world

White House eyes compromise on gays in military

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

If the Pentagon and the Congress spent half as much time on improving the military as they do worrying about the gays in the military, we'd have a lot better military.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No Sarge, they would just focus on something equally useless and mess that up too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What do you think needs to be improved Sarge? Do we not already have bleeding edge technology and highly trained personnel?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge and MistWizard

In a way I agree with both of you and not just in relation to the US military. The military of any country has a function and the sexual orientation of the people that make up the military has nothing to do with that function. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was all that was needed pushing it beyond that stops it from being a rights issue and turns into a political issue something that the military should have no part in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Navy has already resolved this issue...they say "it's not gay if you're underway"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On Capitol Hill, the third-ranking House Republican promised unified GOP opposition to lifting the ban. “The American people don’t want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda."

So we will ignore the opinions of the Defense Secretary and the Generals, cause what do they know about anything. I'll just put that "liberal" word out of my pocket and then I am free to be an idiot.

The same people who say that America has to fight an unending war because there are people who "Hate Our Freedom!!!", then turn around and say there are 10,500 people who don't have the freedom to voluntarily fight against the people who hate their freedom, and so had to be kicked out. "Who cares if you are a completely fluent, native Arabic speaker working to translate high-priority enemy messages, we don't like where you put your Johnson. Get outta here!!!"

"Now, let's call up recruiting and get them to send a couple of guys down to the mall to hang out outside and recruit us a replacement."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“The American people don’t want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda. And House Republicans will stand on that principle,” said Mike Pence, R-Ind.

Mike Pence is a evangelical loon. His best buddy in Indiana just quit congress cause he was having an affair with a TV personality. Of course he was republican too.

Half the republicans are in the closet, why they continue to pretend that gays do not exist is just plain crazy. Somehow they think if gays are open perhaps they will turn gay. Its so junior HS.

Grow up republicans. Many of your own are gay. People in your family are gay. Animals are gay. Just grow up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I proudly served my country. I had gay personnel in my unit and they did their jobs professionally and in the highest manner. I'm not aware of any rapes or assaults by gays during my years.

Sarge, what's wrong with gays in the military? Can you reference an experience that made you so against gays in the military? How about you MistWizard?

I say get rid of the ban. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream...it adds a whole new meaning to the term "I've got your back."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I proudly served my country. I had gay personnel in my unit and they did their jobs professionally and in the highest manner. I'm not aware of any rapes or assaults by gays during my years.

How did you know? Did they come out and tell you they were gay? Or did they reveal their tendencies after their term was up?

Don't Ask Don't Tell has worked. It replaced the previous policy which forbid anyone who was homosexual from serving. Now, as long as you keep it to yourself, no one cares. Trying to change it, is a mistake. Its politics at its worst.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They told me. I knew their partners.

What is wrong with openly gay soldiers in the military Molenir? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In a previous life (before an accident), I was a career officer in the Australian Army. Among other things, my service included 2.5 years on exchange to the US Army (this period being extended due to the Gulf War). Anyway, based on a my experience, I tend to agree with a number of the arguments being put forward here.

Firstly, I have no trouble with the idea of gay people serving in any military organizations, the US or otherwise. When I was in the US, there were rumors about a certain Warrant Officer who worked for me, however, I never experienced anything with this person that led me to believe that he was any less of a soldier (a very good soldier) because of his sexual orientation.

Secondly, however, is this really an issue that needs to be resolved at the current time. With all of the issues associated with long and repeated overseas deployments at the current time (which can have a serious impact on morale), would it really be in the best short-term interests of the military to change the rules in a manner that could cause some morale issues (even in the short-term). To put this in another way, finding out that a comrade is gay can be a bit of a shock, and it requires time for an individual to adjust to such developments. Anyway, I would argue that on a priority scale, there are a lot more pressing issues for the military at the current time. at the current point in time with the US military in a serious position vis-a-vis repeated deployments of personnel to places such as Afghanistan and Iraq which have lead to some serious recruitment and personal issues (fatigue, etc.), is it really necessary that this issue be resolved immediately?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

You couldn't be more incorrect. 100%. You not only missed the board, you through the dart and it hit you in the foot. Most incorrect post, EVER!!!

