oldiers break regulations off duty all the time, difference is that in some countries two gay men displaying affection might get them killed. It's a legitimate concern and a potential international spit storm.

I understood the question the first time.

How are things any different for the two gay men TAD/TDY to the ME because a law in their home country was was repealed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I understood the question the first time.

How are things any different for the two gay men TAD/TDY to the ME because a law in their home country was was repealed?

Because now they just open about it and no problems? Or should they respect the host countries mores and keep it on the sly....You know "Don't ask Don't Tell" to keep things ....civil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because now they just open about it and no problems?

So it is self-control that you think is somehow affected by a law changing in their home country.

Pure nonsense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thanks for clarifying my question. I guess I should have went to those ESL classes with my mom.

I'm an auditor, it's my job to restate information in a new and often more confusing way. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.

How are things any different for the two gay men TAD/TDY to the ME because a law in their home country was was repealed?

If you're going to use an acronym please give the actual meaning behind it the first time round. I can Google it but that requires a quarter second of my time that I'm already adverse to dedicating to discussing something on an online forum.

The problem isn't that things have changed for people on TAD (Temporary Additional Duty see that was easy and now other posters know what’s going on) but rather there has been a perceived change that leaves room to be misinterpreted. In any case the origin post was in regards to civilians and soldiers in countries where displays of affection are punishable by law. Soldiers make mistakes and it only makes sense that procedures should be put in place to encourage gay servicemen to keep their sexual preference under wraps even in nations in which they are not actively fighting due to national laws forbidding homosexual intimacy. Oman, for example, has hosted U.S servicemen in peacetime and soldiers were allowed on leave there, a responsible procedure would be to remind gay soldiers about local law.

Responsible procedure and implementation is the only thing I've been talking about on this topic

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Totally irresponsible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheQuestion,

Soldiers make mistakes and it only makes sense that procedures should be put in place to encourage gay servicemen to keep their sexual preference under wraps even in nations in which they are not actively fighting due to national laws forbidding homosexual intimacy.

Perhaps you unaware of it (or didn't catch it when skipthesong described it in his 08:55 AM JST - 22nd December post) but familiarizing service members with host nations' laws and customs before they are let out on liberty/leave is not only not a new idea, it is a procedure already firmly in place.

This was a non-starter raised by someone who already knows better under the guise of "just asking questions".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was asked to re-enlist in the reserves last year due to not enough male medics... I'm gonna pretend I'm gay, and I'm gonna get rich quickly. I'm gonna sue for sending me to intolerant places, sue because there won't be enough sensitivity training, sue because I want my kind to do physicals, sue because I could have stayed in the military all this time and earned time in grade/service but had to get out, sue because I had to hide my identity and get married to rich woman (oh the pain this lifestyle). Calling all recruiters

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm gonna sue . . .

And get nowhere with it. But then again, you already know this, too.

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