Let me get this straight....

I know this is an old subject, but it still holds my interest because I grew up in a military town and have friends and relatives that are gay.

My end take on this is that it's ok for GBLT individuals to serve their country, train to defend our freedoms and die for their country, but only if they don't say, "hey I'm gay," which infringes on their freedoms. What a crock of *hit!!! :cuss:

If they love their country, if they want to serve and they are good soldiers who cares what their sexual preferences are. It's horrible for these people to be willing to defend and die for their country just to be told only if you're straight. A good solider is a good solider regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation.

To me this boils down to personal prejudice and people with the unfortunate power to put bogus laws in place to appease themselves and the money trains. I hope that one day this don't ask don't tell stupidity is thrown in the paper shredder.

http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/8699438/

 

I'm a veteran who served with gay and lesbian soldiers. I had no problem then, nor do I now with those who wish to serve, regardless of their orientation.

It appears to me that the "old guard" and elder flatulents among the services, Congress and Senate, are of a different mindset about sexual orientation than the younger generation.

The arguments that are thrown forth by those who are intractably against repeal of DADT are using the same arguments as were used against ending segregation of blacks and whites as well as integration of women into the military.

Yes, there was disruption, at the unit level in some - not all units. Institutionally, we grew, and I believe the military is much better off for the changes.

For all those who claim that ending this will result in a major disruption of a military engaged in war, I would offer the following.

Professionalism in the military, if claimed as the moral high ground, also holds the responsibility of acting professionally. With the civilian control of the military, when the decision is made to repeal DADT, the professionals in the military rank and file will act professionally. Those who can not should exit the military.

With an all volunteer force, no one is going to be forced to serve alongside military members with whom they can't as a matter of personal conscience.

Military service is both a privilege and a responsibility. With the privilege of serving, comes the responsibility of following the laws and codes of conduct that the military service imbues.

I'm with SecDef and Admiral Mullen on this one. I believe DADT should be repealed immediately, and that it was bad policy to begin with.

Service to the nation should not be held hostage by religious precepts that teach that homosexuality is immoral.

 

Interesting that the opponents of repeal wanted the military to do a study first, and now that the study is out and the results don't support their position, they're hemming and hawing about the study.

 

I agree 100% Red and Carl. :iagree:

 

Exactly!!!!!! They should keep it to themselves.

 

Wrong! They should be able to live their lives openly without fear of retribution just as all the other soldiers do.

 

:iagree:

 

Promoting the gay agenda.

I guess I must be the straightest minister to have a "gay" agenda, as I've been accused of having. Laughingly, my agenda is for equal rights and responsibilities for all.

It's not the orientation that causes the issues. It's the behavior. Quite frankly, the UCMJ defines acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior for military service members.

If one's conduct and behavior causes an adverse effect on a unit, that should be addressed; not what the perception of what one's conduct and behavior might be.

I've seen plenty of military careers derailed by intemperate use of alcohol or drugs, heterosexual and homosexual behaviors. So, punish those who choose to run afoul of the UCMJ, not those who serve honorably.

 

I personally don't care if anyone is gay as long as they understand that their maker doesn't approve. However, when you start dealing with barracks and showering together then it opens a can of worms.

How many of you women folk on here would shower with the guys on this board?

 

What does 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy have to do with women showering with the men? Has anyone suggested women must shower with the men in the military?

 

Is that what you got from my post? Really?

 

Personally, I think the closet has a door for a really good reason. Anyone willing to walk past that door in the military should be beat back to the other side of the door.

Keep your powder puff army with your Barbie and Ken toys.

JMHO

 

Really, 40 years ago gay\lesbian was something we put people in the funny farm for....no it's acceptable. Can't figure out how sticking a ___in a ....hole is normal or strapping on a prosthesis (sp) to get intimate is normal. I must be old. not really......go ahead haters call me a TROLL. The topic required a response....

 

Secretary Gates is requesting Congress repeal DADT before the end of this year. He has expressed confidence in the ability of the military to implement the policy.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat..._military_would_do_no_harm.html#ixzz16oscFPu3​

 

When you see a heterosexual couple, does your mind immediately go to what they might do when they get behind closed doors? Or does that just happen with same-sex couples? Just curious.

 

Heterosexual couples use strap-ons?

Proud to be old school

 

What the hell are you talking about? I was commenting on that poster's seeming obsession with the sexual activities of homosexuals, and suggesting the obsession might not apply equally to heteros. I might go so far as to suggest the obsession with homosexual activities might not be entirely normal.

 

"their maker"? I believe you mean to say that Maker that you believe in. Which is not necessarily their belief.

Thus my earlier post, "Service to the nation should not be held hostage by religious precepts that teach that homosexuality is immoral."

Or is it your belief that only those of your Faith are acceptable?

 

Perhaps a case of "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

 

Sure, you might cause some willing-to-serve homosexuals to avoid service by keeping the DODT policy. However, I wonder how openly accepting homosexuals into the military may affect morale of those heterosexuals currently in service or those that would otherwise serve? There is an unknown factor there. Could doing away with DODT cause a greater loss of willing heterosexual men and women, while accomodating a smaller number of gays or lesbians who will not otherwise serve unless they are welcomed into the military? Will there be resentment for homosexuals by straight soliders who are forced to share quarters and shower with those who have a preference for the same sex? I think these are legitimate concerns by some.