And when I'm done, you'll say, "yeah, my opinion was pretty darn short-sighted."

And this is also why the military has to take some time studying this to make sure they get it right.

Gay marriage.

If gay marriage is legal (and that debate continues), then openly gay military members are eligible to marry and their partners are eligible for base housing, free medical and dental and their children, YEP, I SAID THEIR CHILDREN, would be eligible to use DODEA schools.

Now, lets say gay marriage is made a state issue. So, lets say a gay couple are in San Diego - well, they are eligible for base housing and all the entitlements of a married couple in the Navy.

What if they transfer to San Antonio? Texas is OBVIOUSLY going to be too backward to allow gay marriage. No more base housing? Whoa, Nellie. Now we're talking about discrimination circumstances.

All of this is why it should change and why there is great need to do this carefully and correctly.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurc said: Somehow they think if gays are open perhaps they will turn gay.

Actually I think they are more worried that their kids will be gay or bi. Given the prevalence of homosexual behavior in many places around the world in history (Romans, Greeks, Japanese etc..ESPECIALLY where the military is concerned), they may have a something of a point. Most of us just had our homosexual tendencies surpressed I believe. Remove the surpression, make it a free-for-all and watch the bisexual behavior surge among young people. However, I don't think its really a problem. I think people just make it a problem. So if a gay person is in the military its not really his problem. The problem is with the people who feel uncomfortable with the gay person's sexuality. Trouble is, there are a lot of people like that in the military and they often have more important things to get their head straight about than acceptance of homosexuality.

Taka raises some good points btw. Its more complicated than I thought. I thought "don't ask don't tell" was compromise enough. But times are changing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream at 11:17 AM - Re-read my post. I am not against gays in the military.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bad idea. The generals would be removed if they did not agree with Obama. Gates too. All fired. Don't ask, don't tell is a good policy. It fits America with its diversity in religions and ethnicities. States have also spoken on these issues with support for traditional values. Americans are basically conservative but tolerant to a degree. Remember we are at war with someone who thinks we are already decadent. Going down Taka's path would only add fuel to the fire. This action, if approved at this time, puts all in greater danger. It is a private matter anyway. Peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They told me. I knew their partners.

So, while you were active duty military, someone who was in your unit, confessed to you, that they were gay. Is that what you're saying. Really? Cause if so, I call BS on that one.

OneForAll is correct. Myself, I don't care what a man does in the privacy of his bedroom. Its none of my business. However when he shoves it in my face, it becomes my business. And thats why Dont ask Dont tell has worked. If gays want to serve, good for them, keep their orientation to themselves. No one cares. But if they want to serve as a homosexual soldier, what are they saying? That, is not ok.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But if they want to serve as a homosexual soldier, what are they saying? That, is not ok.

I don't understand your meaning of "homosexual soldier." Sounds like you're arguing that the gays can't engage in a combat because of their impotency to exert masculinity.

Trouble is, there are a lot of people like that in the military and they often have more important things to get their head straight about than acceptance of homosexuality.

I agree. Actually, the US military is losing some important resources by firing some personnel who are well-versed in foreign language such as Arabics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge it wasn't clear to me. Thank you for your clarification.

You're the one full of B/S. You ask an question, I answer and you call me a liar. Who the hell are you? You never served with me. You never knew these men.

Again, Molenir runs his mouth, doesn't believe what he's told and resorts to calling someone a liar. Real class act. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't understand your meaning of "homosexual soldier." Sounds like you're arguing that the gays can't engage in a combat because of their impotency to exert masculinity.

Got nothing to do with it, I apologize for not being clear. What I mean, is if someone wants to openly be gay, and serve, it isn't going to fly. If they want to serve, and are willing to keep their orientation to themselves, I have no problem with it. More power to em. I applaud anyone who wants to serve their country. However just as you expect people to meet certain standards, is it really all that unreasonable to say, if you're gay, keep it to yourself?

You're the one full of B/S. You ask an question, I answer and you call me a liar. Who the hell are you? You never served with me. You never knew these men.

Don't take this personally, but when you make a claim that is very nearly unbelievable, that as a serving, active duty soldier, some guys in your unit came out and told you they were homosexual, yes I do have a hard time taking your statement as truth. If anything I'm being much nicer about this then most of the people I know in the military would be. Most of them would say simply you're a lying sack of s**t.

If you don't want to be questioned, you shouldn't state what is almost certainly a falsehood. Please note however, that while I said it was BS, I didn't actually call you a liar. Its possible, unlikely, but possible, that what you claim might actually happen. Now if you had said, after they got out, some former members of my unit told me they were gay, I would have accepted it at face value. Its totally believable. But you have to accept, that when you make some far out claim, people aren't necessarily going to believe you. At least not without some credible details to back it up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are many more countries allowing bisexual, gays and lesbians to serve their country freely and without being afraid of harassment or repression in NATO than there are refusing them that right (DADT is not a good example of freely since they have to live in secrecy without ever marrying their loved ones).

Taka's post to me is the most important. What if your partner is of the same sex, in Canada you can marry anyone you love, man or woman. That partner's life would be severely affected by something like DADT. What if they have children? What if one of them is severely hurt? Are hospital visits refused? Would family members allowed to visit but his/her (the patient's) partner unable to visit them? Sounds like a nightmarish situation. Insurance claims, pensions, other money-related issues...

Why not give them the absolute right to live their lives the way they want? Give them the freedom they deserve, we're in 2010, it's about time!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"On Capitol Hill, the third-ranking House Republican promised unified GOP opposition to lifting the ban. “The American people don’t want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda. And House Republicans will stand on that principle,” said Mike Pence, R-Ind."

There are Democrats that will take this stand as well. Why wire a house with a technology that is not proven? Finish the study first. I am glad they are moving prudently because it really is a complex issue. No easy answers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Freedom.

Freedom is a word that gets thrown around a lot in American society. But yet when it comes to certain personal choices (freedoms), America freaks out.

I thought America was about freedom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir

Now if you had said, after they got out, some former members of my unit told me they were gay, I would have accepted it at face value. Its totally believable. But you have to accept, that when you make some far out claim, people aren't necessarily going to believe you.

Maybe I should have rewritten history for you. You're story sounds like the Texas education system rewriting history.

It's amazing sometimes to read the rantings of homophobes. Sure you can serve and possibly die for America, but don't you dare tell me your a homosexual. That makes you unfit to serve. When the country can only muster up no more than .07866% of it's citizens to serve this country and you want to limit that even more. Real smart. That's why we signed up unfavorables to go to Iraq, because they couldn't get suitable enlistees. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Once again Molenir has it all wrong when he says that "Don't ask don't tell" was working. It was not working. It forbade gays from having sex. To do so broke the law. There is nothing wrong with gay sex; Molenir tries to parse his words by stating he doesn't "care what a man does in the privacy of his bedroom. Its none of my business." But he supports a law that does not allow gays to have sex. How typical to try to come across as reasonable while taking the most extreme position.

I also served in the military and was aware of a number of gay guys. Molenir uses the word confess to describe when someone lets you know they are gay. That just shows how he indeed actually thinks it is wrong to be gay.

Molenir has a problem with his own veracity and thus assumes it of others.

Who would ever trust Molenir with private information like that. I was very trustworthy not to say anything to anybody about my gay friends in the military although it turned out a lot of people knew or suspected. If I knew Molenir I would have lied about anyone being gay or anyone smoking dope or any of the many other things that nobody wanted Molenir to know about.

I was in the military in the 70's and things were different then. I had dozens and dozens of friends and countless bits of information were confided in me. I would never expect Molenir to understand. I can't speak about the military today because I know it changed. But back in the day when I served it was nothing to know a few secrets and still treat each other as brothers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see the Army has decided to boot out a decorated soldier who was wounded in Iraq, Sgt. Robert Stout, for the crime of being openly gay.

As Curly in City Slickers would say, Jesus Christ...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, that's a crock decision.

By the Army's current standards it makes his heroism moot because he's gay. It makes his value as a soldier less than a hetrosexual male because he's gay?

But a we know, Molenir would have no problem with this hero right up till the point he says he gay. Then he's only 1/2 a man. Not worthy to protect the liberty of Molenir or anybody else. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Once again Molenir has it all wrong when he says that "Don't ask don't tell" was working. It was not working. It forbade gays from having sex.

BS, it doesn't mean gay people can't have sex, it means they can't publicly announce it. It means, they have to keep it to themselves. If for example you're gay, and you live off base, and you happen to have a roommate thats a guy, how is anyone going to know if you and he are gay? The only way is if you tell them. Otherwise, no one knows, no one cares. The only way they care, is if you shove it in their face, and then it becomes an issue. So, having destroyed your entire premise about gays not being able to have sex, I'll simply discard the rest of what you have to say.

But a we know, Molenir would have no problem with this hero right up till the point he says he gay. Then he's only 1/2 a man. Not worthy to protect the liberty of Molenir or anybody else. < :-)

True, I wouldn't have a problem with him until that point. I have no problem with him being booted out, after he decided to come out. That said, he isn't half a man, nor does it make his bravery any less. His decision to reveal his private life publicly is what is getting him kicked out, not his private life. As long as its his choice, I have no problem with the decision. It was his decision.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

You are driving the wrong bus today, my friend. Seriously.

It's about a lot more than announcing your sexuality. It's about determining if gays will have the same rights as married military members.

Wow. Did your brain just go on vacation this week? You've made sarge look smart. I just hate to see that.

Anyway, yeah, your excuse is terribly short sighted and hopefully the people making this decision will put a little (as in any at all) thought into it.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir said:

BS, it doesn't mean gay people can't have sex, it means they can't publicly announce it.

Wrong as usual Molenir! Facts, Molenir, we are dealing with facts now. So face the fact that you are wrong.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations: (1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts...

Now who is full of BS? Now who has and their "entire premise about gays" ability to have sexual relations "destroyed?" Face it Molenir you don't deal well with facts you live in a would of suppositions, hunches and innuendos.

The law will be changed soon and finally the discrimination against good, qualified military personnel will end. You and your ilk will be defeated Molenir.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America: land of freedom...................unless you are gay.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Molenir,

Your statements at 2:42am were so intrinsically wrong, I don't even know where to begin! So:

I'll simply discard the rest of what you have to say.

Moderator: This is a quote taken from what Molenir said earlier, used in a similar fashion. Although the way I use it can be considered sarcastic, it is simply used that way as a reflection on Molenir's earlier comment. That said, if you decide to delete this again, I will understand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now who is full of BS? Now who has and their "entire premise about gays" ability to have sexual relations "destroyed?" Face it Molenir you don't deal well with facts you live in a would of suppositions, hunches and innuendos.

You didn't even address the point. Coming and posting the part of the policy for someone who has violated the basic tenet of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, means nothing. Nothing. If no one tells then none of that applies.

You keep harping on discrimination, and I might even be willing to grant your premise, that potentially it is discriminatory to say gays can't go and tell everyone all about their sex lives. But ya know what, I have no problem with that at all. No one is forcing them to come out, no one is forcing them to engage in that behavior. They are making that choice themselves.

This isn't really about gays in the military at all though. This is about a societal evolution. If someone chooses to accept their homosexual tendencies, rather then suppress them, whether or not society is going to accept that as being an acceptable lifestyle is up in the air. That is what this debate is all about. Whether or not homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. To me, it isn't. That said, whatever is done between consenting adults, in the privacy of their bedroom, to me is no one elses business, unless and until you decide to force me to see it. And thats when we have problems. I think most of America is like that. Most of us don't really care. Oh we may fall on one side or the other of the issue, but we aren't so wedded to our position, that we can't see reason on the issue. But this extremism, feeling like you must destroy anyone with an opposing viewpoint, now that to me is much more worrisome then homosexuals serving in the military.

As far as I'm concerned, the law should stand. Gays can go on serving, and keeping their business private. Go public once they leave, or retire. Its no one elses business anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, Why should gays have to hide their sexuality? I'm not saying that that need to be giving details of their sex life. But to say that they can't live with their gay partners or that they have to stay in the closet is requiring US citizens to be a second or lower class of people.

Well, I'll not say much more about this except to restate that you are a homophobe. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I'll not say much more about this except to restate that you are a homophobe. < :-)

I'm always amused by the insistance on calling anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda as being a homophobe. I, and most others don't fear homosexuals. A more accurate way to describe me, would be to say simply, that I am anti-gay, that I oppose the gay-rights agenda. That would actually be correct. If that is what you are implying by your stereotyping, then I'll wear that badge with honor.

Getting back to what you said. Who says they can't live with their gay partner? I know a couple guys who I suspect are gay. I know for a fact they have male room mates. However I don't know for certain one way or the other, simply because I've never come out and asked. The reason simply, because it wasn't any of my business. The point I'm making here, is that servicemen and women can live with their same sex partner, as long as they want, so long as they don't openly come out and trumpet what they are actually doing. Thats why this works. Thats why I'm ok with the policy. As it happens, if it was actually forbidden, I would be on your side of the issue. For me, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy works.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, to all those homophobes, and call it what you want. I'll be glad when it passes and the DADT is over with. It's as asinine as a segregated military. Just keeping those who scare you away from you. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I simply love the scare tactics of the homophobe straights. This article is wonderful and shows the stupidity of their campaign. < :-)

http://www.newser.com/story/90266/look-out-gay-soldiers-will-rape-you-in-your-sleep.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

It's amazing how when presented with facts you cannot argue, you just choose to ignore them.

Again, the real debate is whether gay couples would get base housing and whether gay partners would get ID cards.

Are you really this dense? Good Lord. As a conservative I figured you would have some ties to the military but you are beyond help on the subject if you can't see this one from a mile away.

But duck away if it continues to present an inconvenient truth.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

aday - So, since you like to go around calling people who disagree with your agenda, homophobic, does this mean you are homophilic? I mean, if you're going to insist on using labels, we should correctly label you as well right?

Taka, its got nothing to do with that and you know it. Its all about societal acceptance, not about partner benefits. Most Americans are not homophilic. Nor do they accept most of the homophilic agenda. (Sorry, can't resist using it after the silliness from aday.)

I do have ties to the military. Both my grandfathers, my father and an uncle, quite a few cousins, and several of my brothers have all, or are currently serving in the military. That doesn't really have anything to do with conservativism though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

As someone who wore the uniform, who lived in base housing, I can tell you, it's about base housing and ID cards.

What you're talking about is nonsense. Please, trust me on this.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir said:

Legal as long as they don't come out and state they are gay. Which part of DADT did you have trouble understanding?

I have a major problem understanding the parts that don't exist but you continue to say they do exist. Try reading the law.

It is illegal for a member to engage in gay sexual acts. I have posted the law; you post your interpretation. I want to thank you for stating your incorrect interpretation over and over so vehemently. People can read the law and see that you are incorrect. Then they can see that you continue to bullshit. They can then understand what we have to go through to discuss issues with with less than capable individuals.

Just so others can see the law for themselves:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/37/654

or

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

Anyone wishing to look up the code on other sites it is:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir writes:

Which part of DADT did you have trouble understanding?

After reading some of your posts, I had to question what I thought I understood about the policy.

Then, after reading through the actual law and policy, I have learned that you really don't know much about DADT.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The wiki on the policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

Especially interesting is the link to the murder of Allen Schindler, brutally murdered by a fellow sailor, because he was gay. I have to wonder how many more will die if gays are allowed to serve openly. DADT was made largely in response to his murder.

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